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 LAWRENCE LESSIG (http://www.lessig.org), professor of law and a John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar at Stanford Law School, is founder of the Stanford Center for Internet and Society and is chairman of the Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org). The author of The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) and Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), Lessig is a member of the boards of the Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Public Knowledge. He was the winner of the Free Software Foundation's Award for the Advancement of Free Software, twice listed in BusinessWeek's e.biz 25, and named one of Scientific American's 50 visionaries. A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, and Yale Law School, Lessig clerked for Judge Richard Posner of the 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="id2544574"></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 LAWRENCE LESSIG (<a class="ulink" href="http://www.lessig.org" target="_top">http://www.lessig.org</a>), professor of law
  11 and a John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar at Stanford Law School,
  12 is founder of the Stanford Center for Internet and Society and is chairman
  13 of the Creative Commons (<a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org</a>).  The
  14 author of The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) and Code: And Other Laws
  15 of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), Lessig is a member of the boards of the
  16 Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Public
  17 Knowledge. He was the winner of the Free Software Foundation's Award for the
  18 Advancement of Free Software, twice listed in BusinessWeek's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">e.biz
  19 25,</span>&#8221;</span> and named one of Scientific American's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">50
  20 visionaries.</span>&#8221;</span> A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge
  21 University, and Yale Law School, Lessig clerked for Judge Richard Posner of
  22 the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
  23   </p></div></div></div><hr></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="salespoints"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  24 Du kan kjøpe et eksemplar av denne boken ved å klikke på en av lenkene
  25 nedenfor:
  26 </p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="number" compact><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.amazon.com/" target="_top">Amazon</a></p></li><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/" target="_top">B&amp;N</a></p></li><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.penguin.com/" target="_top">Penguin</a></p></li></ul></div></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="alsobylessig"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  27 Andre bøker av Lawrence Lessig
  28 </p><p>
  29 The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World
  30 </p><p>
  31 Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace
  32 </p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="frontpublisher"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  33 The Penguin Press, New York
  34 </p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="frontbookinfo"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  35 Fri Kultur
  36 </p><p>
  37 Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
  38 og kontrollere kreativiteten
  39 </p><p>
  40 Lawrence Lessig
  41 </p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2512604"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  42 Til Eric Eldred &#8212; hvis arbeid først trakk meg til denne saken, og for
  43 hvem saken fortsetter.
  44 </p></div><div class="toc"><dl><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">Forord</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">0. <a href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="part">I. <a href="#c-piracy"><span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">PIRACY</span>&#8221;</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">1. <a href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">2. <a href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Mere Copyists</span>&#8221;</span></a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">3. <a href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">4. <a href="#pirates">CHAPTER FOUR: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Pirates</span>&#8221;</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">4.1. <a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.2. <a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.3. <a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.4. <a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">5. <a href="#piracy">CHAPTER FIVE: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Piracy</span>&#8221;</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">5.1. <a href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">5.2. <a href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">II. <a href="#c-property"><span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">PROPERTY</span>&#8221;</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">6. <a href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">7. <a href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">8. <a href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">9. <a href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">10. <a href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Property</span>&#8221;</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">10.1. <a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.2. <a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.3. <a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.4. <a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.5. <a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.6. <a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.7. <a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.8. <a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">III. <a href="#c-puzzles">Nøtter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">11. <a href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">12. <a href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">12.1. <a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.2. <a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.3. <a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">IV. <a href="#c-balances">Maktfordeling</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">13. <a href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">14. <a href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">15. <a href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">16. <a href="#c-afterword">Etterord</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1. <a href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1.1. <a href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.1.2. <a href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2. <a href="#themsoon">Dem, snart</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1. <a href="#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.1. <a href="#registration">Registrering og fornying</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.2. <a href="#marking">Merking</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2.2. <a href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.3. <a href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.4. <a href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.5. <a href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">17. <a href="#c-notes">Notater</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">18. <a href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#id2596549">Index</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Colophon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id2513497"></a>Colophon</h2><p>
  45 THE PENGUIN PRESS, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.  375 Hudson Street
  46 New York, New York
  47 </p><p>
  48 Opphavsrettbeskyttet © Lawrence Lessig.  Alle rettigheter reservert.
  49 </p><p>
  50 Excerpt from an editorial titled <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Coming of Copyright
  51 Perpetuity,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, January 16,
  52 2003. Copyright © 2003 by The New York Times Co.  Reprinted with
  53 permission.
  54 </p><p>
  55 Cartoon in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1711" title="Figure 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.">Figure 10.18, &#8220;VCR/handgun cartoon.&#8221;</a> by Paul Conrad, copyright Tribune
  56 Media Services, Inc.  All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
  57 </p><p>
  58 Diagram in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1761" title="Figure 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.">Figure 10.19, &#8220;Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.&#8221;</a> courtesy of the office of FCC
  59 Commissioner, Michael J. Copps.
  60 </p><p>
  61 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
  62 </p><p>
  63 Lessig, Lawrence.  Free culture : how big media uses technology and the law
  64 to lock down culture and control creativity / Lawrence Lessig.
  65 </p><p>
  66 p. cm.
  67 </p><p>
  68 Includes index.
  69 </p><p>
  70 ISBN 1-59420-006-8 (hardcover)
  71 </p><p>
  72 1. Intellectual property&#8212;United States. 2. Mass media&#8212;United
  73 States.
  74 </p><p>
  75 3. Technological innovations&#8212;United States. 4. Art&#8212;United
  76 States. I. Title.
  77 </p><p>
  78 KF2979.L47
  79 </p><p>
  80 343.7309'9&#8212;dc22
  81 </p><p>
  82 This book is printed on acid-free paper.
  83 </p><p>
  84 Printed in the United States of America
  85 </p><p>
  86 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4
  87 </p><p>
  88 Designed by Marysarah Quinn
  89 </p><p>
  90 Oversatt til bokmål av Petter Reinholdtsen og Anders Hagen
  91 Jarmund. Kildefilene til oversetterprosjektet er <a class="ulink" href="https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/free-culture-lessig" target="_top">tilgjengelig
  92 fra github</a>.  Rapporter feil med oversettelsen via github.
  93 </p><p>
  94 Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this
  95 publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval
  96 system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
  97 photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission
  98 of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.
  99 </p><p>
 100 The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the Internet or
 101 via any other means without the permission of the publisher is illegal and
 102 punishable by law.  Please purchase only authorized electronic editions and
 103 do not participate in or encourage electronic piracy of copyrighted
 104 materials. Your support of the author's rights is appreciated.
 105 </p></div><div class="preface" title="Forord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="preface"></a>Forord</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpoguedavid"></a><p>
 106 David Pogue, en glimrende skribent og forfatter av utallige tekniske
 107 datarelaterte tekster, skrev dette på slutten av hans gjennomgang av min
 108 første bok, <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace</em>:
 109 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 110 I motsetning til faktiske lover, så har ikke internett-programvare
 111 kapasiteten til å straffe.  Den påvirker ikke folk som ikke er online (og
 112 kun en veldig liten minoritet av verdens befolkning er online).  Og hvis du
 113 ikke liker systemet på internett, så kan du alltid slå av
 114 modemet.<sup>[<a name="preface01" href="#ftn.preface01" class="footnote">1</a>]</sup>
 115 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 116 Pogue was skeptical of the core argument of the book&#8212;that software, or
 117 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">code,</span>&#8221;</span> functioned as a kind of law&#8212;and his review
 118 suggested the happy thought that if life in cyberspace got bad, we could
 119 always <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">drizzle, drazzle, druzzle, drome</span>&#8221;</span>-like simply flip a
 120 switch and be back home. Turn off the modem, unplug the computer, and any
 121 troubles that exist in <span class="emphasis"><em>that</em></span> space wouldn't
 122 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">affect</span>&#8221;</span> us anymore.
 123 </p><p>
 124
 125 Pogue might have been right in 1999&#8212;I'm skeptical, but maybe.  But
 126 even if he was right then, the point is not right now: <em class="citetitle">Free
 127 Culture</em> is about the troubles the Internet causes even after the
 128 modem is turned off. It is an argument about how the battles that now rage
 129 regarding life on-line have fundamentally affected <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">people who aren't
 130 online.</span>&#8221;</span> There is no switch that will insulate us from the Internet's
 131 effect.
 132 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2512765"></a><p>
 133 Men i motsetning til i boken <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, er argumentet her
 134 ikke så mye om internett i seg selv. Istedet er det om konsekvensen av
 135 internett for en del av vår tradisjon som er mye mer grunnleggende, og
 136 uansett hvor hardt dette er for en geek-wanna-be å innrømme, mye viktigere.
 137 </p><p>
 138 That tradition is the way our culture gets made. As I explain in the pages
 139 that follow, we come from a tradition of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free
 140 culture</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;not <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free</span>&#8221;</span> as in <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free beer</span>&#8221;</span>
 141 (to borrow a phrase from the founder of the free software
 142 movement<sup>[<a name="id2512807" href="#ftn.id2512807" class="footnote">2</a>]</sup>), but <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free</span>&#8221;</span> as
 143 in <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free speech,</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free markets,</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free
 144 trade,</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free enterprise,</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free will,</span>&#8221;</span> and
 145 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free elections.</span>&#8221;</span> A free culture supports and protects creators
 146 and innovators. It does this directly by granting intellectual property
 147 rights. But it does so indirectly by limiting the reach of those rights, to
 148 guarantee that follow-on creators and innovators remain <span class="emphasis"><em>as free as
 149 possible</em></span> from the control of the past. A free culture is not a
 150 culture without property, just as a free market is not a market in which
 151 everything is free. The opposite of a free culture is a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">permission
 152 culture</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;a culture in which creators get to create only with
 153 the permission of the powerful, or of creators from the past.
 154 </p><p>
 155 If we understood this change, I believe we would resist it. Not
 156 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">we</span>&#8221;</span> on the Left or <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">you</span>&#8221;</span> on the Right, but we who
 157 have no stake in the particular industries of culture that defined the
 158 twentieth century.  Whether you are on the Left or the Right, if you are in
 159 this sense disinterested, then the story I tell here will trouble you. For
 160 the changes I describe affect values that both sides of our political
 161 culture deem fundamental.
 162 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2512877"></a><p>
 163 We saw a glimpse of this bipartisan outrage in the early summer of 2003. As
 164 the FCC considered changes in media ownership rules that would relax limits
 165 on media concentration, an extraordinary coalition generated more than
 166 700,000 letters to the FCC opposing the change.  As William Safire described
 167 marching <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">uncomfortably alongside CodePink Women for Peace and the
 168 National Rifle Association, between liberal Olympia Snowe and conservative
 169 Ted Stevens,</span>&#8221;</span> he formulated perhaps most simply just what was at
 170 stake: the concentration of power. And as he asked, <a class="indexterm" name="id2512899"></a>
 171 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 172 Høres dette ikke-konservativt ut?  Ikke for meg.  Denne konsentrasjonen av
 173 makt&#8212;politisk, selskapsmessig, pressemessig, kulturelt&#8212;bør være
 174 bannlyst av konservative.  Spredningen av makt gjennom lokal kontroll, og
 175 derigjennom oppmuntre til individuell deltagelse, er essensen i føderalismen
 176 og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<sup>[<a name="id2512922" href="#ftn.id2512922" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
 177 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 178 This idea is an element of the argument of <em class="citetitle">Free
 179 Culture</em>, though my focus is not just on the concentration of
 180 power produced by concentrations in ownership, but more importantly, if
 181 because less visibly, on the concentration of power produced by a radical
 182 change in the effective scope of the law. The law is changing; that change
 183 is altering the way our culture gets made; that change should worry
 184 you&#8212;whether or not you care about the Internet, and whether you're on
 185 Safire's left or on his right.  The inspiration for the title and for much
 186 of the argument of this book comes from the work of Richard Stallman and the
 187 Free Software Foundation. Indeed, as I reread Stallman's own work,
 188 especially the essays in <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free Society</em>,
 189 I realize that all of the theoretical insights I develop here are insights
 190 Stallman described decades ago. One could thus well argue that this work is
 191 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">merely</span>&#8221;</span> derivative.
 192 </p><p>
 193
 194 Jeg godtar kritikken, hvis det faktisk er kritikk.  Arbeidet til en advokat
 195 er alltid avledede verker, og jeg mener ikke å gjøre noe mer i denne boken
 196 enn å minne en kultur om en tradisjon som alltid har vært deres egen. Som
 197 Stallman forsvarer jeg denne tradisjonen på grunnlag av verdier. Som
 198 Stallman tror jeg dette er verdiene til frihet.  Og som Stallman, tror jeg
 199 dette er verdier fra vår fortid som må forsvares i vår fremtid.  En fri
 200 kultur har vært vår fortid, men vil bare være vår fremtid hvis vi endrer
 201 retningen vi følger akkurat nå.  På samme måte som Stallmans argumenter for
 202 fri programvare, treffer argumenter for en fri kultur på forvirring som er
 203 vanskelig å unngå, og enda vanskeligere å forstå.  En fri kultur er ikke en
 204 kultur uten eierskap. Det er ikke en kultur der kunstnere ikke får
 205 betalt. En kultur uten eierskap eller en der skaperne ikke kan få betalt, er
 206 anarki, ikke frihet.  Anarki er ikke hva jeg fremmer her.
 207 </p><p>
 208 I stedet er den frie kulturen som jeg forsvarer i denne boken en balanse
 209 mellom anarki og kontroll.  En fri kultur, i likhet med et fritt marked, er
 210 fylt med eierskap.  Den er fylt med regler for eierskap og kontrakter som
 211 blir håndhevet av staten.  Men på samme måte som det frie markedet blir
 212 pervertert hvis dets eierskap blir føydalt, så kan en fri kultur bli ødelagt
 213 av ekstremisme i eierskapsrettighetene som definerer den.  Det er dette jeg
 214 frykter om vår kultur i dag.  Det er som motpol til denne ekstremismen at
 215 denne boken er skrevet.
 216 </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>
 217 David Pogue, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Don't Just Chat, Do Something,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New
 218 York Times</em>, 30 January 2000.
 219 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2512807" href="#id2512807" class="para">2</a>] </sup>
 220 Richard M. Stallman, <em class="citetitle">Fri programvare, Frie samfunn</em> 57
 221 (Joshua Gay, red. 2002).
 222 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2512922" href="#id2512922" class="para">3</a>] </sup> William Safire, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Great Media Gulp,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
 223 Times</em>, 22 May 2003.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2512933"></a>
 224 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="0. Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>0. Introduksjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
 225 17. desember 1903, på en vindfylt strand i Nord-Carolina i såvidt under
 226 hundre sekunder, demonstrerte Wright-brødrene at et selvdrevet fartøy tyngre
 227 enn luft kunne fly.  Øyeblikket var elektrisk, og dens betydning ble alment
 228 forstått. Nesten umiddelbart, eksploderte interessen for denne nye
 229 teknologien som muliggjorde bemannet luftfart og en hærskare av oppfinnere
 230 begynte å bygge videre på den.
 231 </p><p>
 232 At the time the Wright brothers invented the airplane, American law held
 233 that a property owner presumptively owned not just the surface of his land,
 234 but all the land below, down to the center of the earth, and all the space
 235 above, to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">an indefinite extent, upwards.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2569392" href="#ftn.id2569392" class="footnote">4</a>]</sup> For many years, scholars had puzzled about how best
 236 to interpret the idea that rights in land ran to the heavens. Did that mean
 237 that you owned the stars? Could you prosecute geese for their willful and
 238 regular trespass?
 239 </p><p>
 240 Så kom flymaskiner, og for første gang hadde dette prinsippet i lovverket i
 241 USA&#8212;dypt nede i grunnlaget for vår tradisjon og akseptert av de
 242 viktigste juridiske tenkerne i vår fortid&#8212;en betydning. Hvis min
 243 eiendom rekker til himmelen, hva skjer når United flyr over mitt område?
 244 Har jeg rett til å nekte dem å bruke min eiendom?  Har jeg mulighet til å
 245 inngå en eksklusiv avtale med Delta Airlines?  Kan vi gjennomføre en auksjon
 246 for å finne ut hvor mye disse rettighetene er verdt?
 247 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2569407"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2569432"></a><p>
 248 In 1945, these questions became a federal case. When North Carolina farmers
 249 Thomas Lee and Tinie Causby started losing chickens because of low-flying
 250 military aircraft (the terrified chickens apparently flew into the barn
 251 walls and died), the Causbys filed a lawsuit saying that the government was
 252 trespassing on their land. The airplanes, of course, never touched the
 253 surface of the Causbys' land. But if, as Blackstone, Kent, and Coke had
 254 said, their land reached to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">an indefinite extent, upwards,</span>&#8221;</span>
 255 then the government was trespassing on their property, and the Causbys
 256 wanted it to stop.
 257 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2569462"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2569468"></a><p>
 258 The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Causbys' case. Congress had declared
 259 the airways public, but if one's property really extended to the heavens,
 260 then Congress's declaration could well have been an unconstitutional
 261 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taking</span>&#8221;</span> of property without compensation. The Court
 262 acknowledged that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">it is ancient doctrine that common law ownership of
 263 the land extended to the periphery of the universe.</span>&#8221;</span> But Justice
 264 Douglas had no patience for ancient doctrine. In a single paragraph,
 265 hundreds of years of property law were erased. As he wrote for the Court,
 266 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 267 [Denne] doktrinen har ingen plass i den moderne verden.  Luften er en
 268 offentlig motorvei, slik kongressen har erklært.  Hvis det ikke var
 269 tilfelle, ville hver eneste transkontinentale flyrute utsette operatørene
 270 for utallige søksmål om inntrenging på annen manns eiendom.  Idéen er i
 271 strid med sunn fornuft.  Å anerkjenne slike private krav til luftrommet
 272 ville blokkere disse motorveiene, seriøst forstyrre muligheten til kontroll
 273 og utvikling av dem i fellesskapets interesse og overføre til privat
 274 eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.<sup>[<a name="id2569512" href="#ftn.id2569512" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
 275 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 276 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Common sense revolts at the idea.</span>&#8221;</span>
 277 </p><p>
 278
 279 This is how the law usually works. Not often this abruptly or impatiently,
 280 but eventually, this is how it works. It was Douglas's style not to
 281 dither. Other justices would have blathered on for pages to reach the
 282 conclusion that Douglas holds in a single line: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Common sense revolts
 283 at the idea.</span>&#8221;</span> But whether it takes pages or a few words, it is the
 284 special genius of a common law system, as ours is, that the law adjusts to
 285 the technologies of the time. And as it adjusts, it changes. Ideas that were
 286 as solid as rock in one age crumble in another.
 287 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2569579"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2569586"></a><p>
 288 Or at least, this is how things happen when there's no one powerful on the
 289 other side of the change. The Causbys were just farmers. And though there
 290 were no doubt many like them who were upset by the growing traffic in the
 291 air (though one hopes not many chickens flew themselves into walls), the
 292 Causbys of the world would find it very hard to unite and stop the idea, and
 293 the technology, that the Wright brothers had birthed. The Wright brothers
 294 spat airplanes into the technological meme pool; the idea then spread like a
 295 virus in a chicken coop; farmers like the Causbys found themselves
 296 surrounded by <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">what seemed reasonable</span>&#8221;</span> given the technology
 297 that the Wrights had produced.  They could stand on their farms, dead
 298 chickens in hand, and shake their fists at these newfangled technologies all
 299 they wanted.  They could call their representatives or even file a
 300 lawsuit. But in the end, the force of what seems <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">obvious</span>&#8221;</span> to
 301 everyone else&#8212;the power of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">common sense</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;would
 302 prevail. Their <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">private interest</span>&#8221;</span> would not be allowed to
 303 defeat an obvious public gain.
 304 </p><p>
 305 Edwin Howard Armstrong er en av USAs glemte oppfinnergenier. Han dukket opp
 306 på oppfinnerscenen etter titaner som Thomas Edison og Alexander Graham
 307 Bell.  Alle hans bidrag på området radioteknologi gjør han til kanskje den
 308 viktigste av alle enkeltoppfinnere i de første femti årene av radio.  Han
 309 var bedre utdannet enn Michael Faraday, som var bokbinderlærling da han
 310 oppdaget elektrisk induksjon i 1831.  Men han hadde like god intuisjon om
 311 hvordan radioverden virket, og ved minst tre anledninger, fant Armstrong opp
 312 svært viktig teknologier som brakte vår forståelse av radio et hopp videre.
 313 <a class="indexterm" name="id2569643"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2569652"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2569659"></a>
 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 On November 5, 1935, he demonstrated the technology at a meeting of the
 324 Institute of Radio Engineers at the Empire State Building in New York
 325 City. He tuned his radio dial across a range of AM stations, until the radio
 326 locked on a broadcast that he had arranged from seventeen miles away. The
 327 radio fell totally silent, as if dead, and then with a clarity no one else
 328 in that room had ever heard from an electrical device, it produced the sound
 329 of an announcer's voice: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">This is amateur station W2AG at Yonkers, New
 330 York, operating on frequency modulation at two and a half meters.</span>&#8221;</span>
 331 </p><p>
 332 Publikum hørte noe ingen hadde trodd var mulig:
 333 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 334 A glass of water was poured before the microphone in Yonkers; it sounded
 335 like a glass of water being poured. &#8230; A paper was crumpled and torn;
 336 it sounded like paper and not like a crackling forest fire. &#8230; Sousa
 337 marches were played from records and a piano solo and guitar number were
 338 performed. &#8230; The music was projected with a live-ness rarely if ever
 339 heard before from a radio <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">music box.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2569719" href="#ftn.id2569719" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
 340 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 341
 342 Som vår egen sunn fornuft forteller oss, hadde Armstrong oppdaget en mye
 343 bedre radioteknologi.  Men på tidspunktet for hans oppfinnelse, jobbet
 344 Armstrong for RCA. RCA var den dominerende aktøren i det da dominerende
 345 AM-radiomarkedet. I 1935 var det tusen radiostasjoner over hele USA, men
 346 stasjonene i de store byene var alle eid av en liten håndfull selskaper.
 347
 348 </p><p>
 349 RCA's president, David Sarnoff, a friend of Armstrong's, was eager that
 350 Armstrong discover a way to remove static from AM radio. So Sarnoff was
 351 quite excited when Armstrong told him he had a device that removed static
 352 from <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">radio.</span>&#8221;</span> But when Armstrong demonstrated his invention,
 353 Sarnoff was not pleased.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2569761"></a>
 354 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 355 Jeg trodde Armstrong ville finne opp et slags filter for å fjerne skurring
 356 fra AM-radioen vår. Jeg trodde ikke han skulle starte en revolusjon &#8212;
 357 starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.<sup>[<a name="id2569671" href="#ftn.id2569671" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
 358 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 359 Armstrongs oppfinnelse truet RCAs AM-herredømme, så selskapet lanserte en
 360 kampanje for å knuse FM-radio. Mens FM kan ha vært en overlegen teknologi,
 361 var Sarnoff en overlegen taktiker. En forfatter beskrev det slik,
 362 <a class="indexterm" name="id2569805"></a>
 363 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 364 Kreftene til fordel for FM, i hovedsak ingeniørfaglige, kunne ikke overvinne
 365 tyngden til strategien utviklet av avdelingene for salg, patenter og juss
 366 for å undertrykke denne trusselen til selskapets posisjon.  For FM utgjorde,
 367 hvis det fikk utvikle seg uten begrensninger &#8230; en komplett endring i
 368 maktforholdene rundt radio &#8230; og muligens fjerningen av det nøye
 369 begrensede AM-systemet som var grunnlaget for RCA stigning til
 370 makt.<sup>[<a name="id2569831" href="#ftn.id2569831" class="footnote">8</a>]</sup>
 371 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 372 RCA holdt først teknologien innomhus, og insistere på at det var nødvendig
 373 med ytterligere tester. Da Armstrong, etter to år med testing, ble
 374 utålmodig, begynte RCA å bruke sin makt hos myndighetene til holde tilbake
 375 den generelle spredningen av FM-radio. I 1936, ansatte RCA den tidligere
 376 lederen av FCC og ga ham oppgaven med å sikre at FCC tilordnet
 377 radiospekteret på en måte som ville kastrere FM&#8212;hovedsakelig ved å
 378 flytte FM-radio til et annet band i spekteret. I første omgang lyktes ikke
 379 disse forsøkene.  Men mens Armstrong og nasjonen var distrahert av andre
 380 verdenskrig, begynte RCAs arbeid å bære frukter.  Like etter at krigen var
 381 over, annonserte FCC et sett med avgjørelser som ville ha en klar effekt:
 382 FM-radio ville bli forkrøplet.Lawrence lessing beskrevet det slik,
 383 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 384 Serien med slag mot kroppen som FM-radio mottok rett etter krigen, i en
 385 serie med avgjørelser manipulert gjennom FCC av de store radiointeressene,
 386 var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.<sup>[<a name="id2569847" href="#ftn.id2569847" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
 387 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2569886"></a><p>
 388 For å gjøre plass i spektrumet for RCAs nyeste satsingsområde, televisjon,
 389 skulle FM-radioens brukere flyttes til et helt nytt band i spektrumet.
 390 Sendestyrken til FM-radioene ble også redusert, og gjorde at FM ikke lenger
 391 kunne brukes for å sende programmer fra en del av landet til en annen.
 392 (Denne endringen ble sterkt støttet av AT&amp;T, på grunn av at fjerningen
 393 av FM-videresendingsstasjoner ville bety at radiostasjonene ville bli nødt
 394 til å kjøpe kablede linker fra AT&amp;T.)  Spredningen av FM-radio var
 395 dermed kvalt, i hvert fall midlertidig.
 396 </p><p>
 397 Armstrong sto imot RCAs innsats. Som svar motsto RCA Armstrongs patenter.
 398 Etter å ha bakt FM-teknologi inn i den nye standarden for TV, erklærte RCS
 399 patentene ugyldige&#8212;uten grunn og nesten femten år etter at de ble
 400 utstedet.  De nektet dermed å betale ham for bruken av patentene.  I seks år
 401 kjempet Armstrong en dyr søksmålskrig for å forsvare patentene sine.  Til
 402 slutt, samtidig som patentene utløp, tilbød RCA et forlik så lavt at det
 403 ikke engang dekket Armstrongs advokatregning.  Beseiret, knust og nå blakk,
 404 skrev Armstrong i 1954 en kort beskjed til sin kone, før han gikk ut av et
 405 vindu i trettende etasje og falt i døden.
 406 </p><p>
 407
 408 Dette er slik loven virker noen ganger.  Ikke ofte like tragisk, og sjelden
 409 med heltemodig drama, men noen ganger er det slik det virker. Fra starten
 410 har myndigheter og myndighetsorganer blitt tatt til fange. Det er mer
 411 sannsynlig at de blir fanget når en mektig interesse er truet av enten en
 412 juridisk eller teknologisk endring.  Denne mektige interessen utøver for
 413 ofte sin innflytelse hos myndighetene til å få myndighetene til å beskytte
 414 den.  Retorikken for denne beskyttelsen er naturligvis alltid med fokus på
 415 fellesskapets beste.  Realiteten er noe annet.  Idéer som kan være solide
 416 som fjell i en tidsalder, men som overlatt til seg selv, vil falle sammen i
 417 en annen, er videreført gjennom denne subtile korrupsjonen i vår politiske
 418 prosess.  RCA hadde hva Causby-ene ikke hadde: Makten til å undertrykke
 419 effekten av en teknologisk endring.
 420 </p><p>
 421 Det er ingen enkeltoppfinner av Internet.  Ei heller er det en god dato som
 422 kan brukes til å markere når det ble født.  Likevel har internettet i løpet
 423 av svært kort tid blitt en del av vanlige amerikaneres liv.  I følge the Pew
 424 Internet and American Life-prosjektet, har 58 prosent av amerikanerne hatt
 425 tilgang til internettet i 2002, opp fra 49 prosent to år
 426 tidligere.<sup>[<a name="id2569968" href="#ftn.id2569968" class="footnote">10</a>]</sup> Det tallet kan uten
 427 problemer passere to tredjedeler av nasjonen ved utgangen av 2004.
 428 </p><p>
 429 Etter hvert som internett er blitt integrert inn i det vanlige liv har ting
 430 blitt endret.  Noen av disse endringene er teknisk&#8212;internettet har
 431 gjort kommunikasjon raskere, det har redusert kostnaden med å samle inn
 432 data, og så videre.  Disse tekniske endringene er ikke fokus for denne
 433 boken.  De er viktige.  De er ikke godt forstått.  Men de er den type ting
 434 som ganske enkelt ville blir borte hvis vi alle bare slo av internettet.  De
 435 påvirker ikke folk som ikke bruker internettet, eller i det miste påvirker
 436 det ikke dem direkte.  De er et godt tema for en bok om internettet.  Men
 437 dette er ikke en bok om internettet.
 438 </p><p>
 439 I stedet er denne boken om effekten av internettet ut over internettet i seg
 440 selv.  En effekt på hvordan kultur blir skapt.  Min påstand er at
 441 internettet har ført til en viktig og ukjent endring i denne prosessen.
 442 Denne endringen vil forandre en tradisjon som er like gammel som republikken
 443 selv.  De fleste, hvis de la merke til denne endringen, ville avvise den.
 444 Men de fleste legger ikke engang merke til denne endringen som internettet
 445 har introdusert.
 446 </p><p>
 447 We can glimpse a sense of this change by distinguishing between commercial
 448 and noncommercial culture, and by mapping the law's regulation of each. By
 449 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">commercial culture</span>&#8221;</span> I mean that part of our culture that is
 450 produced and sold or produced to be sold. By <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">noncommercial
 451 culture</span>&#8221;</span> I mean all the rest. When old men sat around parks or on
 452 street corners telling stories that kids and others consumed, that was
 453 noncommercial culture. When Noah Webster published his
 454 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Reader,</span>&#8221;</span> or Joel Barlow his poetry, that was commercial
 455 culture.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2570044"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2570052"></a>
 456 </p><p>
 457 At the beginning of our history, and for just about the whole of our
 458 tradition, noncommercial culture was essentially unregulated. Of course, if
 459 your stories were lewd, or if your song disturbed the peace, then the law
 460 might intervene. But the law was never directly concerned with the creation
 461 or spread of this form of culture, and it left this culture
 462 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free.</span>&#8221;</span> The ordinary ways in which ordinary individuals shared
 463 and transformed their culture&#8212;telling stories, reenacting scenes from
 464 plays or TV, participating in fan clubs, sharing music, making
 465 tapes&#8212;were left alone by the law.
 466 </p><p>
 467 Fokuset på loven var kommersiell kreativitet.  I starten forsiktig, etter
 468 hvert betraktelig, beskytter loven insentivet til skaperne ved å tildele dem
 469 en eksklusiv rett til deres kreative verker, slik at de kan selge disse
 470 eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.<sup>[<a name="id2570088" href="#ftn.id2570088" class="footnote">11</a>]</sup> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
 471 kreativitet og kultur, og det har blitt en viktigere og viktigere del i
 472 USA.  Men det var på ingen måte dominerende i vår tradisjon.  Det var i
 473 stedet bare en del, en kontrollert del, balansert mot det frie.
 474 </p><p>
 475 Denne grove inndelingen mellom den frie og den kontrollerte har nå blitt
 476 fjernet.<sup>[<a name="id2570127" href="#ftn.id2570127" class="footnote">12</a>]</sup> Internettet har satt scenen
 477 for denne fjerningen, og pressen frem av store medieaktører har loven nå
 478 påvirket det.  For første gang i vår tradisjon, har de vanlige måtene som
 479 individer skaper og deler kultur havnet innen rekekvidde for reguleringene
 480 til loven, som har blitt utvidet til å dra inn i sitt kontrollområde den
 481 enorme mengden kultur og kreativitet som den aldri tidligere har nådd over.
 482 Teknologien som tok vare på den historiske balansen&#8212;mellom bruken av
 483 den delen av kulturen vår som var fri og bruken av vår kultur som krevde
 484 tillatelse&#8212;har blitt borte.  Konsekvensen er at vi er mindre og mindre
 485 en fri kultur, og mer og mer en tillatelseskultur.
 486 </p><p>
 487 Denne endringen blir rettferdiggjort som nødvendig for å beskytte
 488 kommersiell kreativitet.  Og ganske riktig, proteksjonisme er nøyaktig det
 489 som motiverer endringen.  Men proteksjonismen som rettferdiggjør endringene
 490 som jeg skal beskrive lenger ned er ikke den begrensede og balanserte typen
 491 som har definert loven tidligere.  Dette er ikke en proteksjonisme for å
 492 beskytte artister.  Det er i stedet en proteksjonisme for å beskytte
 493 bestemte forretningsformer.  Selskaper som er truet av potensialet til
 494 internettet for å endre måten både kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell kultur
 495 blir skapt og delt, har samlet seg for å få lovgiverne til å bruke loven for
 496 å beskytte selskapene.  Dette er historien om RCA og Armstrong, og det er
 497 drømmen til Causbyene.
 498 </p><p>
 499 For internettet har sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mulighet for mange til å
 500 delta i prosessen med å bygge og kultivere en kultur som rekker lagt utenfor
 501 lokale grenselinjer.  Den makten har endret markedsplassen for å lage og
 502 kultivere kultur generelt, og den endringen truer i neste omgang etablerte
 503 innholdsindustrier. Internettet er dermed for industriene som bygget og
 504 distribuerte innhold i det tjuende århundret hva FM-radio var for AM-radio,
 505 eller hva traileren var for jernbaneindustrien i det nittende århundret:
 506 begynnelsen på slutten, eller i hvert fall en markant endring. Digitale
 507 teknologier, knyttet til internettet, kunne produsere et mye mer
 508 konkurransedyktig og levende marked for å bygge og kultivere kultur.  Dette
 509 markedet kunne inneholde en mye videre og mer variert utvalg av skapere.
 510 Disse skaperne kunne produsere og distribuere et mye mer levende utvalg av
 511 kreativitet. Og avhengig av noen få viktige faktorer, så kunne disse
 512 skaperne tjenere mer i snitt fra dette systemet enn skaperne gjør i
 513 dag&#8212;så lenge RCA-ene av i dag ikke bruker loven til å beskytte dem
 514 selv mot denne konkurransen.
 515 </p><p>
 516 Likevel, som jeg argumenterer for i sidene som følger, er dette nøyaktig det
 517 som skjer i vår kultur i dag.  Dette som er dagens ekvivalenter til tidlig
 518 tjuende århundres radio og nittende århundres jernbaner bruker deres makt
 519 til å få loven til å beskytte dem mot dette nye, mer effektive, mer levende
 520 teknologi for å bygge kultur. De lykkes i deres plan om å gjøre om
 521 internettet før internettet gjør om på dem.
 522 </p><p>
 523 It doesn't seem this way to many. The battles over copyright and the
 524 Internet seem remote to most. To the few who follow them, they seem mainly
 525 about a much simpler brace of questions&#8212;whether <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span>
 526 will be permitted, and whether <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> will be
 527 protected. The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">war</span>&#8221;</span> that has been waged against the
 528 technologies of the Internet&#8212;what Motion Picture Association of
 529 America (MPAA) president Jack Valenti calls his <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">own terrorist
 530 war</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2570266" href="#ftn.id2570266" class="footnote">13</a>]</sup>&#8212;has been framed as a
 531 battle about the rule of law and respect for property. To know which side to
 532 take in this war, most think that we need only decide whether we're for
 533 property or against it.
 534 </p><p>
 535 If those really were the choices, then I would be with Jack Valenti and the
 536 content industry. I, too, am a believer in property, and especially in the
 537 importance of what Mr. Valenti nicely calls <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative
 538 property.</span>&#8221;</span> I believe that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> is wrong, and that
 539 the law, properly tuned, should punish <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy,</span>&#8221;</span> whether on or
 540 off the Internet.
 541 </p><p>
 542 But those simple beliefs mask a much more fundamental question and a much
 543 more dramatic change. My fear is that unless we come to see this change, the
 544 war to rid the world of Internet <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirates</span>&#8221;</span> will also rid our
 545 culture of values that have been integral to our tradition from the start.
 546 </p><p>
 547 Disse verdiene bygget en tradisjon som, for i hvert fall de første 180 årene
 548 av vår republikk, garanterte skaperne rettigheten til å bygge fritt på deres
 549 fortid, og beskyttet skaperne og innovatørene fra både statlig og privat
 550 kontroll.  Det første grunnlovstillegget beskyttet skaperne fra statlig
 551 kontroll.  Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,<sup>[<a name="id2570328" href="#ftn.id2570328" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
 552 skaperne mot privat kontroll.  Vår tradisjon var dermed hverken Sovjet eller
 553 tradisjonen til velgjørere.  I stedet skar det ut en bred manøvreringsrom
 554 hvor skapere kunne kultivere og utvide vår kultur.
 555 </p><p>
 556 Likevel har lovens respons til internettet, når det knyttes sammen til
 557 endringer i teknologien i internettet selv, ført til massiv økting av den
 558 effektive reguleringen av kreativitet i USA.  For å bygge på eller kritisere
 559 kulturen rundt oss må en spørre, som Oliver Twist, om tillatelse først.
 560 Tillatelse er, naturligvis, ofte innvilget&#8212;men det er ikke ofte
 561 innvilget til den kritiske eller den uavhengige.  Vi har bygget en slags
 562 kulturell adel.  De innen dette adelskapet har et enkelt liv, mens de på
 563 utsiden har det ikke.  Men det er adelskap i alle former som er fremmed for
 564 vår tradisjon.
 565 </p><p>
 566 The story that follows is about this war. Is it not about the
 567 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">centrality of technology</span>&#8221;</span> to ordinary life. I don't believe in
 568 gods, digital or otherwise. Nor is it an effort to demonize any individual
 569 or group, for neither do I believe in a devil, corporate or otherwise. It is
 570 not a morality tale. Nor is it a call to jihad against an industry.
 571 </p><p>
 572 Det er i stedet et forsøk på å forstå en håpløst ødeleggende krig som er
 573 inspirert av teknologiene til internettet, men som rekker lang utenfor dens
 574 kode.  Og ved å forstå denne kampen er den en innsats for å finne veien til
 575 fred.  Det er ingen god grunn for å fortsette dagens batalje rundt
 576 internett-teknologiene.  Det vil være til stor skade for vår tradisjon og
 577 kultur hvis den får lov til å fortsette ukontrollert. Vi må forstå kilden
 578 til denne krigen.  Vi må finne en løsning snart.
 579 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2570409"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2570415"></a><p>
 580 Like the Causbys' battle, this war is, in part, about
 581 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property.</span>&#8221;</span> The property of this war is not as tangible as the
 582 Causbys', and no innocent chicken has yet to lose its life. Yet the ideas
 583 surrounding this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> are as obvious to most as the
 584 Causbys' claim about the sacredness of their farm was to them. We are the
 585 Causbys. Most of us take for granted the extraordinarily powerful claims
 586 that the owners of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>&#8221;</span> now assert. Most of
 587 us, like the Causbys, treat these claims as obvious. And hence we, like the
 588 Causbys, object when a new technology interferes with this property. It is
 589 as plain to us as it was to them that the new technologies of the Internet
 590 are <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">trespassing</span>&#8221;</span> upon legitimate claims of
 591 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property.</span>&#8221;</span> It is as plain to us as it was to them that the law
 592 should intervene to stop this trespass.
 593 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2570453"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2570459"></a><p>
 594
 595 Og dermed, når nerder og teknologer forsvarer sin tids Armstrong og
 596 Wright-brødenes teknologi, får de lite sympati fra de fleste av oss. Sunn
 597 fornuft gjør ikke opprør.  I motsetning til saken til de uheldige Causbyene,
 598 er sunn fornuft på samme side som eiendomseierne i denne krigen.  I
 599 motsetning til hos de heldige Wright-brødrene, har internettet ikke
 600 inspirert en revolusjon til fordel for seg.
 601 </p><p>
 602 My hope is to push this common sense along. I have become increasingly
 603 amazed by the power of this idea of intellectual property and, more
 604 importantly, its power to disable critical thought by policy makers and
 605 citizens. There has never been a time in our history when more of our
 606 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">culture</span>&#8221;</span> was as <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">owned</span>&#8221;</span> as it is now. And yet
 607 there has never been a time when the concentration of power to control the
 608 <span class="emphasis"><em>uses</em></span> of culture has been as unquestioningly accepted as
 609 it is now.
 610 </p><p>
 611 Gåten er, hvorfor det?  Er det fordi vi fått en innsikt i sannheten om
 612 verdien og betydningen av absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur? Er det
 613 fordi vi har oppdaget at vår tradisjon med å avvise slike absolutte krav var
 614 feil?
 615 </p><p>
 616 Eller er det på grunn av at idéer om absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur
 617 gir fordeler til RCA-ene i vår tid, og passer med vår ureflekterte
 618 intuisjon?
 619 </p><p>
 620 Er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår tradisjon om fri kultur en
 621 forekomst av USA som korrigerer en feil fra sin fortid, slik vi gjorde det
 622 etter en blodig krig mot slaveri, og slik vi sakte gjør det mot
 623 forskjellsbehandling?  Eller er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår
 624 tradisjon med fri kultur nok et eksempel på at vårt politiske system er
 625 fanget av noen få mektige særinteresser?
 626 </p><p>
 627 Fører sunn fornuft til det ekstreme i dette spørsmålet på grunn av at sunn
 628 fornuft faktisk tror på dette ekstreme?  Eller står sunn fornuft i stillhet
 629 i møtet med dette ekstreme fordi, som med Armstrong versus RCA, at den mer
 630 mektige siden har sikret seg at det har et mye mer mektig synspunkt?
 631 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2570550"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2570556"></a><p>
 632
 633 I don't mean to be mysterious. My own views are resolved. I believe it was
 634 right for common sense to revolt against the extremism of the Causbys. I
 635 believe it would be right for common sense to revolt against the extreme
 636 claims made today on behalf of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>&#8221;</span> What
 637 the law demands today is increasingly as silly as a sheriff arresting an
 638 airplane for trespass. But the consequences of this silliness will be much
 639 more profound.
 640
 641 </p><p>
 642 The struggle that rages just now centers on two ideas: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span>
 643 and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property.</span>&#8221;</span> My aim in this book's next two parts is to
 644 explore these two ideas.
 645 </p><p>
 646 Metoden min er ikke den vanlige metoden for en akademiker.  Jeg ønsker ikke
 647 å pløye deg inn i et komplisert argument, steinsatt med referanser til
 648 obskure franske teoretikere&#8212;uansett hvor naturlig det har blitt for
 649 den rare sorten vi akademikere har blitt.  Jeg vil i stedet begynne hver del
 650 med en samling historier som etablerer en sammenheng der disse
 651 tilsynelatende enkle idéene kan bli fullt ut forstått.
 652 </p><p>
 653 The two sections set up the core claim of this book: that while the Internet
 654 has indeed produced something fantastic and new, our government, pushed by
 655 big media to respond to this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">something new,</span>&#8221;</span> is destroying
 656 something very old. Rather than understanding the changes the Internet might
 657 permit, and rather than taking time to let <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">common sense</span>&#8221;</span>
 658 resolve how best to respond, we are allowing those most threatened by the
 659 changes to use their power to change the law&#8212;and more importantly, to
 660 use their power to change something fundamental about who we have always
 661 been.
 662 </p><p>
 663 Jeg tror vi tillater dette, ikke fordi det er riktig, og heller ikke fordi
 664 de fleste av oss tror på disse endringene.  Vi tillater det på grunn av at
 665 de interessene som er mest truet er blant de mest mektige aktørene i vår
 666 deprimerende kompromitterte prosess for å utforme lover. Denne boken er
 667 historien om nok en konsekvens for denne type korrupsjon&#8212;en konsekvens
 668 for de fleste av oss forblir ukjent med.
 669 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569392" href="#id2569392" class="para">4</a>] </sup>
 670 St. George Tucker, <em class="citetitle">Blackstone's Commentaries</em> 3 (South
 671 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1969), 18.
 672 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569512" href="#id2569512" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
 673 United States v. Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. The Court did find that
 674 there could be a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taking</span>&#8221;</span> if the government's use of its land
 675 effectively destroyed the value of the Causbys' land. This example was
 676 suggested to me by Keith Aoki's wonderful piece, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">(Intellectual)
 677 Property and Sovereignty: Notes Toward a Cultural Geography of
 678 Authorship,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Stanford Law Review</em> 48 (1996):
 679 1293, 1333. See also Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Real Property</em>
 680 (Mineola, N.Y.: Foundation Press, 1984), 1112&#8211;13.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2569546"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2569541"></a>
 681 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569719" href="#id2569719" class="para">6</a>] </sup>
 682 Lawrence Lessing, <em class="citetitle">Man of High Fidelity:: Edwin Howard
 683 Armstrong</em> (Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company, 1956), 209.
 684 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569671" href="#id2569671" class="para">7</a>] </sup> See <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era,</span>&#8221;</span>
 685 First Electronic Church of America, at www.webstationone.com/fecha,
 686 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #1</a>.
 687 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569831" href="#id2569831" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
 688 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569847" href="#id2569847" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
 689 Lessing, 256.
 690 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569968" href="#id2569968" class="para">10</a>] </sup>
 691 Amanda Lenhart, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
 692 Internet Access and the Digital Divide,</span>&#8221;</span> Pew Internet and American
 693 Life Project, 15 April 2003: 6, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #2</a>.
 694 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570088" href="#id2570088" class="para">11</a>] </sup>
 695 This is not the only purpose of copyright, though it is the overwhelmingly
 696 primary purpose of the copyright established in the federal constitution.
 697 State copyright law historically protected not just the commercial interest
 698 in publication, but also a privacy interest. By granting authors the
 699 exclusive right to first publication, state copyright law gave authors the
 700 power to control the spread of facts about them. See Samuel D. Warren and
 701 Louis D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy,</span>&#8221;</span> Harvard Law Review 4
 702 (1890): 193, 198&#8211;200.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2569729"></a>
 703 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570127" href="#id2570127" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
 704 Se Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (New York:
 705 Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2570135"></a>
 706 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570266" href="#id2570266" class="para">13</a>] </sup>
 707 Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates Use New
 708 Tools to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New
 709 York Times</em>, 17 January 2002.
 710 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570328" href="#id2570328" class="para">14</a>] </sup>
 711 Neil W. Netanel, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society,</span>&#8221;</span>
 712 <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2570339"></a>
 713 </p></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Part I. &#8220;PIRACY&#8221;"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Part I. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">PIRACY</span>&#8221;</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="&#8220;PIRACY&#8221;"><div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield1"></a><p>
 714 Since the inception of the law regulating creative property, there has been
 715 a war against <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy.</span>&#8221;</span> The precise contours of this concept,
 716 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy,</span>&#8221;</span> are hard to sketch, but the animating injustice is
 717 easy to capture.  As Lord Mansfield wrote in a case that extended the reach
 718 of English copyright law to include sheet music,
 719 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 720 En person kan bruke kopien til å spille den, men han har ingen rett til å
 721 robbe forfatteren for profitten, ved å lage flere kopier og distribuere
 722 etter eget forgodtbefinnende.<sup>[<a name="id2570692" href="#ftn.id2570692" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
 723 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2570707"></a></blockquote></div><p>
 724
 725 Today we are in the middle of another <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">war</span>&#8221;</span> against
 726 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy.</span>&#8221;</span> The Internet has provoked this war. The Internet
 727 makes possible the efficient spread of content. Peer-to-peer (p2p) file
 728 sharing is among the most efficient of the efficient technologies the
 729 Internet enables. Using distributed intelligence, p2p systems facilitate the
 730 easy spread of content in a way unimagined a generation ago.
 731
 732 </p><p>
 733 This efficiency does not respect the traditional lines of copyright.  The
 734 network doesn't discriminate between the sharing of copyrighted and
 735 uncopyrighted content. Thus has there been a vast amount of sharing of
 736 copyrighted content. That sharing in turn has excited the war, as copyright
 737 owners fear the sharing will <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rob the author of the profit.</span>&#8221;</span>
 738 </p><p>
 739 The warriors have turned to the courts, to the legislatures, and
 740 increasingly to technology to defend their <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> against
 741 this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy.</span>&#8221;</span> A generation of Americans, the warriors warn, is
 742 being raised to believe that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> should be
 743 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free.</span>&#8221;</span> Forget tattoos, never mind body piercing&#8212;our kids
 744 are becoming <span class="emphasis"><em>thieves</em></span>!
 745 </p><p>
 746 There's no doubt that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> is wrong, and that pirates
 747 should be punished. But before we summon the executioners, we should put
 748 this notion of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> in some context. For as the concept is
 749 increasingly used, at its core is an extraordinary idea that is almost
 750 certainly wrong.
 751 </p><p>
 752 Idéen høres omtrent slik ut:
 753 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 754 Kreativt arbeid har verdi.  Når jeg bruker, eller tar, eller bygger på det
 755 kreative arbeidet til andre, så tar jeg noe fra dem som har verdi.  Når jeg
 756 tar noe av verdi fra noen andre, bør jeg få tillatelse fra dem.  Å ta noe
 757 som har verdi fra andre uten tillatelse er galt.  Det er en form for
 758 piratvirksomhet.
 759 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2570807"></a><p>
 760 This view runs deep within the current debates. It is what NYU law professor
 761 Rochelle Dreyfuss criticizes as the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">if value, then right</span>&#8221;</span>
 762 theory of creative property<sup>[<a name="id2570821" href="#ftn.id2570821" class="footnote">16</a>]</sup> &#8212;if
 763 there is value, then someone must have a right to that value. It is the
 764 perspective that led a composers' rights organization, ASCAP, to sue the
 765 Girl Scouts for failing to pay for the songs that girls sang around Girl
 766 Scout campfires.<sup>[<a name="id2570766" href="#ftn.id2570766" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> There was
 767 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">value</span>&#8221;</span> (the songs) so there must have been a
 768 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">right</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;even against the Girl Scouts.
 769 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2570882"></a><p>
 770
 771 This idea is certainly a possible understanding of how creative property
 772 should work. It might well be a possible design for a system of law
 773 protecting creative property. But the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">if value, then right</span>&#8221;</span>
 774 theory of creative property has never been America's theory of creative
 775 property.  It has never taken hold within our law.
 776 </p><p>
 777 I vår tradisjon har immaterielle rettigheter i stedet vært et instrument.
 778 Det bygger fundamentet for et rikt kreativt samfunn, men er fortsatt servilt
 779 til verdien av kreativitet.  Dagens debatt har snudd dette helt rundt.  Vi
 780 har blitt så opptatt av å beskytte instrumentet at vi mister verdien av
 781 syne.
 782 </p><p>
 783 Kilden til denne forvirringen er et skille som loven ikke lenger bryr seg om
 784 å markere&#8212;skillet mellom å gjenpublisere noens verk på den ene siden,
 785 og bygge på og gjøre om verket på den andre.  Da opphavsretten kom var det
 786 kun publisering som ble berørt. Opphavsretten i dag regulerer begge.
 787 </p><p>
 788 Før teknologiene til internettet dukket opp, betød ikke denne begrepsmessige
 789 sammenblandingen mye.  Teknologiene for å publisere var kostbare, som betød
 790 at det meste av publisering var kommersiell. Kommersielle aktører kunne
 791 håndtere byrden pålagt av loven&#8212;til og med byrden som den bysantiske
 792 kompleksiteten som opphavsrettsloven har blitt.  Det var bare nok en kostnad
 793 ved å drive forretning.
 794 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2570932"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2570938"></a><p>
 795 But with the birth of the Internet, this natural limit to the reach of the
 796 law has disappeared. The law controls not just the creativity of commercial
 797 creators but effectively that of anyone. Although that expansion would not
 798 matter much if copyright law regulated only <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copying,</span>&#8221;</span> when the
 799 law regulates as broadly and obscurely as it does, the extension matters a
 800 lot. The burden of this law now vastly outweighs any original
 801 benefit&#8212;certainly as it affects noncommercial creativity, and
 802 increasingly as it affects commercial creativity as well. Thus, as we'll see
 803 more clearly in the chapters below, the law's role is less and less to
 804 support creativity, and more and more to protect certain industries against
 805 competition. Just at the time digital technology could unleash an
 806 extraordinary range of commercial and noncommercial creativity, the law
 807 burdens this creativity with insanely complex and vague rules and with the
 808 threat of obscenely severe penalties. We may be seeing, as Richard Florida
 809 writes, the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Rise of the Creative Class.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2570971" href="#ftn.id2570971" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup> Unfortunately, we are also seeing an extraordinary
 810 rise of regulation of this creative class.
 811 </p><p>
 812 These burdens make no sense in our tradition. We should begin by
 813 understanding that tradition a bit more and by placing in their proper
 814 context the current battles about behavior labeled <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy.</span>&#8221;</span>
 815 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570692" href="#id2570692" class="para">15</a>] </sup>
 816
 817
 818 <em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
 819 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777) (Mansfield).
 820 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570821" href="#id2570821" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
 821
 822
 823 See Rochelle Dreyfuss, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language
 824 in the Pepsi Generation,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Notre Dame Law
 825 Review</em> 65 (1990): 397.
 826 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570766" href="#id2570766" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
 827
 828 Lisa Bannon, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay
 829 Up,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 21 August 1996,
 830 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #3</a>;
 831 Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of
 832 Property vs. Free Speech, No One Wins,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston
 833 Globe</em>, 24 November 2002.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2570865"></a>
 834 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2570971" href="#id2570971" class="para">18</a>] </sup>
 835
 836 I <em class="citetitle">The Rise of the Creative Class</em> (New York: Basic
 837 Books, 2002), dokumenterer Richard Florida en endring i arbeidsstokken mot
 838 kreativitetsarbeide.  Hans tekst omhandler derimot ikke direkte de juridiske
 839 vilkår som kreativiteten blir muliggjort eller hindret under.  Jeg er helt
 840 klart enig med ham i viktigheten og betydningen av denne endringen, men jeg
 841 tror også at vilkårene som disse endringene blir aktivert under er mye
 842 vanskeligere.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2571009"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2571018"></a>
 843 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="1. Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>1. Kapittel en: Skaperne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxanimadedcartoons"></a><p>
 844 I 1928 ble en tegnefilmfigur født.  En tidlig Mikke Mus debuterte i mai
 845 dette året, i en stille flopp ved navn <em class="citetitle">Plane Crazy</em>.
 846 I november, i Colony teateret i New York City, ble den første vidt
 847 distribuerte tegnefilmen med synkronisert lyd, <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
 848 Willy</em>, vist frem med figuren som skulle bli til Mikke Mus.
 849 </p><p>
 850 Film med synkronisert lyd hadde blitt introdusert et år tidligere i filmen
 851 <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em>.  Suksessen fikk Walt Disney til å
 852 kopiere teknikken og mikse lyd med tegnefilm.  Ingen visste hvorvidt det
 853 ville virke eller ikke, og om det fungere, hvorvidt publikum villa ha sans
 854 for det.  Men da Disney gjorde en test sommeren 1928, var resultatet
 855 entydig.  Som Disney beskriver dette første eksperimentet,
 856 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 857
 858 Et par av guttene mine kunne lese noteark, og en av dem kunne spille
 859 munnspill.  Vi stappet dem inn i et rom hvor de ikke kunne se skjermen, og
 860 gjorde det slik at lyden de spilte ble sendt videre til et rom hvor våre
 861 koner og venner var plassert for å se på bildet.
 862
 863 </p><p>
 864 Guttene brukte et note- og lydeffekt-ark.  Etter noen dårlige oppstarter,
 865 kom endelig lyd og handling i gang med et smell. Munnspilleren spilte
 866 melodien, og resten av oss i lydavdelingen slamret på tinnkasseroller og
 867 blåste på slide-fløyte til rytmen. Synkroniseringen var nesten helt riktig.
 868 </p><p>
 869 Effekten på vårt lille publikum var intet mindre enn elektrisk.  De reagerte
 870 nesten instinktivt til denne union av lyd og bevegelse.  Jeg trodde de
 871 tullet med meg.  Så de puttet meg i publikum og satte igang på nytt.  Det
 872 var grufullt, men det var fantastisk.  Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id2571144" href="#ftn.id2571144" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
 873 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 874 Disney's then partner, and one of animation's most extraordinary talents, Ub
 875 Iwerks, put it more strongly: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I have never been so thrilled in my
 876 life. Nothing since has ever equaled it.</span>&#8221;</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2571166"></a>
 877 </p><p>
 878 Disney hadde laget noe helt nyt, basert på noe relativt nytt. Synkronisert
 879 lyd ga liv til en form for kreativitet som sjeldent hadde&#8212;unntatt fra
 880 Disneys hender&#8212;vært noe annet en fyllstoff for andre filmer.  Gjennom
 881 animasjonens tidligere historie var det Disneys oppfinnelse som satte
 882 standarden som andre måtte sloss for å oppfylle.  Og ganske ofte var Disneys
 883 store geni, hans gnist av kreativitet, bygget på arbeidet til andre.
 884 </p><p>
 885 Dette er kjent stoff.  Det du kanskje ikke vet er at 1928 også markerer en
 886 annen viktig overgang.  I samme år laget et komedie-geni (i motsetning til
 887 tegnefilm-geni) sin siste uavhengig produserte stumfilm.  Dette geniet var
 888 Buster Keaton.  Filmen var <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>.
 889 </p><p>
 890 Keaton ble født inn i en vauderville-familie i 1895.  I stumfilm-æraen hadde
 891 han mestret bruken av bredpenslet fysisk komedie på en måte som tente
 892 ukontrollerbar latter fra hans publikum. <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill,
 893 Jr</em>. var en klassiker av denne typen, berømt blant film-elskere
 894 for sine utrolige stunts.  Filmen var en klassisk Keaton&#8212;fantastisk
 895 populær og blant de beste i sin sjanger.
 896 </p><p>
 897 <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>. appeared before Disney's cartoon
 898 Steamboat Willie.  The coincidence of titles is not coincidental. Steamboat
 899 Willie is a direct cartoon parody of Steamboat Bill,<sup>[<a name="id2571234" href="#ftn.id2571234" class="footnote">20</a>]</sup> and both are built upon a common song as a
 900 source. It is not just from the invention of synchronized sound in
 901 <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em> that we get <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
 902 Willie</em>. It is also from Buster Keaton's invention of Steamboat
 903 Bill, Jr., itself inspired by the song <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill,</span>&#8221;</span> that
 904 we get Steamboat Willie, and then from Steamboat Willie, Mickey Mouse.
 905 </p><p>
 906 This <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">borrowing</span>&#8221;</span> was nothing unique, either for Disney or for
 907 the industry. Disney was always parroting the feature-length mainstream
 908 films of his day.<sup>[<a name="id2571299" href="#ftn.id2571299" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> So did many
 909 others. Early cartoons are filled with knockoffs&#8212;slight variations on
 910 winning themes; retellings of ancient stories. The key to success was the
 911 brilliance of the differences. With Disney, it was sound that gave his
 912 animation its spark. Later, it was the quality of his work relative to the
 913 production-line cartoons with which he competed. Yet these additions were
 914 built upon a base that was borrowed.  Disney added to the work of others
 915 before him, creating something new out of something just barely old.
 916 </p><p>
 917 Noen ganger var låningen begrenset, og noen ganger var den betydelig. Tenkt
 918 på eventyrene til brødrene Grimm.  Hvis du er like ubevisst som jeg var, så
 919 tror du sannsynlighvis at disse fortellingene er glade, søte historier som
 920 passer for ethvert barn ved leggetid.  Realiteten er at Grimm-eventyrene er,
 921 for oss, ganske dystre.  Det er noen sjeldne og kanskje spesielt ambisiøse
 922 foreldre som ville våge å lese disse blodige moralistiske historiene til
 923 sine barn, ved leggetid eller hvilken som helst annet tidspunkt.
 924 </p><p>
 925
 926 Disney tok disse historiene og fortalte dem på nytt på en måte som førte dem
 927 inn i en ny tidsalder. Han ga historiene liv, med både karakterer og
 928 lys. Uten å fjerne bitene av frykt og fare helt, gjorde han morsomt det som
 929 var mørkt og satte inn en ekte følelse av medfølelse der det før var
 930 frykt. Og ikke bare med verkene av brødrene Grimm.  Faktisk er katalogen
 931 over Disney-arbeid som baserer seg på arbeidet til andre ganske forbløffende
 932 når den blir samlet: <em class="citetitle">Snøhvit</em> (1937),
 933 <em class="citetitle">Fantasia</em> (1940), <em class="citetitle">Pinocchio</em>
 934 (1940), <em class="citetitle">Dumbo</em> (1941), <em class="citetitle">Bambi</em>
 935 (1942), <em class="citetitle">Song of the South</em> (1946),
 936 <em class="citetitle">Askepott</em> (1950), <em class="citetitle">Alice in
 937 Wonderland</em> (1951), <em class="citetitle">Robin Hood</em> (1952),
 938 <em class="citetitle">Peter Pan</em> (1953), <em class="citetitle">Lady og
 939 landstrykeren</em> (1955), <em class="citetitle">Mulan</em> (1998),
 940 <em class="citetitle">Tornerose</em> (1959), <em class="citetitle">101
 941 dalmatinere</em> (1961), <em class="citetitle">Sverdet i steinen</em>
 942 (1963), og <em class="citetitle">Jungelboken</em> (1967)&#8212;for ikke å nevne
 943 et nylig eksempel som vi bør kanskje glemme raskt, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
 944 Planet</em> (2003). I alle disse tilfellene, har Disney (eller
 945 Disney, Inc.) hentet kreativitet fra kultur rundt ham, blandet med
 946 kreativiteten fra sitt eget ekstraordinære talent, og deretter brent denne
 947 blandingen inn i sjelen til sin kultur. Hente, blande og brenne.
 948 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2512165"></a><p>
 949 This is a kind of creativity. It is a creativity that we should remember and
 950 celebrate. There are some who would say that there is no creativity except
 951 this kind. We don't need to go that far to recognize its importance. We
 952 could call this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Disney creativity,</span>&#8221;</span> though that would be a bit
 953 misleading. It is, more precisely, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Walt Disney
 954 creativity</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;a form of expression and genius that builds upon
 955 the culture around us and makes it something different.
 956 </p><p> In 1928, the culture that Disney was free to draw upon was relatively
 957 fresh. The public domain in 1928 was not very old and was therefore quite
 958 vibrant. The average term of copyright was just around thirty
 959 years&#8212;for that minority of creative work that was in fact
 960 copyrighted.<sup>[<a name="id2512188" href="#ftn.id2512188" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> That means that for thirty
 961 years, on average, the authors or copyright holders of a creative work had
 962 an <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">exclusive right</span>&#8221;</span> to control certain uses of the work. To
 963 use this copyrighted work in limited ways required the permission of the
 964 copyright owner.
 965 </p><p>
 966 At the end of a copyright term, a work passes into the public domain.  No
 967 permission is then needed to draw upon or use that work. No permission and,
 968 hence, no lawyers. The public domain is a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lawyer-free zone.</span>&#8221;</span>
 969 Thus, most of the content from the nineteenth century was free for Disney to
 970 use and build upon in 1928. It was free for anyone&#8212; whether connected
 971 or not, whether rich or not, whether approved or not&#8212;to use and build
 972 upon.
 973 </p><p>
 974
 975 Dette er slik det alltid har vært&#8212;inntil ganske nylig.  For
 976 mesteparten av vår historie, har allemannseiet vært like over horisonten.
 977 Fram til 1978 var den gjennomsnittlige opphavsrettslige vernetiden aldri mer
 978 enn trettito år, som gjorde at det meste av kultur fra en og en halv
 979 generasjon tidligere var tilgjengelig for enhver å bygge på uten tillatelse
 980 fra noen.  Tilsvarende for i dag ville være at kreative verker fra 1960- og
 981 1970-tallet nå ville være fritt tilgjengelig for de neste Walt Disney å
 982 bygge på uten tillatelse.  Men i dag er allemannseie presumtivt kun for
 983 innhold fra før mellomkrigstiden.
 984 </p><p>
 985 Of course, Walt Disney had no monopoly on <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Walt Disney
 986 creativity.</span>&#8221;</span> Nor does America. The norm of free culture has, until
 987 recently, and except within totalitarian nations, been broadly exploited and
 988 quite universal.
 989 </p><p>
 990 Vurder for eksempel en form for kreativitet som synes underlig for mange
 991 amerikanere, men som er overalt i japansk kultur:
 992 <em class="citetitle">manga</em>, eller tegneserier.  Japanerne er fanatiske når
 993 det gjelder tegneserier.  Over 40 prosent av publikasjoner er tegneserier,
 994 og 30 prosent av publikasjonsomsetningen stammer fra tegneserier.  De er
 995 over alt i det japanske samfunnet, tilgjengelig fra ethvert
 996 tidsskriftsutsalg, og i hendene på en stor andel av pendlere på Japans
 997 ekstraordinære system for offentlig transport.
 998 </p><p>
 999 Americans tend to look down upon this form of culture. That's an
1000 unattractive characteristic of ours. We're likely to misunderstand much
1001 about manga, because few of us have ever read anything close to the stories
1002 that these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">graphic novels</span>&#8221;</span> tell. For the Japanese, manga cover
1003 every aspect of social life. For us, comics are <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">men in
1004 tights.</span>&#8221;</span> And anyway, it's not as if the New York subways are filled
1005 with readers of Joyce or even Hemingway. People of different cultures
1006 distract themselves in different ways, the Japanese in this interestingly
1007 different way.
1008 </p><p>
1009 Men mitt formål her er ikke å forstå manga.  Det er å beskrive en variant av
1010 manga som fra en advokats perspektiv er ganske merkelig, men som fra en
1011 Disneys perspektiv er ganske godt kjent.
1012 </p><p>
1013
1014 This is the phenomenon of <em class="citetitle">doujinshi</em>. Doujinshi are
1015 also comics, but they are a kind of copycat comic. A rich ethic governs the
1016 creation of doujinshi. It is not doujinshi if it is
1017 <span class="emphasis"><em>just</em></span> a copy; the artist must make a contribution to the
1018 art he copies, by transforming it either subtly or significantly. A
1019 doujinshi comic can thus take a mainstream comic and develop it
1020 differently&#8212;with a different story line. Or the comic can keep the
1021 character in character but change its look slightly. There is no formula for
1022 what makes the doujinshi sufficiently <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">different.</span>&#8221;</span> But they
1023 must be different if they are to be considered true doujinshi. Indeed, there
1024 are committees that review doujinshi for inclusion within shows and reject
1025 any copycat comic that is merely a copy.
1026 </p><p>
1027 These copycat comics are not a tiny part of the manga market. They are
1028 huge. More than 33,000 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">circles</span>&#8221;</span> of creators from across Japan
1029 produce these bits of Walt Disney creativity. More than 450,000 Japanese
1030 come together twice a year, in the largest public gathering in the country,
1031 to exchange and sell them. This market exists in parallel to the mainstream
1032 commercial manga market. In some ways, it obviously competes with that
1033 market, but there is no sustained effort by those who control the commercial
1034 manga market to shut the doujinshi market down. It flourishes, despite the
1035 competition and despite the law.
1036 </p><p>
1037 The most puzzling feature of the doujinshi market, for those trained in the
1038 law, at least, is that it is allowed to exist at all. Under Japanese
1039 copyright law, which in this respect (on paper) mirrors American copyright
1040 law, the doujinshi market is an illegal one. Doujinshi are plainly
1041 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">derivative works.</span>&#8221;</span> There is no general practice by doujinshi
1042 artists of securing the permission of the manga creators. Instead, the
1043 practice is simply to take and modify the creations of others, as Walt
1044 Disney did with <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>. Under both
1045 Japanese and American law, that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taking</span>&#8221;</span> without the permission
1046 of the original copyright owner is illegal. It is an infringement of the
1047 original copyright to make a copy or a derivative work without the original
1048 copyright owner's permission.
1049 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
1050 Yet this illegal market exists and indeed flourishes in Japan, and in the
1051 view of many, it is precisely because it exists that Japanese manga
1052 flourish. As American graphic novelist Judd Winick said to me, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The
1053 early days of comics in America are very much like what's going on in Japan
1054 now. &#8230; American comics were born out of copying each other. &#8230;
1055 That's how [the artists] learn to draw&#8212;by going into comic books and
1056 not tracing them, but looking at them and copying them</span>&#8221;</span> and building
1057 from them.<sup>[<a name="id2571828" href="#ftn.id2571828" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
1058 </p><p>
1059 American comics now are quite different, Winick explains, in part because of
1060 the legal difficulty of adapting comics the way doujinshi are
1061 allowed. Speaking of Superman, Winick told me, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">there are these rules
1062 and you have to stick to them.</span>&#8221;</span> There are things Superman
1063 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">cannot</span>&#8221;</span> do. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">As a creator, it's frustrating having to
1064 stick to some parameters which are fifty years old.</span>&#8221;</span>
1065 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2571868"></a><p>
1066 Normen i Japan reduserer denne juridiske utfordringen.  Noen sier at det
1067 nettopp er den oppsamlede fordelen i det japanske mangamarkedet som
1068 forklarer denne reduksjonen.  Jussprofessor Salil Mehra ved Temple
1069 University hypnotiserer for eksempel med at manga-markedet aksepterer disse
1070 teoretiske bruddene fordi de får mangamarkedet til å bli rikere og mer
1071 produktivt.  Alle ville få det verre hvis doujinshi ble bannlyst, så loven
1072 bannlyser ikke doujinshi.<sup>[<a name="id2571893" href="#ftn.id2571893" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
1073 </p><p>
1074 The problem with this story, however, as Mehra plainly acknowledges, is that
1075 the mechanism producing this laissez faire response is not clear. It may
1076 well be that the market as a whole is better off if doujinshi are permitted
1077 rather than banned, but that doesn't explain why individual copyright owners
1078 don't sue nonetheless. If the law has no general exception for doujinshi,
1079 and indeed in some cases individual manga artists have sued doujinshi
1080 artists, why is there not a more general pattern of blocking this
1081 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free taking</span>&#8221;</span> by the doujinshi culture?
1082 </p><p>
1083 I spent four wonderful months in Japan, and I asked this question as often
1084 as I could. Perhaps the best account in the end was offered by a friend from
1085 a major Japanese law firm. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">We don't have enough lawyers,</span>&#8221;</span> he
1086 told me one afternoon. There <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">just aren't enough resources to
1087 prosecute cases like this.</span>&#8221;</span>
1088 </p><p>
1089
1090 Dette er et tema vi kommer tilbake til: at lovens regulering både er en
1091 funksjon av ordene i bøkene, og kostnadene med å få disse ordene til å ha
1092 effekt.  Akkurat nå er det endel åpenbare spørsmål som presser seg frem:
1093 Ville Japan gjøre det bedre med flere advokater? Ville manga være rikere
1094 hvis doujinshi-kunstnere ble regelmessig rettsforfulgt?  Ville Japan vinne
1095 noe viktig hvis de kunne stoppe praksisen med deling uten kompensasjon?
1096 Skader piratvirksomhet ofrene for piratvirksomheten, eller hjelper den dem?
1097 Ville advokaters kamp mot denne piratvirksomheten hjelpe deres klienter,
1098 eller skade dem? La oss ta et øyeblikks pause.
1099 </p><p>
1100 Hvis du er som meg et tiår tilbake, eller som folk flest når de først
1101 begynner å tenke på disse temaene, da bør du omtrent nå være rådvill om noe
1102 du ikke hadde tenkt igjennom før.
1103 </p><p>
1104 We live in a world that celebrates <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property.</span>&#8221;</span> I am one of
1105 those celebrants.  I believe in the value of property in general, and I also
1106 believe in the value of that weird form of property that lawyers call
1107 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2571987" href="#ftn.id2571987" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> A
1108 large, diverse society cannot survive without property; a large, diverse,
1109 and modern society cannot flourish without intellectual property.
1110 </p><p>
1111 But it takes just a second's reflection to realize that there is plenty of
1112 value out there that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> doesn't capture. I don't mean
1113 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">money can't buy you love,</span>&#8221;</span> but rather, value that is plainly
1114 part of a process of production, including commercial as well as
1115 noncommercial production.  If Disney animators had stolen a set of pencils
1116 to draw Steamboat Willie, we'd have no hesitation in condemning that taking
1117 as wrong&#8212; even though trivial, even if unnoticed. Yet there was
1118 nothing wrong, at least under the law of the day, with Disney's taking from
1119 Buster Keaton or from the Brothers Grimm. There was nothing wrong with the
1120 taking from Keaton because Disney's use would have been considered
1121 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair.</span>&#8221;</span> There was nothing wrong with the taking from the Grimms
1122 because the Grimms' work was in the public domain.
1123 </p><p>
1124
1125 Dermed, selv om de tingene som Disney tok&#8212;eller mer generelt, tingene
1126 som blir tatt av enhver som utøver Walt Disney-kreativitet&#8212;er
1127 verdifulle, så anser ikke vår tradisjon det som galt å ta disse tingene.
1128 Noen ting forblir frie til å bli tatt i en fri kultur og denne friheten er
1129 bra.
1130 </p><p>
1131 Det er det samme med doujinshi-kulturen.  Hvis en doujinshi-kunstner brøt
1132 seg inn på kontoret til en forlegger, og stakk av med tusen kopier av hans
1133 siste verk&#8212;eller bare en kopi&#8212;uten å betale, så ville vi uten å
1134 nøle si at kunstneren har gjort noe galt.  I tillegg til å ha trengt seg inn
1135 på andres eiendom, ville han ha stjålet noe av verdi. Loven forbyr stjeling
1136 i enhver form, uansett hvor stort eller lite som blir tatt.
1137 </p><p>
1138 Yet there is an obvious reluctance, even among Japanese lawyers, to say that
1139 the copycat comic artists are <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stealing.</span>&#8221;</span> This form of Walt
1140 Disney creativity is seen as fair and right, even if lawyers in particular
1141 find it hard to say why.
1142 </p><p>
1143 It's the same with a thousand examples that appear everywhere once you begin
1144 to look. Scientists build upon the work of other scientists without asking
1145 or paying for the privilege. (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Excuse me, Professor Einstein, but may
1146 I have permission to use your theory of relativity to show that you were
1147 wrong about quantum physics?</span>&#8221;</span>) Acting companies perform adaptations
1148 of the works of Shakespeare without securing permission from anyone. (Does
1149 <span class="emphasis"><em>anyone</em></span> believe Shakespeare would be better spread
1150 within our culture if there were a central Shakespeare rights clearinghouse
1151 that all productions of Shakespeare must appeal to first?) And Hollywood
1152 goes through cycles with a certain kind of movie: five asteroid films in the
1153 late 1990s; two volcano disaster films in 1997.
1154 </p><p>
1155
1156 Skapere her og overalt har alltid og til alle tider bygd på kreativiteten
1157 som eksisterte før og som omringer dem nå.  Denne byggingen er alltid og
1158 overalt i det minste delvis gjort uten tillatelse og uten å kompensere den
1159 opprinnelige skaperen.  Intet samfunn, fritt eller kontrollert, har noen
1160 gang krevd at enhver bruk skulle bli betalt for eller at tillatelse for Walt
1161 Disney-kreativitet alltid måtte skaffes.  Istedet har ethvert samfunn latt
1162 en bestemt bit av sin kultur være fritt tilgjengelig for alle å
1163 ta&#8212;frie samfunn muligens i større grad enn ufrie, men en viss grad i
1164 alle samfunn.
1165
1166 </p><p>
1167 The hard question is therefore not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> a culture is
1168 free. All cultures are free to some degree. The hard question instead is
1169 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote"><span class="emphasis"><em>How</em></span> free is this culture?</span>&#8221;</span> How much, and
1170 how broadly, is the culture free for others to take and build upon? Is that
1171 freedom limited to party members? To members of the royal family? To the top
1172 ten corporations on the New York Stock Exchange? Or is that freedom spread
1173 broadly? To artists generally, whether affiliated with the Met or not? To
1174 musicians generally, whether white or not? To filmmakers generally, whether
1175 affiliated with a studio or not?
1176 </p><p>
1177 Frie kulturer er kulturer som etterlater mye åpent for andre å bygge på.
1178 Ufrie, eller tillatelse-kulturer etterlater mye mindre.  Vår var en fri
1179 kultur. Den er på tur til å bli mindre fri.
1180 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2571144" href="#id2571144" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
1181
1182
1183 Leonard Maltin, <em class="citetitle">Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated
1184 Cartoons</em> (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 34&#8211;35.
1185 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2571234" href="#id2571234" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
1186
1187
1188 I am grateful to David Gerstein and his careful history, described at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #4</a>.  According to Dave
1189 Smith of the Disney Archives, Disney paid royalties to use the music for
1190 five songs in <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willie</em>: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Steamboat
1191 Bill,</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Simpleton</span>&#8221;</span> (Delille), <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Mischief
1192 Makers</span>&#8221;</span> (Carbonara), <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Joyful Hurry No. 1</span>&#8221;</span> (Baron), and
1193 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Gawky Rube</span>&#8221;</span> (Lakay). A sixth song, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Turkey in the
1194 Straw,</span>&#8221;</span> was already in the public domain. Letter from David Smith to
1195 Harry Surden, 10 July 2003, on file with author.
1196 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2571299" href="#id2571299" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
1197
1198
1199 He was also a fan of the public domain. See Chris Sprigman, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Mouse
1200 that Ate the Public Domain,</span>&#8221;</span> Findlaw, 5 March 2002, at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #5</a>.
1201 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2512188" href="#id2512188" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
1202
1203
1204 Until 1976, copyright law granted an author the possibility of two terms: an
1205 initial term and a renewal term. I have calculated the
1206 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">average</span>&#8221;</span> term by determining the weighted average of total
1207 registrations for any particular year, and the proportion renewing. Thus, if
1208 100 copyrights are registered in year 1, and only 15 are renewed, and the
1209 renewal term is 28 years, then the average term is 32.2 years. For the
1210 renewal data and other relevant data, see the Web site associated with this
1211 book, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
1212 #6</a>.
1213 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2571828" href="#id2571828" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
1214
1215
1216 For en utmerket historie, se Scott McCloud, <em class="citetitle">Reinventing
1217 Comics</em> (New York: Perennial, 2000).
1218 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2571893" href="#id2571893" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
1219
1220
1221 See Salil K. Mehra, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain
1222 Why All the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?</span>&#8221;</span>
1223 <em class="citetitle">Rutgers Law Review</em> 55 (2002): 155,
1224 182. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">[T]here might be a collective economic rationality that would
1225 lead manga and anime artists to forgo bringing legal actions for
1226 infringement. One hypothesis is that all manga artists may be better off
1227 collectively if they set aside their individual self-interest and decide not
1228 to press their legal rights. This is essentially a prisoner's dilemma
1229 solved.</span>&#8221;</span>
1230 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2571987" href="#id2571987" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
1231
1232 The term <em class="citetitle">intellectual property</em> is of relatively
1233 recent origin. See Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
1234 Copywrongs</em>, 11 (New York: New York University Press, 2001). See
1235 also Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> (New York:
1236 Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. The term accurately describes a set of
1237 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> rights&#8212;copyright, patents, trademark, and
1238 trade-secret&#8212;but the nature of those rights is very different.
1239 <a class="indexterm" name="id2572007"></a>
1240 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="2. CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>2. CHAPTER TWO: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Mere Copyists</span>&#8221;</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><p>
1241 In 1839, Louis Daguerre invented the first practical technology for
1242 producing what we would call <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">photographs.</span>&#8221;</span> Appropriately
1243 enough, they were called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">daguerreotypes.</span>&#8221;</span> The process was
1244 complicated and expensive, and the field was thus limited to professionals
1245 and a few zealous and wealthy amateurs. (There was even an American Daguerre
1246 Association that helped regulate the industry, as do all such associations,
1247 by keeping competition down so as to keep prices up.)  <a class="indexterm" name="id2572216"></a>
1248 </p><p>
1249 Yet despite high prices, the demand for daguerreotypes was strong.  This
1250 pushed inventors to find simpler and cheaper ways to make <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">automatic
1251 pictures.</span>&#8221;</span> William Talbot soon discovered a process for making
1252 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">negatives.</span>&#8221;</span> But because the negatives were glass, and had to
1253 be kept wet, the process still remained expensive and cumbersome. In the
1254 1870s, dry plates were developed, making it easier to separate the taking of
1255 a picture from its developing. These were still plates of glass, and thus it
1256 was still not a process within reach of most amateurs.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2572241"></a>
1257 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxeastmangeorge"></a><p>
1258
1259 Den teknologiske endringen som gjorde masse-fotografering mulig skjedde ikke
1260 før i 1888, og det var takket være en eneste mann. George Eastman, selv en
1261 amatørfotograf, var frustrert over den plate-baserte fotografi-teknologien.
1262 I et lysglimt av innsikt (for å si det slik), forsto Eastman at hvis filmen
1263 kunne gjøres bøyelig, så kunne den holdes på en enkel rull.  Denne rullen
1264 kunne så sendes til en fremkaller, og senke kostnadene til fotografering
1265 vesentlig.  Ved å redusere kostnadene, forventet Eastman at han dramatisk
1266 kunne utvide andelen fotografer.
1267 </p><p>
1268 Eastman developed flexible, emulsion-coated paper film and placed rolls of
1269 it in small, simple cameras: the Kodak. The device was marketed on the basis
1270 of its simplicity. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">You press the button and we do the
1271 rest.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2572287" href="#ftn.id2572287" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> As he described in
1272 <em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>: <a class="indexterm" name="id2572300"></a>
1273 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1274 Prinsippet til Kodak-systemet er skillet mellom arbeidet som enhver kan
1275 utføre når en tar fotografier, fra arbeidet som kun en ekspert kan
1276 gjøre. &#8230; Vi utstyrte alle, menn, kvinner og barn, som hadde
1277 tilstrekkelig intelligens til å peke en boks i riktig retning og trykke på
1278 en knapp, med et instrument som helt fjernet fra praksisen med å fotografere
1279 nødvendigheten av uvanlig utstyr eller for den del, noe som helst spesiell
1280 kunnskap om kunstarten.  Det kan tas i bruk uten forutgående studier, uten
1281 et mørkerom og uten kjemikalier.<sup>[<a name="id2569909" href="#ftn.id2569909" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
1282 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1283 For $25 kunne alle ta bilder.  Det var allerede film i kameraet, og når det
1284 var brukt ble kameraet returnert til en Eastman-fabrikk hvor filmen ble
1285 fremkalt.  Etter hvert, naturligvis, ble både kostnaden til kameraet og hvor
1286 enkelt et var å bruke forbedret.  Film på rull ble dermed grunnlaget for en
1287 eksplosiv vekst i fotografering blant folket. Eastmans kamera ble lagt ut
1288 for salg i 1888, og et år senere trykket Kodak mer enn seks tusen negativer
1289 om dagen.  Fra 1888 til 1909, mens produksjonen i industrien vokste med 4,7
1290 prosent, økte salget av fotografisk utstyr og materiale med 11
1291 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2572366" href="#ftn.id2572366" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
1292 samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2572375" href="#ftn.id2572375" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
1293 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2572384"></a><p>
1294
1295
1296 The real significance of Eastman's invention, however, was not economic. It
1297 was social. Professional photography gave individuals a glimpse of places
1298 they would never otherwise see. Amateur photography gave them the ability to
1299 record their own lives in a way they had never been able to do before. As
1300 author Brian Coe notes, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">For the first time the snapshot album
1301 provided the man on the street with a permanent record of his family and its
1302 activities. &#8230; For the first time in history there exists an authentic
1303 visual record of the appearance and activities of the common man made
1304 without [literary] interpretation or bias.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2572317" href="#ftn.id2572317" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
1305 </p><p>
1306 In this way, the Kodak camera and film were technologies of expression.  The
1307 pencil or paintbrush was also a technology of expression, of course. But it
1308 took years of training before they could be deployed by amateurs in any
1309 useful or effective way. With the Kodak, expression was possible much sooner
1310 and more simply. The barrier to expression was lowered. Snobs would sneer at
1311 its <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">quality</span>&#8221;</span>; professionals would discount it as
1312 irrelevant. But watch a child study how best to frame a picture and you get
1313 a sense of the experience of creativity that the Kodak enabled. Democratic
1314 tools gave ordinary people a way to express themselves more easily than any
1315 tools could have before.
1316 </p><p>
1317 Hva krevdes for at denne teknologien skulle blomstre.  Eastmans genialitet
1318 var åpenbart en viktig del.  Men den juridiske miljøet som Eastmans
1319 oppfinnelse vokste i var også viktig.  For tidlig i historien til
1320 fotografering, var det en rekke av rettsavgjørelser som godt kunne ha endret
1321 kursen til fotograferingen betydelig.  Domstoler ble spurt om fotografen,
1322 amatør eller profesjonell, måtte ha ha tillatelse før han kunne fange og
1323 trykke hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket.  Svaret var nei.<sup>[<a name="id2572449" href="#ftn.id2572449" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
1324 </p><p>
1325
1326 The arguments in favor of requiring permission will sound surprisingly
1327 familiar. The photographer was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taking</span>&#8221;</span> something from the
1328 person or building whose photograph he shot&#8212;pirating something of
1329 value. Some even thought he was taking the target's soul. Just as Disney was
1330 not free to take the pencils that his animators used to draw Mickey, so,
1331 too, should these photographers not be free to take images that they thought
1332 valuable.
1333 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2572486"></a><p>
1334 På den andre siden var et argument som også bør bør være kjent. Joda, det
1335 var kanskje noe av verdi som ble brukt.  Men borgerne burde ha rett til å
1336 fange i hvert fall de bildene som var tatt av offentlig område.  (Louis
1337 Brandeis, som senere ble høyesterettsjustitiarus, mente regelen skulle være
1338 annerledes for bilder tatt av private områder.<sup>[<a name="id2572512" href="#ftn.id2572512" class="footnote">32</a>]</sup>) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting.
1339 På samme måte som Disney kunne hente inspirasjon fra <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
1340 Bill, Jr</em>. eller Grimm-brødrene, så burde fotografene stå fritt
1341 til å fange et bilde uten å kompensere kilden.
1342 </p><p>
1343 Heldigvis for Mr. Eastman, og for fotografering generelt, gikk disse
1344 tidligere avgjørelsene i favør av piratene.  Generelt ble det ikke nødvendig
1345 å sikre seg tillatelse før et bilde kunne tas og deles med andre.  I stedet
1346 var det antatt at tillatelse var gitt.  Frihet var utgangspunktet.  (Loven
1347 ga etter en stund et unntak for berømte personer: kommersielle fotografer
1348 som tok bilder av berømte personer for kommersielle formål har flere
1349 begrensninger enn resten av oss.  Men i det vanlige tilfellet, kan bildet
1350 fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.<sup>[<a name="id2572566" href="#ftn.id2572566" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
1351 </p><p>
1352 We can only speculate about how photography would have developed had the law
1353 gone the other way. If the presumption had been against the photographer,
1354 then the photographer would have had to demonstrate permission. Perhaps
1355 Eastman Kodak would have had to demonstrate permission, too, before it
1356 developed the film upon which images were captured. After all, if permission
1357 were not granted, then Eastman Kodak would be benefiting from the
1358 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">theft</span>&#8221;</span> committed by the photographer. Just as Napster
1359 benefited from the copyright infringements committed by Napster users, Kodak
1360 would be benefiting from the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">image-right</span>&#8221;</span> infringement of its
1361 photographers. We could imagine the law then requiring that some form of
1362 permission be demonstrated before a company developed pictures. We could
1363 imagine a system developing to demonstrate that permission.
1364 </p><p>
1365
1366
1367
1368 But though we could imagine this system of permission, it would be very hard
1369 to see how photography could have flourished as it did if the requirement
1370 for permission had been built into the rules that govern it. Photography
1371 would have existed. It would have grown in importance over
1372 time. Professionals would have continued to use the technology as they
1373 did&#8212;since professionals could have more easily borne the burdens of
1374 the permission system. But the spread of photography to ordinary people
1375 would not have occurred. Nothing like that growth would have been
1376 realized. And certainly, nothing like that growth in a democratic technology
1377 of expression would have been realized.  If you drive through San
1378 Francisco's Presidio, you might see two gaudy yellow school buses painted
1379 over with colorful and striking images, and the logo <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Just
1380 Think!</span>&#8221;</span> in place of the name of a school. But there's little that's
1381 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">just</span>&#8221;</span> cerebral in the projects that these busses enable.
1382 These buses are filled with technologies that teach kids to tinker with
1383 film. Not the film of Eastman. Not even the film of your VCR.  Rather the
1384 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">film</span>&#8221;</span> of digital cameras. Just Think! is a project that
1385 enables kids to make films, as a way to understand and critique the filmed
1386 culture that they find all around them. Each year, these busses travel to
1387 more than thirty schools and enable three hundred to five hundred children
1388 to learn something about media by doing something with media.  By doing,
1389 they think. By tinkering, they learn.
1390 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2572668"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2572676"></a><p>
1391 These buses are not cheap, but the technology they carry is increasingly
1392 so. The cost of a high-quality digital video system has fallen
1393 dramatically.  As one analyst puts it, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Five years ago, a good
1394 real-time digital video editing system cost $25,000. Today you can get
1395 professional quality for $595.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2572694" href="#ftn.id2572694" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup>
1396 These buses are filled with technology that would have cost hundreds of
1397 thousands just ten years ago. And it is now feasible to imagine not just
1398 buses like this, but classrooms across the country where kids are learning
1399 more and more of something teachers call <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">media literacy.</span>&#8221;</span>
1400 </p><p>
1401
1402 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Media literacy,</span>&#8221;</span> as Dave Yanofsky, the executive director of
1403 Just Think!, puts it, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">is the ability &#8230; to understand, analyze,
1404 and deconstruct media images. Its aim is to make [kids] literate about the
1405 way media works, the way it's constructed, the way it's delivered, and the
1406 way people access it.</span>&#8221;</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2572734"></a>
1407 </p><p>
1408 This may seem like an odd way to think about <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">literacy.</span>&#8221;</span> For
1409 most people, literacy is about reading and writing. Faulkner and Hemingway
1410 and noticing split infinitives are the things that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">literate</span>&#8221;</span>
1411 people know about.
1412 </p><p>
1413 Maybe. But in a world where children see on average 390 hours of television
1414 commercials per year, or between 20,000 and 45,000 commercials
1415 generally,<sup>[<a name="id2572761" href="#ftn.id2572761" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> it is increasingly important
1416 to understand the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">grammar</span>&#8221;</span> of media. For just as there is a
1417 grammar for the written word, so, too, is there one for media. And just as
1418 kids learn how to write by writing lots of terrible prose, kids learn how to
1419 write media by constructing lots of (at least at first) terrible media.
1420 </p><p>
1421 Et voksende felt av akademikere og aktivister ser denne formen for
1422 skriveføre som avgjørende for den neste generasjonen av kultur. For selv om
1423 de som har skrevet forstår hvor vanskelig det er å skrive&#8212;hvor
1424 vanskelig det er å bestemme rekkefølge i historien, å holde på
1425 oppmerksomheten hos leseren, å forme språket slik at det er
1426 forståelig&#8212;så har få av oss en reell følelse av hvor vanskelig medier
1427 er. Eller mer fundamentalt, de færreste av av oss har en følelse for
1428 hvordan media fungerer, hvordan det holder et publikum eller leder leseren
1429 gjennom historien, hvordan det utløser følelser eller bygger opp spenningen.
1430 </p><p>
1431 Det tok filmkusten en generasjon før den kunne gjøre disse tingene bra.  Men
1432 selv da, så var kunnskapen i filmingen, ikke i å skrive om filmen.
1433 Ferdigheten kom fra erfaring med å lage en film, ikke fra å lese en bok om
1434 den.  En lærer å skrive ved å skrive, og deretter reflektere over det en har
1435 skrevet.  En lærer å skrive med bilder ved å lage dem, og deretter
1436 reflektere over det en har laget.
1437 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2572795"></a><p>
1438 This grammar has changed as media has changed. When it was just film, as
1439 Elizabeth Daley, executive director of the University of Southern
1440 California's Annenberg Center for Communication and dean of the USC School
1441 of Cinema-Television, explained to me, the grammar was about <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the
1442 placement of objects, color, &#8230; rhythm, pacing, and
1443 texture.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2572729" href="#ftn.id2572729" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> But as computers open
1444 up an interactive space where a story is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">played</span>&#8221;</span> as well as
1445 experienced, that grammar changes. The simple control of narrative is lost,
1446 and so other techniques are necessary. Author Michael Crichton had mastered
1447 the narrative of science fiction.  But when he tried to design a computer
1448 game based on one of his works, it was a new craft he had to learn. How to
1449 lead people through a game without their feeling they have been led was not
1450 obvious, even to a wildly successful author.<sup>[<a name="id2572881" href="#ftn.id2572881" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
1451 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2572908"></a><p>
1452 This skill is precisely the craft a filmmaker learns. As Daley describes,
1453 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">people are very surprised about how they are led through a film. [I]t
1454 is perfectly constructed to keep you from seeing it, so you have no idea. If
1455 a filmmaker succeeds you do not know how you were led.</span>&#8221;</span> If you know
1456 you were led through a film, the film has failed.
1457 </p><p>
1458 Likevel er innsatsen for å utvide skriveføren&#8212;til en som går ut over
1459 tekst til å ta med lyd og visuelle elementer&#8212;handler ikke om å lage
1460 bedre filmregisører.  Målet er ikke å forbedre filmyrket i det hele tatt.  I
1461 stedet, som Daley forklarer,
1462 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1463 Fra mitt perspektiv er antagelig det viktigste digitale skillet ikke om en
1464 har tilgang til en boks eller ikke.  Det er evnen til å ha kontroll over
1465 språket som boksen bruker.  I motsatt fall er det bare noen få som kan
1466 skrive i dette språket, og alle oss andre er redusert til å ikke kunne
1467 skrive.
1468 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1469 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Read-only.</span>&#8221;</span> Passive recipients of culture produced elsewhere.
1470 Couch potatoes. Consumers. This is the world of media from the twentieth
1471 century.
1472 </p><p>
1473 The twenty-first century could be different. This is the crucial point: It
1474 could be both read and write. Or at least reading and better understanding
1475 the craft of writing. Or best, reading and understanding the tools that
1476 enable the writing to lead or mislead. The aim of any literacy, and this
1477 literacy in particular, is to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">empower people to choose the
1478 appropriate language for what they need to create or
1479 express.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2572977" href="#ftn.id2572977" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> It is to enable
1480 students <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">to communicate in the language of the twenty-first
1481 century.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2572996" href="#ftn.id2572996" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
1482 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2573003"></a><p>
1483 Som det alle andre språk, læres dette språket lettere for noen enn for
1484 andre.  Det kommer ikke nødvendigvis lettere for de som gjør det godt
1485 skriftlig. Daley og Stephanie Barish, direktør for Institutt for
1486 Multimedia-skriveføre ved Annenberg-senteret, beskriver et spesielt sterkt
1487 eksempel fra et prosjekt de gjennomførte i en videregående skole.  Den
1488 videregående skolen var en veldig fattig skole i den indre byen i Los
1489 Angeles.  Etter alle tradisjonelle måleenheter for suksess var denne skolen
1490 en fiasko.  Men Daley og Barish gjennomførte et program som ga ungene en
1491 mulighet til å bruke film til å uttrykke sine meninger om noe som studentene
1492 visste noe om&#8212;våpen-relatert vold.
1493 </p><p>
1494 The class was held on Friday afternoons, and it created a relatively new
1495 problem for the school. While the challenge in most classes was getting the
1496 kids to come, the challenge in this class was keeping them away. The
1497 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kids were showing up at 6 A.M. and leaving at 5 at night,</span>&#8221;</span>
1498 said Barish. They were working harder than in any other class to do what
1499 education should be about&#8212;learning how to express themselves.
1500 </p><p>
1501 Using whatever <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free web stuff they could find,</span>&#8221;</span> and relatively
1502 simple tools to enable the kids to mix <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">image, sound, and
1503 text,</span>&#8221;</span> Barish said this class produced a series of projects that
1504 showed something about gun violence that few would otherwise
1505 understand. This was an issue close to the lives of these students. The
1506 project <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">gave them a tool and empowered them to be able to both
1507 understand it and talk about it,</span>&#8221;</span> Barish explained. That tool
1508 succeeded in creating expression&#8212;far more successfully and powerfully
1509 than could have been created using only text. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">If you had said to
1510 these students, `you have to do it in text,' they would've just thrown their
1511 hands up and gone and done something else,</span>&#8221;</span> Barish described, in
1512 part, no doubt, because expressing themselves in text is not something these
1513 students can do well. Yet neither is text a form in which
1514 <span class="emphasis"><em>these</em></span> ideas can be expressed well. The power of this
1515 message depended upon its connection to this form of expression.
1516 </p><p>
1517
1518
1519
1520 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But isn't education about teaching kids to write?</span>&#8221;</span> I asked. In
1521 part, of course, it is. But why are we teaching kids to write? Education,
1522 Daley explained, is about giving students a way of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">constructing
1523 meaning.</span>&#8221;</span> To say that that means just writing is like saying teaching
1524 writing is only about teaching kids how to spell. Text is one part&#8212;and
1525 increasingly, not the most powerful part&#8212;of constructing meaning. As
1526 Daley explained in the most moving part of our interview,
1527 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1528 What you want is to give these students ways of constructing meaning. If all
1529 you give them is text, they're not going to do it.  Because they can't. You
1530 know, you've got Johnny who can look at a video, he can play a video game,
1531 he can do graffiti all over your walls, he can take your car apart, and he
1532 can do all sorts of other things. He just can't read your text. So Johnny
1533 comes to school and you say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Johnny, you're illiterate. Nothing you
1534 can do matters.</span>&#8221;</span> Well, Johnny then has two choices: He can dismiss
1535 you or he [can] dismiss himself. If his ego is healthy at all, he's going to
1536 dismiss you. [But i]nstead, if you say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Well, with all these things
1537 that you can do, let's talk about this issue. Play for me music that you
1538 think reflects that, or show me images that you think reflect that, or draw
1539 for me something that reflects that.</span>&#8221;</span> Not by giving a kid a video
1540 camera and &#8230; saying, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Let's go have fun with the video camera
1541 and make a little movie.</span>&#8221;</span> But instead, really help you take these
1542 elements that you understand, that are your language, and construct meaning
1543 about the topic.&#8230;
1544 </p><p>
1545 That empowers enormously. And then what happens, of course, is eventually,
1546 as it has happened in all these classes, they bump up against the fact,
1547 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I need to explain this and I really need to write something.</span>&#8221;</span>
1548 And as one of the teachers told Stephanie, they would rewrite a paragraph 5,
1549 6, 7, 8 times, till they got it right.
1550 </p><p>
1551
1552 Because they needed to. There was a reason for doing it. They needed to say
1553 something, as opposed to just jumping through your hoops. They actually
1554 needed to use a language that they didn't speak very well. But they had come
1555 to understand that they had a lot of power with this language.
1556 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1557 Da to fly krasjet inn i World Trade Center, og et annet inn i Pentagon, og
1558 et fjerde inn i et jorde i Pennsylvania, snudde alle medier verden rundt seg
1559 til denne nyheten.  Ethvert moment for omtreng hver eneste dag den uka, og
1560 ukene som fulgte gjenfortalte TV spesielt, men media generelt, historien om
1561 disse hendelsene som vi nettopp hadde vært vitne til.  Genialiteten i denne
1562 forferdelige terrorhandlingen var at det forsinkede andre-angrepet var
1563 perfekt tidsatt for å sikre at hele verden ville være der for å se på.
1564 </p><p>
1565 These retellings had an increasingly familiar feel. There was music scored
1566 for the intermissions, and fancy graphics that flashed across the
1567 screen. There was a formula to interviews. There was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">balance,</span>&#8221;</span>
1568 and seriousness. This was news choreographed in the way we have increasingly
1569 come to expect it, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">news as entertainment,</span>&#8221;</span> even if the
1570 entertainment is tragedy.
1571 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2573204"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2573210"></a><p>
1572 But in addition to this produced news about the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">tragedy of September
1573 11,</span>&#8221;</span> those of us tied to the Internet came to see a very different
1574 production as well. The Internet was filled with accounts of the same
1575 events. Yet these Internet accounts had a very different flavor. Some people
1576 constructed photo pages that captured images from around the world and
1577 presented them as slide shows with text. Some offered open letters. There
1578 were sound recordings. There was anger and frustration.  There were attempts
1579 to provide context. There was, in short, an extraordinary worldwide barn
1580 raising, in the sense Mike Godwin uses the term in his book <em class="citetitle">Cyber
1581 Rights</em>, around a news event that had captured the attention of
1582 the world. There was ABC and CBS, but there was also the Internet.
1583 </p><p>
1584
1585 I don't mean simply to praise the Internet&#8212;though I do think the
1586 people who supported this form of speech should be praised. I mean instead
1587 to point to a significance in this form of speech. For like a Kodak, the
1588 Internet enables people to capture images. And like in a movie by a student
1589 on the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Just Think!</span>&#8221;</span> bus, the visual images could be mixed with
1590 sound or text.
1591 </p><p>
1592 Men i motsetning til en hvilken som helst teknologi for å enkelt fange
1593 bilder, tillater internettet at en nesten umiddelbart deler disse
1594 kreasjonene med et ekstraordinært antall menesker.  Dette er noe nytt i vår
1595 tradisjon&#8212;ikke bare kan kultur fanges inn mekanisk, og åpenbart heller
1596 ikke at hendelser blir kommentert kritisk, men at denne blandingen av
1597 bilder, lyd og kommentar kan spres vidt omkring nesten umiddelbart.
1598 </p><p>
1599 11. september var ikke et avvik.  Det var en start.  Omtrent på samme tid,
1600 begynte en form for kommunkasjon som hadde vokst dramatisk å komme inn i
1601 offentlig bevissthet: web-loggen, eller blog.  Bloggen er en slags offentlig
1602 dagbok, og i noen kulturer, slik som i Japan, fungerer den veldig lik en
1603 dagbok.  I disse kulturene registrerer den private fakta på en offentlig
1604 måte&#8212;det er en slags elektronisk <em class="citetitle">Jerry
1605 Springer</em>, tilgjengelig overalt i verden.
1606 </p><p>
1607 Men i USA har blogger inntatt en svært annerledes karakter.  Det er noen som
1608 bruker denne plassen til å snakke om sitt private liv.  Men det er mange som
1609 bruker denne plassen til å delta i offentlig debatt. Diskuterer saker med
1610 offentlig interesse, kritiserer andre som har feil synspunkt, kritisere
1611 politigere for avgjørelser de tar, tilbyr løsninger på problemer vi alle
1612 ser.  Blogger skaper en følelse av et virtuelt offentlig møte, men et hvor
1613 vi ikke alle håper å være tilstede på samme tid og hvor konversasjonene ikke
1614 nødvendigvis er koblet sammen.  De beste av bloggoppføringene er relativt
1615 korte.  De peker direkte til ord bruk av andre, kritiserer dem eller bidrar
1616 til dem.  Det kan argumenteres for at de er den viktigste form for
1617 ukoreografert offentlig debatt som vi har.
1618 </p><p>
1619
1620 Dette er en sterk uttalelse.  Likevel sier den like mye om vårt demokrati
1621 som den sier om blogger.  Dette er delen av USA som det er mest vanskelig
1622 for oss som elsker USA å akseptere: vårt demokrati har svunnet hen.  Vi har
1623 naturligvis valg, og mesteparten av tiden tillater domstolene at disse
1624 valgene teller.  Et relativt lite antall mennesker stemmer i disse valgene.
1625 Syklusen med disse valgene har blitt totalt profesjonalisert og
1626 rutinepreget.  De fleste av oss tenker på dette som demokrati.
1627 </p><p>
1628 But democracy has never just been about elections. Democracy means rule by
1629 the people, but rule means something more than mere elections. In our
1630 tradition, it also means control through reasoned discourse.  This was the
1631 idea that captured the imagination of Alexis de Tocqueville, the
1632 nineteenth-century French lawyer who wrote the most important account of
1633 early <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Democracy in America.</span>&#8221;</span> It wasn't popular elections that
1634 fascinated him&#8212;it was the jury, an institution that gave ordinary
1635 people the right to choose life or death for other citizens.  And most
1636 fascinating for him was that the jury didn't just vote about the outcome
1637 they would impose. They deliberated. Members argued about the
1638 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">right</span>&#8221;</span> result; they tried to persuade each other of the
1639 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">right</span>&#8221;</span> result, and in criminal cases at least, they had to
1640 agree upon a unanimous result for the process to come to an end.<sup>[<a name="id2573361" href="#ftn.id2573361" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
1641 </p><p>
1642 Yet even this institution flags in American life today. And in its place,
1643 there is no systematic effort to enable citizen deliberation. Some are
1644 pushing to create just such an institution.<sup>[<a name="id2573378" href="#ftn.id2573378" class="footnote">41</a>]</sup> And in some towns in New England, something close to deliberation
1645 remains. But for most of us for most of the time, there is no time or place
1646 for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">democratic deliberation</span>&#8221;</span> to occur.
1647 </p><p>
1648 Mer merkelig er at en generelt sett ikke engang har aksept for at det skal
1649 skje.  Vi, det mektigste demokratiet i verden, har utviklet en sterk norm
1650 mot å diskutere politikk.  Det er greit å diskutere politikk med folk du er
1651 enig med, men det er uhøflig å diskutere politikk med folk du er uenig med.
1652 Politisk debatt blir isolert, og isolert diskusjon blir mer
1653 ekstrem.<sup>[<a name="id2573414" href="#ftn.id2573414" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> Vi sier det våre venner vil
1654 høre, og hører veldig lite utenom hva våre venner sier.
1655 </p><p>
1656
1657 Så kommer bloggen.  Selve bloggens arkitektur løser en del av dette
1658 problemet.  Folk publiserer det de ønsker å publisere, og folk leser det de
1659 ønsker å lese.  Det vanskeligste tiden er synkron tid. Teknologier som
1660 muliggjør asynkron kommunasjons, slik som epost, øker muligheten for
1661 kommunikasjon.  Blogger gjør det mulig med offentlig debatt uten at folket
1662 noen gang trenger å samle seg på et enkelt offentlig sted.
1663 </p><p>
1664 Men i tillegg til arkitektur, har blogger også løst problemet med normer.
1665 Det er (ennå) ingen norm i blogg-sfæren om å ikke snakke om politikk.
1666 Sfæren er faktisk fylt med politiske innlegg, både på høyre- og
1667 venstresiden.  Noen av de mest populære stedene er konservative eller
1668 libertarianske, men det er mange av alle politiske farger.  Til og med
1669 blogger som ikke er politiske dekker politiske temaer når anledningen krever
1670 det.
1671 </p><p>
1672 Betydningene av disse bloggene er liten nå, men ikke ubetydelig. Navnet
1673 Howard Dean har i stor grad forsvunnet fra 2004-presidentvalgkampen bortsett
1674 fra hos noen få blogger.  Men selv om antallet lesere er lavt, så har det å
1675 lese dem en effekt. <a class="indexterm" name="id2573471"></a>
1676 </p><p>
1677 One direct effect is on stories that had a different life cycle in the
1678 mainstream media. The Trent Lott affair is an example. When Lott
1679 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">misspoke</span>&#8221;</span> at a party for Senator Strom Thurmond, essentially
1680 praising Thurmond's segregationist policies, he calculated correctly that
1681 this story would disappear from the mainstream press within forty-eight
1682 hours. It did. But he didn't calculate its life cycle in blog space. The
1683 bloggers kept researching the story. Over time, more and more instances of
1684 the same <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">misspeaking</span>&#8221;</span> emerged. Finally, the story broke back
1685 into the mainstream press. In the end, Lott was forced to resign as senate
1686 majority leader.<sup>[<a name="id2573497" href="#ftn.id2573497" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2573508"></a>
1687 </p><p>
1688 Denne annerledes syklusen er mulig på grunn av at et tilsvarende kommersielt
1689 press ikke eksisterer hos blogger slik det gjør hos andre kanaler.
1690 Televisjon og aviser er kommersielle aktører.  De må arbeide for å holde på
1691 oppmerksomheten.  Hvis de mister lesere, så mister de inntekter.  Som haier,
1692 må de bevege seg videre.
1693 </p><p>
1694 Men bloggere har ikke tilsvarende begresninger.  De kan bli opphengt, de kan
1695 fokusere, de kan bli seriøse.  Hvis en bestemt blogger skriver en spesielt
1696 interessant historie, så vil flere og flere folk lenke til den historien.
1697 Og etter hvert som antalet lenker til en bestemt historie øker, så stiger
1698 den i rangeringen for historier.  Folk leser det som er populært, og hva som
1699 er populært har blitt valgt gjennom en svært demokratisk prosess av
1700 likemanns-generert rangering.
1701 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinerdave"></a><p>
1702
1703 There's a second way, as well, in which blogs have a different cycle from
1704 the mainstream press. As Dave Winer, one of the fathers of this movement and
1705 a software author for many decades, told me, another difference is the
1706 absence of a financial <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">conflict of interest.</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I think
1707 you have to take the conflict of interest</span>&#8221;</span> out of journalism, Winer
1708 told me.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">An amateur journalist simply doesn't have a conflict of
1709 interest, or the conflict of interest is so easily disclosed that you know
1710 you can sort of get it out of the way.</span>&#8221;</span>
1711 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2573583"></a><p>
1712 These conflicts become more important as media becomes more concentrated
1713 (more on this below). A concentrated media can hide more from the public
1714 than an unconcentrated media can&#8212;as CNN admitted it did after the Iraq
1715 war because it was afraid of the consequences to its own
1716 employees.<sup>[<a name="id2573347" href="#ftn.id2573347" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> It also needs to sustain a
1717 more coherent account. (In the middle of the Iraq war, I read a post on the
1718 Internet from someone who was at that time listening to a satellite uplink
1719 with a reporter in Iraq. The New York headquarters was telling the reporter
1720 over and over that her account of the war was too bleak: She needed to offer
1721 a more optimistic story. When she told New York that wasn't warranted, they
1722 told her that <span class="emphasis"><em>they</em></span> were writing <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the
1723 story.</span>&#8221;</span>)
1724 </p><p> Blog space gives amateurs a way to enter the
1725 debate&#8212;<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">amateur</span>&#8221;</span> not in the sense of inexperienced, but
1726 in the sense of an Olympic athlete, meaning not paid by anyone to give their
1727 reports. It allows for a much broader range of input into a story, as
1728 reporting on the Columbia disaster revealed, when hundreds from across the
1729 southwest United States turned to the Internet to retell what they had
1730 seen.<sup>[<a name="id2573630" href="#ftn.id2573630" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> And it drives readers to read
1731 across the range of accounts and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">triangulate,</span>&#8221;</span> as Winer puts
1732 it, the truth. Blogs, Winer says, are <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">communicating directly with our
1733 constituency, and the middle man is out of it</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;with all the
1734 benefits, and costs, that might entail.
1735 </p><p>
1736
1737 Winer is optimistic about the future of journalism infected with
1738 blogs. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">It's going to become an essential skill,</span>&#8221;</span> Winer
1739 predicts, for public figures and increasingly for private figures as
1740 well. It's not clear that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">journalism</span>&#8221;</span> is happy about
1741 this&#8212;some journalists have been told to curtail their
1742 blogging.<sup>[<a name="id2573666" href="#ftn.id2573666" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> But it is clear that we are
1743 still in transition. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">A lot of what we are doing now is warm-up
1744 exercises,</span>&#8221;</span> Winer told me.  There is a lot that must mature before
1745 this space has its mature effect.  And as the inclusion of content in this
1746 space is the least infringing use of the Internet (meaning infringing on
1747 copyright), Winer said, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">we will be the last thing that gets shut
1748 down.</span>&#8221;</span>
1749 </p><p>
1750 This speech affects democracy. Winer thinks that happens because <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">you
1751 don't have to work for somebody who controls, [for] a gatekeeper.</span>&#8221;</span>
1752 That is true. But it affects democracy in another way as well.  As more and
1753 more citizens express what they think, and defend it in writing, that will
1754 change the way people understand public issues. It is easy to be wrong and
1755 misguided in your head. It is harder when the product of your mind can be
1756 criticized by others. Of course, it is a rare human who admits that he has
1757 been persuaded that he is wrong. But it is even rarer for a human to ignore
1758 when he has been proven wrong.  The writing of ideas, arguments, and
1759 criticism improves democracy.  Today there are probably a couple of million
1760 blogs where such writing happens. When there are ten million, there will be
1761 something extraordinary to report.
1762 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2573754"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><p>
1763 John Seely Brown is the chief scientist of the Xerox Corporation.  His work,
1764 as his Web site describes it, is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">human learning and &#8230; the
1765 creation of knowledge ecologies for creating &#8230; innovation.</span>&#8221;</span>
1766 </p><p>
1767 Brown ser dermed på disse teknologiene for digital kreativitet litt
1768 annerledes enn fra perspektivene jeg har skissert opp så langt.  Jeg er
1769 sikker på at han blir begeistret for enhver teknologi som kan forbedre
1770 demokratiet.  Men det han virkelig blir begeistret over er hvordan disse
1771 teknologiene påvirker læring.
1772 </p><p>
1773
1774 As Brown believes, we learn by tinkering. When <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">a lot of us grew
1775 up,</span>&#8221;</span> he explains, that tinkering was done <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">on motorcycle
1776 engines, lawnmower engines, automobiles, radios, and so on.</span>&#8221;</span> But
1777 digital technologies enable a different kind of tinkering&#8212;with
1778 abstract ideas though in concrete form. The kids at Just Think! not only
1779 think about how a commercial portrays a politician; using digital
1780 technology, they can take the commercial apart and manipulate it, tinker
1781 with it to see how it does what it does. Digital technologies launch a kind
1782 of bricolage, or <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free collage,</span>&#8221;</span> as Brown calls it. Many get to
1783 add to or transform the tinkering of many others.
1784 </p><p>
1785 Det beste eksemplet i større skala så langt på denne typen fikling er fri
1786 programvare og åpen kildekode (FS/OSS).  FS/OSS er programvare der
1787 kildekoden deles ut.  Alle kan laste ned teknologien som får et
1788 FS/OSS-program til å fungere.  Og enhver som har lyst til å lære hvordan en
1789 bestemt bit av FS/OSS-teknologi fungerer kan fikle med koden.
1790 </p><p>
1791 This opportunity creates a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">completely new kind of learning
1792 platform,</span>&#8221;</span> as Brown describes. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">As soon as you start doing
1793 that, you &#8230; unleash a free collage on the community, so that other
1794 people can start looking at your code, tinkering with it, trying it out,
1795 seeing if they can improve it.</span>&#8221;</span> Each effort is a kind of
1796 apprenticeship. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Open source becomes a major apprenticeship
1797 platform.</span>&#8221;</span>
1798 </p><p>
1799 In this process, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the concrete things you tinker with are abstract.
1800 They are code.</span>&#8221;</span> Kids are <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">shifting to the ability to tinker in
1801 the abstract, and this tinkering is no longer an isolated activity that
1802 you're doing in your garage. You are tinkering with a community
1803 platform. &#8230; You are tinkering with other people's stuff. The more you
1804 tinker the more you improve.</span>&#8221;</span> The more you improve, the more you
1805 learn.
1806 </p><p>
1807 This same thing happens with content, too. And it happens in the same
1808 collaborative way when that content is part of the Web. As Brown puts it,
1809 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the Web [is] the first medium that truly honors multiple forms of
1810 intelligence.</span>&#8221;</span> Earlier technologies, such as the typewriter or word
1811 processors, helped amplify text. But the Web amplifies much more than
1812 text. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Web &#8230; says if you are musical, if you are artistic,
1813 if you are visual, if you are interested in film &#8230; [then] there is a
1814 lot you can start to do on this medium. [It] can now amplify and honor these
1815 multiple forms of intelligence.</span>&#8221;</span>
1816 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2573895"></a><p>
1817
1818 Brown snakker om hva Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish Og Just Think! lærer
1819 bort: at denne fiklingen med kultur lærer såvel som den skaper. Den utvikler
1820 talenter litt anderledes, og den bygger en annen type gjenkjenning.
1821 </p><p>
1822 Likevel er friheten til å fikle med disse objektene ikke garantert. Faktisk,
1823 som vi vil se i løpet av denne boken, er den friheten i stadig større grad
1824 omstridt.  Mens det ikke er noe tvil om at din far hadde rett til å fikle
1825 med bilmotoren, så er det stor tvil om dine barn vil ha retten til å fikle
1826 med bilder som hun finner over alt. Loven, og teknologi i stadig større
1827 grad, forstyrrer friheten som teknolog, nysgjerrigheten, ellers ville sikre.
1828 </p><p>
1829 These restrictions have become the focus of researchers and scholars.
1830 Professor Ed Felten of Princeton (whom we'll see more of in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;">10</a>)  has developed a
1831 powerful argument in favor of the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">right to tinker</span>&#8221;</span> as it
1832 applies to computer science and to knowledge in general.<sup>[<a name="id2573945" href="#ftn.id2573945" class="footnote">47</a>]</sup> But Brown's concern is earlier, or younger, or more
1833 fundamental. It is about the learning that kids can do, or can't do, because
1834 of the law.
1835 </p><p>
1836 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">This is where education in the twenty-first century is going,</span>&#8221;</span>
1837 Brown explains. We need to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">understand how kids who grow up digital
1838 think and want to learn.</span>&#8221;</span>
1839 </p><p>
1840 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Yet,</span>&#8221;</span> as Brown continued, and as the balance of this book will
1841 evince, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">we are building a legal system that completely suppresses the
1842 natural tendencies of today's digital kids. &#8230; We're building an
1843 architecture that unleashes 60 percent of the brain [and] a legal system
1844 that closes down that part of the brain.</span>&#8221;</span>
1845 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2573993"></a><p>
1846 Vi bygger en teknologi som tar magien til Kodak, mikser inn bevegelige
1847 bilder og lyd, og legger inn plass for kommentarer og en mulighet til å spre
1848 denne kreativiteten over alt.  Men vi bygger loven for å stenge ned denne
1849 teknologien.
1850 </p><p>
1851 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No way to run a culture,</span>&#8221;</span> as Brewster Kahle, whom we'll meet
1852 in chapter <a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="9. Kapittel ni: Samlere">9</a>,
1853 quipped to me in a rare moment of despondence.
1854 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572287" href="#id2572287" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
1855
1856
1857 Reese V. Jenkins, <em class="citetitle">Images and Enterprise</em> (Baltimore:
1858 Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 112.
1859 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2569909" href="#id2569909" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
1860
1861 Brian Coe, <em class="citetitle">The Birth of Photography</em> (New York:
1862 Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2572339"></a>
1863 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572366" href="#id2572366" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
1864
1865
1866 Jenkins, 177.
1867 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572375" href="#id2572375" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
1868
1869
1870 Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178.
1871 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572317" href="#id2572317" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
1872
1873
1874 Coe, 58.
1875 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572449" href="#id2572449" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
1876
1877
1878 For illustrerende saker, se for eksempel, <em class="citetitle">Pavesich</em>
1879 mot <em class="citetitle">N.E. Life Ins. Co</em>., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905);
1880 <em class="citetitle">Foster-Milburn Co</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Chinn</em>,
1881 123090 S.W. 364, 366 (Ky. 1909); <em class="citetitle">Corliss</em> mot
1882 <em class="citetitle">Walker</em>, 64 F. 280 (Mass.  Dist. Ct. 1894).
1883 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572512" href="#id2572512" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
1884
1885 Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy,</span>&#8221;</span>
1886 <em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2572523"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2572532"></a>
1887 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572566" href="#id2572566" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
1888
1889
1890 See Melville B. Nimmer, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Right of Publicity,</span>&#8221;</span>
1891 <em class="citetitle">Law and Contemporary Problems</em> 19 (1954): 203; William
1892 L. Prosser, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Privacy,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">California Law
1893 Review</em> 48 (1960) 398&#8211;407; <em class="citetitle">White</em>
1894 v. <em class="citetitle">Samsung Electronics America, Inc</em>., 971 F.  2d 1395
1895 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951 (1993).
1896 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572694" href="#id2572694" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
1897
1898
1899 H. Edward Goldberg, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and
1900 Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations,</span>&#8221;</span>
1901 cadalyst, February 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #7</a>.
1902 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572761" href="#id2572761" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
1903
1904
1905 Judith Van Evra, <em class="citetitle">Television and Child Development</em>
1906 (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Findings on
1907 Family and TV Study,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25 May
1908 1997, B6.
1909 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572729" href="#id2572729" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
1910
1911 Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002.
1912 <a class="indexterm" name="id2572853"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2572862"></a>
1913 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572881" href="#id2572881" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
1914
1915
1916 See Scott Steinberg, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs,</span>&#8221;</span> E!online,
1917 4 November 2000, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #8</a>;
1918 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Timeline,</span>&#8221;</span> 22 November 2000, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #9</a>.
1919 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572977" href="#id2572977" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
1920
1921 Intervju med Daley og Barish.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2572984"></a>
1922 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2572996" href="#id2572996" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
1923
1924
1925 ibid.
1926 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2573361" href="#id2573361" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
1927
1928
1929 Se for eksempel Alexis de Tocqueville, <em class="citetitle">Democracy in
1930 America</em>, bk. 1, overs.  Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books,
1931 2000), kap. 16.
1932 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2573378" href="#id2573378" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
1933
1934
1935 Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Deliberation Day,</span>&#8221;</span>
1936 <em class="citetitle">Journal of Political Philosophy</em> 10 (2) (2002): 129.
1937 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2573414" href="#id2573414" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
1938
1939
1940 Cass Sunstein, <em class="citetitle">Republic.com</em> (Princeton: Princeton
1941 University Press, 2001), 65&#8211;80, 175, 182, 183, 192.
1942 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2573497" href="#id2573497" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
1943
1944
1945 Noah Shachtman, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the
1946 Pot,</span>&#8221;</span> New York Times, 16 January 2003, G5.
1947 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2573347" href="#id2573347" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
1948
1949
1950 Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003.
1951 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2573630" href="#id2573630" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
1952
1953
1954 John Schwartz, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
1955 Information Online,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 2
1956 February 2003, A28; Staci D. Kramer, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed,
1957 but Strong Overall,</span>&#8221;</span> Online Journalism Review, 2 February 2003,
1958 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #10</a>.
1959 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2573666" href="#id2573666" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
1960
1961 See Michael Falcone, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?</span>&#8221;</span>
1962 <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 29 September 2003, C4. (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Not
1963 all news organizations have been as accepting of employees who blog. Kevin
1964 Sites, a CNN correspondent in Iraq who started a blog about his reporting of
1965 the war on March 9, stopped posting 12 days later at his bosses'
1966 request. Last year Steve Olafson, a <em class="citetitle">Houston Chronicle</em>
1967 reporter, was fired for keeping a personal Web log, published under a
1968 pseudonym, that dealt with some of the issues and people he was
1969 covering.</span>&#8221;</span>)  <a class="indexterm" name="id2573710"></a>
1970 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2573945" href="#id2573945" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
1971
1972
1973 See, for example, Edward Felten and Andrew Appel, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Technological
1974 Access Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,</span>&#8221;</span>
1975 <em class="citetitle">Communications of the Association for Computer
1976 Machinery</em> 43 (2000): 9.
1977 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2574039"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><p>
1978 Høsten 2001, ble Jesse Jordan fra Oceanside, New York, innrullert som
1979 førsteårsstudent ved Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, i Troy, New York.
1980 Hans studieprogram ved RPI var informasjonsteknologi.  Selv om han ikke var
1981 en programmerer, bestemte Jesse seg i oktober å begynne å fikle med en
1982 søkemotorteknologi som var tilgjengelig på RPI-nettverket.
1983 </p><p>
1984 RPI er en av Amerikas fremste teknologiske forskningsinstitusjoner. De
1985 tilbyr grader innen områder som går fra arkitektur og ingeniørfag til
1986 informasjonsvitenskap.  Mer enn 65 prosent av de fem tusen
1987 laveregradsstudentene fullførte blant de 10 prosent beste i deres klasse på
1988 videregående.  Skolen er dermed en perfekt blanding av talent og erfaring
1989 for å se for seg og deretter bygge, en generasjon tilpasset
1990 nettverksalderen.
1991 </p><p>
1992 RPIs data-nettverk kobler studenter, forelesere og administrasjon sammen.
1993 Det kobler også RPI til internettet.  Ikke alt som er tilgjengelig på
1994 RPI-nettet er tilgjengelig på internettet.  Men nettverket er utformet for å
1995 gi alle studentene mulighet til å bruke internettet, i tillegg til mer
1996 direkte tilgang til andre medlemmer i RPI-fellesskapet.
1997 </p><p>
1998
1999 Search engines are a measure of a network's intimacy. Google brought the
2000 Internet much closer to all of us by fantastically improving the quality of
2001 search on the network. Specialty search engines can do this even better. The
2002 idea of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intranet</span>&#8221;</span> search engines, search engines that search
2003 within the network of a particular institution, is to provide users of that
2004 institution with better access to material from that institution.
2005 Businesses do this all the time, enabling employees to have access to
2006 material that people outside the business can't get. Universities do it as
2007 well.
2008 </p><p>
2009 Disse motorene blir muliggjort av netverksteknologien selv.  For eksempel
2010 har Microsoft et nettverksfilsystem som gjør det veldig enkelt for
2011 søkemotorer tilpasset det nettverket å spørre systemet etter informasjon om
2012 det offentlig (innen nettverket) tilgjengelige innholdet.  Søkemotoren til
2013 Jesse var bygget for å dra nytte av denne teknologien.  Den brukte
2014 Microsofts nettverksfilsystem for å bygge en indeks over alle filene
2015 tilgjengelig inne i RPI-nettverket.
2016 </p><p>
2017 Jesse sin var ikke den første søkemotoren bygget for RPI-nettverket. Hans
2018 motor var faktisk en enkel endring av motorer som andre hadde bygget.  Hans
2019 viktigste enkeltforbedring i forhold til disse motorene var å fikse en feil
2020 i Microsofts fildelings-system som fikk en brukers datamaskin til å krasje.
2021 Med motorene som hadde eksistert tidligere, hvis du forsøkte å koble deg ved
2022 hjelp av Windows-utforskeren til en fil som var på en datamaskin som ikke
2023 var på nett, så ville din datamaskin krasje.  Jesse endret systemet litt for
2024 å fikse det problemet, ved å legge til en knapp som en bruker kunne klikke
2025 på for å se om maskinen som hadde filen fortsatt var på nett.
2026 </p><p>
2027 Motoren til Jesse kom pa nett i slutten av oktober.  I løpet av de følgende
2028 seks månedene fortsatte han å justere den for å forbedre dens
2029 funksjonalitet.  I mars fungerte systemet ganske bra.  Jesse hadde mer enn
2030 en million filer i sin katalog, inkludert alle mulige typer innhold som
2031 fantes på brukernes datamaskiner.
2032 </p><p>
2033
2034 Dermed inneholdt indeksen som hans søkemotor produserte bilder, som
2035 studentene kunne bruke til å legge inn på sine egne nettsider, kopier av
2036 notater og forskning, kopier av informasjonshefter, filmklipp som studentene
2037 kanskje hadde laget, universitetsbrosjyrer&#8212;ganske enkelt alt som
2038 brukerne av RPI-nettverket hadde gjort tilgjengelig i en fellesmappe på sine
2039 datamaskiner.
2040 </p><p>
2041 Men indeksen inneholdt også musikkfiler.  Faktisk var en fjerdedel av filene
2042 som Jesses søkemotor inneholdt musikkfiler.  Men det betyr, naturligvis, at
2043 tre fjerdedeler ikke var det, og&#8212;slik at dette poenget er helt
2044 klart&#8212;Jesse gjorde ingenting for å få folk til å plassere musikkfiler
2045 i deres fellesmapper.  Han gjorde ingenting for å sikte søkemotoren mot
2046 disse filene.  Han var en ungdom som fiklet med Google-lignende teknologi
2047 ved et universitet der han studerte informasjonsvitenskap, og dermed var
2048 fiklingen målet.  I motsetning til Google, eller Microsoft for den saks
2049 skyld, tjente han ingen penger på denne fiklingen.  Han var ikke knyttet til
2050 noen bedrift som skulle tjene penger fra dette eksperimentet.  Han var en
2051 ungdom som fiklet med teknologi i en omgivelse hvor fikling med teknologi
2052 var nøyaktig hva han var ment å gjøre.
2053 </p><p>
2054 Den 3. april 2003 ble Jesse kontaktet av lederen for studentkontoret ved
2055 RPI.  Lederen fortalte Jesse at Foreningen for innspillingsindustri i USA,
2056 RIAA, wille levere inn et søksmål mot han og tre andre studenter som han
2057 ikke en gang kjente, to av dem på andre undersiteter.  Noen få timer senere
2058 ble Jesse forkynt søksmålet og fikk overlevert dokumentene.  Mens han leste
2059 disse dokumentene og så på nyhetsrapportene om den, ble han stadig mer
2060 forbauset.
2061 </p><p>
2062 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">It was absurd,</span>&#8221;</span> he told me. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I don't think I did
2063 anything wrong. &#8230; I don't think there's anything wrong with the
2064 search engine that I ran or &#8230; what I had done to it. I mean, I hadn't
2065 modified it in any way that promoted or enhanced the work of pirates. I just
2066 modified the search engine in a way that would make it easier to
2067 use</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;again, a <span class="emphasis"><em>search engine</em></span>, which Jesse
2068 had not himself built, using the Windows filesharing system, which Jesse had
2069 not himself built, to enable members of the RPI community to get access to
2070 content, which Jesse had not himself created or posted, and the vast
2071 majority of which had nothing to do with music.
2072 </p><p>
2073
2074 But the RIAA branded Jesse a pirate. They claimed he operated a network and
2075 had therefore <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">willfully</span>&#8221;</span> violated copyright laws. They
2076 demanded that he pay them the damages for his wrong. For cases of
2077 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">willful infringement,</span>&#8221;</span> the Copyright Act specifies something
2078 lawyers call <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">statutory damages.</span>&#8221;</span> These damages permit a
2079 copyright owner to claim $150,000 per infringement. As the RIAA alleged more
2080 than one hundred specific copyright infringements, they therefore demanded
2081 that Jesse pay them at least $15,000,000.
2082 </p><p>
2083 Similar lawsuits were brought against three other students: one other
2084 student at RPI, one at Michigan Technical University, and one at
2085 Princeton. Their situations were similar to Jesse's. Though each case was
2086 different in detail, the bottom line in each was exactly the same: huge
2087 demands for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">damages</span>&#8221;</span> that the RIAA claimed it was entitled
2088 to.  If you added up the claims, these four lawsuits were asking courts in
2089 the United States to award the plaintiffs close to $100
2090 <span class="emphasis"><em>billion</em></span>&#8212;six times the <span class="emphasis"><em>total</em></span>
2091 profit of the film industry in 2001.<sup>[<a name="id2574308" href="#ftn.id2574308" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
2092 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2574325"></a><p>
2093 Jesse kontaktet sine foreldre.  De støttet ham, men var litt skremt. En
2094 onkel var advokat.  Han startet forhandlinger med RIAA.  De krevde å få vite
2095 hvor mye penger Jesse hadde.  Jesse hadde spart opp $12 000 fra
2096 sommerjobber og annet arbeid.  De krevde 12 000 for å trekke saken.
2097 </p><p>
2098 The RIAA wanted Jesse to admit to doing something wrong. He refused. They
2099 wanted him to agree to an injunction that would essentially make it
2100 impossible for him to work in many fields of technology for the rest of his
2101 life. He refused. They made him understand that this process of being sued
2102 was not going to be pleasant. (As Jesse's father recounted to me, the chief
2103 lawyer on the case, Matt Oppenheimer, told Jesse, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">You don't want to
2104 pay another visit to a dentist like me.</span>&#8221;</span>) And throughout, the RIAA
2105 insisted it would not settle the case until it took every penny Jesse had
2106 saved.
2107 </p><p>
2108
2109 Familien til Jessie ble opprørt over disse påstandene.  De ønsket å kjempe.
2110 Men onkelen til Jessie gjorde en innsats for å lære familien om hvordan det
2111 amerikanske juridiske systemet fungerte.  Jesse kunne sloss mot RIAA.  Han
2112 kunne til og med vinne.  Men kostnaden med å loss mot et søksmål som dette,
2113 ble Jesse fortalt, ville være minst $250 000.  Hvis han vant ville han
2114 ikke få tilbake noen av de pengene.  Hvis han vant, så ville han ha en bit
2115 papir som sa at han vant, og en bit papir som sa at han og hans familie var
2116 konkurs.
2117 </p><p>
2118 Så Jesse hadde et mafia-lignende valg: $250 000 og en sjanse til å
2119 vinne, eller $12 000 og et forlik.
2120 </p><p>
2121 Innspillingsindustrien insisterer at dette er et spørsmål om lov og moral.
2122 La oss legge loven til side for et øyeblikk og tenke på moralen.  Hvor er
2123 moralen i et søksmål som dette?  Hva er dyden i å skape offerlam.  RIAA er
2124 en spesielt mektig lobby.  Presidenten i RIAA tjener i følge rapporter mer
2125 enn $1 million i året.  Artister, på den andre siden, får ikke godt betalt.
2126 Den gjennomsnittelige innspillingsartist tjener $45 900.<sup>[<a name="id2574346" href="#ftn.id2574346" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> Det er utallige måter som RIAA kan bruke for å
2127 påvirke og styre politikken.  Så hva er det moralske i å ta penger fra en
2128 student for å drive en søkemotor?<sup>[<a name="id2574429" href="#ftn.id2574429" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
2129 </p><p>
2130 23. juni overførte Jesse alle sine oppsparte midler til advokaten som jobbet
2131 for RIAA.  Saken mot ham ble trukket.  Og med dette, ble unggutten som hadde
2132 fiklet med en datamaskin og blitt saksøkt for 15 millioner dollar en
2133 aktivist:
2134 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2135 Jeg var definitivt ikke en aktivist [tidligere].  Jeg mente egentlig aldri å
2136 være en aktivist. &#8230; [men] jeg har blitt skjøvet inn i dette.  Jeg
2137 forutså over hodet ikke noe slik som dette, men jeg tror det er bare helt
2138 absurd det RIAA har gjort.
2139 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2140 Jesse's parents betray a certain pride in their reluctant activist. As his
2141 father told me, Jesse <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">considers himself very conservative, and so do
2142 I. &#8230; He's not a tree hugger. &#8230; I think it's bizarre that they
2143 would pick on him. But he wants to let people know that they're sending the
2144 wrong message. And he wants to correct the record.</span>&#8221;</span>
2145 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574308" href="#id2574308" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
2146
2147
2148
2149 Tim Goral, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks: Suit
2150 Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Professional Media
2151 Group LCC</em> 6 (2003): 5, available at 2003 WL 55179443.
2152 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574346" href="#id2574346" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
2153
2154
2155 Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001)
2156 (27&#8211;2042&#8212;Musikere og Sangere). Se også National Endowment for
2157 the Arts, <em class="citetitle">More Than One in a Blue Moon</em> (2000).
2158 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574429" href="#id2574429" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
2159
2160
2161 Douglas Lichtman makes a related point in <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">KaZaA and
2162 Punishment,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 10 September
2163 2003, A24.
2164 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="4. CHAPTER FOUR: &#8220;Pirates&#8221;"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>4. CHAPTER FOUR: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Pirates</span>&#8221;</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
2165 If <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> means using the creative property of others without
2166 their permission&#8212;if <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">if value, then right</span>&#8221;</span> is
2167 true&#8212;then the history of the content industry is a history of
2168 piracy. Every important sector of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">big media</span>&#8221;</span> today&#8212;film,
2169 records, radio, and cable TV&#8212;was born of a kind of piracy so
2170 defined. The consistent story is how last generation's pirates join this
2171 generation's country club&#8212;until now.
2172 </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>
2173
2174 The film industry of Hollywood was built by fleeing pirates.<sup>[<a name="id2574530" href="#ftn.id2574530" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> Creators and directors migrated from the East Coast
2175 to California in the early twentieth century in part to escape controls that
2176 patents granted the inventor of filmmaking, Thomas Edison. These controls
2177 were exercised through a monopoly <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">trust,</span>&#8221;</span> the Motion Pictures
2178 Patents Company, and were based on Thomas Edison's creative
2179 property&#8212;patents.  Edison formed the MPPC to exercise the rights this
2180 creative property gave him, and the MPPC was serious about the control it
2181 demanded.
2182 </p><p>
2183 Som en kommentaror forteller en del av historien,
2184 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2185 En tidsfrist ble satt til januar 1909 for alle selskaper å komme i samsvar
2186 med lisensen.  Når februar kom, protesterte de ulisensierte fredløse, som
2187 refererte til seg selv som uavhengige, mot kartellet og fortsatte sin
2188 forretningsvirksomhet uten å bøye seg for Edisons monopol.  Sommeren 1909
2189 var bevegelsen med uavhenginge i full sving, med produsenter og kinoeiere
2190 som brukte ulovlig utstyr og importerte filmlager for å opprette sitt eget
2191 undergrunnsmarked.
2192 </p><p>
2193 With the country experiencing a tremendous expansion in the number of
2194 nickelodeons, the Patents Company reacted to the independent movement by
2195 forming a strong-arm subsidiary known as the General Film Company to block
2196 the entry of non-licensed independents. With coercive tactics that have
2197 become legendary, General Film confiscated unlicensed equipment,
2198 discontinued product supply to theaters which showed unlicensed films, and
2199 effectively monopolized distribution with the acquisition of all U.S. film
2200 exchanges, except for the one owned by the independent William Fox who
2201 defied the Trust even after his license was revoked.<sup>[<a name="id2574600" href="#ftn.id2574600" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2574633"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2574639"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2574645"></a>
2202 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2203 The Napsters of those days, the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">independents,</span>&#8221;</span> were companies
2204 like Fox. And no less than today, these independents were vigorously
2205 resisted.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Shooting was disrupted by machinery stolen, and
2206 `accidents' resulting in loss of negatives, equipment, buildings and
2207 sometimes life and limb frequently occurred.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2574666" href="#ftn.id2574666" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> That led the independents to flee the East
2208 Coast. California was remote enough from Edison's reach that filmmakers
2209 there could pirate his inventions without fear of the law. And the leaders
2210 of Hollywood filmmaking, Fox most prominently, did just that.
2211 </p><p>
2212
2213 Of course, California grew quickly, and the effective enforcement of federal
2214 law eventually spread west. But because patents grant the patent holder a
2215 truly <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited</span>&#8221;</span> monopoly (just seventeen years at that time),
2216 by the time enough federal marshals appeared, the patents had expired. A new
2217 industry had been born, in part from the piracy of Edison's creative
2218 property.
2219 </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>
2220 Plateindustrien ble født av en annen type piratvirksomhet, dog for å forstå
2221 hvordan krever at en setter seg inn i detaljer om hvordan loven regulerer
2222 musikk.
2223 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2574735"></a><p>
2224 At the time that Edison and Henri Fourneaux invented machines for
2225 reproducing music (Edison the phonograph, Fourneaux the player piano), the
2226 law gave composers the exclusive right to control copies of their music and
2227 the exclusive right to control public performances of their music. In other
2228 words, in 1900, if I wanted a copy of Phil Russel's 1899 hit <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy
2229 Mose,</span>&#8221;</span> the law said I would have to pay for the right to get a copy
2230 of the musical score, and I would also have to pay for the right to perform
2231 it publicly.
2232 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2574756"></a><p>
2233 But what if I wanted to record <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Mose,</span>&#8221;</span> using Edison's
2234 phonograph or Fourneaux's player piano? Here the law stumbled. It was clear
2235 enough that I would have to buy any copy of the musical score that I
2236 performed in making this recording. And it was clear enough that I would
2237 have to pay for any public performance of the work I was recording.  But it
2238 wasn't totally clear that I would have to pay for a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">public
2239 performance</span>&#8221;</span> if I recorded the song in my own house (even today, you
2240 don't owe the Beatles anything if you sing their songs in the shower), or if
2241 I recorded the song from memory (copies in your brain are
2242 not&#8212;yet&#8212; regulated by copyright law). So if I simply sang the
2243 song into a recording device in the privacy of my own home, it wasn't clear
2244 that I owed the composer anything. And more importantly, it wasn't clear
2245 whether I owed the composer anything if I then made copies of those
2246 recordings.  Because of this gap in the law, then, I could effectively
2247 pirate someone else's song without paying its composer anything.
2248 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2574778"></a><p>
2249 Komponistene (og utgiverne) var ikke veldig glade for denne kapasiteten til
2250 å røve.  Som Senator Alfred Kittredge fra Sør-Dakota formulerte
2251 det,<a class="indexterm" name="id2574805"></a>
2252 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2253 Forestill dere denne urettferdigheten.  En komponist skriver en sang eller
2254 en opera.  En utgiver kjøper til et høy sum rettighetene til denne, og
2255 registrerer opphavsretten til den.  Så kommer de fonografiske selskapene og
2256 selskapene som skjærer musikk-ruller og med vitende og vilje stjeler
2257 arbeidet som kommer fra hjernet til komponisten og utgiveren uten å bry seg
2258 om [deres] rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2574832" href="#ftn.id2574832" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
2259 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2260 The innovators who developed the technology to record other people's works
2261 were <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sponging upon the toil, the work, the talent, and genius of
2262 American composers,</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2574866" href="#ftn.id2574866" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> and the
2263 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">music publishing industry</span>&#8221;</span> was thereby <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">at the complete
2264 mercy of this one pirate.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2574880" href="#ftn.id2574880" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> As
2265 John Philip Sousa put it, in as direct a way as possible, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">When they
2266 make money out of my pieces, I want a share of it.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2574893" href="#ftn.id2574893" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
2267 </p><p>
2268 These arguments have familiar echoes in the wars of our day. So, too, do the
2269 arguments on the other side. The innovators who developed the player piano
2270 argued that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">it is perfectly demonstrable that the introduction of
2271 automatic music players has not deprived any composer of anything he had
2272 before their introduction.</span>&#8221;</span> Rather, the machines increased the sales
2273 of sheet music.<sup>[<a name="id2574914" href="#ftn.id2574914" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> In any case, the
2274 innovators argued, the job of Congress was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">to consider first the
2275 interest of [the public], whom they represent, and whose servants they
2276 are.</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All talk about `theft,'</span>&#8221;</span> the general counsel of
2277 the American Graphophone Company wrote, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">is the merest claptrap, for
2278 there exists no property in ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as
2279 defined by statute.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2574938" href="#ftn.id2574938" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
2280 <a class="indexterm" name="id2574948"></a>
2281 </p><p>
2282
2283 The law soon resolved this battle in favor of the composer
2284 <span class="emphasis"><em>and</em></span> the recording artist. Congress amended the law to
2285 make sure that composers would be paid for the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">mechanical
2286 reproductions</span>&#8221;</span> of their music. But rather than simply granting the
2287 composer complete control over the right to make mechanical reproductions,
2288 Congress gave recording artists a right to record the music, at a price set
2289 by Congress, once the composer allowed it to be recorded once. This is the
2290 part of copyright law that makes cover songs possible. Once a composer
2291 authorizes a recording of his song, others are free to record the same song,
2292 so long as they pay the original composer a fee set by the law.
2293 </p><p>
2294 American law ordinarily calls this a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">compulsory license,</span>&#8221;</span> but
2295 I will refer to it as a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">statutory license.</span>&#8221;</span> A statutory
2296 license is a license whose key terms are set by law. After Congress's
2297 amendment of the Copyright Act in 1909, record companies were free to
2298 distribute copies of recordings so long as they paid the composer (or
2299 copyright holder)  the fee set by the statute.
2300 </p><p>
2301 This is an exception within the law of copyright. When John Grisham writes a
2302 novel, a publisher is free to publish that novel only if Grisham gives the
2303 publisher permission. Grisham, in turn, is free to charge whatever he wants
2304 for that permission. The price to publish Grisham is thus set by Grisham,
2305 and copyright law ordinarily says you have no permission to use Grisham's
2306 work except with permission of Grisham.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2575004"></a>
2307 </p><p>
2308 But the law governing recordings gives recording artists less. And thus, in
2309 effect, the law <span class="emphasis"><em>subsidizes</em></span> the recording industry
2310 through a kind of piracy&#8212;by giving recording artists a weaker right
2311 than it otherwise gives creative authors. The Beatles have less control over
2312 their creative work than Grisham does. And the beneficiaries of this less
2313 control are the recording industry and the public. The recording industry
2314 gets something of value for less than it otherwise would pay; the public
2315 gets access to a much wider range of musical creativity. Indeed, Congress
2316 was quite explicit about its reasons for granting this right. Its fear was
2317 the monopoly power of rights holders, and that that power would stifle
2318 follow-on creativity.<sup>[<a name="id2574561" href="#ftn.id2574561" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2575045"></a>
2319 </p><p>
2320 While the recording industry has been quite coy about this recently,
2321 historically it has been quite a supporter of the statutory license for
2322 records. As a 1967 report from the House Committee on the Judiciary relates,
2323 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2324 the record producers argued vigorously that the compulsory license system
2325 must be retained. They asserted that the record industry is a
2326 half-billion-dollar business of great economic importance in the United
2327 States and throughout the world; records today are the principal means of
2328 disseminating music, and this creates special problems, since performers
2329 need unhampered access to musical material on nondiscriminatory
2330 terms. Historically, the record producers pointed out, there were no
2331 recording rights before 1909 and the 1909 statute adopted the compulsory
2332 license as a deliberate anti-monopoly condition on the grant of these
2333 rights. They argue that the result has been an outpouring of recorded music,
2334 with the public being given lower prices, improved quality, and a greater
2335 choice.<sup>[<a name="id2575077" href="#ftn.id2575077" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
2336 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2337 By limiting the rights musicians have, by partially pirating their creative
2338 work, the record producers, and the public, benefit.
2339 </p></div><div class="section" title="4.3. Radio"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="radio"></a>4.3. Radio</h2></div></div></div><p>
2340 Radio kom også fra piratvirksomhet.
2341 </p><p>
2342 When a radio station plays a record on the air, that constitutes a
2343 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">public performance</span>&#8221;</span> of the composer's work.<sup>[<a name="id2575116" href="#ftn.id2575116" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> As I described above, the law gives the composer
2344 (or copyright holder)  an exclusive right to public performances of his
2345 work. The radio station thus owes the composer money for that performance.
2346 </p><p>
2347
2348 But when the radio station plays a record, it is not only performing a copy
2349 of the <span class="emphasis"><em>composer's</em></span> work. The radio station is also
2350 performing a copy of the <span class="emphasis"><em>recording artist's</em></span> work. It's
2351 one thing to have <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>&#8221;</span> sung on the radio by the
2352 local children's choir; it's quite another to have it sung by the Rolling
2353 Stones or Lyle Lovett. The recording artist is adding to the value of the
2354 composition performed on the radio station.  And if the law were perfectly
2355 consistent, the radio station would have to pay the recording artist for his
2356 work, just as it pays the composer of the music for his work.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2575192"></a>
2357
2358
2359 </p><p>
2360 But it doesn't. Under the law governing radio performances, the radio
2361 station does not have to pay the recording artist. The radio station need
2362 only pay the composer. The radio station thus gets a bit of something for
2363 nothing. It gets to perform the recording artist's work for free, even if it
2364 must pay the composer something for the privilege of playing the song.
2365 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmadonna"></a><p>
2366 Denne forskjellen kan bli stor.  Forestill deg at du komponerer et stykke
2367 musikk.  Se for deg at det er ditt første stykke.  Du eier de eksklusive
2368 rettighetene til å godkjenne offentlig fremføring av den musikken.  Så hvis
2369 Madonna ønsker å synge din sang offentlig, må hun få din tillatelse.
2370 </p><p>
2371 Imagine she does sing your song, and imagine she likes it a lot. She then
2372 decides to make a recording of your song, and it becomes a top hit. Under
2373 our law, every time a radio station plays your song, you get some money. But
2374 Madonna gets nothing, save the indirect effect on the sale of her CDs. The
2375 public performance of her recording is not a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">protected</span>&#8221;</span>
2376 right. The radio station thus gets to <span class="emphasis"><em>pirate</em></span> the value
2377 of Madonna's work without paying her anything.
2378 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2575258"></a><p>
2379 No doubt, one might argue that, on balance, the recording artists
2380 benefit. On average, the promotion they get is worth more than the
2381 performance rights they give up. Maybe. But even if so, the law ordinarily
2382 gives the creator the right to make this choice. By making the choice for
2383 him or her, the law gives the radio station the right to take something for
2384 nothing.
2385 </p></div><div class="section" title="4.4. Kabel-TV"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>4.4. Kabel-TV</h2></div></div></div><p>
2386
2387 Kabel-TV kom også fra en form for piratvirksomhet.
2388 </p><p>
2389
2390 When cable entrepreneurs first started wiring communities with cable
2391 television in 1948, most refused to pay broadcasters for the content that
2392 they echoed to their customers. Even when the cable companies started
2393 selling access to television broadcasts, they refused to pay for what they
2394 sold. Cable companies were thus Napsterizing broadcasters' content, but more
2395 egregiously than anything Napster ever did&#8212; Napster never charged for
2396 the content it enabled others to give away.
2397 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2575294"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2575310"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2575316"></a><p>
2398 Broadcasters and copyright owners were quick to attack this theft.  Rosel
2399 Hyde, chairman of the FCC, viewed the practice as a kind of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">unfair
2400 and potentially destructive competition.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2575330" href="#ftn.id2575330" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup> There may have been a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">public interest</span>&#8221;</span> in spreading
2401 the reach of cable TV, but as Douglas Anello, general counsel to the
2402 National Association of Broadcasters, asked Senator Quentin Burdick during
2403 testimony, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Does public interest dictate that you use somebody else's
2404 property?</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2575357" href="#ftn.id2575357" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> As another
2405 broadcaster put it,
2406 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2407 The extraordinary thing about the CATV business is that it is the only
2408 business I know of where the product that is being sold is not paid
2409 for.<sup>[<a name="id2575374" href="#ftn.id2575374" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
2410 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2411 Igjen, kravene til opphavsrettsinnehaverne virket rimelige nok:
2412 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2413 Alt vi ber om er en veldig enkel ting, at folk som tar vår eiendom gratis
2414 betaler for den.  Vi forsøker å stoppe piratvirksomhet og jeg kan ikke tenke
2415 på et svakere ord for å beskrive det.  Jeg tror det er sterkere ord som
2416 ville passe.<sup>[<a name="id2575402" href="#ftn.id2575402" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
2417 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2575413"></a><p>
2418 These were <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free-ride[rs],</span>&#8221;</span> Screen Actor's Guild president
2419 Charlton Heston said, who were <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">depriving actors of
2420 compensation.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2575429" href="#ftn.id2575429" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
2421 </p><p>
2422 Men igjen, det er en annen side i debatten.  Som assisterende justisminister
2423 Edwin Zimmerman sa det,
2424 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2425 Our point here is that unlike the problem of whether you have any copyright
2426 protection at all, the problem here is whether copyright holders who are
2427 already compensated, who already have a monopoly, should be permitted to
2428 extend that monopoly. &#8230; The question here is how much compensation
2429 they should have and how far back they should carry their right to
2430 compensation.<sup>[<a name="id2574462" href="#ftn.id2574462" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2575481"></a>
2431 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2432 Opphavsrettinnehaverne tok kabelselskapene til retten. Høyesterett fant to
2433 ganger at kabelselskaper ikke skyldte opphavsrettinnehaverne noen ting.
2434 </p><p>
2435 It took Congress almost thirty years before it resolved the question of
2436 whether cable companies had to pay for the content they
2437 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirated.</span>&#8221;</span> In the end, Congress resolved this question in the
2438 same way that it resolved the question about record players and player
2439 pianos. Yes, cable companies would have to pay for the content that they
2440 broadcast; but the price they would have to pay was not set by the copyright
2441 owner.  The price was set by law, so that the broadcasters couldn't exercise
2442 veto power over the emerging technologies of cable. Cable companies thus
2443 built their empire in part upon a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> of the value created
2444 by broadcasters' content.
2445 </p><p>
2446 These separate stories sing a common theme. If <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> means
2447 using value from someone else's creative property without permission from
2448 that creator&#8212;as it is increasingly described today<sup>[<a name="id2575470" href="#ftn.id2575470" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup> &#8212; then <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> industry
2449 affected by copyright today is the product and beneficiary of a certain kind
2450 of piracy. Film, records, radio, cable TV. &#8230; The list is long and
2451 could well be expanded. Every generation welcomes the pirates from the
2452 last. Every generation&#8212;until now.
2453 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574530" href="#id2574530" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
2454
2455 I am grateful to Peter DiMauro for pointing me to this extraordinary
2456 history. See also Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
2457 Copywrongs</em>, 87&#8211;93, which details Edison's
2458 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">adventures</span>&#8221;</span> with copyright and patent.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2574544"></a>
2459 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574600" href="#id2574600" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
2460
2461
2462 J. A. Aberdeen, <em class="citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent
2463 Motion Picture Producers</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) and
2464 expanded texts posted at <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion
2465 Picture Patents Company vs. the Independent Outlaws,</span>&#8221;</span> available at
2466 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #11</a>. For a
2467 discussion of the economic motive behind both these limits and the limits
2468 imposed by Victor on phonographs, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">From Edison
2469 to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the
2470 Propertization of Copyright</span>&#8221;</span> (September 2002), University of Chicago
2471 Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working Paper
2472 No. 159.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574666" href="#id2574666" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
2473
2474
2475 Marc Wanamaker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The First Studios,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">The Silents
2476 Majority</em>, archived at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #12</a>.
2477 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574832" href="#id2574832" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
2478
2479 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright: Hearings on S. 6330
2480 and H.R. 19853 Before the ( Joint) Committees on Patents, 59th Cong. 59, 1st
2481 sess. (1906) (statement of Senator Alfred B. Kittredge, of South Dakota,
2482 chairman), reprinted in <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the Copyright
2483 Act</em>, E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South
2484 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2574845"></a>
2485 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574866" href="#id2574866" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
2486
2487
2488 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223 (uttalelse fra
2489 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2490 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574880" href="#id2574880" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
2491
2492
2493 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (uttalelse fra
2494 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2495 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574893" href="#id2574893" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
2496
2497
2498 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (uttalelse fra
2499 John Philip Sousa, komponist).
2500 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574914" href="#id2574914" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
2501
2502
2503
2504 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283&#8211;84
2505 (uttalelse fra Albert Walker, representant for the Auto-Music Perforating
2506 Company of New York).
2507 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574938" href="#id2574938" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
2508
2509
2510 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 376 (prepared
2511 memorandum of Philip Mauro, general patent counsel of the American
2512 Graphophone Company Association).
2513 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574561" href="#id2574561" class="para">60</a>] </sup>
2514
2515
2516
2517 Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on S. 2499, S. 2900, H.R. 243, and
2518 H.R. 11794 Before the ( Joint) Committee on Patents, 60th Cong., 1st sess.,
2519 217 (1908) (statement of Senator Reed Smoot, chairman), reprinted in
2520 <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act</em>,
2521 E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman
2522 Reprints, 1976).
2523 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575077" href="#id2575077" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
2524
2525
2526 Copyright Law Revision: Report to Accompany H.R. 2512, House Committee on
2527 the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 1st sess., House Document no. 83, (8 March
2528 1967). I am grateful to Glenn Brown for drawing my attention to this report.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575116" href="#id2575116" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
2529
2530 See 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, sections 106 and 110. At
2531 the beginning, record companies printed <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Not Licensed for Radio
2532 Broadcast</span>&#8221;</span> and other messages purporting to restrict the ability to
2533 play a record on a radio station.  Judge Learned Hand rejected the argument
2534 that a warning attached to a record might restrict the rights of the radio
2535 station. See <em class="citetitle">RCA Manufacturing
2536 Co</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Whiteman</em>, 114 F. 2d 86 (2nd
2537 Cir. 1940). See also Randal C.  Picker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast
2538 Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of
2539 Copyright,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em>
2540 70 (2003): 281.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2575148"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2575157"></a>
2541 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575330" href="#id2575330" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
2542
2543 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV: Hearing on S. 1006 Before the
2544 Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee
2545 on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 78 (1966)  (statement of Rosel
2546 H. Hyde, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2575301"></a>
2547 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575357" href="#id2575357" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
2548
2549
2550 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 116 (statement of Douglas A. Anello,
2551 general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters).
2552 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575374" href="#id2575374" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
2553
2554
2555 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 126 (statement of Ernest W. Jennes,
2556 general counsel of the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.).
2557 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575402" href="#id2575402" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
2558
2559
2560 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 169 (joint statement of Arthur B.  Krim,
2561 president of United Artists Corp., and John Sinn, president of United
2562 Artists Television, Inc.).
2563 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575429" href="#id2575429" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
2564
2565 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 209 (vitnemål fra Charlton Heston,
2566 president i Screen Actors Guild).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2575407"></a>
2567 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2574462" href="#id2574462" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
2568
2569 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 216 (uttalelse fra Edwin M. Zimmerman,
2570 fungerende assisterende justisministeren).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2575432"></a>
2571 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575470" href="#id2575470" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
2572
2573
2574 See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The
2575 Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet&#8212;The Myth of Free
2576 Information</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #13</a>. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The threat of
2577 piracy&#8212;the use of someone else's creative work without permission or
2578 compensation&#8212;has grown with the Internet.</span>&#8221;</span>
2579 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="5. CHAPTER FIVE: &#8220;Piracy&#8221;"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="piracy"></a>5. CHAPTER FIVE: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Piracy</span>&#8221;</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
2580 There is piracy of copyrighted material. Lots of it. This piracy comes in
2581 many forms. The most significant is commercial piracy, the unauthorized
2582 taking of other people's content within a commercial context. Despite the
2583 many justifications that are offered in its defense, this taking is
2584 wrong. No one should condone it, and the law should stop it.
2585 </p><p>
2586
2587 But as well as copy-shop piracy, there is another kind of
2588 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taking</span>&#8221;</span> that is more directly related to the Internet. That
2589 taking, too, seems wrong to many, and it is wrong much of the time. Before
2590 we paint this taking <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy,</span>&#8221;</span> however, we should understand
2591 its nature a bit more.  For the harm of this taking is significantly more
2592 ambiguous than outright copying, and the law should account for that
2593 ambiguity, as it has so often done in the past.
2594
2595 </p><div class="section" title="5.1. Piracy I"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-i"></a>5.1. Piracy I</h2></div></div></div><p>
2596 All across the world, but especially in Asia and Eastern Europe, there are
2597 businesses that do nothing but take others people's copyrighted content,
2598 copy it, and sell it&#8212;all without the permission of a copyright
2599 owner. The recording industry estimates that it loses about $4.6 billion
2600 every year to physical piracy<sup>[<a name="id2575461" href="#ftn.id2575461" class="footnote">70</a>]</sup> (that
2601 works out to one in three CDs sold worldwide). The MPAA estimates that it
2602 loses $3 billion annually worldwide to piracy.
2603 </p><p>
2604 This is piracy plain and simple. Nothing in the argument of this book, nor
2605 in the argument that most people make when talking about the subject of this
2606 book, should draw into doubt this simple point: This piracy is wrong.
2607 </p><p>
2608 Which is not to say that excuses and justifications couldn't be made for
2609 it. We could, for example, remind ourselves that for the first one hundred
2610 years of the American Republic, America did not honor foreign copyrights. We
2611 were born, in this sense, a pirate nation. It might therefore seem
2612 hypocritical for us to insist so strongly that other developing nations
2613 treat as wrong what we, for the first hundred years of our existence,
2614 treated as right.
2615 </p><p>
2616 That excuse isn't terribly strong. Technically, our law did not ban the
2617 taking of foreign works. It explicitly limited itself to American
2618 works. Thus the American publishers who published foreign works without the
2619 permission of foreign authors were not violating any rule.  The copy shops
2620 in Asia, by contrast, are violating Asian law. Asian law does protect
2621 foreign copyrights, and the actions of the copy shops violate that law. So
2622 the wrong of piracy that they engage in is not just a moral wrong, but a
2623 legal wrong, and not just an internationally legal wrong, but a locally
2624 legal wrong as well.
2625 </p><p>
2626 True, these local rules have, in effect, been imposed upon these
2627 countries. No country can be part of the world economy and choose
2628
2629 not to protect copyright internationally. We may have been born a pirate
2630 nation, but we will not allow any other nation to have a similar childhood.
2631 </p><p>
2632 If a country is to be treated as a sovereign, however, then its laws are its
2633 laws regardless of their source. The international law under which these
2634 nations live gives them some opportunities to escape the burden of
2635 intellectual property law.<sup>[<a name="id2575698" href="#ftn.id2575698" class="footnote">71</a>]</sup> In my view,
2636 more developing nations should take advantage of that opportunity, but when
2637 they don't, then their laws should be respected. And under the laws of these
2638 nations, this piracy is wrong.
2639 </p><p>
2640 Alternatively, we could try to excuse this piracy by noting that in any
2641 case, it does no harm to the industry. The Chinese who get access to
2642 American CDs at 50 cents a copy are not people who would have bought those
2643 American CDs at $15 a copy. So no one really has any less money than they
2644 otherwise would have had.<sup>[<a name="id2575762" href="#ftn.id2575762" class="footnote">72</a>]</sup>
2645 </p><p>
2646 This is often true (though I have friends who have purchased many thousands
2647 of pirated DVDs who certainly have enough money to pay for the content they
2648 have taken), and it does mitigate to some degree the harm caused by such
2649 taking. Extremists in this debate love to say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">You wouldn't go into
2650 Barnes &amp; Noble and take a book off of the shelf without paying; why
2651 should it be any different with on-line music?</span>&#8221;</span> The difference is, of
2652 course, that when you take a book from Barnes &amp; Noble, it has one less
2653 book to sell. By contrast, when you take an MP3 from a computer network,
2654 there is not one less CD that can be sold.  The physics of piracy of the
2655 intangible are different from the physics of piracy of the tangible.
2656 </p><p>
2657
2658 This argument is still very weak. However, although copyright is a property
2659 right of a very special sort, it <span class="emphasis"><em>is</em></span> a property
2660 right. Like all property rights, the copyright gives the owner the right to
2661 decide the terms under which content is shared. If the copyright owner
2662 doesn't want to sell, she doesn't have to. There are exceptions: important
2663 statutory licenses that apply to copyrighted content regardless of the wish
2664 of the copyright owner. Those licenses give people the right to
2665 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">take</span>&#8221;</span> copyrighted content whether or not the copyright owner
2666 wants to sell. But where the law does not give people the right to take
2667 content, it is wrong to take that content even if the wrong does no harm. If
2668 we have a property system, and that system is properly balanced to the
2669 technology of a time, then it is wrong to take property without the
2670 permission of a property owner. That is exactly what <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span>
2671 means.
2672 </p><p>
2673 Finally, we could try to excuse this piracy with the argument that the
2674 piracy actually helps the copyright owner. When the Chinese
2675 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">steal</span>&#8221;</span> Windows, that makes the Chinese dependent on
2676 Microsoft.  Microsoft loses the value of the software that was taken. But it
2677 gains users who are used to life in the Microsoft world. Over time, as the
2678 nation grows more wealthy, more and more people will buy software rather
2679 than steal it. And hence over time, because that buying will benefit
2680 Microsoft, Microsoft benefits from the piracy. If instead of pirating
2681 Microsoft Windows, the Chinese used the free GNU/Linux operating system,
2682 then these Chinese users would not eventually be buying Microsoft.  Without
2683 piracy, then, Microsoft would lose.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2575867"></a>
2684 <a class="indexterm" name="id2575873"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2575880"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2575891"></a>
2685 </p><p>
2686 This argument, too, is somewhat true. The addiction strategy is a good
2687 one. Many businesses practice it. Some thrive because of it. Law students,
2688 for example, are given free access to the two largest legal databases. The
2689 companies marketing both hope the students will become so used to their
2690 service that they will want to use it and not the other when they become
2691 lawyers (and must pay high subscription fees).
2692 </p><p>
2693 Still, the argument is not terribly persuasive. We don't give the alcoholic
2694 a defense when he steals his first beer, merely because that will make it
2695 more likely that he will buy the next three. Instead, we ordinarily allow
2696 businesses to decide for themselves when it is best to give their product
2697 away. If Microsoft fears the competition of GNU/Linux, then Microsoft can
2698 give its product away, as it did, for example, with Internet Explorer to
2699 fight Netscape. A property right means giving the property owner the right
2700 to say who gets access to what&#8212;at least ordinarily. And if the law
2701 properly balances the rights of the copyright owner with the rights of
2702 access, then violating the law is still wrong.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2575617"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2575916"></a>
2703 <a class="indexterm" name="id2575936"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2575943"></a>
2704 </p><p>
2705
2706
2707 Thus, while I understand the pull of these justifications for piracy, and I
2708 certainly see the motivation, in my view, in the end, these efforts at
2709 justifying commercial piracy simply don't cut it. This kind of piracy is
2710 rampant and just plain wrong. It doesn't transform the content it steals; it
2711 doesn't transform the market it competes in. It merely gives someone access
2712 to something that the law says he should not have.  Nothing has changed to
2713 draw that law into doubt. This form of piracy is flat out wrong.
2714 </p><p>
2715 But as the examples from the four chapters that introduced this part
2716 suggest, even if some piracy is plainly wrong, not all <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span>
2717 is. Or at least, not all <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> is wrong if that term is
2718 understood in the way it is increasingly used today. Many kinds of
2719 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> are useful and productive, to produce either new
2720 content or new ways of doing business.  Neither our tradition nor any
2721 tradition has ever banned all <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> in that sense of the
2722 term.
2723 </p><p>
2724 This doesn't mean that there are no questions raised by the latest piracy
2725 concern, peer-to-peer file sharing. But it does mean that we need to
2726 understand the harm in peer-to-peer sharing a bit more before we condemn it
2727 to the gallows with the charge of piracy.
2728 </p><p>
2729 For (1) like the original Hollywood, p2p sharing escapes an overly
2730 controlling industry; and (2) like the original recording industry, it
2731 simply exploits a new way to distribute content; but (3) unlike cable TV, no
2732 one is selling the content that is shared on p2p services.
2733 </p><p>
2734 These differences distinguish p2p sharing from true piracy. They should push
2735 us to find a way to protect artists while enabling this sharing to survive.
2736 </p></div><div class="section" title="5.2. Piracy II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-ii"></a>5.2. Piracy II</h2></div></div></div><p>
2737
2738 The key to the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> that the law aims to quash is a use
2739 that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rob[s] the author of [his] profit.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2576027" href="#ftn.id2576027" class="footnote">73</a>]</sup> This means we must determine whether and how much
2740 p2p sharing harms before we know how strongly the law should seek to either
2741 prevent it or find an alternative to assure the author of his profit.
2742 </p><p>
2743 Peer-to-peer sharing was made famous by Napster. But the inventors of the
2744 Napster technology had not made any major technological innovations.  Like
2745 every great advance in innovation on the Internet (and, arguably, off the
2746 Internet as well<sup>[<a name="id2576051" href="#ftn.id2576051" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
2747 crew had simply put together components that had been developed
2748 independently.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2576081"></a>
2749 </p><p>
2750 The result was spontaneous combustion. Launched in July 1999, Napster
2751 amassed over 10 million users within nine months. After eighteen months,
2752 there were close to 80 million registered users of the system.<sup>[<a name="id2576094" href="#ftn.id2576094" class="footnote">75</a>]</sup> Courts quickly shut Napster down, but other
2753 services emerged to take its place. (Kazaa is currently the most popular p2p
2754 service. It boasts over 100 million members.) These services' systems are
2755 different architecturally, though not very different in function: Each
2756 enables users to make content available to any number of other users. With a
2757 p2p system, you can share your favorite songs with your best friend&#8212;
2758 or your 20,000 best friends.
2759 </p><p>
2760 According to a number of estimates, a huge proportion of Americans have
2761 tasted file-sharing technology. A study by Ipsos-Insight in September 2002
2762 estimated that 60 million Americans had downloaded music&#8212;28 percent of
2763 Americans older than 12.<sup>[<a name="id2576143" href="#ftn.id2576143" class="footnote">76</a>]</sup> A survey by
2764 the NPD group quoted in <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> estimated
2765 that 43 million citizens used file-sharing networks to exchange content in
2766 May 2003.<sup>[<a name="id2576172" href="#ftn.id2576172" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these
2767 are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a massive quantity of content is
2768 being <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taken</span>&#8221;</span> on these networks. The ease and inexpensiveness
2769 of file-sharing networks have inspired millions to enjoy music in a way that
2770 they hadn't before.
2771 </p><p>
2772 Some of this enjoying involves copyright infringement. Some of it does
2773 not. And even among the part that is technically copyright infringement,
2774 calculating the actual harm to copyright owners is more complicated than one
2775 might think. So consider&#8212;a bit more carefully than the polarized
2776 voices around this debate usually do&#8212;the kinds of sharing that file
2777 sharing enables, and the kinds of harm it entails.
2778 </p><p>
2779
2780
2781 Fildelerne deler ulike typer innhold.  Vi kan dele disse ulike typene inn i
2782 fire typer.
2783 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
2784
2785 There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing
2786 content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD,
2787 these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who
2788 takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available
2789 for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who
2790 would.  The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead
2791 of purchasing.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2576231"></a>
2792 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2793
2794
2795 There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing
2796 it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard
2797 of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of
2798 targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed.  If the friend recommending
2799 the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect
2800 that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this
2801 sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.
2802 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2803
2804
2805 There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content
2806 that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the
2807 transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is
2808 among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood
2809 but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the
2810 network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a
2811 solid weekend <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">recalling</span>&#8221;</span> old songs. She was astonished at the
2812 range and mix of content that was available.)  For content not sold, this is
2813 still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright
2814 owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is
2815 zero&#8212;the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s
2816 45-rpm records to a local collector.
2817 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822 Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content
2823 that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.
2824 </p></li></ol></div><p>
2825 Hvordan balanserer disse ulike delingstypene?
2826 </p><p>
2827 Let's start with some simple but important points. From the perspective of
2828 the law, only type D sharing is clearly legal. From the perspective of
2829 economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.<sup>[<a name="id2576302" href="#ftn.id2576302" class="footnote">78</a>]</sup> Type B sharing is illegal but plainly
2830 beneficial. Type C sharing is illegal, yet good for society (since more
2831 exposure to music is good)  and harmless to the artist (since the work is
2832 not otherwise available). So how sharing matters on balance is a hard
2833 question to answer&#8212;and certainly much more difficult than the current
2834 rhetoric around the issue suggests.
2835 </p><p>
2836 Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how harmful
2837 type A sharing is. Just as Edison complained about Hollywood, composers
2838 complained about piano rolls, recording artists complained about radio, and
2839 broadcasters complained about cable TV, the music industry complains that
2840 type A sharing is a kind of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">theft</span>&#8221;</span> that is
2841 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">devastating</span>&#8221;</span> the industry.
2842 </p><p>
2843 While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder
2844 to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame
2845 technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a
2846 good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst &amp; Young put it,
2847 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels
2848 fought it.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2576356" href="#ftn.id2576356" class="footnote">79</a>]</sup> The labels claimed
2849 that every album taped was an album unsold, and when record sales fell by
2850 11.4 percent in 1981, the industry claimed that its point was
2851 proved. Technology was the problem, and banning or regulating technology was
2852 the answer.
2853 </p><p>
2854 Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity to enact
2855 regulation, MTV was launched, and the industry had a record
2856 turnaround. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In the end,</span>&#8221;</span> Cap Gemini concludes, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the
2857 `crisis' &#8230; was not the fault of the tapers&#8212;who did not [stop
2858 after MTV came into being]&#8212;but had to a large extent resulted from
2859 stagnation in musical innovation at the major labels.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2575773" href="#ftn.id2575773" class="footnote">80</a>]</sup>
2860 </p><p>
2861 But just because the industry was wrong before does not mean it is wrong
2862 today. To evaluate the real threat that p2p sharing presents to the industry
2863 in particular, and society in general&#8212;or at least the society that
2864 inherits the tradition that gave us the film industry, the record industry,
2865 the radio industry, cable TV, and the VCR&#8212;the question is not simply
2866 whether type A sharing is harmful. The question is also
2867 <span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> harmful type A sharing is, and how beneficial the
2868 other types of sharing are.
2869 </p><p>
2870 We start to answer this question by focusing on the net harm, from the
2871 standpoint of the industry as a whole, that sharing networks cause.  The
2872 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">net harm</span>&#8221;</span> to the industry as a whole is the amount by which
2873 type A sharing exceeds type B. If the record companies sold more records
2874 through sampling than they lost through substitution, then sharing networks
2875 would actually benefit music companies on balance. They would therefore have
2876 little <span class="emphasis"><em>static</em></span> reason to resist them.
2877
2878 </p><p>
2879 Could that be true? Could the industry as a whole be gaining because of file
2880 sharing? Odd as that might sound, the data about CD sales actually suggest
2881 it might be close.
2882 </p><p>
2883 In 2002, the RIAA reported that CD sales had fallen by 8.9 percent, from 882
2884 million to 803 million units; revenues fell 6.7 percent.<sup>[<a name="id2576461" href="#ftn.id2576461" class="footnote">81</a>]</sup> This confirms a trend over the past few years. The
2885 RIAA blames Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other
2886 causes that could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a
2887 more than 20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since 1999. That no
2888 doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales. Rising prices could
2889 account for at least some of the loss. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">From 1999 to 2001, the average
2890 price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2576519" href="#ftn.id2576519" class="footnote">82</a>]</sup> Competition from other forms of media could also
2891 account for some of the decline. As Jane Black of
2892 <em class="citetitle">BusinessWeek</em> notes, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The soundtrack to the film
2893 <em class="citetitle">High Fidelity</em> has a list price of $18.98. You could
2894 get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2576556" href="#ftn.id2576556" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
2895 </p><p>
2896
2897
2898
2899 But let's assume the RIAA is right, and all of the decline in CD sales is
2900 because of Internet sharing. Here's the rub: In the same period that the
2901 RIAA estimates that 803 million CDs were sold, the RIAA estimates that 2.1
2902 billion CDs were downloaded for free. Thus, although 2.6 times the total
2903 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, sales revenue fell by just 6.7
2904 percent.
2905 </p><p>
2906 There are too many different things happening at the same time to explain
2907 these numbers definitively, but one conclusion is unavoidable: The recording
2908 industry constantly asks, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">What's the difference between downloading a
2909 song and stealing a CD?</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;but their own numbers reveal the
2910 difference. If I steal a CD, then there is one less CD to sell. Every taking
2911 is a lost sale. But on the basis of the numbers the RIAA provides, it is
2912 absolutely clear that the same is not true of downloads. If every download
2913 were a lost sale&#8212;if every use of Kazaa <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rob[bed] the author of
2914 [his] profit</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;then the industry would have suffered a 100
2915 percent drop in sales last year, not a 7 percent drop. If 2.6 times the
2916 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, and yet sales revenue dropped
2917 by just 6.7 percent, then there is a huge difference between
2918 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">downloading a song and stealing a CD.</span>&#8221;</span>
2919 </p><p>
2920 These are the harms&#8212;alleged and perhaps exaggerated but, let's assume,
2921 real. What of the benefits? File sharing may impose costs on the recording
2922 industry. What value does it produce in addition to these costs?
2923 </p><p>
2924 One benefit is type C sharing&#8212;making available content that is
2925 technically still under copyright but is no longer commercially available.
2926 This is not a small category of content. There are millions of tracks that
2927 are no longer commercially available.<sup>[<a name="id2576605" href="#ftn.id2576605" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup>
2928 And while it's conceivable that some of this content is not available
2929 because the artist producing the content doesn't want it to be made
2930 available, the vast majority of it is unavailable solely because the
2931 publisher or the distributor has decided it no longer makes economic sense
2932 <span class="emphasis"><em>to the company</em></span> to make it available.
2933 </p><p>
2934 In real space&#8212;long before the Internet&#8212;the market had a simple
2935 response to this problem: used book and record stores. There are thousands
2936 of used book and used record stores in America today.<sup>[<a name="id2576646" href="#ftn.id2576646" class="footnote">85</a>]</sup> These stores buy content from owners, then sell the
2937 content they buy. And under American copyright law, when they buy and sell
2938 this content, <span class="emphasis"><em>even if the content is still under
2939 copyright</em></span>, the copyright owner doesn't get a dime. Used book and
2940 record stores are commercial entities; their owners make money from the
2941 content they sell; but as with cable companies before statutory licensing,
2942 they don't have to pay the copyright owner for the content they sell.
2943 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2576696"></a><p>
2944 Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used record
2945 stores. It is different, of course, because the person making the content
2946 available isn't making money from making the content available.  It is also
2947 different, of course, because in real space, when I sell a record, I don't
2948 have it anymore, while in cyberspace, when someone shares my 1949 recording
2949 of Bernstein's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Two Love Songs,</span>&#8221;</span> I still have it. That
2950 difference would matter economically if the owner of the copyright were
2951 selling the record in competition to my sharing. But we're talking about the
2952 class of content that is not currently commercially available. The Internet
2953 is making it available, through cooperative sharing, without competing with
2954 the market.
2955 </p><p>
2956 It may well be, all things considered, that it would be better if the
2957 copyright owner got something from this trade. But just because it may well
2958 be better, it doesn't follow that it would be good to ban used book
2959 stores. Or put differently, if you think that type C sharing should be
2960 stopped, do you think that libraries and used book stores should be shut as
2961 well?
2962 </p><p>
2963
2964 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, file-sharing networks enable type D
2965 sharing to occur&#8212;the sharing of content that copyright owners want to
2966 have shared or for which there is no continuing copyright. This sharing
2967 clearly benefits authors and society. Science fiction author Cory Doctorow,
2968 for example, released his first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
2969 Kingdom</em>, both free on-line and in bookstores on the same
2970 day. His (and his publisher's) thinking was that the on-line distribution
2971 would be a great advertisement for the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">real</span>&#8221;</span> book. People
2972 would read part on-line, and then decide whether they liked the book or
2973 not. If they liked it, they would be more likely to buy it. Doctorow's
2974 content is type D content. If sharing networks enable his work to be spread,
2975 then both he and society are better off. (Actually, much better off: It is a
2976 great book!)
2977 </p><p>
2978 Likewise for work in the public domain: This sharing benefits society with
2979 no legal harm to authors at all. If efforts to solve the problem of type A
2980 sharing destroy the opportunity for type D sharing, then we lose something
2981 important in order to protect type A content.
2982 </p><p>
2983 The point throughout is this: While the recording industry understandably
2984 says, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">This is how much we've lost,</span>&#8221;</span> we must also ask,
2985 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">How much has society gained from p2p sharing? What are the
2986 efficiencies? What is the content that otherwise would be
2987 unavailable?</span>&#8221;</span>
2988 </p><p>
2989 For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this chapter, much
2990 of the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> that file sharing enables is plainly legal and
2991 good.  And like the piracy I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="4. CHAPTER FOUR: &#8220;Pirates&#8221;">4</a>, much of this piracy is motivated by a new
2992 way of spreading content caused by changes in the technology of
2993 distribution. Thus, consistent with the tradition that gave us Hollywood,
2994 radio, the recording industry, and cable TV, the question we should be
2995 asking about file sharing is how best to preserve its benefits while
2996 minimizing (to the extent possible) the wrongful harm it causes artists. The
2997 question is one of balance. The law should seek that balance, and that
2998 balance will be found only with time.
2999 </p><p>
3000 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But isn't the war just a war against illegal sharing? Isn't the
3001 target just what you call type A sharing?</span>&#8221;</span>
3002 </p><p>
3003 You would think. And we should hope. But so far, it is not. The effect of
3004 the war purportedly on type A sharing alone has been felt far beyond that
3005 one class of sharing. That much is obvious from the Napster case
3006 itself. When Napster told the district court that it had developed a
3007 technology to block the transfer of 99.4 percent of identified infringing
3008 material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4 percent was not
3009 good enough. Napster had to push the infringements <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">down to
3010 zero.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2576825" href="#ftn.id2576825" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
3011 </p><p>
3012 If 99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing
3013 technologies, not a war on copyright infringement. There is no way to assure
3014 that a p2p system is used 100 percent of the time in compliance with the
3015 law, any more than there is a way to assure that 100 percent of VCRs or 100
3016 percent of Xerox machines or 100 percent of handguns are used in compliance
3017 with the law. Zero tolerance means zero p2p.  The court's ruling means that
3018 we as a society must lose the benefits of p2p, even for the totally legal
3019 and beneficial uses they serve, simply to assure that there are zero
3020 copyright infringements caused by p2p.
3021 </p><p>
3022 Zero tolerance has not been our history. It has not produced the content
3023 industry that we know today. The history of American law has been a process
3024 of balance. As new technologies changed the way content was distributed, the
3025 law adjusted, after some time, to the new technology.  In this adjustment,
3026 the law sought to ensure the legitimate rights of creators while protecting
3027 innovation. Sometimes this has meant more rights for creators. Sometimes
3028 less.
3029 </p><p>
3030 So, as we've seen, when <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">mechanical reproduction</span>&#8221;</span> threatened
3031 the interests of composers, Congress balanced the rights of composers
3032 against the interests of the recording industry. It granted rights to
3033 composers, but also to the recording artists: Composers were to be paid, but
3034 at a price set by Congress. But when radio started broadcasting the
3035 recordings made by these recording artists, and they complained to Congress
3036 that their <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> was not being respected (since
3037 the radio station did not have to pay them for the creativity it broadcast),
3038 Congress rejected their claim. An indirect benefit was enough.
3039 </p><p>
3040 Cable TV followed the pattern of record albums. When the courts rejected the
3041 claim that cable broadcasters had to pay for the content they rebroadcast,
3042 Congress responded by giving broadcasters a right to compensation, but at a
3043 level set by the law. It likewise gave cable companies the right to the
3044 content, so long as they paid the statutory price.
3045 </p><p>
3046
3047
3048
3049 This compromise, like the compromise affecting records and player pianos,
3050 served two important goals&#8212;indeed, the two central goals of any
3051 copyright legislation. First, the law assured that new innovators would have
3052 the freedom to develop new ways to deliver content.  Second, the law assured
3053 that copyright holders would be paid for the content that was
3054 distributed. One fear was that if Congress simply required cable TV to pay
3055 copyright holders whatever they demanded for their content, then copyright
3056 holders associated with broadcasters would use their power to stifle this
3057 new technology, cable. But if Congress had permitted cable to use
3058 broadcasters' content for free, then it would have unfairly subsidized
3059 cable. Thus Congress chose a path that would assure
3060 <span class="emphasis"><em>compensation</em></span> without giving the past (broadcasters)
3061 control over the future (cable).
3062 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2576926"></a><p>
3063 In the same year that Congress struck this balance, two major producers and
3064 distributors of film content filed a lawsuit against another technology, the
3065 video tape recorder (VTR, or as we refer to them today, VCRs) that Sony had
3066 produced, the Betamax. Disney's and Universal's claim against Sony was
3067 relatively simple: Sony produced a device, Disney and Universal claimed,
3068 that enabled consumers to engage in copyright infringement. Because the
3069 device that Sony built had a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">record</span>&#8221;</span> button, the device could
3070 be used to record copyrighted movies and shows. Sony was therefore
3071 benefiting from the copyright infringement of its customers. It should
3072 therefore, Disney and Universal claimed, be partially liable for that
3073 infringement.
3074 </p><p>
3075
3076 There was something to Disney's and Universal's claim. Sony did decide to
3077 design its machine to make it very simple to record television shows. It
3078 could have built the machine to block or inhibit any direct copying from a
3079 television broadcast. Or possibly, it could have built the machine to copy
3080 only if there were a special <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy me</span>&#8221;</span> signal on the line. It
3081 was clear that there were many television shows that did not grant anyone
3082 permission to copy. Indeed, if anyone had asked, no doubt the majority of
3083 shows would not have authorized copying. And in the face of this obvious
3084 preference, Sony could have designed its system to minimize the opportunity
3085 for copyright infringement. It did not, and for that, Disney and Universal
3086 wanted to hold it responsible for the architecture it chose.
3087 </p><p>
3088 MPAA president Jack Valenti became the studios' most vocal champion. Valenti
3089 called VCRs <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">tapeworms.</span>&#8221;</span> He warned, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">When there are 20,
3090 30, 40 million of these VCRs in the land, we will be invaded by millions of
3091 `tapeworms,' eating away at the very heart and essence of the most precious
3092 asset the copyright owner has, his copyright.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2576986" href="#ftn.id2576986" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">One does not have to be trained in
3093 sophisticated marketing and creative judgment,</span>&#8221;</span> he told Congress,
3094 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">to understand the devastation on the after-theater marketplace caused
3095 by the hundreds of millions of tapings that will adversely impact on the
3096 future of the creative community in this country. It is simply a question of
3097 basic economics and plain common sense.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2577008" href="#ftn.id2577008" class="footnote">88</a>]</sup> Indeed, as surveys would later show, percent of VCR owners had
3098 movie libraries of ten videos or more<sup>[<a name="id2577017" href="#ftn.id2577017" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup>
3099 &#8212; a use the Court would later hold was not <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair.</span>&#8221;</span> By
3100 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the means of an exemption from
3101 copyright infringementwithout creating a mechanism to compensate
3102 copyrightowners,</span>&#8221;</span> Valenti testified, Congress would <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">take from
3103 the owners the very essence of their property: the exclusive right to
3104 control who may use their work, that is, who may copy it and thereby profit
3105 from its reproduction.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2577046" href="#ftn.id2577046" class="footnote">90</a>]</sup>
3106 </p><p>
3107 It took eight years for this case to be resolved by the Supreme Court. In
3108 the interim, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Hollywood in
3109 its jurisdiction&#8212;leading Judge Alex Kozinski, who sits on that court,
3110 refers to it as the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hollywood Circuit</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;held that Sony
3111 would be liable for the copyright infringement made possible by its
3112 machines. Under the Ninth Circuit's rule, this totally familiar
3113 technology&#8212;which Jack Valenti had called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the Boston Strangler
3114 of the American film industry</span>&#8221;</span> (worse yet, it was a
3115 <span class="emphasis"><em>Japanese</em></span> Boston Strangler of the American film
3116 industry)&#8212;was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id2577068" href="#ftn.id2577068" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2577092"></a>
3117 </p><p>
3118
3119 But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit.  And in
3120 its reversal, the Court clearly articulated its understanding of when and
3121 whether courts should intervene in such disputes. As the Court wrote,
3122 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3123 Sound policy, as well as history, supports our consistent deference to
3124 Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for
3125 copyrighted materials. Congress has the constitutional authority and the
3126 institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of
3127 competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new
3128 technology.<sup>[<a name="id2577118" href="#ftn.id2577118" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
3129 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3130 Congress was asked to respond to the Supreme Court's decision.  But as with
3131 the plea of recording artists about radio broadcasts, Congress ignored the
3132 request. Congress was convinced that American film got enough, this
3133 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taking</span>&#8221;</span> notwithstanding.  If we put these cases together, a
3134 pattern is clear:
3135 </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">WHOSE VALUE WAS <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">PIRATED</span>&#8221;</span></th><th align="char">Responsen til domstolene</th><th align="char">Responsen til Kongressen</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Innspillinger</td><td align="char">Komponister</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Radio</td><td align="char">Innspillingsartister</td><td align="char">N/A</td><td align="char">Ingenting</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Kabel-TV</td><td align="char">Kringkastere</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="char">VCR</td><td align="char">Filmskapere</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Ingenting</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
3136 In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the way
3137 content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id2577250" href="#ftn.id2577250" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
3138 throughout our history, that change meant that someone got a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free
3139 ride</span>&#8221;</span> on someone else's work.
3140 </p><p>
3141
3142 In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these cases did either the courts or
3143 Congress eliminate all free riding. In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these
3144 cases did the courts or Congress insist that the law should assure that the
3145 copyright holder get all the value that his copyright created. In every
3146 case, the copyright owners complained of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy.</span>&#8221;</span> In every
3147 case, Congress acted to recognize some of the legitimacy in the behavior of
3148 the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirates.</span>&#8221;</span> In each case, Congress allowed some new
3149 technology to benefit from content made before. It balanced the interests at
3150 stake.
3151
3152 </p><p>
3153 When you think across these examples, and the other examples that make up
3154 the first four chapters of this section, this balance makes sense. Was Walt
3155 Disney a pirate? Would doujinshi be better if creators had to ask
3156 permission? Should tools that enable others to capture and spread images as
3157 a way to cultivate or criticize our culture be better regulated? Is it
3158 really right that building a search engine should expose you to $15 million
3159 in damages? Would it have been better if Edison had controlled film? Should
3160 every cover band have to hire a lawyer to get permission to record a song?
3161 </p><p>
3162 We could answer yes to each of these questions, but our tradition has
3163 answered no. In our tradition, as the Supreme Court has stated, copyright
3164 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all
3165 possible uses of his work.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2577344" href="#ftn.id2577344" class="footnote">94</a>]</sup>
3166 Instead, the particular uses that the law regulates have been defined by
3167 balancing the good that comes from granting an exclusive right against the
3168 burdens such an exclusive right creates. And this balancing has historically
3169 been done <span class="emphasis"><em>after</em></span> a technology has matured, or settled
3170 into the mix of technologies that facilitate the distribution of content.
3171 </p><p>
3172 We should be doing the same thing today. The technology of the Internet is
3173 changing quickly. The way people connect to the Internet (wires
3174 vs. wireless) is changing very quickly. No doubt the network should not
3175 become a tool for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stealing</span>&#8221;</span> from artists. But neither should
3176 the law become a tool to entrench one particular way in which artists (or
3177 more accurately, distributors) get paid. As I describe in some detail in the
3178 last chapter of this book, we should be securing income to artists while we
3179 allow the market to secure the most efficient way to promote and distribute
3180 content. This will require changes in the law, at least in the
3181 interim. These changes should be designed to balance the protection of the
3182 law against the strong public interest that innovation continue.
3183 </p><p>
3184
3185
3186 This is especially true when a new technology enables a vastly superior mode
3187 of distribution. And this p2p has done. P2p technologies can be ideally
3188 efficient in moving content across a widely diverse network.  Left to
3189 develop, they could make the network vastly more efficient.  Yet these
3190 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">potential public benefits,</span>&#8221;</span> as John Schwartz writes in
3191 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">could be delayed in the
3192 P2P fight.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2577408" href="#ftn.id2577408" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup> Yet when anyone
3193 begins to talk about <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">balance,</span>&#8221;</span> the copyright warriors raise a
3194 different argument. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All this hand waving about balance and
3195 incentives,</span>&#8221;</span> they say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">misses a fundamental point. Our
3196 content,</span>&#8221;</span> the warriors insist, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">is our
3197 <span class="emphasis"><em>property</em></span>. Why should we wait for Congress to
3198 `rebalance' our property rights? Do you have to wait before calling the
3199 police when your car has been stolen? And why should Congress deliberate at
3200 all about the merits of this theft? Do we ask whether the car thief had a
3201 good use for the car before we arrest him?</span>&#8221;</span>
3202 </p><p>
3203 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">It is <span class="emphasis"><em>our property</em></span>,</span>&#8221;</span> the warriors
3204 insist. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">And it should be protected just as any other property is
3205 protected.</span>&#8221;</span>
3206 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575461" href="#id2575461" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
3207
3208
3209 See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry),
3210 <em class="citetitle">The Recording Industry Commercial Piracy Report 2003</em>,
3211 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
3212 #14</a>. See also Ben Hunt, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Companies Warned on Music Piracy
3213 Risk,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Financial Times</em>, 14 February 2003, 11.
3214 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575698" href="#id2575698" class="para">71</a>] </sup>
3215
3216 See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism:
3217 <em class="citetitle">Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New
3218 Press, 2003), 10&#8211;13, 209.  The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
3219 Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement obligates member nations to create
3220 administrative and enforcement mechanisms for intellectual property rights,
3221 a costly proposition for developing countries. Additionally, patent rights
3222 may lead to higher prices for staple industries such as agriculture. Critics
3223 of TRIPS question the disparity between burdens imposed upon developing
3224 countries and benefits conferred to industrialized nations. TRIPS does
3225 permit governments to use patents for public, noncommercial uses without
3226 first obtaining the patent holder's permission. Developing nations may be
3227 able to use this to gain the benefits of foreign patents at lower
3228 prices. This is a promising strategy for developing nations within the TRIPS
3229 framework.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2574921"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2575742"></a>
3230 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575762" href="#id2575762" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
3231
3232 For an analysis of the economic impact of copying technology, see Stan
3233 Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em> (New York:
3234 Amacom, 2002), 144&#8211;90. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In some instances &#8230; the impact of
3235 piracy on the copyright holder's ability to appropriate the value of the
3236 work will be negligible. One obvious instance is the case where the
3237 individual engaging in pirating would not have purchased an original even if
3238 pirating were not an option.</span>&#8221;</span> Ibid., 149.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2575779"></a>
3239 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576027" href="#id2576027" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
3240
3241
3242 <em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
3243 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777).
3244 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576051" href="#id2576051" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
3245
3246 See Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
3247 Revolutionary National Bestseller That Changed the Way We Do
3248 Business</em> (New York: HarperBusiness, 2000). Professor Christensen
3249 examines why companies that give rise to and dominate a product area are
3250 frequently unable to come up with the most creative, paradigm-shifting uses
3251 for their own products.  This job usually falls to outside innovators, who
3252 reassemble existing technology in inventive ways. For a discussion of
3253 Christensen's ideas, see Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>,
3254 89&#8211;92, 139.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2575771"></a>
3255 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576094" href="#id2576094" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
3256
3257
3258 See Carolyn Lochhead, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood
3259 Nightmare,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24
3260 September 2002, A1; <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Rock 'n' Roll Suicide,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New
3261 Scientist</em>, 6 July 2002, 42; Benny Evangelista, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Napster
3262 Names CEO, Secures New Financing,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
3263 Chronicle</em>, 23 May 2003, C1; <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Napster's Wake-Up
3264 Call,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24 June 2000, 23; John
3265 Naughton, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hollywood at War with the Internet</span>&#8221;</span> (London)
3266 <em class="citetitle">Times</em>, 26 July 2002, 18.
3267 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576143" href="#id2576143" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
3268
3269
3270
3271 See Ipsos-Insight, <em class="citetitle">TEMPO: Keeping Pace with Online Music
3272 Distribution</em> (September 2002), reporting that 28 percent of
3273 Americans aged twelve and older have downloaded music off of the Internet
3274 and 30 percent have listened to digital music files stored on their
3275 computers.
3276 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576172" href="#id2576172" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
3277
3278
3279 Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,</span>&#8221;</span>
3280 <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 6 June 2003, A1.
3281 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576302" href="#id2576302" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
3282
3283 Se Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
3284 148&#8211;49.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2576070"></a>
3285 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576356" href="#id2576356" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
3286
3287
3288 See Cap Gemini Ernst &amp; Young, <em class="citetitle">Technology Evolution and the
3289 Music Industry's Business Model Crisis</em> (2003), 3. This report
3290 describes the music industry's effort to stigmatize the budding practice of
3291 cassette taping in the 1970s, including an advertising campaign featuring a
3292 cassette-shape skull and the caption <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Home taping is killing
3293 music.</span>&#8221;</span> At the time digital audio tape became a threat, the Office of
3294 Technical Assessment conducted a survey of consumer behavior. In 1988, 40
3295 percent of consumers older than ten had taped music to a cassette
3296 format. U.S.  Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,
3297 <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the
3298 Law</em>, OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.  Government Printing
3299 Office, October 1989), 145&#8211;56.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2575773" href="#id2575773" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
3300
3301
3302 U.S. Congress, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying</em>, 4.
3303 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576461" href="#id2576461" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
3304
3305
3306 See Recording Industry Association of America, <em class="citetitle">2002 Yearend
3307 Statistics</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #15</a>. A later report
3308 indicates even greater losses. See Recording Industry Association of
3309 America, <em class="citetitle">Some Facts About Music Piracy</em>, 25 June 2003,
3310 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #16</a>:
3311 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In the past four years, unit shipments of recorded music have fallen
3312 by 26 percent from 1.16 billion units in to 860 million units in 2002 in the
3313 United States (based on units shipped).  In terms of sales, revenues are
3314 down 14 percent, from $14.6 billion in to $12.6 billion last year (based on
3315 U.S. dollar value of shipments). The music industry worldwide has gone from
3316 a $39 billion industry in 2000 down to a $32 billion industry in 2002 (based
3317 on U.S. dollar value of shipments).</span>&#8221;</span>
3318 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576519" href="#id2576519" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
3319 Jane Black, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Big Music's Broken Record,</span>&#8221;</span> BusinessWeek online,
3320 13 February 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2576535"></a>
3321 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576556" href="#id2576556" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
3322
3323
3324 ibid.
3325 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576605" href="#id2576605" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
3326
3327
3328 By one estimate, 75 percent of the music released by the major labels is no
3329 longer in print. See Online Entertainment and Copyright Law&#8212;Coming
3330 Soon to a Digital Device Near You: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on
3331 the Judiciary, 107th Cong., 1st sess. (3 April 2001) (prepared statement of
3332 the Future of Music Coalition), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #18</a>.
3333 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576646" href="#id2576646" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
3334
3335
3336 While there are not good estimates of the number of used record stores in
3337 existence, in 2002, there were 7,198 used book dealers in the United States,
3338 an increase of 20 percent since 1993. See Book Hunter Press, <em class="citetitle">The
3339 Quiet Revolution: The Expansion of the Used Book Market</em> (2002),
3340 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
3341 #19</a>. Used records accounted for $260 million in sales in 2002. See
3342 National Association of Recording Merchandisers, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">2002 Annual Survey
3343 Results,</span>&#8221;</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #20</a>.
3344 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576825" href="#id2576825" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
3345
3346
3347 See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34- 35
3348 (N.D. Cal., 11 July 2001), nos. MDL-00-1369 MHP, C 99-5183 MHP, available at
3349 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #21</a>. For an account
3350 of the litigation and its toll on Napster, see Joseph Menn, <em class="citetitle">All
3351 the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster</em> (New
3352 York: Crown Business, 2003), 269&#8211;82.
3353 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576986" href="#id2576986" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
3354
3355
3356 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders): Hearing on S. 1758
3357 Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess.,
3358 459 (1982) (testimony of Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association
3359 of America, Inc.).
3360 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577008" href="#id2577008" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
3361
3362
3363 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
3364 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577017" href="#id2577017" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
3365
3366
3367 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Sony
3368 Corp. of America</em>, 480 F. Supp. 429, (C.D. Cal., 1979).
3369 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577046" href="#id2577046" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
3370
3371
3372 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (testimony of Jack
3373 Valenti).
3374 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577068" href="#id2577068" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
3375
3376
3377 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Sony
3378 Corp. of America</em>, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th Cir.  1981).
3379 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577118" href="#id2577118" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
3380
3381
3382 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3383 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984).
3384 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577250" href="#id2577250" class="para">93</a>] </sup>
3385
3386 These are the most important instances in our history, but there are other
3387 cases as well. The technology of digital audio tape (DAT), for example, was
3388 regulated by Congress to minimize the risk of piracy. The remedy Congress
3389 imposed did burden DAT producers, by taxing tape sales and controlling the
3390 technology of DAT. See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (Title 17 of the
3391 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>), Pub. L. No. 102-563, 106 Stat.
3392 4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. §1001. Again, however, this regulation did not
3393 eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
3394 Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. See also Picker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">From
3395 Edison to the Broadcast Flag,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law
3396 Review</em> 70 (2003): 293&#8211;96.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2576846"></a>
3397 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577344" href="#id2577344" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
3398
3399
3400 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3401 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, (1984).
3402 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577408" href="#id2577408" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
3403
3404
3405 John Schwartz, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software
3406 Echoes Past Efforts,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 22
3407 September 2003, C3.
3408 </p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Part II. &#8220;PROPERTY&#8221;"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-property"></a>Part II. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">PROPERTY</span>&#8221;</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="&#8220;PROPERTY&#8221;"><div></div><p>
3409
3410
3411
3412 Opphavsretts-krigerne har rett: Opphavsretten er en type eiendom. Den kan
3413 eies og selges, og loven beskytter mot at den blir stjålet. Vanligvis, kan
3414 opphavsrettseieren be om hvilken som helst pris som han ønsker.  Markeder
3415 bestemmer tilbud og etterspørsel som i hvert tilfelle bestemmer prisen hun
3416 kan få.
3417 </p><p>
3418 But in ordinary language, to call a copyright a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span>
3419 right is a bit misleading, for the property of copyright is an odd kind of
3420 property.  Indeed, the very idea of property in any idea or any expression
3421 is very odd. I understand what I am taking when I take the picnic table you
3422 put in your backyard. I am taking a thing, the picnic table, and after I
3423 take it, you don't have it. But what am I taking when I take the good
3424 <span class="emphasis"><em>idea</em></span> you had to put a picnic table in the
3425 backyard&#8212;by, for example, going to Sears, buying a table, and putting
3426 it in my backyard? What is the thing I am taking then?
3427 </p><p>
3428 The point is not just about the thingness of picnic tables versus ideas,
3429 though that's an important difference. The point instead is that in the
3430 ordinary case&#8212;indeed, in practically every case except for a narrow
3431 range of exceptions&#8212;ideas released to the world are free. I don't take
3432 anything from you when I copy the way you dress&#8212;though I might seem
3433 weird if I did it every day, and especially weird if you are a
3434 woman. Instead, as Thomas Jefferson said (and as is especially true when I
3435 copy the way someone else dresses), <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">He who receives an idea from me,
3436 receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his
3437 taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2577520" href="#ftn.id2577520" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
3438 </p><p>
3439 Unntakene til fri bruk er ideer og uttrykk innenfor dekningsområdet til
3440 loven om patent og opphavsrett, og noen få andre områder som jeg ikke vil
3441 diskutere her.  Her sier loven at du ikke kan ta min ide eller uttrykk uten
3442 min tilatelse: Loven gjør det flyktige til eiendom.
3443 </p><p>
3444 But how, and to what extent, and in what form&#8212;the details, in other
3445 words&#8212;matter. To get a good sense of how this practice of turning the
3446 intangible into property emerged, we need to place this
3447 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> in its proper context.<sup>[<a name="id2577571" href="#ftn.id2577571" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
3448 </p><p>
3449 My strategy in doing this will be the same as my strategy in the preceding
3450 part. I offer four stories to help put the idea of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright material
3451 is property</span>&#8221;</span> in context. Where did the idea come from? What are its
3452 limits? How does it function in practice? After these stories, the
3453 significance of this true statement&#8212;<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright material is
3454 property</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212; will be a bit more clear, and its implications will
3455 be revealed as quite different from the implications that the copyright
3456 warriors would have us draw.
3457 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577520" href="#id2577520" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
3458
3459
3460 Brev fra Thomas Jefferson til Isaac McPherson (13. august 1813) i
3461 <em class="citetitle">The Writings of Thomas Jefferson</em>, vol. 6 (Andrew
3462 A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, eds., 1903), 330, 333&#8211;34.
3463 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577571" href="#id2577571" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
3464
3465
3466 As the legal realists taught American law, all property rights are
3467 intangible.  A property right is simply a right that an individual has
3468 against the world to do or not do certain things that may or may not attach
3469 to a physical object. The right itself is intangible, even if the object to
3470 which it is (metaphorically) attached is tangible. See Adam Mossoff,
3471 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">What Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together,</span>&#8221;</span>
3472 <em class="citetitle">Arizona Law Review</em> 45 (2003): 373, 429 n. 241.
3473 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2577624"></a><p>
3474 William Shakespeare wrote <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> in
3475 1595. The play was first published in 1597. It was the eleventh major play
3476 that Shakespeare had written. He would continue to write plays through 1613,
3477 and the plays that he wrote have continued to define Anglo-American culture
3478 ever since. So deeply have the works of a sixteenth-century writer seeped
3479 into our culture that we often don't even recognize their source.  I once
3480 overheard someone commenting on Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Henry V:
3481 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I liked it, but Shakespeare is so full of clichés.</span>&#8221;</span>
3482 </p><p>
3483
3484 In 1774, almost 180 years after <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> was
3485 written, the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy-right</span>&#8221;</span> for the work was still thought by
3486 many to be the exclusive right of a single London publisher, Jacob
3487 Tonson.<sup>[<a name="id2577662" href="#ftn.id2577662" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson was the most prominent
3488 of a small group of publishers called the Conger<sup>[<a name="id2577690" href="#ftn.id2577690" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup> who controlled bookselling in England during the eighteenth
3489 century. The Conger claimed a perpetual right to control the
3490 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy</span>&#8221;</span> of books that they had acquired from authors. That
3491 perpetual right meant that no one else could publish copies of a book to
3492 which they held the copyright.  Prices of the classics were thus kept high;
3493 competition to produce better or cheaper editions was eliminated.
3494 </p><p>
3495 Now, there's something puzzling about the year 1774 to anyone who knows a
3496 little about copyright law. The better-known year in the history of
3497 copyright is 1710, the year that the British Parliament adopted the first
3498 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> act. Known as the Statute of Anne, the act stated
3499 that all published works would get a copyright term of fourteen years,
3500 renewable once if the author was alive, and that all works already published
3501 by 1710 would get a single term of twenty-one additional years.<sup>[<a name="id2577726" href="#ftn.id2577726" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> Under this law, <em class="citetitle">Romeo and
3502 Juliet</em> should have been free in 1731. So why was there any issue
3503 about it still being under Tonson's control in 1774?
3504 </p><p>
3505 The reason is that the English hadn't yet agreed on what a
3506 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> was&#8212;indeed, no one had. At the time the
3507 English passed the Statute of Anne, there was no other legislation governing
3508 copyrights.  The last law regulating publishers, the Licensing Act of 1662,
3509 had expired in 1695. That law gave publishers a monopoly over publishing, as
3510 a way to make it easier for the Crown to control what was published.  But
3511 after it expired, there was no positive law that said that the publishers,
3512 or <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Stationers,</span>&#8221;</span> had an exclusive right to print books.
3513 <a class="indexterm" name="id2577770"></a>
3514 </p><p>
3515 There was no <span class="emphasis"><em>positive</em></span> law, but that didn't mean that
3516 there was no law. The Anglo-American legal tradition looks to both the words
3517 of legislatures and the words of judges to know the rules that are to govern
3518 how people are to behave. We call the words from legislatures
3519 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">positive law.</span>&#8221;</span> We call the words from judges <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">common
3520 law.</span>&#8221;</span> The common law sets the background against which legislatures
3521 legislate; the legislature, ordinarily, can trump that background only if it
3522 passes a law to displace it. And so the real question after the licensing
3523 statutes had expired was whether the common law protected a copyright,
3524 independent of any positive law.
3525 </p><p>
3526
3527 This question was important to the publishers, or
3528 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">booksellers,</span>&#8221;</span> as they were called, because there was growing
3529 competition from foreign publishers. The Scottish, in particular, were
3530 increasingly publishing and exporting books to England. That competition
3531 reduced the profits of the Conger, which reacted by demanding that
3532 Parliament pass a law to again give them exclusive control over
3533 publishing. That demand ultimately resulted in the Statute of Anne.
3534 </p><p>
3535 The Statute of Anne granted the author or <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">proprietor</span>&#8221;</span> of a
3536 book an exclusive right to print that book. In an important limitation,
3537 however, and to the horror of the booksellers, the law gave the bookseller
3538 that right for a limited term. At the end of that term, the copyright
3539 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">expired,</span>&#8221;</span> and the work would then be free and could be
3540 published by anyone. Or so the legislature is thought to have believed.
3541 </p><p>
3542 Men nå det mest interessante med dette: Hvorfor ville parlamentet begrense
3543 trykkeretten? Sprøsmålet er ikke hvorfor de bestemte seg for denne perioden,
3544 men hvorfor ville de begrense retten <span class="emphasis"><em>i det hele tatt?</em></span>
3545 </p><p>
3546 For the booksellers, and the authors whom they represented, had a very
3547 strong claim. Take <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> as an example:
3548 That play was written by Shakespeare. It was his genius that brought it into
3549 the world. He didn't take anybody's property when he created this play
3550 (that's a controversial claim, but never mind), and by his creating this
3551 play, he didn't make it any harder for others to craft a play. So why is it
3552 that the law would ever allow someone else to come along and take
3553 Shakespeare's play without his, or his estate's, permission? What reason is
3554 there to allow someone else to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">steal</span>&#8221;</span> Shakespeare's work?
3555 </p><p>
3556 The answer comes in two parts. We first need to see something special about
3557 the notion of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> that existed at the time of the
3558 Statute of Anne. Second, we have to see something important about
3559 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">booksellers.</span>&#8221;</span>
3560 </p><p>
3561
3562 First, about copyright. In the last three hundred years, we have come to
3563 apply the concept of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> ever more broadly. But in
3564 1710, it wasn't so much a concept as it was a very particular right. The
3565 copyright was born as a very specific set of restrictions: It forbade others
3566 from reprinting a book. In 1710, the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy-right</span>&#8221;</span> was a right
3567 to use a particular machine to replicate a particular work. It did not go
3568 beyond that very narrow right. It did not control any more generally how a
3569 work could be <span class="emphasis"><em>used</em></span>. Today the right includes a large
3570 collection of restrictions on the freedom of others: It grants the author
3571 the exclusive right to copy, the exclusive right to distribute, the
3572 exclusive right to perform, and so on.
3573 </p><p>
3574 So, for example, even if the copyright to Shakespeare's works were
3575 perpetual, all that would have meant under the original meaning of the term
3576 was that no one could reprint Shakespeare's work without the permission of
3577 the Shakespeare estate. It would not have controlled anything, for example,
3578 about how the work could be performed, whether the work could be translated,
3579 or whether Kenneth Branagh would be allowed to make his films. The
3580 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy-right</span>&#8221;</span> was only an exclusive right to print&#8212;no
3581 less, of course, but also no more.
3582 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2577922"></a><p>
3583 Even that limited right was viewed with skepticism by the British.  They had
3584 had a long and ugly experience with <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">exclusive rights,</span>&#8221;</span>
3585 especially <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">exclusive rights</span>&#8221;</span> granted by the Crown. The English
3586 had fought a civil war in part about the Crown's practice of handing out
3587 monopolies&#8212;especially monopolies for works that already existed. King
3588 Henry VIII granted a patent to print the Bible and a monopoly to Darcy to
3589 print playing cards. The English Parliament began to fight back against this
3590 power of the Crown. In 1656, it passed the Statute of Monopolies, limiting
3591 monopolies to patents for new inventions. And by 1710, Parliament was eager
3592 to deal with the growing monopoly in publishing.
3593 </p><p>
3594 Thus the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy-right,</span>&#8221;</span> when viewed as a monopoly right, was
3595 naturally viewed as a right that should be limited. (However convincing the
3596 claim that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">it's my property, and I should have it forever,</span>&#8221;</span>
3597 try sounding convincing when uttering, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">It's my monopoly, and I should
3598 have it forever.</span>&#8221;</span>) The state would protect the exclusive right, but
3599 only so long as it benefited society. The British saw the harms from
3600 specialinterest favors; they passed a law to stop them.
3601 </p><p>
3602 Second, about booksellers. It wasn't just that the copyright was a
3603 monopoly. It was also that it was a monopoly held by the booksellers.
3604 Booksellers sound quaint and harmless to us. They were not viewed as
3605 harmless in seventeenth-century England. Members of the Conger were
3606 increasingly seen as monopolists of the worst kind&#8212;tools of the
3607 Crown's repression, selling the liberty of England to guarantee themselves a
3608 monopoly profit. The attacks against these monopolists were harsh: Milton
3609 described them as <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">old patentees and monopolizers in the trade of
3610 book-selling</span>&#8221;</span>; they were <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">men who do not therefore labour in an
3611 honest profession to which learning is indetted.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2577990" href="#ftn.id2577990" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
3612 </p><p>
3613 Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap,
3614 var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste
3615 Opplysningen viktigheten av utdannelse og kunnskap for alle. idéen om at
3616 kunnskap burde være gratis er et kjennetegn for tiden, og disse kraftige
3617 kommersielle interesser forstyrret denne idéen.
3618 </p><p>
3619 For å balansere denne makten, besluttet Parlamentet å øke konkurransen blant
3620 bokhandlerne, og den enkleste måten å gjøre det på, var å spre mengden av
3621 verdifulle bøker. Parlamentet begrenset derfor begrepet om opphavsrett, og
3622 garantert slik at verdifulle bøker ville bli frie for alle utgiver å
3623 publisere etter en begrenset periode. Slik ble det å gi eksisterende verk en
3624 periode på tjueen år et kompromiss for å bekjempe bokhandlernes
3625 makt. Begrensninger med dato var en indirekte måte å skape konkurranse
3626 mellom utgivere, og slik en skapelse og spredning av kultur.
3627 </p><p>
3628 Når 1731 (1710+21) kom, ble bokhandlerne engstelige. De så konsekvensene av
3629 mer konkurranse, og som alle konkurrenter, likte de det ikke. Først
3630 ignorerte bokhandlere ganske enkelt "Statute of Anne", og fortsatte å kreve
3631 en evigvarende rett til å kontrollere publiseringen. Men i 1735 og 1737 de
3632 prøvde å tvinge Parlamentet til å utvide periodene. Tjueen år var ikke nok,
3633 sa de; de trengte mer tid.
3634 </p><p>
3635 Parlamentet avslo kravene, Som en pamflett sa, i en vending som levere ennå
3636 idag,
3637 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3638 Jeg ser ingen grunn til å gi en utvidet perioden nå som ikke ville kunne gi
3639 utvidelser om igjen og om igjen, så fort de gamle utgår; så dersom dette
3640 lovforslaget blir vedtatt, vil effekten være: at et evig monopol blir skapt,
3641 et stort nederlag for handelen, et angrep mot kunnskapen, ingen fordel for
3642 forfatterne, men en stor avgift for folket; og alt dette kun for å øke
3643 bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<sup>[<a name="id2578066" href="#ftn.id2578066" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
3644 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3645 Having failed in Parliament, the publishers turned to the courts in a series
3646 of cases. Their argument was simple and direct: The Statute of Anne gave
3647 authors certain protections through positive law, but those protections were
3648 not intended as replacements for the common law.  Instead, they were
3649 intended simply to supplement the common law.  Under common law, it was
3650 already wrong to take another person's creative <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> and
3651 use it without his permission. The Statute of Anne, the booksellers argued,
3652 didn't change that. Therefore, just because the protections of the Statute
3653 of Anne expired, that didn't mean the protections of the common law expired:
3654 Under the common law they had the right to ban the publication of a book,
3655 even if its Statute of Anne copyright had expired. This, they argued, was
3656 the only way to protect authors.
3657 </p><p>
3658 This was a clever argument, and one that had the support of some of the
3659 leading jurists of the day. It also displayed extraordinary chutzpah.  Until
3660 then, as law professor Raymond Patterson has put it, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The publishers
3661 &#8230; had as much concern for authors as a cattle rancher has for
3662 cattle.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2576401" href="#ftn.id2576401" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> The bookseller didn't
3663 care squat for the rights of the author.  His concern was the monopoly
3664 profit that the author's work gave.
3665 </p><p>
3666 Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne
3667 kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id2578151" href="#ftn.id2578151" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
3668 </p><p>
3669 Donaldson was an outsider to the London Conger. He began his career in
3670 Edinburgh in 1750. The focus of his business was inexpensive reprints
3671 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">of standard works whose copyright term had expired,</span>&#8221;</span> at least
3672 under the Statute of Anne.<sup>[<a name="id2578173" href="#ftn.id2578173" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldson's
3673 publishing house prospered and became <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">something of a center for
3674 literary Scotsmen.</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">[A]mong them,</span>&#8221;</span> Professor Mark Rose
3675 writes, was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the young James Boswell who, together with his friend
3676 Andrew Erskine, published an anthology of contemporary Scottish poems with
3677 Donaldson.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2578203" href="#ftn.id2578203" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2578212"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2578218"></a>
3678 </p><p>
3679 When the London booksellers tried to shut down Donaldson's shop in Scotland,
3680 he responded by moving his shop to London, where he sold inexpensive
3681 editions <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">of the most popular English books, in defiance of the
3682 supposed common law right of Literary Property.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2578234" href="#ftn.id2578234" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> His books undercut the Conger prices by 30 to 50
3683 percent, and he rested his right to compete upon the ground that, under the
3684 Statute of Anne, the works he was selling had passed out of protection.
3685 </p><p>
3686 The London booksellers quickly brought suit to block <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span>
3687 like Donaldson's. A number of actions were successful against the
3688 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirates,</span>&#8221;</span> the most important early victory being
3689 <em class="citetitle">Millar</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Taylor</em>.
3690 </p><p>
3691 Millar was a bookseller who in 1729 had purchased the rights to James
3692 Thomson's poem <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Seasons.</span>&#8221;</span> Millar complied with the
3693 requirements of the Statute of Anne, and therefore received the full
3694 protection of the statute. After the term of copyright ended, Robert Taylor
3695 began printing a competing volume. Millar sued, claiming a perpetual common
3696 law right, the Statute of Anne notwithstanding.<sup>[<a name="id2578280" href="#ftn.id2578280" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
3697 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield2"></a><p>
3698 Astonishingly to modern lawyers, one of the greatest judges in English
3699 history, Lord Mansfield, agreed with the booksellers. Whatever protection
3700 the Statute of Anne gave booksellers, it did not, he held, extinguish any
3701 common law right. The question was whether the common law would protect the
3702 author against subsequent <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirates.</span>&#8221;</span> Mansfield's answer was
3703 yes: The common law would bar Taylor from reprinting Thomson's poem without
3704 Millar's permission. That common law rule thus effectively gave the
3705 booksellers a perpetual right to control the publication of any book
3706 assigned to them.
3707 </p><p>
3708
3709 Ser man på det som et spørsmål innen abstrakt jus - dersom man resonnere som
3710 om rettferdighet bare var logisk deduksjon fra de første bud - kunne
3711 Mansfields konklusjon gitt mening. Men den overså det Parlamentet hadde
3712 kjempet for i 1710: Hvordan man på best mulig vis kunne innskrenke
3713 utgivernes monopolmakt. Parlamentets strategi hadde vært å kjøpe fred
3714 gjennom å tilby en beskyttelsesperiode også for eksisterende verk, men
3715 perioden måtte være så kort at kulturen ble utsatt for konkurranse innen
3716 rimelig tid. Storbritannia skulle vokse fra den kontrollerte kulturen under
3717 kronen, inn i en fri og åpen kultur.
3718 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2578352"></a><p>
3719 Kampen for å forsvare "Statute of Anne"s begrensninger sluttet uansett ikke
3720 der, for nå kommer Donaldson.
3721 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2578367"></a><p>
3722 Millar døde kort tid etter sin seier. Boet hans solgte rettighetene over
3723 Thomsons dikt til et syndikat av utgivere, deriblant Thomas
3724 Beckett.<sup>[<a name="id2578380" href="#ftn.id2578380" class="footnote">109</a>]</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
3725 uautorisert utgave av Thomsons verk. Etter avgjørelsen i
3726 <em class="citetitle">Millar</em>-saken, gikk Beckett til sak mot
3727 Donaldson. Donaldson tok saken inn for Overhuset, som da fungerte som en
3728 slags høyesterett. I februar 1774 hadde dette organet muligheten til å tolke
3729 Parlamentets mening med utøpsdatoen fra seksti år før.
3730 </p><p>
3731 Rettssaken <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot
3732 <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> fikk en enorm oppmerksomhet i hele
3733 Storbritannia. Donaldsons advokater mente at selv om det før fantes en del
3734 rettigheter i sedvaneretten, så var disse fortrengt av "Statute of
3735 Anne". Etter at "Statute of Anne" var blitt vedtatt, skulle den eneste
3736 lovlige beskyttelse for trykkerett kom derfra. Og derfor, mente de, i tråd
3737 med vilkårene i "Statute of Anne", falle i det fri så fort
3738 beskyttelsesperioden var over.
3739 </p><p>
3740 The House of Lords was an odd institution. Legal questions were presented to
3741 the House and voted upon first by the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">law lords,</span>&#8221;</span> members of
3742 special legal distinction who functioned much like the Justices in our
3743 Supreme Court. Then, after the law lords voted, the House of Lords generally
3744 voted.
3745 </p><p>
3746
3747 Rapportene om juslordene stemmer er uenige. På enkelte punkter ser det ut
3748 som om evigvarende beskyttelse fikk flertall. Men det er ingen tvil om
3749 hvordan resten av Overhuset stemte. Med en majoritet på to mot en (22 mot
3750 11) stemte de ned forslaget om en evig beskyttelse. Uansett hvordan man
3751 hadde tolket sedvaneretten, var nå kopiretten begrenset til en periode, og
3752 etter denne ville verket falle i det fri.
3753 </p><p>
3754 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The public domain.</span>&#8221;</span> Before the case of
3755 <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em>, there
3756 was no clear idea of a public domain in England. Before 1774, there was a
3757 strong argument that common law copyrights were perpetual.  After 1774, the
3758 public domain was born. For the first time in Anglo-American history, the
3759 legal control over creative works expired, and the greatest works in English
3760 history&#8212;including those of Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Johnson, and
3761 Bunyan&#8212;were free of legal restraint.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2578470"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2578480"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2578485"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2578491"></a>
3762 <a class="indexterm" name="id2578498"></a>
3763 </p><p>
3764 It is hard for us to imagine, but this decision by the House of Lords fueled
3765 an extraordinarily popular and political reaction. In Scotland, where most
3766 of the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirate publishers</span>&#8221;</span> did their work, people celebrated
3767 the decision in the streets. As the <em class="citetitle">Edinburgh
3768 Advertiser</em> reported, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No private cause has so much
3769 engrossed the attention of the public, and none has been tried before the
3770 House of Lords in the decision of which so many individuals were
3771 interested.</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Great rejoicing in Edinburgh upon victory over
3772 literary property: bonfires and illuminations.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2578528" href="#ftn.id2578528" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
3773 </p><p>
3774 I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i
3775 motsatt retning. <em class="citetitle">Morning Chronicle</em> skrev:
3776 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3777 Gjennom denne avgjørelsen &#8230; er verdier til nesten 200 000 pund, som
3778 er blitt ærlig kjøpt gjennom allment salg, og som i går var eiendom, er nå
3779 redusert til ingenting. Bokselgerne i London og Westminster, mange av dem
3780 har solgt hus og eiendom for å kjøpe kopirettigheter, er med ett ruinerte,
3781 og mange som gjennom mange år har opparbeidet kompetanse for å brødfø
3782 familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="id2578120" href="#ftn.id2578120" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
3783 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3784
3785
3786 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Ruined</span>&#8221;</span> is a bit of an exaggeration. But it is not an
3787 exaggeration to say that the change was profound. The decision of the House
3788 of Lords meant that the booksellers could no longer control how culture in
3789 England would grow and develop. Culture in England was thereafter
3790 <span class="emphasis"><em>free</em></span>.  Not in the sense that copyrights would not be
3791 respected, for of course, for a limited time after a work was published, the
3792 bookseller had an exclusive right to control the publication of that
3793 book. And not in the sense that books could be stolen, for even after a
3794 copyright expired, you still had to buy the book from someone. But
3795 <span class="emphasis"><em>free</em></span> in the sense that the culture and its growth would
3796 no longer be controlled by a small group of publishers. As every free market
3797 does, this free market of free culture would grow as the consumers and
3798 producers chose. English culture would develop as the many English readers
3799 chose to let it develop&#8212; chose in the books they bought and wrote;
3800 chose in the memes they repeated and endorsed. Chose in a
3801 <span class="emphasis"><em>competitive context</em></span>, not a context in which the choices
3802 about what culture is available to people and how they get access to it are
3803 made by the few despite the wishes of the many.
3804 </p><p>
3805 Til sist, dette var en verden hvor Parlamentet var antimonopolistisk, og
3806 holdt stand mot utgivernes krav. I en verden hvor parlamentet er lett å
3807 påvirke, vil den frie kultur være mindre beskyttet.
3808 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577662" href="#id2577662" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
3809
3810
3811 Jacob Tonson is typically remembered for his associations with prominent
3812 eighteenth-century literary figures, especially John Dryden, and for his
3813 handsome <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">definitive editions</span>&#8221;</span> of classic works. In addition to
3814 <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em>, he published an astonishing array
3815 of works that still remain at the heart of the English canon, including
3816 collected works of Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, John Milton, and John
3817 Dryden. See Keith Walker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Jacob Tonson, Bookseller,</span>&#8221;</span>
3818 <em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992): 424&#8211;31.
3819 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577690" href="#id2577690" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
3820
3821
3822 Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3823 Perspective</em> (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968),
3824 151&#8211;52.
3825 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577726" href="#id2577726" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
3826
3827 As Siva Vaidhyanathan nicely argues, it is erroneous to call this a
3828 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright law.</span>&#8221;</span> See Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
3829 Copywrongs</em>, 40.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2577737"></a>
3830 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2577990" href="#id2577990" class="para">101</a>] </sup>
3831
3832
3833
3834 Philip Wittenberg, <em class="citetitle">The Protection and Marketing of Literary
3835 Property</em> (New York: J. Messner, Inc., 1937), 31.
3836 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578066" href="#id2578066" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
3837
3838
3839 A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending in the
3840 House of Commons, for making more effectual an Act in the Eighth Year of the
3841 Reign of Queen Anne, entitled, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by
3842 Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such
3843 Copies, during the Times therein mentioned (London, 1735), in Brief Amici
3844 Curiae of Tyler T. Ochoa et al., 8, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
3845 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618).
3846 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2576401" href="#id2576401" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
3847
3848 Lyman Ray Patterson, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use,</span>&#8221;</span>
3849 <em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt Law Review</em> 40 (1987): 28. For a
3850 wonderfully compelling account, see Vaidhyanathan, 37&#8211;48.
3851 <a class="indexterm" name="id2577700"></a>
3852 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578151" href="#id2578151" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
3853
3854
3855 For a compelling account, see David Saunders, <em class="citetitle">Authorship and
3856 Copyright</em> (London: Routledge, 1992), 62&#8211;69.
3857 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578173" href="#id2578173" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
3858
3859 Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
3860 University Press, 1993), 92.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2578181"></a>
3861 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578203" href="#id2578203" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
3862
3863
3864 Ibid., 93.
3865 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578234" href="#id2578234" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
3866
3867
3868 Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3869 Perspective</em>, 167 (quoting Borwell).
3870 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578280" href="#id2578280" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
3871
3872
3873 Howard B. Abrams, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
3874 Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law
3875 Review</em> 29 (1983): 1152.
3876 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578380" href="#id2578380" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
3877
3878
3879 Ibid., 1156.
3880 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578528" href="#id2578528" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
3881
3882
3883 Rose, 97.
3884 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578120" href="#id2578120" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
3885
3886
3887 ibid.
3888 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="recorders"></a>7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</h2></div></div></div><p>
3889 Jon Else er en filmskaper. Han er mest kjent for sine dokumentarer og har på
3890 ypperlig vis klart å spre sin kunst. Han er også en lærer, som meg selv, og
3891 jeg misunner den lojaliteten og beundringen hans studenter har for ham. (Ved
3892 et uhell møtte jeg to av hans studenter i et middagsselskap og han var deres
3893 Gud.)
3894 </p><p>
3895 Else arbeidet med en dokumentarfilm hvor også jeg var involvert. I en pause
3896 så fortalte han meg om hvordan det kunne være å skape film i dagens Amerika.
3897 </p><p>
3898 I 1990 arbeidet Else med en dokumentar om Wagners Ring Cycle. Fokuset var på
3899 *stagehands* på San Francisco Opera. Stagehands er spesielt morsomt og
3900 fargerikt innslag i en opera. I løpet av forestillingen oppholder de seg
3901 blant publikum og på lysloftet. De er en perfekt kontrast til kunsten på
3902 scenen.<a class="indexterm" name="id2578666"></a>
3903 </p><p>
3904
3905 Under en forestilling, filmet Else noen stagehands som spilte *checkers*. I
3906 et hjørne av rommet stod det et fjernsynsapparat. På fjernsynet, mens
3907 forestillingen pågikk og operakompaniet spilte Wagner, gikk <em class="citetitle">The
3908 Simpsons</em>. Slik Else så det, så hjalp dette tegnefilm-innslaget
3909 med å fange det spesielle med scenen.
3910 </p><p>
3911 Years later, when he finally got funding to complete the film, Else
3912 attempted to clear the rights for those few seconds of <em class="citetitle">The
3913 Simpsons</em>.  For of course, those few seconds are copyrighted; and
3914 of course, to use copyrighted material you need the permission of the
3915 copyright owner, unless <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span> or some other privilege
3916 applies.
3917 </p><p>
3918 Else kontaktet <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-skaper Matt Groenings kontor
3919 for å få tillatelse. Og Groening gav ham det. Det var tross alt kun snakk om
3920 fire og et halvt sekund på et lite fjernsyn, bakerst i et hjørne av
3921 rommet. Hvordan kunne det skade? Groening var glad for å få ha det med i
3922 filmen, men han ba Else om å kontakte Gracie Films, firmaet som produserer
3923 programmet.<a class="indexterm" name="id2578723"></a>
3924 </p><p>
3925 Gracie Films sa også at det var greit, men de, slik som Groening, ønsket å
3926 være forsiktige, og ba Else om å kontakte Fox, konsernet som eide Gracie. Og
3927 Else kontaktet Fox og forklarte situasjonen; at det var snakk om et klipp i
3928 hjørnet i bakgrunnen i ett rom i filmen. Matt Groening hadde allerede gitt
3929 sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox.<a class="indexterm" name="id2578744"></a>
3930 </p><p>
3931 Then, as Else told me, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">two things happened. First we discovered
3932 &#8230; that Matt Groening doesn't own his own creation&#8212;or at least
3933 that someone [at Fox] believes he doesn't own his own creation.</span>&#8221;</span> And
3934 second, Fox <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">wanted ten thousand dollars as a licensing fee for us to
3935 use this four-point-five seconds of &#8230; entirely unsolicited
3936 <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> which was in the corner of the shot.</span>&#8221;</span>
3937 </p><p>
3938 Else was certain there was a mistake. He worked his way up to someone he
3939 thought was a vice president for licensing, Rebecca Herrera.  He explained
3940 to her, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">There must be some mistake here. &#8230; We're asking for
3941 your educational rate on this.</span>&#8221;</span> That was the educational rate,
3942 Herrera told Else. A day or so later, Else called again to confirm what he
3943 had been told.
3944 </p><p>
3945
3946 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I wanted to make sure I had my facts straight,</span>&#8221;</span> he told
3947 me. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Yes, you have your facts straight,</span>&#8221;</span> she said. It would
3948 cost $10,000 to use the clip of <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em> in the
3949 corner of a shot in a documentary film about Wagner's Ring Cycle. And then,
3950 astonishingly, Herrera told Else, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">And if you quote me, I'll turn you
3951 over to our attorneys.</span>&#8221;</span> As an assistant to Herrera told Else later
3952 on, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">They don't give a shit. They just want the money.</span>&#8221;</span>
3953 </p><p>
3954 Men Else hadde ikke penger til å kjøpe lisens for klippet. Så å gjenskape
3955 denne delen av virkeligheten, lå langt utenfor hans budsjett. Like før
3956 dokumentaren skulle slippes, redigerte Else inn et annet klipp på
3957 fjernsynet, et klipp fra en av hans andre filmer <em class="citetitle">The Day After
3958 Trinity</em> fra ti år tidligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id2578827"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2578833"></a>
3959 </p><p>
3960 Det er ingen tvil om at noen, enten det er er Matt Groening eller Fox, eier
3961 rettighetene til <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Rettighetene er deres
3962 eiendom. For å bruke beskyttet mteriale, kreves det ofte at men får
3963 tillatelse fra eieren eller eierne. Dersom Else ønsket å bruke
3964 <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em> til noe hvor loven gir verket
3965 beskyttelse, så må han innhente tillatelse fra eieren før han kan bruke
3966 det. Og i et fritt markes er det eieren som bestemmer hvor mye han/hun vil
3967 ta for hvilken som helst bruk (hvor loven krever tillatelse fra eier).
3968 </p><p>
3969 For example, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">public performance</span>&#8221;</span> is a use of <em class="citetitle">The
3970 Simpsons</em> that the copyright owner gets to control. If you take a
3971 selection of favorite episodes, rent a movie theater, and charge for tickets
3972 to come see <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">My Favorite <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>,</span>&#8221;</span> then
3973 you need to get permission from the copyright owner. And the copyright owner
3974 (rightly, in my view) can charge whatever she wants&#8212;$10 or
3975 $1,000,000. That's her right, as set by the law.
3976 </p><p>
3977 But when lawyers hear this story about Jon Else and Fox, their first thought
3978 is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2578894" href="#ftn.id2578894" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Else's use
3979 of just 4.5 seconds of an indirect shot of a <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>
3980 episode is clearly a fair use of <em class="citetitle">The
3981 Simpsons</em>&#8212;and fair use does not require the permission of
3982 anyone.
3983 </p><p>
3984
3985
3986 So I asked Else why he didn't just rely upon <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use.</span>&#8221;</span> Here's
3987 his reply:
3988 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3989 The <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> fiasco was for me a great lesson in the
3990 gulf between what lawyers find irrelevant in some abstract sense, and what
3991 is crushingly relevant in practice to those of us actually trying to make
3992 and broadcast documentaries. I never had any doubt that it was
3993 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">clearly fair use</span>&#8221;</span> in an absolute legal sense. But I couldn't
3994 rely on the concept in any concrete way. Here's why:
3995 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
3996
3997
3998 Before our films can be broadcast, the network requires that we buy Errors
3999 and Omissions insurance. The carriers require a detailed <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">visual cue
4000 sheet</span>&#8221;</span> listing the source and licensing status of each shot in the
4001 film. They take a dim view of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use,</span>&#8221;</span> and a claim of
4002 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span> can grind the application process to a halt.
4003 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4004
4005 Jeg skulle nok aldri ha bedt om Matt Groenings tillatelse. Men jeg visste
4006 (ihvertfall fra rykter) at Fox tidligere hadde brukt å jakte på og stoppe
4007 ulisensiert bruk av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>, på samme måte som
4008 George Lucas var veldig ivrig på å forfølge bruken av <em class="citetitle">Star
4009 Wars</em>. Så jeg bestemte meg for å følge boka, og trodde at vi
4010 kulle få til en gratis, i alle fall rimelig, avtale for fire sekunders bruk
4011 av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Som en dokumentarskaper, arbeidende
4012 på randen av utryddelse, var det siste jeg ønsket en juridisk strid, selv
4013 for å forsvare et prinsipp.
4014 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4015
4016
4017
4018 I did, in fact, speak with one of your colleagues at Stanford Law School
4019 &#8230; who confirmed that it was fair use. He also confirmed that Fox
4020 would <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">depose and litigate you to within an inch of your life,</span>&#8221;</span>
4021 regardless of the merits of my claim. He made clear that it would boil down
4022 to who had the bigger legal department and the deeper pockets, me or them.
4023
4024 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4025
4026
4027 Spørsmålet om "fair use" dukker om regel opp helt mot slutten av prosjektet,
4028 når vi nærmer oss siste frist og er tomme for penger.
4029 </p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><p>
4030 I teorien betyr "fair use" at du ikke trenger tillatelse. Teorien støtter
4031 derfor den frie kultur og arbeider mot tillatelseskulturen. Men i praksis
4032 fungerer "fair use" helt annerledes. Men de uklare linjene i lovverket, samt
4033 de fryktelige konsekvensene dersom man tar feil, gjør at mange kunstnere
4034 ikke stoler på "fair use". Loven har en svært god hensikt, men praksisen har
4035 ikke fulgt opp.
4036 </p><p>
4037 Dette eksempelet viser hvor langt denne loven har kommet fra sine
4038 syttenhundretalls røtter. Loven som skulle beskytte utgiverne mot
4039 urettferdig piratkonkurranse, hadde utviklet seg til et sverd som slo ned på
4040 _all_ bruk, transformativ* eller ikke.
4041 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2578894" href="#id2578894" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
4042
4043
4044 For an excellent argument that such use is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use,</span>&#8221;</span> but that
4045 lawyers don't permit recognition that it is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use,</span>&#8221;</span> see
4046 Richard A. Posner with William F. Patry, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Fair Use and Statutory
4047 Reform in the Wake of <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em></span>&#8221;</span> (draft on file
4048 with author), University of Chicago Law School, 5 August 2003.
4049 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2579088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2579095"></a><p>
4050 In 1993, Alex Alben was a lawyer working at Starwave, Inc.  Starwave was an
4051 innovative company founded by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen to develop
4052 digital entertainment. Long before the Internet became popular, Starwave
4053 began investing in new technology for delivering entertainment in
4054 anticipation of the power of networks.
4055 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2579110"></a><p>
4056 Alben had a special interest in new technology. He was intrigued by the
4057 emerging market for CD-ROM technology&#8212;not to distribute film, but to
4058 do things with film that otherwise would be very difficult.  In 1993, he
4059 launched an initiative to develop a product to build retrospectives on the
4060 work of particular actors. The first actor chosen was Clint Eastwood. The
4061 idea was to showcase all of the work of Eastwood, with clips from his films
4062 and interviews with figures important to his career.
4063 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2579118"></a><p>
4064 At that time, Eastwood had made more than fifty films, as an actor and as a
4065 director. Alben began with a series of interviews with Eastwood, asking him
4066 about his career. Because Starwave produced those interviews, it was free to
4067 include them on the CD.
4068 </p><p>
4069
4070
4071 That alone would not have made a very interesting product, so Starwave
4072 wanted to add content from the movies in Eastwood's career: posters,
4073 scripts, and other material relating to the films Eastwood made. Most of his
4074 career was spent at Warner Brothers, and so it was relatively easy to get
4075 permission for that content.
4076 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2579152"></a><p>
4077 Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Our
4078 goal was that we were going to have a clip from every one of Eastwood's
4079 films,</span>&#8221;</span> Alben told me. It was here that the problem arose. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No
4080 one had ever really done this before,</span>&#8221;</span> Alben explained. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No one
4081 had ever tried to do this in the context of an artistic look at an actor's
4082 career.</span>&#8221;</span>
4083 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2579177"></a><p>
4084 Alben brought the idea to Michael Slade, the CEO of Starwave.  Slade asked,
4085 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Well, what will it take?</span>&#8221;</span>
4086 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2579192"></a><p>
4087 Alben replied, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Well, we're going to have to clear rights from
4088 everyone who appears in these films, and the music and everything else that
4089 we want to use in these film clips.</span>&#8221;</span> Slade said, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Great! Go for
4090 it.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2579208" href="#ftn.id2579208" class="footnote">113</a>]</sup>
4091 </p><p>
4092 The problem was that neither Alben nor Slade had any idea what clearing
4093 those rights would mean. Every actor in each of the films could have a claim
4094 to royalties for the reuse of that film. But CD- ROMs had not been specified
4095 in the contracts for the actors, so there was no clear way to know just what
4096 Starwave was to do.
4097 </p><p>
4098 I asked Alben how he dealt with the problem. With an obvious pride in his
4099 resourcefulness that obscured the obvious bizarreness of his tale, Alben
4100 recounted just what they did:
4101 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4102 So we very mechanically went about looking up the film clips.  We made some
4103 artistic decisions about what film clips to include&#8212;of course we were
4104 going to use the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Make my day</span>&#8221;</span> clip from <em class="citetitle">Dirty
4105 Harry</em>. But you then need to get the guy on the ground who's
4106 wiggling under the gun and you need to get his permission.  And then you
4107 have to decide what you are going to pay him.
4108 </p><p>
4109
4110
4111 We decided that it would be fair if we offered them the dayplayer rate for
4112 the right to reuse that performance. We're talking about a clip of less than
4113 a minute, but to reuse that performance in the CD-ROM the rate at the time
4114 was about $600.  So we had to identify the people&#8212;some of them were
4115 hard to identify because in Eastwood movies you can't tell who's the guy
4116 crashing through the glass&#8212;is it the actor or is it the stuntman? And
4117 then we just, we put together a team, my assistant and some others, and we
4118 just started calling people.
4119 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2579275"></a><p>
4120 Some actors were glad to help&#8212;Donald Sutherland, for example, followed
4121 up himself to be sure that the rights had been cleared.  Others were
4122 dumbfounded at their good fortune. Alben would ask, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hey, can I pay
4123 you $600 or maybe if you were in two films, you know, $1,200?</span>&#8221;</span> And
4124 they would say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Are you for real? Hey, I'd love to get
4125 $1,200.</span>&#8221;</span> And some of course were a bit difficult (estranged ex-wives,
4126 in particular). But eventually, Alben and his team had cleared the rights to
4127 this retrospective CD-ROM on Clint Eastwood's career.
4128 </p><p>
4129 It was one <span class="emphasis"><em>year</em></span> later&#8212;<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">and even then we
4130 weren't sure whether we were totally in the clear.</span>&#8221;</span>
4131 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2579322"></a><p>
4132 Alben is proud of his work. The project was the first of its kind and the
4133 only time he knew of that a team had undertaken such a massive project for
4134 the purpose of releasing a retrospective.
4135 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4136 Everyone thought it would be too hard. Everyone just threw up their hands
4137 and said, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Oh, my gosh, a film, it's so many copyrights, there's the
4138 music, there's the screenplay, there's the director, there's the
4139 actors.</span>&#8221;</span> But we just broke it down. We just put it into its
4140 constituent parts and said, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Okay, there's this many actors, this many
4141 directors, &#8230; this many musicians,</span>&#8221;</span> and we just went at it very
4142 systematically and cleared the rights.
4143 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4144
4145
4146
4147 And no doubt, the product itself was exceptionally good. Eastwood loved it,
4148 and it sold very well.
4149 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2579362"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2579369"></a><p>
4150 But I pressed Alben about how weird it seems that it would have to take a
4151 year's work simply to clear rights. No doubt Alben had done this
4152 efficiently, but as Peter Drucker has famously quipped, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">There is
4153 nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at
4154 all.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2579384" href="#ftn.id2579384" class="footnote">114</a>]</sup> Did it make sense, I asked
4155 Alben, that this is the way a new work has to be made?
4156 </p><p>
4157 For, as he acknowledged, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">very few &#8230; have the time and
4158 resources, and the will to do this,</span>&#8221;</span> and thus, very few such works
4159 would ever be made. Does it make sense, I asked him, from the standpoint of
4160 what anybody really thought they were ever giving rights for originally,
4161 that you would have to go clear rights for these kinds of clips?
4162 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4163 I don't think so. When an actor renders a performance in a movie, he or she
4164 gets paid very well. &#8230; And then when 30 seconds of that performance
4165 is used in a new product that is a retrospective of somebody's career, I
4166 don't think that that person &#8230; should be compensated for that.
4167 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4168 Or at least, is this <span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> the artist should be
4169 compensated? Would it make sense, I asked, for there to be some kind of
4170 statutory license that someone could pay and be free to make derivative use
4171 of clips like this? Did it really make sense that a follow-on creator would
4172 have to track down every artist, actor, director, musician, and get explicit
4173 permission from each? Wouldn't a lot more be created if the legal part of
4174 the creative process could be made to be more clean?
4175 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4176
4177 Absolutely. I think that if there were some fair-licensing
4178 mechanism&#8212;where you weren't subject to hold-ups and you weren't
4179 subject to estranged former spouses&#8212;you'd see a lot more of this work,
4180 because it wouldn't be so daunting to try to put together a retrospective of
4181 someone's career and meaningfully illustrate it with lots of media from that
4182 person's career. You'd build in a cost as the producer of one of these
4183 things. You'd build in a cost of paying X dollars to the talent that
4184 performed. But it would be a known cost. That's the thing that trips
4185 everybody up and makes this kind of product hard to get off the ground. If
4186 you knew I have a hundred minutes of film in this product and it's going to
4187 cost me X, then you build your budget around it, and you can get investments
4188 and everything else that you need to produce it. But if you say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Oh,
4189 I want a hundred minutes of something and I have no idea what it's going to
4190 cost me, and a certain number of people are going to hold me up for
4191 money,</span>&#8221;</span> then it becomes difficult to put one of these things
4192 together.
4193 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2579486"></a><p>
4194 Alben worked for a big company. His company was backed by some of the
4195 richest investors in the world. He therefore had authority and access that
4196 the average Web designer would not have. So if it took him a year, how long
4197 would it take someone else? And how much creativity is never made just
4198 because the costs of clearing the rights are so high? These costs are the
4199 burdens of a kind of regulation. Put on a Republican hat for a moment, and
4200 get angry for a bit. The government defines the scope of these rights, and
4201 the scope defined determines how much it's going to cost to negotiate
4202 them. (Remember the idea that land runs to the heavens, and imagine the
4203 pilot purchasing flythrough rights as he negotiates to fly from Los Angeles
4204 to San Francisco.)  These rights might well have once made sense; but as
4205 circumstances change, they make no sense at all. Or at least, a
4206 well-trained, regulationminimizing Republican should look at the rights and
4207 ask, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Does this still make sense?</span>&#8221;</span>
4208 </p><p>
4209
4210 I've seen the flash of recognition when people get this point, but only a
4211 few times. The first was at a conference of federal judges in California.
4212 The judges were gathered to discuss the emerging topic of cyber-law. I was
4213 asked to be on the panel. Harvey Saferstein, a well-respected lawyer from an
4214 L.A. firm, introduced the panel with a video that he and a friend, Robert
4215 Fairbank, had produced.
4216 </p><p>
4217 Videoen var en glimrende sammenstilling av filmer fra hver periode i det
4218 tjuende århundret, rammet inn rundt idéen om en episode i TV-serien
4219 <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em>. Utførelsen var perfekt, ned til seksti
4220 minutter stoppeklokken. Dommerne elsket enhver minutt av den.
4221 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2579542"></a><p>
4222 When the lights came up, I looked over to my copanelist, David Nimmer,
4223 perhaps the leading copyright scholar and practitioner in the nation. He had
4224 an astonished look on his face, as he peered across the room of over 250
4225 well-entertained judges. Taking an ominous tone, he began his talk with a
4226 question: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Do you know how many federal laws were just violated in
4227 this room?</span>&#8221;</span>
4228 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2579561"></a><p>
4229 For of course, the two brilliantly talented creators who made this film
4230 hadn't done what Alben did. They hadn't spent a year clearing the rights to
4231 these clips; technically, what they had done violated the law.  Of course,
4232 it wasn't as if they or anyone were going to be prosecuted for this
4233 violation (the presence of 250 judges and a gaggle of federal marshals
4234 notwithstanding). But Nimmer was making an important point: A year before
4235 anyone would have heard of the word Napster, and two years before another
4236 member of our panel, David Boies, would defend Napster before the Ninth
4237 Circuit Court of Appeals, Nimmer was trying to get the judges to see that
4238 the law would not be friendly to the capacities that this technology would
4239 enable. Technology means you can now do amazing things easily; but you
4240 couldn't easily do them legally.
4241 </p><p>
4242 We live in a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>&#8221;</span> culture enabled by
4243 technology. Anyone building a presentation knows the extraordinary freedom
4244 that the cut and paste architecture of the Internet created&#8212;in a
4245 second you can find just about any image you want; in another second, you
4246 can have it planted in your presentation.
4247 </p><p>
4248 But presentations are just a tiny beginning. Using the Internet and its
4249 archives, musicians are able to string together mixes of sound never before
4250 imagined; filmmakers are able to build movies out of clips on computers
4251 around the world. An extraordinary site in Sweden takes images of
4252 politicians and blends them with music to create biting political
4253 commentary. A site called Camp Chaos has produced some of the most biting
4254 criticism of the record industry that there is through the mixing of Flash!
4255 and music.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2579607"></a>
4256 </p><p>
4257 All of these creations are technically illegal. Even if the creators wanted
4258 to be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">legal,</span>&#8221;</span> the cost of complying with the law is impossibly
4259 high. Therefore, for the law-abiding sorts, a wealth of creativity is never
4260 made. And for that part that is made, if it doesn't follow the clearance
4261 rules, it doesn't get released.
4262 </p><p>
4263 To some, these stories suggest a solution: Let's alter the mix of rights so
4264 that people are free to build upon our culture. Free to add or mix as they
4265 see fit. We could even make this change without necessarily requiring that
4266 the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free</span>&#8221;</span> use be free as in <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free beer.</span>&#8221;</span> Instead,
4267 the system could simply make it easy for follow-on creators to compensate
4268 artists without requiring an army of lawyers to come along: a rule, for
4269 example, that says <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the royalty owed the copyright owner of an
4270 unregistered work for the derivative reuse of his work will be a flat 1
4271 percent of net revenues, to be held in escrow for the copyright
4272 owner.</span>&#8221;</span> Under this rule, the copyright owner could benefit from some
4273 royalty, but he would not have the benefit of a full property right (meaning
4274 the right to name his own price) unless he registers the work.
4275 </p><p>
4276 Who could possibly object to this? And what reason would there be for
4277 objecting? We're talking about work that is not now being made; which if
4278 made, under this plan, would produce new income for artists.  What reason
4279 would anyone have to oppose it?
4280 </p><p>
4281
4282 In February 2003, DreamWorks studios announced an agreement with Mike Myers,
4283 the comic genius of <em class="citetitle">Saturday Night Live</em> and Austin
4284 Powers. According to the announcement, Myers and Dream-Works would work
4285 together to form a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">unique filmmaking pact.</span>&#8221;</span> Under the
4286 agreement, DreamWorks <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">will acquire the rights to existing motion
4287 picture hits and classics, write new storylines and&#8212;with the use of
4288 stateof-the-art digital technology&#8212;insert Myers and other actors into
4289 the film, thereby creating an entirely new piece of entertainment.</span>&#8221;</span>
4290 </p><p>
4291 The announcement called this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">film sampling.</span>&#8221;</span> As Myers
4292 explained, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Film Sampling is an exciting way to put an original spin
4293 on existing films and allow audiences to see old movies in a new light. Rap
4294 artists have been doing this for years with music and now we are able to
4295 take that same concept and apply it to film.</span>&#8221;</span> Steven Spielberg is
4296 quoted as saying, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">If anyone can create a way to bring old films to
4297 new audiences, it is Mike.</span>&#8221;</span>
4298 </p><p>
4299 Spielberg is right. Film sampling by Myers will be brilliant. But if you
4300 don't think about it, you might miss the truly astonishing point about this
4301 announcement. As the vast majority of our film heritage remains under
4302 copyright, the real meaning of the DreamWorks announcement is just this: It
4303 is Mike Myers and only Mike Myers who is free to sample. Any general freedom
4304 to build upon the film archive of our culture, a freedom in other contexts
4305 presumed for us all, is now a privilege reserved for the funny and
4306 famous&#8212;and presumably rich.
4307 </p><p>
4308 This privilege becomes reserved for two sorts of reasons. The first
4309 continues the story of the last chapter: the vagueness of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair
4310 use.</span>&#8221;</span> Much of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sampling</span>&#8221;</span> should be considered
4311 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use.</span>&#8221;</span> But few would rely upon so weak a doctrine to
4312 create. That leads to the second reason that the privilege is reserved for
4313 the few: The costs of negotiating the legal rights for the creative reuse of
4314 content are astronomically high.  These costs mirror the costs with fair
4315 use: You either pay a lawyer to defend your fair use rights or pay a lawyer
4316 to track down permissions so you don't have to rely upon fair use
4317 rights. Either way, the creative process is a process of paying
4318 lawyers&#8212;again a privilege, or perhaps a curse, reserved for the few.
4319 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2579208" href="#id2579208" class="para">113</a>] </sup>
4320
4321 Technically, the rights that Alben had to clear were mainly those of
4322 publicity&#8212;rights an artist has to control the commercial exploitation
4323 of his image.  But these rights, too, burden <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Rip, Mix, Burn</span>&#8221;</span>
4324 creativity, as this chapter evinces.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2579220"></a>
4325 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2579384" href="#id2579384" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
4326
4327
4328 U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management,
4329 <em class="citetitle">Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services
4330 Acquisition</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #22</a>.
4331 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="9. Kapittel ni: Samlere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>9. Kapittel ni: Samlere</h2></div></div></div><p>
4332 In April 1996, millions of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">bots</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;computer codes designed
4333 to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">spider,</span>&#8221;</span> or automatically search the Internet and copy
4334 content&#8212;began running across the Net. Page by page, these bots copied
4335 Internet-based information onto a small set of computers located in a
4336 basement in San Francisco's Presidio. Once the bots finished the whole of
4337 the Internet, they started again. Over and over again, once every two
4338 months, these bits of code took copies of the Internet and stored them.
4339 </p><p>
4340 By October 2001, the bots had collected more than five years of copies. And
4341 at a small announcement in Berkeley, California, the archive that these
4342 copies created, the Internet Archive, was opened to the world. Using a
4343 technology called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the Way Back Machine,</span>&#8221;</span> you could enter a Web
4344 page, and see all of its copies going back to 1996, as well as when those
4345 pages changed.
4346 </p><p>
4347 This is the thing about the Internet that Orwell would have appreciated.  In
4348 the dystopia described in <em class="citetitle">1984</em>, old newspapers were
4349 constantly updated to assure that the current view of the world, approved of
4350 by the government, was not contradicted by previous news reports.
4351 </p><p>
4352
4353
4354 Thousands of workers constantly reedited the past, meaning there was no way
4355 ever to know whether the story you were reading today was the story that was
4356 printed on the date published on the paper.
4357 </p><p>
4358 It's the same with the Internet. If you go to a Web page today, there's no
4359 way for you to know whether the content you are reading is the same as the
4360 content you read before. The page may seem the same, but the content could
4361 easily be different. The Internet is Orwell's library&#8212;constantly
4362 updated, without any reliable memory.
4363 </p><p>
4364 Until the Way Back Machine, at least. With the Way Back Machine, and the
4365 Internet Archive underlying it, you can see what the Internet was. You have
4366 the power to see what you remember. More importantly, perhaps, you also have
4367 the power to find what you don't remember and what others might prefer you
4368 forget.<sup>[<a name="id2579811" href="#ftn.id2579811" class="footnote">115</a>]</sup>
4369 </p><p>
4370 We take it for granted that we can go back to see what we remember
4371 reading. Think about newspapers. If you wanted to study the reaction of your
4372 hometown newspaper to the race riots in Watts in 1965, or to Bull Connor's
4373 water cannon in 1963, you could go to your public library and look at the
4374 newspapers. Those papers probably exist on microfiche. If you're lucky, they
4375 exist in paper, too. Either way, you are free, using a library, to go back
4376 and remember&#8212;not just what it is convenient to remember, but remember
4377 something close to the truth.
4378 </p><p>
4379 It is said that those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat
4380 it. That's not quite correct. We <span class="emphasis"><em>all</em></span> forget
4381 history. The key is whether we have a way to go back to rediscover what we
4382 forget. More directly, the key is whether an objective past can keep us
4383 honest. Libraries help do that, by collecting content and keeping it, for
4384 schoolchildren, for researchers, for grandma. A free society presumes this
4385 knowedge.
4386 </p><p>
4387
4388 The Internet was an exception to this presumption. Until the Internet
4389 Archive, there was no way to go back. The Internet was the quintessentially
4390 transitory medium. And yet, as it becomes more important in forming and
4391 reforming society, it becomes more and more important to maintain in some
4392 historical form. It's just bizarre to think that we have scads of archives
4393 of newspapers from tiny towns around the world, yet there is but one copy of
4394 the Internet&#8212;the one kept by the Internet Archive.
4395 </p><p>
4396 Brewster Kahle is the founder of the Internet Archive. He was a very
4397 successful Internet entrepreneur after he was a successful computer
4398 researcher.  In the 1990s, Kahle decided he had had enough business
4399 success.  It was time to become a different kind of success. So he launched
4400 a series of projects designed to archive human knowledge. The Internet
4401 Archive was just the first of the projects of this Andrew Carnegie of the
4402 Internet. By December of 2002, the archive had over 10 billion pages, and it
4403 was growing at about a billion pages a month.
4404 </p><p>
4405 The Way Back Machine is the largest archive of human knowledge in human
4406 history. At the end of 2002, it held <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">two hundred and thirty terabytes
4407 of material</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;and was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ten times larger than the Library
4408 of Congress.</span>&#8221;</span> And this was just the first of the archives that Kahle
4409 set out to build. In addition to the Internet Archive, Kahle has been
4410 constructing the Television Archive. Television, it turns out, is even more
4411 ephemeral than the Internet. While much of twentieth-century culture was
4412 constructed through television, only a tiny proportion of that culture is
4413 available for anyone to see today. Three hours of news are recorded each
4414 evening by Vanderbilt University&#8212;thanks to a specific exemption in the
4415 copyright law. That content is indexed, and is available to scholars for a
4416 very low fee. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But other than that, [television] is almost
4417 unavailable,</span>&#8221;</span> Kahle told me. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">If you were Barbara Walters you
4418 could get access to [the archives], but if you are just a graduate
4419 student?</span>&#8221;</span> As Kahle put it,
4420 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2579932"></a><p>
4421
4422 Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown? Remember
4423 that back and forth surreal experience of a politician interacting with a
4424 fictional television character? If you were a graduate student wanting to
4425 study that, and you wanted to get those original back and forth exchanges
4426 between the two, the <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em> episode that came out
4427 after it &#8230; it would be almost impossible. &#8230; Those materials
4428 are almost unfindable. &#8230;
4429 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4430 Why is that? Why is it that the part of our culture that is recorded in
4431 newspapers remains perpetually accessible, while the part that is recorded
4432 on videotape is not? How is it that we've created a world where researchers
4433 trying to understand the effect of media on nineteenthcentury America will
4434 have an easier time than researchers trying to understand the effect of
4435 media on twentieth-century America?
4436 </p><p>
4437 In part, this is because of the law. Early in American copyright law,
4438 copyright owners were required to deposit copies of their work in
4439 libraries.  These copies were intended both to facilitate the spread of
4440 knowledge and to assure that a copy of the work would be around once the
4441 copyright expired, so that others might access and copy the work.
4442 </p><p>
4443 These rules applied to film as well. But in 1915, the Library of Congress
4444 made an exception for film. Film could be copyrighted so long as such
4445 deposits were made. But the filmmaker was then allowed to borrow back the
4446 deposits&#8212;for an unlimited time at no cost. In 1915 alone, there were
4447 more than 5,475 films deposited and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">borrowed back.</span>&#8221;</span> Thus, when
4448 the copyrights to films expire, there is no copy held by any library. The
4449 copy exists&#8212;if it exists at all&#8212;in the library archive of the
4450 film company.<sup>[<a name="id2579986" href="#ftn.id2579986" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
4451 </p><p>
4452 The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts were
4453 originally not copyrighted&#8212;there was no way to capture the broadcasts,
4454 so there was no fear of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">theft.</span>&#8221;</span> But as technology enabled
4455 capturing, broadcasters relied increasingly upon the law. The law required
4456 they make a copy of each broadcast for the work to be
4457 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyrighted.</span>&#8221;</span> But those copies were simply kept by the
4458 broadcasters. No library had any right to them; the government didn't demand
4459 them.  The content of this part of American culture is practically invisible
4460 to anyone who would look.
4461 </p><p>
4462
4463 Kahle was eager to correct this. Before September 11, 2001, he and his
4464 allies had started capturing television. They selected twenty stations from
4465 around the world and hit the Record button. After September 11, Kahle,
4466 working with dozens of others, selected twenty stations from around the
4467 world and, beginning October 11, 2001, made their coverage during the week
4468 of September 11 available free on-line.  Anyone could see how news reports
4469 from around the world covered the events of that day.
4470 </p><p>
4471 Kahle had the same idea with film. Working with Rick Prelinger, whose
4472 archive of film includes close to 45,000 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ephemeral films</span>&#8221;</span>
4473 (meaning films other than Hollywood movies, films that were never
4474 copyrighted), Kahle established the Movie Archive. Prelinger let Kahle
4475 digitize 1,300 films in this archive and post those films on the Internet to
4476 be downloaded for free. Prelinger's is a for-profit company. It sells copies
4477 of these films as stock footage. What he has discovered is that after he
4478 made a significant chunk available for free, his stock footage sales went up
4479 dramatically. People could easily find the material they wanted to use. Some
4480 downloaded that material and made films on their own. Others purchased
4481 copies to enable other films to be made.  Either way, the archive enabled
4482 access to this important part of our culture.  Want to see a copy of the
4483 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Duck and Cover</span>&#8221;</span> film that instructed children how to save
4484 themselves in the middle of nuclear attack? Go to archive.org, and you can
4485 download the film in a few minutes&#8212;for free.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2580022"></a>
4486 </p><p>
4487 Here again, Kahle is providing access to a part of our culture that we
4488 otherwise could not get easily, if at all. It is yet another part of what
4489 defines the twentieth century that we have lost to history. The law doesn't
4490 require these copies to be kept by anyone, or to be deposited in an archive
4491 by anyone. Therefore, there is no simple way to find them.
4492 </p><p>
4493 The key here is access, not price. Kahle wants to enable free access to this
4494 content, but he also wants to enable others to sell access to it. His aim is
4495 to ensure competition in access to this important part of our culture.  Not
4496 during the commercial life of a bit of creative property, but during a
4497 second life that all creative property has&#8212;a noncommercial life.
4498 </p><p>
4499
4500 For here is an idea that we should more clearly recognize. Every bit of
4501 creative property goes through different <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lives.</span>&#8221;</span> In its first
4502 life, if the creator is lucky, the content is sold. In such cases the
4503 commercial market is successful for the creator. The vast majority of
4504 creative property doesn't enjoy such success, but some clearly does. For
4505 that content, commercial life is extremely important. Without this
4506 commercial market, there would be, many argue, much less creativity.
4507 </p><p>
4508 After the commercial life of creative property has ended, our tradition has
4509 always supported a second life as well. A newspaper delivers the news every
4510 day to the doorsteps of America. The very next day, it is used to wrap fish
4511 or to fill boxes with fragile gifts or to build an archive of knowledge
4512 about our history. In this second life, the content can continue to inform
4513 even if that information is no longer sold.
4514 </p><p>
4515 The same has always been true about books. A book goes out of print very
4516 quickly (the average today is after about a year<sup>[<a name="id2580137" href="#ftn.id2580137" class="footnote">117</a>]</sup>). After it is out of print, it can be sold in used book stores
4517 without the copyright owner getting anything and stored in libraries, where
4518 many get to read the book, also for free. Used book stores and libraries are
4519 thus the second life of a book. That second life is extremely important to
4520 the spread and stability of culture.
4521 </p><p>
4522 Yet increasingly, any assumption about a stable second life for creative
4523 property does not hold true with the most important components of popular
4524 culture in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. For
4525 these&#8212;television, movies, music, radio, the Internet&#8212;there is no
4526 guarantee of a second life. For these sorts of culture, it is as if we've
4527 replaced libraries with Barnes &amp; Noble superstores. With this culture,
4528 what's accessible is nothing but what a certain limited market demands.
4529 Beyond that, culture disappears.
4530 </p><p>
4531
4532 For most of the twentieth century, it was economics that made this so. It
4533 would have been insanely expensive to collect and make accessible all
4534 television and film and music: The cost of analog copies is extraordinarily
4535 high. So even though the law in principle would have restricted the ability
4536 of a Brewster Kahle to copy culture generally, the real restriction was
4537 economics. The market made it impossibly difficult to do anything about this
4538 ephemeral culture; the law had little practical effect.
4539 </p><p>
4540 Perhaps the single most important feature of the digital revolution is that
4541 for the first time since the Library of Alexandria, it is feasible to
4542 imagine constructing archives that hold all culture produced or distributed
4543 publicly. Technology makes it possible to imagine an archive of all books
4544 published, and increasingly makes it possible to imagine an archive of all
4545 moving images and sound.
4546 </p><p>
4547 The scale of this potential archive is something we've never imagined
4548 before. The Brewster Kahles of our history have dreamed about it; but we are
4549 for the first time at a point where that dream is possible. As Kahle
4550 describes,
4551 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4552 It looks like there's about two to three million recordings of music.
4553 Ever. There are about a hundred thousand theatrical releases of movies,
4554 &#8230; and about one to two million movies [distributed] during the
4555 twentieth century. There are about twenty-six million different titles of
4556 books. All of these would fit on computers that would fit in this room and
4557 be able to be afforded by a small company.  So we're at a turning point in
4558 our history. Universal access is the goal. And the opportunity of leading a
4559 different life, based on this, is &#8230; thrilling. It could be one of the
4560 things humankind would be most proud of. Up there with the Library of
4561 Alexandria, putting a man on the moon, and the invention of the printing
4562 press.
4563 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4564
4565 Kahle is not the only librarian. The Internet Archive is not the only
4566 archive. But Kahle and the Internet Archive suggest what the future of
4567 libraries or archives could be. <span class="emphasis"><em>When</em></span> the commercial
4568 life of creative property ends, I don't know. But it does. And whenever it
4569 does, Kahle and his archive hint at a world where this knowledge, and
4570 culture, remains perpetually available. Some will draw upon it to understand
4571 it; some to criticize it. Some will use it, as Walt Disney did, to re-create
4572 the past for the future. These technologies promise something that had
4573 become unimaginable for much of our past&#8212;a future
4574 <span class="emphasis"><em>for</em></span> our past. The technology of digital arts could make
4575 the dream of the Library of Alexandria real again.
4576 </p><p>
4577 Technologists have thus removed the economic costs of building such an
4578 archive. But lawyers' costs remain. For as much as we might like to call
4579 these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">archives,</span>&#8221;</span> as warm as the idea of a
4580 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">library</span>&#8221;</span> might seem, the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">content</span>&#8221;</span> that is
4581 collected in these digital spaces is also someone's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property.</span>&#8221;</span>
4582 And the law of property restricts the freedoms that Kahle and others would
4583 exercise.
4584 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2579811" href="#id2579811" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
4585
4586
4587 The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the White House
4588 changes its own press releases without notice. A May 13, 2003, press release
4589 stated, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.</span>&#8221;</span> That was later
4590 changed, without notice, to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have
4591 Ended.</span>&#8221;</span> E-mail from Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
4592 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2579986" href="#id2579986" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
4593
4594
4595 Doug Herrick, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
4596 the Library of Congress,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Film Library
4597 Quarterly</em> 13 nos. 2&#8211;3 (1980): 5; Anthony Slide,
4598 <em class="citetitle">Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film Preservation in the United
4599 States</em> ( Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland &amp; Co., 1992), 36.
4600 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2580137" href="#id2580137" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
4601
4602
4603 Dave Barns, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord,
4604 Bar Owner Starts a New Chapter by Adopting Business,</span>&#8221;</span>
4605 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 5 September 1997, at Metro Lake
4606 1L. Of books published between 1927 and 1946, only 2.2 percent were in print
4607 in 2002. R. Anthony Reese, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of
4608 Digital Networks,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston College Law Review</em>
4609 44 (2003): 593 n. 51.
4610 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="10. CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>10. CHAPTER TEN: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Property</span>&#8221;</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
4611 Jack Valenti has been the president of the Motion Picture Association of
4612 America since 1966. He first came to Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's
4613 administration&#8212;literally. The famous picture of Johnson's swearing-in
4614 on Air Force One after the assassination of President Kennedy has Valenti in
4615 the background. In his almost forty years of running the MPAA, Valenti has
4616 established himself as perhaps the most prominent and effective lobbyist in
4617 Washington.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2580252"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2580312"></a>
4618 </p><p>
4619 The MPAA is the American branch of the international Motion Picture
4620 Association. It was formed in 1922 as a trade association whose goal was to
4621 defend American movies against increasing domestic criticism.  The
4622 organization now represents not only filmmakers but producers and
4623 distributors of entertainment for television, video, and cable. Its board is
4624 made up of the chairmen and presidents of the seven major producers and
4625 distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States:
4626 Walt Disney, Sony Pictures Entertainment, MGM, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth
4627 Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2580331"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2580338"></a>
4628 <a class="indexterm" name="id2580344"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2580350"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2580356"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2580363"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2580369"></a>
4629 </p><p>
4630
4631
4632 Valenti is only the third president of the MPAA. No president before him has
4633 had as much influence over that organization, or over Washington. As a
4634 Texan, Valenti has mastered the single most important political skill of a
4635 Southerner&#8212;the ability to appear simple and slow while hiding a
4636 lightning-fast intellect. To this day, Valenti plays the simple, humble
4637 man. But this Harvard MBA, and author of four books, who finished high
4638 school at the age of fifteen and flew more than fifty combat missions in
4639 World War II, is no Mr. Smith. When Valenti went to Washington, he mastered
4640 the city in a quintessentially Washingtonian way.
4641 </p><p>
4642 In defending artistic liberty and the freedom of speech that our culture
4643 depends upon, the MPAA has done important good. In crafting the MPAA rating
4644 system, it has probably avoided a great deal of speech-regulating harm. But
4645 there is an aspect to the organization's mission that is both the most
4646 radical and the most important. This is the organization's effort,
4647 epitomized in Valenti's every act, to redefine the meaning of
4648 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property.</span>&#8221;</span>
4649 </p><p>
4650 In 1982, Valenti's testimony to Congress captured the strategy perfectly:
4651 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4652 No matter the lengthy arguments made, no matter the charges and the
4653 counter-charges, no matter the tumult and the shouting, reasonable men and
4654 women will keep returning to the fundamental issue, the central theme which
4655 animates this entire debate: <span class="emphasis"><em>Creative property owners must be
4656 accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other property
4657 owners in the nation</em></span>. That is the issue.  That is the
4658 question. And that is the rostrum on which this entire hearing and the
4659 debates to follow must rest.<sup>[<a name="id2580428" href="#ftn.id2580428" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
4660 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4661
4662 The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's
4663 rhetoric, is brilliant and simple and brilliant because simple. The
4664 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">central theme</span>&#8221;</span> to which <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">reasonable men and
4665 women</span>&#8221;</span> will return is this: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Creative property owners must be
4666 accorded the same rights and protections resident in all other property
4667 owners in the nation.</span>&#8221;</span> There are no second-class citizens, Valenti
4668 might have continued. There should be no second-class property owners.
4669 </p><p>
4670 This claim has an obvious and powerful intuitive pull. It is stated with
4671 such clarity as to make the idea as obvious as the notion that we use
4672 elections to pick presidents. But in fact, there is no more extreme a claim
4673 made by <span class="emphasis"><em>anyone</em></span> who is serious in this debate than this
4674 claim of Valenti's. Jack Valenti, however sweet and however brilliant, is
4675 perhaps the nation's foremost extremist when it comes to the nature and
4676 scope of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property.</span>&#8221;</span> His views have
4677 <span class="emphasis"><em>no</em></span> reasonable connection to our actual legal tradition,
4678 even if the subtle pull of his Texan charm has slowly redefined that
4679 tradition, at least in Washington.
4680 </p><p>
4681 While <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> is certainly <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span>
4682 in a nerdy and precise sense that lawyers are trained to
4683 understand,<sup>[<a name="id2580496" href="#ftn.id2580496" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case,
4684 nor should it be, that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property owners</span>&#8221;</span> have been
4685 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other
4686 property owners.</span>&#8221;</span> Indeed, if creative property owners were given the
4687 same rights as all other property owners, that would effect a radical, and
4688 radically undesirable, change in our tradition.
4689 </p><p>
4690 Valenti knows this. But he speaks for an industry that cares squat for our
4691 tradition and the values it represents. He speaks for an industry that is
4692 instead fighting to restore the tradition that the British overturned in
4693 1710. In the world that Valenti's changes would create, a powerful few would
4694 exercise powerful control over how our creative culture would develop.
4695 </p><p>
4696
4697 I have two purposes in this chapter. The first is to convince you that,
4698 historically, Valenti's claim is absolutely wrong. The second is to convince
4699 you that it would be terribly wrong for us to reject our history.  We have
4700 always treated rights in creative property differently from the rights
4701 resident in all other property owners. They have never been the same. And
4702 they should never be the same, because, however counterintuitive this may
4703 seem, to make them the same would be to fundamentally weaken the opportunity
4704 for new creators to create.  Creativity depends upon the owners of
4705 creativity having less than perfect control.
4706 </p><p>
4707 Organizations such as the MPAA, whose board includes the most powerful of
4708 the old guard, have little interest, their rhetoric notwithstanding, in
4709 assuring that the new can displace them. No organization does. No person
4710 does. (Ask me about tenure, for example.)  But what's good for the MPAA is
4711 not necessarily good for America. A society that defends the ideals of free
4712 culture must preserve precisely the opportunity for new creativity to
4713 threaten the old.  To get just a hint that there is something fundamentally
4714 wrong in Valenti's argument, we need look no further than the United States
4715 Constitution itself.
4716 </p><p>
4717 The framers of our Constitution loved <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property.</span>&#8221;</span> Indeed, so
4718 strongly did they love property that they built into the Constitution an
4719 important requirement. If the government takes your property&#8212;if it
4720 condemns your house, or acquires a slice of land from your farm&#8212;it is
4721 required, under the Fifth Amendment's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Takings Clause,</span>&#8221;</span> to pay
4722 you <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">just compensation</span>&#8221;</span> for that taking. The Constitution thus
4723 guarantees that property is, in a certain sense, sacred. It cannot
4724 <span class="emphasis"><em>ever</em></span> be taken from the property owner unless the
4725 government pays for the privilege.
4726 </p><p>
4727
4728 Yet the very same Constitution speaks very differently about what Valenti
4729 calls <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property.</span>&#8221;</span> In the clause granting Congress the
4730 power to create <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property,</span>&#8221;</span> the Constitution
4731 <span class="emphasis"><em>requires</em></span> that after a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited time,</span>&#8221;</span>
4732 Congress take back the rights that it has granted and set the
4733 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> free to the public domain. Yet when
4734 Congress does this, when the expiration of a copyright term
4735 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">takes</span>&#8221;</span> your copyright and turns it over to the public domain,
4736 Congress does not have any obligation to pay <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">just
4737 compensation</span>&#8221;</span> for this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taking.</span>&#8221;</span> Instead, the same
4738 Constitution that requires compensation for your land requires that you lose
4739 your <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> right without any compensation at all.
4740 </p><p>
4741 The Constitution thus on its face states that these two forms of property
4742 are not to be accorded the same rights. They are plainly to be treated
4743 differently. Valenti is therefore not just asking for a change in our
4744 tradition when he argues that creative-property owners should be accorded
4745 the same rights as every other property-right owner. He is effectively
4746 arguing for a change in our Constitution itself.
4747 </p><p>
4748 Arguing for a change in our Constitution is not necessarily wrong.  There
4749 was much in our original Constitution that was plainly wrong.  The
4750 Constitution of 1789 entrenched slavery; it left senators to be appointed
4751 rather than elected; it made it possible for the electoral college to
4752 produce a tie between the president and his own vice president (as it did in
4753 1800). The framers were no doubt extraordinary, but I would be the first to
4754 admit that they made big mistakes. We have since rejected some of those
4755 mistakes; no doubt there could be others that we should reject as well. So
4756 my argument is not simply that because Jefferson did it, we should, too.
4757 </p><p>
4758 Instead, my argument is that because Jefferson did it, we should at least
4759 try to understand <span class="emphasis"><em>why</em></span>. Why did the framers, fanatical
4760 property types that they were, reject the claim that creative property be
4761 given the same rights as all other property? Why did they require that for
4762 creative property there must be a public domain?
4763 </p><p>
4764 To answer this question, we need to get some perspective on the history of
4765 these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> rights, and the control that they
4766 enabled.  Once we see clearly how differently these rights have been
4767 defined, we will be in a better position to ask the question that should be
4768 at the core of this war: Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> creative property
4769 should be protected, but how. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> we will
4770 enforce the rights the law gives to creative-property owners, but what the
4771 particular mix of rights ought to be. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span>
4772 artists should be paid, but whether institutions designed to assure that
4773 artists get paid need also control how culture develops.
4774 </p><p>
4775
4776
4777
4778 To answer these questions, we need a more general way to talk about how
4779 property is protected. More precisely, we need a more general way than the
4780 narrow language of the law allows. In <em class="citetitle">Code and Other Laws of
4781 Cyberspace</em>, I used a simple model to capture this more general
4782 perspective. For any particular right or regulation, this model asks how
4783 four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the
4784 right or regulation. I represented it with this diagram:
4785 </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
4786 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>
4787 At the center of this picture is a regulated dot: the individual or group
4788 that is the target of regulation, or the holder of a right. (In each case
4789 throughout, we can describe this either as regulation or as a right.  For
4790 simplicity's sake, I will speak only of regulations.)  The ovals represent
4791 four ways in which the individual or group might be regulated&#8212; either
4792 constrained or, alternatively, enabled. Law is the most obvious constraint
4793 (to lawyers, at least). It constrains by threatening punishments after the
4794 fact if the rules set in advance are violated. So if, for example, you
4795 willfully infringe Madonna's copyright by copying a song from her latest CD
4796 and posting it on the Web, you can be punished with a $150,000 fine. The
4797 fine is an ex post punishment for violating an ex ante rule. It is imposed
4798 by the state.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2580384"></a>
4799 </p><p>
4800 Norms are a different kind of constraint. They, too, punish an individual
4801 for violating a rule. But the punishment of a norm is imposed by a
4802 community, not (or not only) by the state. There may be no law against
4803 spitting, but that doesn't mean you won't be punished if you spit on the
4804 ground while standing in line at a movie. The punishment might not be harsh,
4805 though depending upon the community, it could easily be more harsh than many
4806 of the punishments imposed by the state. The mark of the difference is not
4807 the severity of the rule, but the source of the enforcement.
4808 </p><p>
4809 The market is a third type of constraint. Its constraint is effected through
4810 conditions: You can do X if you pay Y; you'll be paid M if you do N. These
4811 constraints are obviously not independent of law or norms&#8212;it is
4812 property law that defines what must be bought if it is to be taken legally;
4813 it is norms that say what is appropriately sold. But given a set of norms,
4814 and a background of property and contract law, the market imposes a
4815 simultaneous constraint upon how an individual or group might behave.
4816 </p><p>
4817 Finally, and for the moment, perhaps, most mysteriously,
4818 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">architecture</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;the physical world as one finds
4819 it&#8212;is a constraint on behavior.  A fallen bridge might constrain your
4820 ability to get across a river. Railroad tracks might constrain the ability
4821 of a community to integrate its social life. As with the market,
4822 architecture does not effect its constraint through ex post
4823 punishments. Instead, also as with the market, architecture effects its
4824 constraint through simultaneous conditions. These conditions are imposed not
4825 by courts enforcing contracts, or by police punishing theft, but by nature,
4826 by <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">architecture.</span>&#8221;</span> If a 500-pound boulder blocks your way, it
4827 is the law of gravity that enforces this constraint. If a $500 airplane
4828 ticket stands between you and a flight to New York, it is the market that
4829 enforces this constraint.
4830 </p><p>
4831
4832
4833
4834 So the first point about these four modalities of regulation is obvious:
4835 They interact. Restrictions imposed by one might be reinforced by
4836 another. Or restrictions imposed by one might be undermined by another.
4837 </p><p>
4838 The second point follows directly: If we want to understand the effective
4839 freedom that anyone has at a given moment to do any particular thing, we
4840 have to consider how these four modalities interact.  Whether or not there
4841 are other constraints (there may well be; my claim is not about
4842 comprehensiveness), these four are among the most significant, and any
4843 regulator (whether controlling or freeing)  must consider how these four in
4844 particular interact.
4845 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivespeed"></a><p>
4846 So, for example, consider the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">freedom</span>&#8221;</span> to drive a car at a
4847 high speed. That freedom is in part restricted by laws: speed limits that
4848 say how fast you can drive in particular places at particular times. It is
4849 in part restricted by architecture: speed bumps, for example, slow most
4850 rational drivers; governors in buses, as another example, set the maximum
4851 rate at which the driver can drive. The freedom is in part restricted by the
4852 market: Fuel efficiency drops as speed increases, thus the price of gasoline
4853 indirectly constrains speed. And finally, the norms of a community may or
4854 may not constrain the freedom to speed. Drive at 50 mph by a school in your
4855 own neighborhood and you're likely to be punished by the neighbors. The same
4856 norm wouldn't be as effective in a different town, or at night.
4857 </p><p>
4858
4859 The final point about this simple model should also be fairly clear: While
4860 these four modalities are analytically independent, law has a special role
4861 in affecting the three.<sup>[<a name="id2580887" href="#ftn.id2580887" class="footnote">120</a>]</sup> The law, in
4862 other words, sometimes operates to increase or decrease the constraint of a
4863 particular modality.  Thus, the law might be used to increase taxes on
4864 gasoline, so as to increase the incentives to drive more slowly. The law
4865 might be used to mandate more speed bumps, so as to increase the difficulty
4866 of driving rapidly. The law might be used to fund ads that stigmatize
4867 reckless driving. Or the law might be used to require that other laws be
4868 more strict&#8212;a federal requirement that states decrease the speed
4869 limit, for example&#8212;so as to decrease the attractiveness of fast
4870 driving.
4871 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2580920"></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"><p>
4872 These constraints can thus change, and they can be changed. To understand
4873 the effective protection of liberty or protection of property at any
4874 particular moment, we must track these changes over time. A restriction
4875 imposed by one modality might be erased by another. A freedom enabled by one
4876 modality might be displaced by another.<sup>[<a name="id2580954" href="#ftn.id2580954" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
4877 </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>
4878 The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just how,
4879 Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress and the
4880 courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that rallying makes
4881 sense.
4882 </p><p>
4883 Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the Internet:
4884 </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"><p>
4885
4886
4887 There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
4888 limits the ability to copy and share content, by imposing penalties on those
4889 who copy and share content. Those penalties are reinforced by technologies
4890 that make it hard to copy and share content (architecture) and expensive to
4891 copy and share content (market). Finally, those penalties are mitigated by
4892 norms we all recognize&#8212;kids, for example, taping other kids'
4893 records. These uses of copyrighted material may well be infringement, but
4894 the norms of our society (before the Internet, at least) had no problem with
4895 this form of infringement.
4896 </p><p>
4897 Enter the Internet, or, more precisely, technologies such as MP3s and p2p
4898 sharing. Now the constraint of architecture changes dramatically, as does
4899 the constraint of the market. And as both the market and architecture relax
4900 the regulation of copyright, norms pile on. The happy balance (for the
4901 warriors, at least) of life before the Internet becomes an effective state
4902 of anarchy after the Internet.
4903 </p><p>
4904
4905 Thus the sense of, and justification for, the warriors' response.
4906 Technology has changed, the warriors say, and the effect of this change,
4907 when ramified through the market and norms, is that a balance of protection
4908 for the copyright owners' rights has been lost. This is Iraq after the fall
4909 of Saddam, but this time no government is justifying the looting that
4910 results.
4911 </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>
4912 Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the
4913 warriors. Indeed, in a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">White Paper</span>&#8221;</span> prepared by the Commerce
4914 Department (one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in 1995, this
4915 mix of regulatory modalities had already been identified and the strategy to
4916 respond already mapped. In response to the changes the Internet had
4917 effected, the White Paper argued (1) Congress should strengthen intellectual
4918 property law, (2) businesses should adopt innovative marketing techniques,
4919 (3) technologists should push to develop code to protect copyrighted
4920 material, and (4) educators should educate kids to better protect copyright.
4921 </p><p>
4922
4923 This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed&#8212;if it was to
4924 preserve the particular balance that existed before the change induced by
4925 the Internet. And it's just what we should expect the content industry to
4926 push for. It is as American as apple pie to consider the happy life you have
4927 as an entitlement, and to look to the law to protect it if something comes
4928 along to change that happy life. Homeowners living in a flood plain have no
4929 hesitation appealing to the government to rebuild (and rebuild again) when a
4930 flood (architecture) wipes away their property (law). Farmers have no
4931 hesitation appealing to the government to bail them out when a virus
4932 (architecture) devastates their crop. Unions have no hesitation appealing to
4933 the government to bail them out when imports (market) wipe out the
4934 U.S. steel industry.
4935 </p><p>
4936 Thus, there's nothing wrong or surprising in the content industry's campaign
4937 to protect itself from the harmful consequences of a technological
4938 innovation. And I would be the last person to argue that the changing
4939 technology of the Internet has not had a profound effect on the content
4940 industry's way of doing business, or as John Seely Brown describes it, its
4941 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">architecture of revenue.</span>&#8221;</span>
4942 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2581161"></a><p>
4943 But just because a particular interest asks for government support, it
4944 doesn't follow that support should be granted. And just because technology
4945 has weakened a particular way of doing business, it doesn't follow that the
4946 government should intervene to support that old way of doing
4947 business. Kodak, for example, has lost perhaps as much as 20 percent of
4948 their traditional film market to the emerging technologies of digital
4949 cameras.<sup>[<a name="id2581176" href="#ftn.id2581176" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
4950 government should ban digital cameras just to support Kodak? Highways have
4951 weakened the freight business for railroads. Does anyone think we should ban
4952 trucks from roads <span class="emphasis"><em>for the purpose of</em></span> protecting the
4953 railroads? Closer to the subject of this book, remote channel changers have
4954 weakened the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stickiness</span>&#8221;</span> of television advertising (if a
4955 boring commercial comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf ), and
4956 it may well be that this change has weakened the television advertising
4957 market. But does anyone believe we should regulate remotes to reinforce
4958 commercial television? (Maybe by limiting them to function only once a
4959 second, or to switch to only ten channels within an hour?)
4960 </p><p>
4961 The obvious answer to these obviously rhetorical questions is no.  In a free
4962 society, with a free market, supported by free enterprise and free trade,
4963 the government's role is not to support one way of doing business against
4964 others. Its role is not to pick winners and protect them against loss. If
4965 the government did this generally, then we would never have any progress. As
4966 Microsoft chairman Bill Gates wrote in 1991, in a memo criticizing software
4967 patents, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">established companies have an interest in excluding future
4968 competitors.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2581238" href="#ftn.id2581238" class="footnote">123</a>]</sup> And relative to a
4969 startup, established companies also have the means. (Think RCA and FM
4970 radio.) A world in which competitors with new ideas must fight not only the
4971 market but also the government is a world in which competitors with new
4972 ideas will not succeed. It is a world of stasis and increasingly
4973 concentrated stagnation. It is the Soviet Union under Brezhnev.
4974 <a class="indexterm" name="id2581257"></a>
4975 </p><p>
4976 Thus, while it is understandable for industries threatened with new
4977 technologies that change the way they do business to look to the government
4978 for protection, it is the special duty of policy makers to guarantee that
4979 that protection not become a deterrent to progress. It is the duty of policy
4980 makers, in other words, to assure that the changes they create, in response
4981 to the request of those hurt by changing technology, are changes that
4982 preserve the incentives and opportunities for innovation and change.
4983 </p><p>
4984 In the context of laws regulating speech&#8212;which include, obviously,
4985 copyright law&#8212;that duty is even stronger. When the industry
4986 complaining about changing technologies is asking Congress to respond in a
4987 way that burdens speech and creativity, policy makers should be especially
4988 wary of the request. It is always a bad deal for the government to get into
4989 the business of regulating speech markets. The risks and dangers of that
4990 game are precisely why our framers created the First Amendment to our
4991 Constitution: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Congress shall make no law &#8230; abridging the
4992 freedom of speech.</span>&#8221;</span> So when Congress is being asked to pass laws that
4993 would <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">abridge</span>&#8221;</span> the freedom of speech, it should ask&#8212;
4994 carefully&#8212;whether such regulation is justified.
4995 </p><p>
4996
4997 My argument just now, however, has nothing to do with whether the changes
4998 that are being pushed by the copyright warriors are
4999 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">justified.</span>&#8221;</span> My argument is about their effect. For before we
5000 get to the question of justification, a hard question that depends a great
5001 deal upon your values, we should first ask whether we understand the effect
5002 of the changes the content industry wants.
5003 </p><p>
5004 Her kommer metaforen som vil forklare argumentet.
5005 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxddt"></a><p>
5006 In 1873, the chemical DDT was first synthesized. In 1948, Swiss chemist Paul
5007 Hermann Müller won the Nobel Prize for his work demonstrating the
5008 insecticidal properties of DDT. By the 1950s, the insecticide was widely
5009 used around the world to kill disease-carrying pests. It was also used to
5010 increase farm production.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2581344"></a>
5011 </p><p>
5012 No one doubts that killing disease-carrying pests or increasing crop
5013 production is a good thing. No one doubts that the work of Müller was
5014 important and valuable and probably saved lives, possibly millions.
5015 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2581362"></a><p>
5016 But in 1962, Rachel Carson published <em class="citetitle">Silent Spring</em>,
5017 which argued that DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having
5018 unintended environmental consequences. Birds were losing the ability to
5019 reproduce.  Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2581378"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2581384"></a>
5020 </p><p>
5021 No one set out to destroy the environment. Paul Müller certainly did not aim
5022 to harm any birds. But the effort to solve one set of problems produced
5023 another set which, in the view of some, was far worse than the problems that
5024 were originally attacked. Or more accurately, the problems DDT caused were
5025 worse than the problems it solved, at least when considering the other, more
5026 environmentally friendly ways to solve the problems that DDT was meant to
5027 solve.
5028 </p><p>
5029
5030 It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James Boyle
5031 appeals when he argues that we need an <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">environmentalism</span>&#8221;</span> for
5032 culture.<sup>[<a name="id2581416" href="#ftn.id2581416" class="footnote">124</a>]</sup> His point, and the point I
5033 want to develop in the balance of this chapter, is not that the aims of
5034 copyright are flawed. Or that authors should not be paid for their work. Or
5035 that music should be given away <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">for free.</span>&#8221;</span> The point is that
5036 some of the ways in which we might protect authors will have unintended
5037 consequences for the cultural environment, much like DDT had for the natural
5038 environment. And just as criticism of DDT is not an endorsement of malaria
5039 or an attack on farmers, so, too, is criticism of one particular set of
5040 regulations protecting copyright not an endorsement of anarchy or an attack
5041 on authors.  It is an environment of creativity that we seek, and we should
5042 be aware of our actions' effects on the environment.
5043 </p><p>
5044 My argument, in the balance of this chapter, tries to map exactly this
5045 effect. No doubt the technology of the Internet has had a dramatic effect on
5046 the ability of copyright owners to protect their content. But there should
5047 also be little doubt that when you add together the changes in copyright law
5048 over time, plus the change in technology that the Internet is undergoing
5049 just now, the net effect of these changes will not be only that copyrighted
5050 work is effectively protected. Also, and generally missed, the net effect of
5051 this massive increase in protection will be devastating to the environment
5052 for creativity.
5053 </p><p>
5054 In a line: To kill a gnat, we are spraying DDT with consequences for free
5055 culture that will be far more devastating than that this gnat will be lost.
5056 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2581466"></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>
5057 America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
5058 English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative
5059 property</span>&#8221;</span> rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English
5060 aim to avoid overly powerful publishers.
5061 </p><p>
5062 The power to establish <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> rights is granted to
5063 Congress in a way that, for our Constitution, at least, is very odd. Article
5064 I, section 8, clause 8 of our Constitution states that:
5065 </p><p>
5066
5067 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
5068 by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
5069 to their respective Writings and Discoveries.  We can call this the
5070 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Progress Clause,</span>&#8221;</span> for notice what this clause does not say. It
5071 does not say Congress has the power to grant <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property
5072 rights.</span>&#8221;</span> It says that Congress has the power <span class="emphasis"><em>to promote
5073 progress</em></span>. The grant of power is its purpose, and its purpose is a
5074 public one, not the purpose of enriching publishers, nor even primarily the
5075 purpose of rewarding authors.
5076 </p><p>
5077 The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw in
5078 chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">6</a>, the
5079 English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a few would not
5080 exercise disproportionate control over culture by exercising
5081 disproportionate control over publishing. We can assume the framers followed
5082 the English for a similar purpose. Indeed, unlike the English, the framers
5083 reinforced that objective, by requiring that copyrights extend <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">to
5084 Authors</span>&#8221;</span> only.
5085 </p><p>
5086 The design of the Progress Clause reflects something about the
5087 Constitution's design in general. To avoid a problem, the framers built
5088 structure. To prevent the concentrated power of publishers, they built a
5089 structure that kept copyrights away from publishers and kept them short. To
5090 prevent the concentrated power of a church, they banned the federal
5091 government from establishing a church. To prevent concentrating power in the
5092 federal government, they built structures to reinforce the power of the
5093 states&#8212;including the Senate, whose members were at the time selected
5094 by the states, and an electoral college, also selected by the states, to
5095 select the president. In each case, a <span class="emphasis"><em>structure</em></span> built
5096 checks and balances into the constitutional frame, structured to prevent
5097 otherwise inevitable concentrations of power.
5098 </p><p>
5099 I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call
5100 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond
5101 anything they ever considered. To begin to understand what they did, we need
5102 to put our <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> in context: We need to see how it has
5103 changed in the 210 years since they first struck its design.
5104 </p><p>
5105
5106 Some of these changes come from the law: some in light of changes in
5107 technology, and some in light of changes in technology given a particular
5108 concentration of market power. In terms of our model, we started here:
5109 </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>
5110 Vi kommer til å ende opp her:
5111 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1442"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.6. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright</span>&#8221;</span> today.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1442.png" alt="Copyright today."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5112
5113 La meg forklare hvordan.
5114
5115 </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>
5116 When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it faced
5117 the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that the English
5118 had confronted in 1774. Many states had passed laws protecting creative
5119 property, and some believed that these laws simply supplemented common law
5120 rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="id2581647" href="#ftn.id2581647" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
5121 domain in the United States in 1790. If copyrights were protected by the
5122 common law, then there was no simple way to know whether a work published in
5123 the United States was controlled or free. Just as in England, this lingering
5124 uncertainty would make it hard for publishers to rely upon a public domain
5125 to reprint and distribute works.
5126 </p><p>
5127 That uncertainty ended after Congress passed legislation granting
5128 copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law, federal
5129 protections for copyrighted works displaced any state law protections.  Just
5130 as in England the Statute of Anne eventually meant that the copyrights for
5131 all English works expired, a federal statute meant that any state copyrights
5132 expired as well.
5133 </p><p>
5134 In 1790, Congress enacted the first copyright law. It created a federal
5135 copyright and secured that copyright for fourteen years. If the author was
5136 alive at the end of that fourteen years, then he could opt to renew the
5137 copyright for another fourteen years. If he did not renew the copyright, his
5138 work passed into the public domain.
5139 </p><p>
5140 Selv om det ble skapt mange verker i USA i de første 10 årene til
5141 republikken, så ble kun 5 prosent av verkene registrert under det føderale
5142 opphavsrettsregimet.  Av alle verker skapt i USA både før 1790 og fra 1790
5143 fram til 1800, så ble 95 prosent øyeblikkelig allemannseie (public
5144 domain). Resten ble allemannseie etter maksimalt 20 år, og som oftest etter
5145 14 år.<sup>[<a name="id2581715" href="#ftn.id2581715" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
5146 </p><p>
5147
5148 Dette fornyelsessystemet var en avgjørende del av det amerikanske systemet
5149 for opphavsrett.  Det sikret at maksimal vernetid i opphavsretten bare ble
5150 gitt til verker der det var ønsket. Etter den første perioden på fjorten år,
5151 hvis forfatteren ikke så verdien av å fornye sin opphavsrett, var det heller
5152 ikke verdt det for samfunnet å håndheve opphavsretten.
5153 </p><p>
5154 Fourteen years may not seem long to us, but for the vast majority of
5155 copyright owners at that time, it was long enough: Only a small minority of
5156 them renewed their copyright after fourteen years; the balance allowed their
5157 work to pass into the public domain.<sup>[<a name="id2581782" href="#ftn.id2581782" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
5158 </p><p>
5159 Even today, this structure would make sense. Most creative work has an
5160 actual commercial life of just a couple of years. Most books fall out of
5161 print after one year.<sup>[<a name="id2581817" href="#ftn.id2581817" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
5162 happens, the used books are traded free of copyright regulation. Thus the
5163 books are no longer <span class="emphasis"><em>effectively</em></span> controlled by
5164 copyright. The only practical commercial use of the books at that time is to
5165 sell the books as used books; that use&#8212;because it does not involve
5166 publication&#8212;is effectively free.
5167 </p><p>
5168 In the first hundred years of the Republic, the term of copyright was
5169 changed once. In 1831, the term was increased from a maximum of 28 years to
5170 a maximum of 42 by increasing the initial term of copyright from 14 years to
5171 28 years. In the next fifty years of the Republic, the term increased once
5172 again. In 1909, Congress extended the renewal term of 14 years to 28 years,
5173 setting a maximum term of 56 years.
5174 </p><p>
5175 Then, beginning in 1962, Congress started a practice that has defined
5176 copyright law since. Eleven times in the last forty years, Congress has
5177 extended the terms of existing copyrights; twice in those forty years,
5178 Congress extended the term of future copyrights. Initially, the extensions
5179 of existing copyrights were short, a mere one to two years.  In 1976,
5180 Congress extended all existing copyrights by nineteen years.  And in 1998,
5181 in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Congress extended the term
5182 of existing and future copyrights by twenty years.
5183 </p><p>
5184
5185 The effect of these extensions is simply to toll, or delay, the passing of
5186 works into the public domain. This latest extension means that the public
5187 domain will have been tolled for thirty-nine out of fifty-five years, or 70
5188 percent of the time since 1962. Thus, in the twenty years after the Sonny
5189 Bono Act, while one million patents will pass into the public domain, zero
5190 copyrights will pass into the public domain by virtue of the expiration of a
5191 copyright term.
5192 </p><p>
5193 The effect of these extensions has been exacerbated by another,
5194 little-noticed change in the copyright law. Remember I said that the framers
5195 established a two-part copyright regime, requiring a copyright owner to
5196 renew his copyright after an initial term. The requirement of renewal meant
5197 that works that no longer needed copyright protection would pass more
5198 quickly into the public domain. The works remaining under protection would
5199 be those that had some continuing commercial value.
5200 </p><p>
5201 The United States abandoned this sensible system in 1976. For all works
5202 created after 1978, there was only one copyright term&#8212;the maximum
5203 term. For <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">natural</span>&#8221;</span> authors, that term was life plus fifty
5204 years. For corporations, the term was seventy-five years. Then, in 1992,
5205 Congress abandoned the renewal requirement for all works created before
5206 1978. All works still under copyright would be accorded the maximum term
5207 then available. After the Sonny Bono Act, that term was ninety-five years.
5208 </p><p>
5209 This change meant that American law no longer had an automatic way to assure
5210 that works that were no longer exploited passed into the public domain. And
5211 indeed, after these changes, it is unclear whether it is even possible to
5212 put works into the public domain. The public domain is orphaned by these
5213 changes in copyright law. Despite the requirement that terms be
5214 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited,</span>&#8221;</span> we have no evidence that anything will limit them.
5215 </p><p>
5216 The effect of these changes on the average duration of copyright is
5217 dramatic. In 1973, more than 85 percent of copyright owners failed to renew
5218 their copyright. That meant that the average term of copyright in 1973 was
5219 just 32.2 years. Because of the elimination of the renewal requirement, the
5220 average term of copyright is now the maximum term.  In thirty years, then,
5221 the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.<sup>[<a name="id2581919" href="#ftn.id2581919" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
5222 </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>
5223 The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">scope</span>&#8221;</span> of a copyright is the range of rights granted by
5224 the law.  The scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those
5225 changes are not necessarily bad. But we should understand the extent of the
5226 changes if we're to keep this debate in context.
5227 </p><p>
5228 In 1790, that scope was very narrow. Copyright covered only <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">maps,
5229 charts, and books.</span>&#8221;</span> That means it didn't cover, for example, music or
5230 architecture. More significantly, the right granted by a copyright gave the
5231 author the exclusive right to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">publish</span>&#8221;</span> copyrighted works. That
5232 means someone else violated the copyright only if he republished the work
5233 without the copyright owner's permission. Finally, the right granted by a
5234 copyright was an exclusive right to that particular book. The right did not
5235 extend to what lawyers call <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">derivative works.</span>&#8221;</span> It would not,
5236 therefore, interfere with the right of someone other than the author to
5237 translate a copyrighted book, or to adapt the story to a different form
5238 (such as a drama based on a published book).
5239 </p><p>
5240 This, too, has changed dramatically. While the contours of copyright today
5241 are extremely hard to describe simply, in general terms, the right covers
5242 practically any creative work that is reduced to a tangible form. It covers
5243 music as well as architecture, drama as well as computer programs. It gives
5244 the copyright owner of that creative work not only the exclusive right to
5245 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">publish</span>&#8221;</span> the work, but also the exclusive right of control
5246 over any <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copies</span>&#8221;</span> of that work. And most significant for our
5247 purposes here, the right gives the copyright owner control over not only his
5248 or her particular work, but also any <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">derivative work</span>&#8221;</span> that
5249 might grow out of the original work. In this way, the right covers more
5250 creative work, protects the creative work more broadly, and protects works
5251 that are based in a significant way on the initial creative work.
5252 </p><p>
5253
5254 At the same time that the scope of copyright has expanded, procedural
5255 limitations on the right have been relaxed. I've already described the
5256 complete removal of the renewal requirement in 1992. In addition to the
5257 renewal requirement, for most of the history of American copyright law,
5258 there was a requirement that a work be registered before it could receive
5259 the protection of a copyright. There was also a requirement that any
5260 copyrighted work be marked either with that famous © or the word
5261 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>. And for most of the history of American
5262 copyright law, there was a requirement that works be deposited with the
5263 government before a copyright could be secured.
5264 </p><p>
5265 The reason for the registration requirement was the sensible understanding
5266 that for most works, no copyright was required. Again, in the first ten
5267 years of the Republic, 95 percent of works eligible for copyright were never
5268 copyrighted. Thus, the rule reflected the norm: Most works apparently didn't
5269 need copyright, so registration narrowed the regulation of the law to the
5270 few that did. The same reasoning justified the requirement that a work be
5271 marked as copyrighted&#8212;that way it was easy to know whether a copyright
5272 was being claimed. The requirement that works be deposited was to assure
5273 that after the copyright expired, there would be a copy of the work
5274 somewhere so that it could be copied by others without locating the original
5275 author.
5276 </p><p>
5277 All of these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">formalities</span>&#8221;</span> were abolished in the American
5278 system when we decided to follow European copyright law. There is no
5279 requirement that you register a work to get a copyright; the copyright now
5280 is automatic; the copyright exists whether or not you mark your work with a
5281 ©; and the copyright exists whether or not you actually make a copy
5282 available for others to copy.
5283 </p><p>
5284 Vurder et praktisk eksempel for å forstå omfanget av disse forskjellene.
5285 </p><p>
5286 If, in 1790, you wrote a book and you were one of the 5 percent who actually
5287 copyrighted that book, then the copyright law protected you against another
5288 publisher's taking your book and republishing it without your
5289 permission. The aim of the act was to regulate publishers so as to prevent
5290 that kind of unfair competition. In 1790, there were 174 publishers in the
5291 United States.<sup>[<a name="id2582073" href="#ftn.id2582073" class="footnote">130</a>]</sup> The Copyright Act was
5292 thus a tiny regulation of a tiny proportion of a tiny part of the creative
5293 market in the United States&#8212;publishers.
5294 </p><p>
5295
5296
5297 The act left other creators totally unregulated. If I copied your poem by
5298 hand, over and over again, as a way to learn it by heart, my act was totally
5299 unregulated by the 1790 act. If I took your novel and made a play based upon
5300 it, or if I translated it or abridged it, none of those activities were
5301 regulated by the original copyright act. These creative activities remained
5302 free, while the activities of publishers were restrained.
5303 </p><p>
5304 Today the story is very different: If you write a book, your book is
5305 automatically protected. Indeed, not just your book. Every e-mail, every
5306 note to your spouse, every doodle, <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> creative act
5307 that's reduced to a tangible form&#8212;all of this is automatically
5308 copyrighted.  There is no need to register or mark your work. The protection
5309 follows the creation, not the steps you take to protect it.
5310 </p><p>
5311 That protection gives you the right (subject to a narrow range of fair use
5312 exceptions) to control how others copy the work, whether they copy it to
5313 republish it or to share an excerpt.
5314 </p><p>
5315 That much is the obvious part. Any system of copyright would control
5316 competing publishing. But there's a second part to the copyright of today
5317 that is not at all obvious. This is the protection of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">derivative
5318 rights.</span>&#8221;</span> If you write a book, no one can make a movie out of your
5319 book without permission. No one can translate it without permission.
5320 CliffsNotes can't make an abridgment unless permission is granted. All of
5321 these derivative uses of your original work are controlled by the copyright
5322 holder. The copyright, in other words, is now not just an exclusive right to
5323 your writings, but an exclusive right to your writings and a large
5324 proportion of the writings inspired by them.
5325 </p><p>
5326 It is this derivative right that would seem most bizarre to our framers,
5327 though it has become second nature to us. Initially, this expansion was
5328 created to deal with obvious evasions of a narrower copyright.  If I write a
5329 book, can you change one word and then claim a copyright in a new and
5330 different book? Obviously that would make a joke of the copyright, so the
5331 law was properly expanded to include those slight modifications as well as
5332 the verbatim original work.
5333 </p><p>
5334
5335 In preventing that joke, the law created an astonishing power within a free
5336 culture&#8212;at least, it's astonishing when you understand that the law
5337 applies not just to the commercial publisher but to anyone with a
5338 computer. I understand the wrong in duplicating and selling someone else's
5339 work. But whatever <span class="emphasis"><em>that</em></span> wrong is, transforming someone
5340 else's work is a different wrong. Some view transformation as no wrong at
5341 all&#8212;they believe that our law, as the framers penned it, should not
5342 protect derivative rights at all.<sup>[<a name="id2582160" href="#ftn.id2582160" class="footnote">131</a>]</sup>
5343 Whether or not you go that far, it seems plain that whatever wrong is
5344 involved is fundamentally different from the wrong of direct piracy.
5345 </p><p>
5346 Yet copyright law treats these two different wrongs in the same way. I can
5347 go to court and get an injunction against your pirating my book. I can go to
5348 court and get an injunction against your transformative use of my
5349 book.<sup>[<a name="id2582208" href="#ftn.id2582208" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
5350 creative work are treated the same.
5351 </p><p>
5352 This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should you be
5353 able to write a movie that takes my story and makes money from it without
5354 paying me or crediting me? Or if Disney creates a creature called
5355 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Mickey Mouse,</span>&#8221;</span> why should you be able to make Mickey Mouse
5356 toys and be the one to trade on the value that Disney originally created?
5357 </p><p>
5358 These are good arguments, and, in general, my point is not that the
5359 derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower: simply to
5360 make clear that this expansion is a significant change from the rights
5361 originally granted.
5362 </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>
5363 Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
5364 copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users, and
5365 authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making copies,
5366 and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id2582274" href="#ftn.id2582274" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
5367 </p><p>
5368
5369
5370 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copies.</span>&#8221;</span> That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for
5371 <span class="emphasis"><em>copy</em></span>right law to regulate. But as with Jack Valenti's
5372 argument at the start of this chapter, that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span>
5373 deserves the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">same rights</span>&#8221;</span> as all other property, it is the
5374 <span class="emphasis"><em>obvious</em></span> that we need to be most careful about. For
5375 while it may be obvious that in the world before the Internet, copies were
5376 the obvious trigger for copyright law, upon reflection, it should be obvious
5377 that in the world with the Internet, copies should <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span>
5378 be the trigger for copyright law. More precisely, they should not
5379 <span class="emphasis"><em>always</em></span> be the trigger for copyright law.
5380 </p><p>
5381 This is perhaps the central claim of this book, so let me take this very
5382 slowly so that the point is not easily missed. My claim is that the Internet
5383 should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which the law of
5384 copyright automatically applies,<sup>[<a name="id2582352" href="#ftn.id2582352" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
5385 because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never
5386 contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright
5387 law.
5388 </p><p>
5389 We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely empty
5390 circle.
5391 </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"><p>
5392
5393
5394 Think about a book in real space, and imagine this circle to represent all
5395 its potential <span class="emphasis"><em>uses</em></span>. Most of these uses are unregulated
5396 by copyright law, because the uses don't create a copy. If you read a book,
5397 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you give someone the book,
5398 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you resell a book, that act
5399 is not regulated (copyright law expressly states that after the first sale
5400 of a book, the copyright owner can impose no further conditions on the
5401 disposition of the book). If you sleep on the book or use it to hold up a
5402 lamp or let your puppy chew it up, those acts are not regulated by copyright
5403 law, because those acts do not make a copy.
5404 </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>
5405 Obviously, however, some uses of a copyrighted book are regulated by
5406 copyright law. Republishing the book, for example, makes a copy. It is
5407 therefore regulated by copyright law. Indeed, this particular use stands at
5408 the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work. It is the
5409 paradigmatic use properly regulated by copyright regulation (see first
5410 diagram on next page).
5411 </p><p>
5412 Finally, there is a tiny sliver of otherwise regulated copying uses that
5413 remain unregulated because the law considers these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair uses.</span>&#8221;</span>
5414 </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
5415 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>
5416 These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law treats as
5417 unregulated because public policy demands that they remain unregulated.  You
5418 are free to quote from this book, even in a review that is quite negative,
5419 without my permission, even though that quoting makes a copy. That copy
5420 would ordinarily give the copyright owner the exclusive right to say whether
5421 the copy is allowed or not, but the law denies the owner any exclusive right
5422 over such <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair uses</span>&#8221;</span> for public policy (and possibly First
5423 Amendment) reasons.
5424 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1542"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.10. Unregulated copying considered <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair uses.</span>&#8221;</span></b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1542.png" alt="Unregulated copying considered fair uses."></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
5425 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>
5426
5427
5428 In real space, then, the possible uses of a book are divided into three
5429 sorts: (1) unregulated uses, (2) regulated uses, and (3) regulated uses that
5430 are nonetheless deemed <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair</span>&#8221;</span> regardless of the copyright
5431 owner's views.
5432 </p><p>
5433 Enter the Internet&#8212;a distributed, digital network where every use of a
5434 copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id2582283" href="#ftn.id2582283" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
5435 because of this single, arbitrary feature of the design of a digital
5436 network, the scope of category 1 changes dramatically. Uses that before were
5437 presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated. No longer is
5438 there a set of presumptively unregulated uses that define a freedom
5439 associated with a copyrighted work. Instead, each use is now subject to the
5440 copyright, because each use also makes a copy&#8212;category 1 gets sucked
5441 into category 2. And those who would defend the unregulated uses of
5442 copyrighted work must look exclusively to category 3, fair uses, to bear the
5443 burden of this shift.
5444 </p><p>
5445
5446 So let's be very specific to make this general point clear. Before the
5447 Internet, if you purchased a book and read it ten times, there would be no
5448 plausible <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>-related argument that the copyright
5449 owner could make to control that use of her book. Copyright law would have
5450 nothing to say about whether you read the book once, ten times, or every
5451 night before you went to bed. None of those instances of
5452 use&#8212;reading&#8212; could be regulated by copyright law because none of
5453 those uses produced a copy.
5454 </p><p>
5455 But the same book as an e-book is effectively governed by a different set of
5456 rules. Now if the copyright owner says you may read the book only once or
5457 only once a month, then <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright law</em></span> would aid the
5458 copyright owner in exercising this degree of control, because of the
5459 accidental feature of copyright law that triggers its application upon there
5460 being a copy. Now if you read the book ten times and the license says you
5461 may read it only five times, then whenever you read the book (or any portion
5462 of it) beyond the fifth time, you are making a copy of the book contrary to
5463 the copyright owner's wish.
5464 </p><p>
5465 There are some people who think this makes perfect sense. My aim just now is
5466 not to argue about whether it makes sense or not. My aim is only to make
5467 clear the change. Once you see this point, a few other points also become
5468 clear:
5469 </p><p>
5470 First, making category 1 disappear is not anything any policy maker ever
5471 intended. Congress did not think through the collapse of the presumptively
5472 unregulated uses of copyrighted works. There is no evidence at all that
5473 policy makers had this idea in mind when they allowed our policy here to
5474 shift. Unregulated uses were an important part of free culture before the
5475 Internet.
5476 </p><p>
5477 Second, this shift is especially troubling in the context of transformative
5478 uses of creative content. Again, we can all understand the wrong in
5479 commercial piracy. But the law now purports to regulate
5480 <span class="emphasis"><em>any</em></span> transformation you make of creative work using a
5481 machine. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copy and paste</span>&#8221;</span> and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>&#8221;</span>
5482 become crimes. Tinkering with a story and releasing it to others exposes the
5483 tinkerer to at least a requirement of justification.  However troubling the
5484 expansion with respect to copying a particular work, it is extraordinarily
5485 troubling with respect to transformative uses of creative work.
5486 </p><p>
5487
5488 Third, this shift from category 1 to category 2 puts an extraordinary burden
5489 on category 3 (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span>) that fair use never before had to
5490 bear.  If a copyright owner now tried to control how many times I could read
5491 a book on-line, the natural response would be to argue that this is a
5492 violation of my fair use rights. But there has never been any litigation
5493 about whether I have a fair use right to read, because before the Internet,
5494 reading did not trigger the application of copyright law and hence the need
5495 for a fair use defense. The right to read was effectively protected before
5496 because reading was not regulated.
5497 </p><p>
5498 This point about fair use is totally ignored, even by advocates for free
5499 culture. We have been cornered into arguing that our rights depend upon fair
5500 use&#8212;never even addressing the earlier question about the expansion in
5501 effective regulation. A thin protection grounded in fair use makes sense
5502 when the vast majority of uses are <span class="emphasis"><em>unregulated</em></span>. But
5503 when everything becomes presumptively regulated, then the protections of
5504 fair use are not enough.
5505 </p><p>
5506 The case of Video Pipeline is a good example. Video Pipeline was in the
5507 business of making <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">trailer</span>&#8221;</span> advertisements for movies
5508 available to video stores. The video stores displayed the trailers as a way
5509 to sell videos. Video Pipeline got the trailers from the film distributors,
5510 put the trailers on tape, and sold the tapes to the retail stores.
5511 </p><p>
5512 The company did this for about fifteen years. Then, in 1997, it began to
5513 think about the Internet as another way to distribute these previews.  The
5514 idea was to expand their <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">selling by sampling</span>&#8221;</span> technique by
5515 giving on-line stores the same ability to enable <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">browsing.</span>&#8221;</span>
5516 Just as in a bookstore you can read a few pages of a book before you buy the
5517 book, so, too, you would be able to sample a bit from the movie on-line
5518 before you bought it.
5519 </p><p>
5520
5521 In 1998, Video Pipeline informed Disney and other film distributors that it
5522 intended to distribute the trailers through the Internet (rather than
5523 sending the tapes) to distributors of their videos. Two years later, Disney
5524 told Video Pipeline to stop. The owner of Video Pipeline asked Disney to
5525 talk about the matter&#8212;he had built a business on distributing this
5526 content as a way to help sell Disney films; he had customers who depended
5527 upon his delivering this content. Disney would agree to talk only if Video
5528 Pipeline stopped the distribution immediately.  Video Pipeline thought it
5529 was within their <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span> rights to distribute the clips as
5530 they had. So they filed a lawsuit to ask the court to declare that these
5531 rights were in fact their rights.
5532 </p><p>
5533 Disney countersued&#8212;for $100 million in damages. Those damages were
5534 predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">willfully
5535 infringed</span>&#8221;</span> on Disney's copyright. When a court makes a finding of
5536 willful infringement, it can award damages not on the basis of the actual
5537 harm to the copyright owner, but on the basis of an amount set in the
5538 statute. Because Video Pipeline had distributed seven hundred clips of
5539 Disney movies to enable video stores to sell copies of those movies, Disney
5540 was now suing Video Pipeline for $100 million.
5541 </p><p>
5542 Disney has the right to control its property, of course. But the video
5543 stores that were selling Disney's films also had some sort of right to be
5544 able to sell the films that they had bought from Disney. Disney's claim in
5545 court was that the stores were allowed to sell the films and they were
5546 permitted to list the titles of the films they were selling, but they were
5547 not allowed to show clips of the films as a way of selling them without
5548 Disney's permission.
5549 </p><p>
5550 Now, you might think this is a close case, and I think the courts would
5551 consider it a close case. My point here is to map the change that gives
5552 Disney this power. Before the Internet, Disney couldn't really control how
5553 people got access to their content. Once a video was in the marketplace, the
5554 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">first-sale doctrine</span>&#8221;</span> would free the seller to use the video as
5555 he wished, including showing portions of it in order to engender sales of
5556 the entire movie video. But with the Internet, it becomes possible for
5557 Disney to centralize control over access to this content. Because each use
5558 of the Internet produces a copy, use on the Internet becomes subject to the
5559 copyright owner's control. The technology expands the scope of effective
5560 control, because the technology builds a copy into every transaction.
5561 </p><p>
5562
5563
5564 No doubt, a potential is not yet an abuse, and so the potential for control
5565 is not yet the abuse of control. Barnes &amp; Noble has the right to say you
5566 can't touch a book in their store; property law gives them that right.  But
5567 the market effectively protects against that abuse. If Barnes &amp; Noble
5568 banned browsing, then consumers would choose other bookstores.  Competition
5569 protects against the extremes. And it may well be (my argument so far does
5570 not even question this) that competition would prevent any similar danger
5571 when it comes to copyright. Sure, publishers exercising the rights that
5572 authors have assigned to them might try to regulate how many times you read
5573 a book, or try to stop you from sharing the book with anyone. But in a
5574 competitive market such as the book market, the dangers of this happening
5575 are quite slight.
5576 </p><p>
5577 Again, my aim so far is simply to map the changes that this changed
5578 architecture enables. Enabling technology to enforce the control of
5579 copyright means that the control of copyright is no longer defined by
5580 balanced policy. The control of copyright is simply what private owners
5581 choose. In some contexts, at least, that fact is harmless. But in some
5582 contexts it is a recipe for disaster.
5583 </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>
5584 The disappearance of unregulated uses would be change enough, but a second
5585 important change brought about by the Internet magnifies its
5586 significance. This second change does not affect the reach of copyright
5587 regulation; it affects how such regulation is enforced.
5588 </p><p>
5589 In the world before digital technology, it was generally the law that
5590 controlled whether and how someone was regulated by copyright law.  The law,
5591 meaning a court, meaning a judge: In the end, it was a human, trained in the
5592 tradition of the law and cognizant of the balances that tradition embraced,
5593 who said whether and how the law would restrict your freedom.
5594 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2582844"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
5595 Det er en berømt historie om en kamp mellom Marx-brødrene (the Marx
5596 Brothers) og Warner Brothers.  Marx-brødrene planla å lage en parodi av
5597 <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>. Warner Brothers protesterte.  De skrev et
5598 ufint brev til Marx-brødrene og advarte dem om at det ville få seriøse
5599 juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.<sup>[<a name="id2582891" href="#ftn.id2582891" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
5600 </p><p>
5601 This led the Marx Brothers to respond in kind. They warned Warner Brothers
5602 that the Marx Brothers <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">were brothers long before you
5603 were.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2582914" href="#ftn.id2582914" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> The Marx Brothers
5604 therefore owned the word <em class="citetitle">brothers</em>, and if Warner
5605 Brothers insisted on trying to control <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>,
5606 then the Marx Brothers would insist on control over
5607 <em class="citetitle">brothers</em>.
5608 </p><p>
5609 Det var en absurd og hul trussel, selvfølgelig, fordi Warner Brothers, på
5610 samme måte som Marx-brødrene, visste at ingen domstol noensinne ville
5611 håndheve et slikt dumt krav. Denne ekstremismen var irrelevant for de ekte
5612 friheter som alle (inkludert Warner Brothers) nøt godt av.
5613 </p><p>
5614 On the Internet, however, there is no check on silly rules, because on the
5615 Internet, increasingly, rules are enforced not by a human but by a machine:
5616 Increasingly, the rules of copyright law, as interpreted by the copyright
5617 owner, get built into the technology that delivers copyrighted content. It
5618 is code, rather than law, that rules. And the problem with code regulations
5619 is that, unlike law, code has no shame. Code would not get the humor of the
5620 Marx Brothers. The consequence of that is not at all funny.
5621 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2582978"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2582987"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
5622 La oss se på livet til min Adobe eBook Reader.
5623 </p><p>
5624 En ebok er en bok levert i elektronisk form.  En Adobe eBook er ikke en bok
5625 som Adobe har publisert.  Adobe produserer kun programvaren som utgivere
5626 bruker å levere e-bøker.  Den bidrar med teknologien, og utgiveren leverer
5627 innholdet ved hjelp av teknologien.
5628 </p><p>
5629 On the next page is a picture of an old version of my Adobe eBook Reader.
5630 </p><p>
5631
5632 As you can see, I have a small collection of e-books within this e-book
5633 library. Some of these books reproduce content that is in the public domain:
5634 <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, for example, is in the public domain.
5635 Some of them reproduce content that is not in the public domain: My own book
5636 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> is not yet within the public
5637 domain.  Consider <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> first. If you click on
5638 my e-book copy of <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, you'll see a fancy
5639 cover, and then a button at the bottom called Permissions.
5640 </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>
5641 If you click on the Permissions button, you'll see a list of the permissions
5642 that the publisher purports to grant with this book.
5643 </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>
5644
5645
5646 According to my eBook Reader, I have the permission to copy to the clipboard
5647 of the computer ten text selections every ten days. (So far, I've copied no
5648 text to the clipboard.)  I also have the permission to print ten pages from
5649 the book every ten days. Lastly, I have the permission to use the Read Aloud
5650 button to hear <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> read aloud through the
5651 computer.
5652 </p><p>
5653 Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen):
5654 Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em>  <a class="indexterm" name="id2583111"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2583117"></a>
5655 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.14. E-book of Aristotle;s <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Politics</span>&#8221;</span></b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1621.png" alt="E-book of Aristotle;s Politics"></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5656 According to its permissions, no printing or copying is permitted at
5657 all. But fortunately, you can use the Read Aloud button to hear the book.
5658 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1622"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.15. List of the permissions for Aristotle;s <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Politics</span>&#8221;</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1622.png" alt="List of the permissions for Aristotle;s Politics."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5659 Finally (and most embarrassingly), here are the permissions for the original
5660 e-book version of my last book, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>:
5661 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1631"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.16. List of the permissions for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Future of Ideas</span>&#8221;</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1631.png" alt="List of the permissions for The Future of Ideas."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5662 Ingen kopiering, ingen utskrift, og våg ikke å prøve å lytte til denne
5663 boken!
5664 </p><p>
5665 Now, the Adobe eBook Reader calls these controls
5666 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">permissions</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212; as if the publisher has the power to
5667 control how you use these works.  For works under copyright, the copyright
5668 owner certainly does have the power&#8212;up to the limits of the copyright
5669 law. But for work not under copyright, there is no such copyright
5670 power.<sup>[<a name="id2583205" href="#ftn.id2583205" class="footnote">138</a>]</sup> When my e-book of
5671 <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> says I have the permission to copy only
5672 ten text selections into the memory every ten days, what that really means
5673 is that the eBook Reader has enabled the publisher to control how I use the
5674 book on my computer, far beyond the control that the law would enable.
5675 </p><p>
5676 The control comes instead from the code&#8212;from the technology within
5677 which the e-book <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lives.</span>&#8221;</span> Though the e-book says that these are
5678 permissions, they are not the sort of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">permissions</span>&#8221;</span> that most
5679 of us deal with. When a teenager gets <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">permission</span>&#8221;</span> to stay out
5680 till midnight, she knows (unless she's Cinderella) that she can stay out
5681 till 2 A.M., but will suffer a punishment if she's caught. But when the
5682 Adobe eBook Reader says I have the permission to make ten copies of the text
5683 into the computer's memory, that means that after I've made ten copies, the
5684 computer will not make any more. The same with the printing restrictions:
5685 After ten pages, the eBook Reader will not print any more pages.  It's the
5686 same with the silly restriction that says that you can't use the Read Aloud
5687 button to read my book aloud&#8212;it's not that the company will sue you if
5688 you do; instead, if you push the Read Aloud button with my book, the machine
5689 simply won't read aloud.
5690 </p><p>
5691
5692 These are <span class="emphasis"><em>controls</em></span>, not permissions. Imagine a world
5693 where the Marx Brothers sold word processing software that, when you tried
5694 to type <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Warner Brothers,</span>&#8221;</span> erased <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Brothers</span>&#8221;</span> from
5695 the sentence.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2583278"></a>
5696 </p><p>
5697 This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright
5698 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> as copyright <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span>. The
5699 controls over access to content will not be controls that are ratified by
5700 courts; the controls over access to content will be controls that are coded
5701 by programmers. And whereas the controls that are built into the law are
5702 always to be checked by a judge, the controls that are built into the
5703 technology have no similar built-in check.
5704 </p><p>
5705 How significant is this? Isn't it always possible to get around the controls
5706 built into the technology? Software used to be sold with technologies that
5707 limited the ability of users to copy the software, but those were trivial
5708 protections to defeat. Why won't it be trivial to defeat these protections
5709 as well?
5710 </p><p>
5711 We've only scratched the surface of this story. Return to the Adobe eBook
5712 Reader.
5713 </p><p>
5714 Early in the life of the Adobe eBook Reader, Adobe suffered a public
5715 relations nightmare. Among the books that you could download for free on the
5716 Adobe site was a copy of <em class="citetitle">Alice's Adventures in
5717 Wonderland</em>.  This wonderful book is in the public domain. Yet
5718 when you clicked on Permissions for that book, you got the following report:
5719 <a class="indexterm" name="id2583328"></a>
5720 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1641"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.17. List of the permissions for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Alice's Adventures in Wonderland</span>&#8221;</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1641.png" alt="List of the permissions for Alice's Adventures in Wonderland."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5721 Here was a public domain children's book that you were not allowed to copy,
5722 not allowed to lend, not allowed to give, and, as the
5723 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">permissions</span>&#8221;</span> indicated, not allowed to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">read
5724 aloud</span>&#8221;</span>!
5725 </p><p>
5726 The public relations nightmare attached to that final permission.  For the
5727 text did not say that you were not permitted to use the Read Aloud button;
5728 it said you did not have the permission to read the book aloud. That led
5729 some people to think that Adobe was restricting the right of parents, for
5730 example, to read the book to their children, which seemed, to say the least,
5731 absurd.
5732 </p><p>
5733 Adobe responded quickly that it was absurd to think that it was trying to
5734 restrict the right to read a book aloud. Obviously it was only restricting
5735 the ability to use the Read Aloud button to have the book read aloud. But
5736 the question Adobe never did answer is this: Would Adobe thus agree that a
5737 consumer was free to use software to hack around the restrictions built into
5738 the eBook Reader? If some company (call it Elcomsoft) developed a program to
5739 disable the technological protection built into an Adobe eBook so that a
5740 blind person, say, could use a computer to read the book aloud, would Adobe
5741 agree that such a use of an eBook Reader was fair? Adobe didn't answer
5742 because the answer, however absurd it might seem, is no.
5743 </p><p>
5744 The point is not to blame Adobe. Indeed, Adobe is among the most innovative
5745 companies developing strategies to balance open access to content with
5746 incentives for companies to innovate. But Adobe's technology enables
5747 control, and Adobe has an incentive to defend this control.  That incentive
5748 is understandable, yet what it creates is often crazy.
5749 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2583404"></a><p>
5750 To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite story
5751 of mine that makes the same point.
5752 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo1"></a><p>
5753 Consider the robotic dog made by Sony named <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Aibo.</span>&#8221;</span> The Aibo
5754 learns tricks, cuddles, and follows you around. It eats only electricity and
5755 that doesn't leave that much of a mess (at least in your house).
5756 </p><p>
5757 The Aibo is expensive and popular. Fans from around the world have set up
5758 clubs to trade stories. One fan in particular set up a Web site to enable
5759 information about the Aibo dog to be shared. This fan set
5760
5761 up aibopet.com (and aibohack.com, but that resolves to the same site), and
5762 on that site he provided information about how to teach an Aibo to do tricks
5763 in addition to the ones Sony had taught it.
5764 </p><p>
5765 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Teach</span>&#8221;</span> here has a special meaning. Aibos are just cute
5766 computers.  You teach a computer how to do something by programming it
5767 differently.  So to say that aibopet.com was giving information about how to
5768 teach the dog to do new tricks is just to say that aibopet.com was giving
5769 information to users of the Aibo pet about how to hack their computer
5770 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">dog</span>&#8221;</span> to make it do new tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
5771 </p><p>
5772 If you're not a programmer or don't know many programmers, the word
5773 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> has a particularly unfriendly
5774 connotation. Nonprogrammers hack bushes or weeds. Nonprogrammers in horror
5775 movies do even worse. But to programmers, or coders, as I call them,
5776 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> is a much more positive
5777 term. <em class="citetitle">Hack</em> just means code that enables the program
5778 to do something it wasn't originally intended or enabled to do. If you buy a
5779 new printer for an old computer, you might find the old computer doesn't
5780 run, or <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">drive,</span>&#8221;</span> the printer. If you discovered that, you'd
5781 later be happy to discover a hack on the Net by someone who has written a
5782 driver to enable the computer to drive the printer you just bought.
5783 </p><p>
5784 Some hacks are easy. Some are unbelievably hard. Hackers as a community like
5785 to challenge themselves and others with increasingly difficult
5786 tasks. There's a certain respect that goes with the talent to hack
5787 well. There's a well-deserved respect that goes with the talent to hack
5788 ethically.
5789 </p><p>
5790 The Aibo fan was displaying a bit of both when he hacked the program and
5791 offered to the world a bit of code that would enable the Aibo to dance
5792 jazz. The dog wasn't programmed to dance jazz. It was a clever bit of
5793 tinkering that turned the dog into a more talented creature than Sony had
5794 built.
5795 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2583542"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2583551"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2583559"></a><p>
5796
5797 I've told this story in many contexts, both inside and outside the United
5798 States. Once I was asked by a puzzled member of the audience, is it
5799 permissible for a dog to dance jazz in the United States? We forget that
5800 stories about the backcountry still flow across much of the world. So let's
5801 just be clear before we continue: It's not a crime anywhere (anymore) to
5802 dance jazz. Nor is it a crime to teach your dog to dance jazz. Nor should it
5803 be a crime (though we don't have a lot to go on here) to teach your robot
5804 dog to dance jazz. Dancing jazz is a completely legal activity. One imagines
5805 that the owner of aibopet.com thought, <span class="emphasis"><em>What possible problem could
5806 there be with teaching a robot dog to dance?</em></span>
5807 </p><p>
5808 Let's put the dog to sleep for a minute, and turn to a pony show&#8212; not
5809 literally a pony show, but rather a paper that a Princeton academic named Ed
5810 Felten prepared for a conference. This Princeton academic is well known and
5811 respected. He was hired by the government in the Microsoft case to test
5812 Microsoft's claims about what could and could not be done with its own
5813 code. In that trial, he demonstrated both his brilliance and his
5814 coolness. Under heavy badgering by Microsoft lawyers, Ed Felten stood his
5815 ground. He was not about to be bullied into being silent about something he
5816 knew very well.
5817 </p><p>
5818 But Felten's bravery was really tested in April 2001.<sup>[<a name="id2583604" href="#ftn.id2583604" class="footnote">139</a>]</sup> He and a group of colleagues were working on a
5819 paper to be submitted at conference.  The paper was intended to describe the
5820 weakness in an encryption system being developed by the Secure Digital Music
5821 Initiative as a technique to control the distribution of music.
5822 </p><p>
5823 The SDMI coalition had as its goal a technology to enable content owners to
5824 exercise much better control over their content than the Internet, as it
5825 originally stood, granted them. Using encryption, SDMI hoped to develop a
5826 standard that would allow the content owner to say <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">this music cannot
5827 be copied,</span>&#8221;</span> and have a computer respect that command.  The technology
5828 was to be part of a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">trusted system</span>&#8221;</span> of control that would get
5829 content owners to trust the system of the Internet much more.
5830 </p><p>
5831 When SDMI thought it was close to a standard, it set up a competition.  In
5832 exchange for providing contestants with the code to an SDMI-encrypted bit of
5833 content, contestants were to try to crack it and, if they did, report the
5834 problems to the consortium.
5835 </p><p>
5836
5837
5838 Felten and his team figured out the encryption system quickly. He and the
5839 team saw the weakness of this system as a type: Many encryption systems
5840 would suffer the same weakness, and Felten and his team thought it
5841 worthwhile to point this out to those who study encryption.
5842 </p><p>
5843 Let's review just what Felten was doing. Again, this is the United
5844 States. We have a principle of free speech. We have this principle not just
5845 because it is the law, but also because it is a really great idea. A
5846 strongly protected tradition of free speech is likely to encourage a wide
5847 range of criticism. That criticism is likely, in turn, to improve the
5848 systems or people or ideas criticized.
5849 </p><p>
5850 What Felten and his colleagues were doing was publishing a paper describing
5851 the weakness in a technology. They were not spreading free music, or
5852 building and deploying this technology. The paper was an academic essay,
5853 unintelligible to most people. But it clearly showed the weakness in the
5854 SDMI system, and why SDMI would not, as presently constituted, succeed.
5855 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo2"></a><p>
5856 What links these two, aibopet.com and Felten, is the letters they then
5857 received. Aibopet.com received a letter from Sony about the aibopet.com
5858 hack. Though a jazz-dancing dog is perfectly legal, Sony wrote:
5859 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5860 Your site contains information providing the means to circumvent AIBO-ware's
5861 copy protection protocol constituting a violation of the anti-circumvention
5862 provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
5863 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2583788"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2583796"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2583804"></a><p>
5864 And though an academic paper describing the weakness in a system of
5865 encryption should also be perfectly legal, Felten received a letter from an
5866 RIAA lawyer that read:
5867 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5868
5869 Any disclosure of information gained from participating in the Public
5870 Challenge would be outside the scope of activities permitted by the
5871 Agreement and could subject you and your research team to actions under the
5872 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">DMCA</span>&#8221;</span>).
5873 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5874 In both cases, this weirdly Orwellian law was invoked to control the spread
5875 of information. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act made spreading such
5876 information an offense.
5877 </p><p>
5878 The DMCA was enacted as a response to copyright owners' first fear about
5879 cyberspace. The fear was that copyright control was effectively dead; the
5880 response was to find technologies that might compensate.  These new
5881 technologies would be copyright protection technologies&#8212; technologies
5882 to control the replication and distribution of copyrighted material. They
5883 were designed as <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> to modify the original
5884 <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> of the Internet, to reestablish some protection
5885 for copyright owners.
5886 </p><p>
5887 The DMCA was a bit of law intended to back up the protection of this code
5888 designed to protect copyrighted material. It was, we could say,
5889 <span class="emphasis"><em>legal code</em></span> intended to buttress <span class="emphasis"><em>software
5890 code</em></span> which itself was intended to support the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal
5891 code of copyright</em></span>.
5892 </p><p>
5893 But the DMCA was not designed merely to protect copyrighted works to the
5894 extent copyright law protected them. Its protection, that is, did not end at
5895 the line that copyright law drew. The DMCA regulated devices that were
5896 designed to circumvent copyright protection measures. It was designed to ban
5897 those devices, whether or not the use of the copyrighted material made
5898 possible by that circumvention would have been a copyright violation.
5899 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2583892"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2583898"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2583905"></a><p>
5900
5901 Aibopet.com and Felten make the point. The Aibo hack circumvented a
5902 copyright protection system for the purpose of enabling the dog to dance
5903 jazz. That enablement no doubt involved the use of copyrighted material. But
5904 as aibopet.com's site was noncommercial, and the use did not enable
5905 subsequent copyright infringements, there's no doubt that aibopet.com's hack
5906 was fair use of Sony's copyrighted material. Yet fair use is not a defense
5907 to the DMCA. The question is not whether the use of the copyrighted material
5908 was a copyright violation. The question is whether a copyright protection
5909 system was circumvented.
5910 </p><p>
5911 The threat against Felten was more attenuated, but it followed the same line
5912 of reasoning. By publishing a paper describing how a copyright protection
5913 system could be circumvented, the RIAA lawyer suggested, Felten himself was
5914 distributing a circumvention technology.  Thus, even though he was not
5915 himself infringing anyone's copyright, his academic paper was enabling
5916 others to infringe others' copyright.
5917 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2583942"></a><p>
5918 The bizarreness of these arguments is captured in a cartoon drawn in 1981 by
5919 Paul Conrad. At that time, a court in California had held that the VCR could
5920 be banned because it was a copyright-infringing technology: It enabled
5921 consumers to copy films without the permission of the copyright owner. No
5922 doubt there were uses of the technology that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka
5923 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote"><em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>,</span>&#8221;</span> for example, had testified
5924 in that case that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers'
5925 Neighborhood.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2583964"></a>
5926 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5927 Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
5928 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>&#8221;</span> at hours when some children cannot use it. I
5929 think that it's a real service to families to be able to record such
5930 programs and show them at appropriate times. I have always felt that with
5931 the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the
5932 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>&#8221;</span> off-the-air, and I'm speaking for the
5933 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>&#8221;</span> because that's what I produce, that they then
5934 become much more active in the programming of their family's television
5935 life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My
5936 whole approach in broadcasting has always been <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">You are an important
5937 person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.</span>&#8221;</span> Maybe
5938 I'm going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to
5939 be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is
5940 important.<sup>[<a name="id2584004" href="#ftn.id2584004" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
5941 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5942
5943
5944 Even though there were uses that were legal, because there were some uses
5945 that were illegal, the court held the companies producing the VCR
5946 responsible.
5947 </p><p>
5948 This led Conrad to draw the cartoon below, which we can adopt to the DMCA.
5949 <a class="indexterm" name="id2584045"></a>
5950 </p><p>
5951 No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
5952 </p><p>
5953 The anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA target copyright circumvention
5954 technologies. Circumvention technologies can be used for different
5955 ends. They can be used, for example, to enable massive pirating of
5956 copyrighted material&#8212;a bad end. Or they can be used to enable the use
5957 of particular copyrighted materials in ways that would be considered fair
5958 use&#8212;a good end.
5959 </p><p>
5960
5961 A handgun can be used to shoot a police officer or a child. Most would agree
5962 such a use is bad. Or a handgun can be used for target practice or to
5963 protect against an intruder. At least some would say that such a use would
5964 be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good and bad uses.
5965 </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"><p>
5966 The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world where guns
5967 are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and circumvention
5968 technologies) are illegal. Flash: <span class="emphasis"><em>No one ever died from copyright
5969 circumvention</em></span>. Yet the law bans circumvention technologies
5970 absolutely, despite the potential that they might do some good, but permits
5971 guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2584103"></a>
5972 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2584110"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2584117"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2584123"></a><p>
5973 The Aibo and RIAA examples demonstrate how copyright owners are changing the
5974 balance that copyright law grants. Using code, copyright owners restrict
5975 fair use; using the DMCA, they punish those who would attempt to evade the
5976 restrictions on fair use that they impose through code. Technology becomes a
5977 means by which fair use can be erased; the law of the DMCA backs up that
5978 erasing.
5979 </p><p>
5980 This is how <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> becomes <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span>. The
5981 controls built into the technology of copy and access protection become
5982 rules the violation of which is also a violation of the law. In this way,
5983 the code extends the law&#8212;increasing its regulation, even if the
5984 subject it regulates (activities that would otherwise plainly constitute
5985 fair use) is beyond the reach of the law. Code becomes law; code extends the
5986 law; code thus extends the control that copyright owners effect&#8212;at
5987 least for those copyright holders with the lawyers who can write the nasty
5988 letters that Felten and aibopet.com received.
5989 </p><p>
5990 There is one final aspect of the interaction between architecture and law
5991 that contributes to the force of copyright's regulation. This is the ease
5992 with which infringements of the law can be detected. For contrary to the
5993 rhetoric common at the birth of cyberspace that on the Internet, no one
5994 knows you're a dog, increasingly, given changing technologies deployed on
5995 the Internet, it is easy to find the dog who committed a legal wrong. The
5996 technologies of the Internet are open to snoops as well as sharers, and the
5997 snoops are increasingly good at tracking down the identity of those who
5998 violate the rules.
5999 </p><p>
6000
6001
6002 For example, imagine you were part of a <em class="citetitle">Star Trek</em> fan
6003 club. You gathered every month to share trivia, and maybe to enact a kind of
6004 fan fiction about the show. One person would play Spock, another, Captain
6005 Kirk. The characters would begin with a plot from a real story, then simply
6006 continue it.<sup>[<a name="id2584187" href="#ftn.id2584187" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
6007 </p><p>
6008 Before the Internet, this was, in effect, a totally unregulated activity.
6009 No matter what happened inside your club room, you would never be interfered
6010 with by the copyright police. You were free in that space to do as you
6011 wished with this part of our culture. You were allowed to build on it as you
6012 wished without fear of legal control.
6013 </p><p>
6014 But if you moved your club onto the Internet, and made it generally
6015 available for others to join, the story would be very different. Bots
6016 scouring the Net for trademark and copyright infringement would quickly find
6017 your site. Your posting of fan fiction, depending upon the ownership of the
6018 series that you're depicting, could well inspire a lawyer's threat. And
6019 ignoring the lawyer's threat would be extremely costly indeed.  The law of
6020 copyright is extremely efficient. The penalties are severe, and the process
6021 is quick.
6022 </p><p>
6023 This change in the effective force of the law is caused by a change in the
6024 ease with which the law can be enforced. That change too shifts the law's
6025 balance radically. It is as if your car transmitted the speed at which you
6026 traveled at every moment that you drove; that would be just one step before
6027 the state started issuing tickets based upon the data you transmitted. That
6028 is, in effect, what is happening here.
6029 </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>
6030
6031 So copyright's duration has increased dramatically&#8212;tripled in the past
6032 thirty years. And copyright's scope has increased as well&#8212;from
6033 regulating only publishers to now regulating just about everyone. And
6034 copyright's reach has changed, as every action becomes a copy and hence
6035 presumptively regulated. And as technologists find better ways to control
6036 the use of content, and as copyright is increasingly enforced through
6037 technology, copyright's force changes, too. Misuse is easier to find and
6038 easier to control. This regulation of the creative process, which began as a
6039 tiny regulation governing a tiny part of the market for creative work, has
6040 become the single most important regulator of creativity there is. It is a
6041 massive expansion in the scope of the government's control over innovation
6042 and creativity; it would be totally unrecognizable to those who gave birth
6043 to copyright's control.
6044 </p><p>
6045 Still, in my view, all of these changes would not matter much if it weren't
6046 for one more change that we must also consider. This is a change that is in
6047 some sense the most familiar, though its significance and scope are not well
6048 understood. It is the one that creates precisely the reason to be concerned
6049 about all the other changes I have described.
6050 </p><p>
6051 This is the change in the concentration and integration of the media.  In
6052 the past twenty years, the nature of media ownership has undergone a radical
6053 alteration, caused by changes in legal rules governing the media.  Before
6054 this change happened, the different forms of media were owned by separate
6055 media companies. Now, the media is increasingly owned by only a few
6056 companies. Indeed, after the changes that the FCC announced in June 2003,
6057 most expect that within a few years, we will live in a world where just
6058 three companies control more than percent of the media.
6059 </p><p>
6060 Det er her to sorter endringer: omfanget av konsentrasjon, og dens natur.
6061 </p><p>
6062 Changes in scope are the easier ones to describe. As Senator John McCain
6063 summarized the data produced in the FCC's review of media ownership,
6064 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">five companies control 85 percent of our media
6065 sources.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2584301" href="#ftn.id2584301" class="footnote">142</a>]</sup> The five recording
6066 labels of Universal Music Group, BMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music
6067 Group, and EMI control 84.8 percent of the U.S. music market.<sup>[<a name="id2584313" href="#ftn.id2584313" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">five largest cable companies pipe
6068 programming to 74 percent of the cable subscribers
6069 nationwide.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2584331" href="#ftn.id2584331" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2584344"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2584350"></a>
6070 <a class="indexterm" name="id2584356"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2584363"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2584369"></a>
6071 </p><p>
6072
6073 The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation, the
6074 nation's largest radio broadcasting conglomerate owned fewer than
6075 seventy-five stations. Today <span class="emphasis"><em>one</em></span> company owns more than
6076 1,200 stations.  During that period of consolidation, the total number of
6077 radio owners dropped by 34 percent. Today, in most markets, the two largest
6078 broadcasters control 74 percent of that market's revenues. Overall, just
6079 four companies control 90 percent of the nation's radio advertising
6080 revenues.
6081 </p><p>
6082 Newspaper ownership is becoming more concentrated as well.  Today, there are
6083 six hundred fewer daily newspapers in the United States than there were
6084 eighty years ago, and ten companies control half of the nation's
6085 circulation. There are twenty major newspaper publishers in the United
6086 States. The top ten film studios receive 99 percent of all film revenue. The
6087 ten largest cable companies account for 85 percent of all cable
6088 revenue. This is a market far from the free press the framers sought to
6089 protect. Indeed, it is a market that is quite well protected&#8212; by the
6090 market.
6091 </p><p>
6092 Concentration in size alone is one thing. The more invidious change is in
6093 the nature of that concentration. As author James Fallows put it in a recent
6094 article about Rupert Murdoch, <a class="indexterm" name="id2584401"></a>
6095 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6096 Murdoch's companies now constitute a production system unmatched in its
6097 integration. They supply content&#8212;Fox movies &#8230; Fox TV shows
6098 &#8230; Fox-controlled sports broadcasts, plus newspapers and books. They
6099 sell the content to the public and to advertisers&#8212;in newspapers, on
6100 the broadcast network, on the cable channels. And they operate the physical
6101 distribution system through which the content reaches the
6102 customers. Murdoch's satellite systems now distribute News Corp. content in
6103 Europe and Asia; if Murdoch becomes DirecTV's largest single owner, that
6104 system will serve the same function in the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2584425" href="#ftn.id2584425" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
6105 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6106 The pattern with Murdoch is the pattern of modern media. Not just large
6107 companies owning many radio stations, but a few companies owning as many
6108 outlets of media as possible. A picture describes this pattern better than a
6109 thousand words could do:
6110 </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>
6111
6112
6113 Betyr denne konsentrasjonen noe?  Påvirker det hva som blir laget, eller hva
6114 som blir distribuert?  Eller er det bare en mer effektiv måte å produsere og
6115 distribuere innhold?
6116 </p><p>
6117 Mitt syn var at konsentrasjonen ikke betød noe.  Jeg tenkte det ikke var noe
6118 mer enn en mer effektiv finansiell struktur.  Men nå, etter å ha lest og
6119 hørt på en haug av skapere prøve å overbevise meg om det motsatte, har jeg
6120 begynt å endre mening.
6121 </p><p>
6122 Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen
6123 er viktig.
6124 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2584508"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2584514"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2584520"></a><p>
6125 I 1969 laget Norman Lear en polit for <em class="citetitle">All in the
6126 Family</em>.  Han tok piloten til ABC, og nettverket likte det ikke.
6127 Da sa til Lear at det var for på kanten.  Gjør det om igjen. Lear lagde
6128 piloten på nytt, mer på kanten enn den første.  ABC ble fra seg.  Du får
6129 ikke med deg poenget, fortalte de Lear.  Vi vil ha det mindre på kanten,
6130 ikke mer.
6131 </p><p>
6132 I stedet for å føye seg, to Lear ganske enkelt serien sin til noen andre.
6133 CBS var glad for å ha seriene, og ABC kunne ikke stoppe Lear fra å gå til
6134 andre.  Opphavsretten som Lear hadde sikret uavhengighet fra
6135 nettverk-kontroll.<sup>[<a name="id2584553" href="#ftn.id2584553" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
6136 </p><p>
6137
6138
6139
6140 The network did not control those copyrights because the law forbade the
6141 networks from controlling the content they syndicated. The law required a
6142 separation between the networks and the content producers; that separation
6143 would guarantee Lear freedom. And as late as 1992, because of these rules,
6144 the vast majority of prime time television&#8212;75 percent of it&#8212;was
6145 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">independent</span>&#8221;</span> of the networks.
6146 </p><p>
6147 In 1994, the FCC abandoned the rules that required this independence.  After
6148 that change, the networks quickly changed the balance.  In 1985, there were
6149 twenty-five independent television production studios; in 2002, only five
6150 independent television studios remained. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In 1992, only 15 percent of
6151 new series were produced for a network by a company it controlled. Last
6152 year, the percentage of shows produced by controlled companies more than
6153 quintupled to 77 percent.</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In 1992, 16 new series were
6154 produced independently of conglomerate control, last year there was
6155 one.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2584615" href="#ftn.id2584615" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of
6156 prime time television was owned by the networks that ran it. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In the
6157 ten-year period between 1992 and 2002, the number of prime time television
6158 hours per week produced by network studios increased over 200%, whereas the
6159 number of prime time television hours per week produced by independent
6160 studios decreased 63%.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2584643" href="#ftn.id2584643" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
6161 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2584650"></a><p>
6162 Today, another Norman Lear with another <em class="citetitle">All in the
6163 Family</em> would find that he had the choice either to make the show
6164 less edgy or to be fired: The content of any show developed for a network is
6165 increasingly owned by the network.
6166 </p><p>
6167 Mens antall kanaler har økt dramatisk, har eierskapet til disse kanalene
6168 snevret inn fra få til stadig færre.  Som Barry Diller sa til Bill Moyers,
6169 <a class="indexterm" name="id2584674"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2584680"></a>
6170 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6171 Well, if you have companies that produce, that finance, that air on their
6172 channel and then distribute worldwide everything that goes through their
6173 controlled distribution system, then what you get is fewer and fewer actual
6174 voices participating in the process. [We u]sed to have dozens and dozens of
6175 thriving independent production companies producing television programs. Now
6176 you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="id2584706" href="#ftn.id2584706" class="footnote">149</a>]</sup>
6177 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6178 This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of such large
6179 and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous.  Increasingly
6180 safe. Increasingly sterile. The product of news shows from networks like
6181 this is increasingly tailored to the message the network wants to
6182 convey. This is not the communist party, though from the inside, it must
6183 feel a bit like the communist party. No one can question without risk of
6184 consequence&#8212;not necessarily banishment to Siberia, but punishment
6185 nonetheless. Independent, critical, different views are quashed. This is not
6186 the environment for a democracy.
6187 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2584733"></a><p>
6188 Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
6189 affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the
6190 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Innovator's Dilemma</span>&#8221;</span>: the fact that large traditional firms
6191 find it rational to ignore new, breakthrough technologies that compete with
6192 their core business.  The same analysis could help explain why large,
6193 traditional media companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural
6194 trends.<sup>[<a name="id2584764" href="#ftn.id2584764" class="footnote">150</a>]</sup> Lumbering giants not only
6195 don't, but should not, sprint. Yet if the field is only open to the giants,
6196 there will be far too little sprinting.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2584795"></a>
6197 </p><p>
6198 I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media market to say
6199 with certainty what concentration and integration will do. The efficiencies
6200 are important, and the effect on culture is hard to measure.
6201 </p><p>
6202 But there is a quintessentially obvious example that does strongly suggest
6203 the concern.
6204 </p><p>
6205 In addition to the copyright wars, we're in the middle of the drug
6206 wars. Government policy is strongly directed against the drug cartels;
6207 criminal and civil courts are filled with the consequences of this battle.
6208 </p><p>
6209
6210 Let me hereby disqualify myself from any possible appointment to any
6211 position in government by saying I believe this war is a profound mistake. I
6212 am not pro drugs. Indeed, I come from a family once wrecked by
6213 drugs&#8212;though the drugs that wrecked my family were all quite legal. I
6214 believe this war is a profound mistake because the collateral damage from it
6215 is so great as to make waging the war insane.  When you add together the
6216 burdens on the criminal justice system, the desperation of generations of
6217 kids whose only real economic opportunities are as drug warriors, the
6218 queering of constitutional protections because of the constant surveillance
6219 this war requires, and, most profoundly, the total destruction of the legal
6220 systems of many South American nations because of the power of the local
6221 drug cartels, I find it impossible to believe that the marginal benefit in
6222 reduced drug consumption by Americans could possibly outweigh these costs.
6223 </p><p>
6224 You may not be convinced. That's fine. We live in a democracy, and it is
6225 through votes that we are to choose policy. But to do that, we depend
6226 fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about these issues.
6227 </p><p>
6228 Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched a
6229 media campaign as part of the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">war on drugs.</span>&#8221;</span> The campaign
6230 produced scores of short film clips about issues related to illegal
6231 drugs. In one series (the Nick and Norm series) two men are in a bar,
6232 discussing the idea of legalizing drugs as a way to avoid some of the
6233 collateral damage from the war. One advances an argument in favor of drug
6234 legalization. The other responds in a powerful and effective way against the
6235 argument of the first. In the end, the first guy changes his mind (hey, it's
6236 television). The plug at the end is a damning attack on the pro-legalization
6237 campaign.
6238 </p><p>
6239 Fair enough. It's a good ad. Not terribly misleading. It delivers its
6240 message well. It's a fair and reasonable message.
6241 </p><p>
6242 But let's say you think it is a wrong message, and you'd like to run a
6243 countercommercial. Say you want to run a series of ads that try to
6244 demonstrate the extraordinary collateral harm that comes from the drug
6245 war. Can you do it?
6246 </p><p>
6247
6248 Well, obviously, these ads cost lots of money. Assume you raise the
6249 money. Assume a group of concerned citizens donates all the money in the
6250 world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your message will be
6251 heard then?
6252 </p><p>
6253 No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
6254 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">controversial</span>&#8221;</span> ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
6255 uncontroversial; ads disagreeing with the government are controversial.
6256 This selectivity might be thought inconsistent with the First Amendment, but
6257 the Supreme Court has held that stations have the right to choose what they
6258 run. Thus, the major channels of commercial media will refuse one side of a
6259 crucial debate the opportunity to present its case.  And the courts will
6260 defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.<sup>[<a name="id2584920" href="#ftn.id2584920" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
6261 </p><p>
6262 I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well&#8212;if we lived in a
6263 media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the media throws
6264 that condition into doubt. If a handful of companies control access to the
6265 media, and that handful of companies gets to decide which political
6266 positions it will allow to be promoted on its channels, then in an obvious
6267 and important way, concentration matters. You might like the positions the
6268 handful of companies selects. But you should not like a world in which a
6269 mere few get to decide which issues the rest of us get to know about.
6270 </p></div><div class="section" title="10.8. Sammen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="together"></a>10.8. Sammen</h2></div></div></div><p>
6271 There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the copyright
6272 warriors that the government should <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">protect my property.</span>&#8221;</span> In
6273 the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No
6274 sane sort who is not an anarchist could disagree.
6275 </p><p>
6276
6277 But when we see how dramatically this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> has
6278 changed&#8212; when we recognize how it might now interact with both
6279 technology and markets to mean that the effective constraint on the liberty
6280 to cultivate our culture is dramatically different&#8212;the claim begins to
6281 seem less innocent and obvious. Given (1) the power of technology to
6282 supplement the law's control, and (2) the power of concentrated markets to
6283 weaken the opportunity for dissent, if strictly enforcing the massively
6284 expanded <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> rights granted by copyright fundamentally
6285 changes the freedom within this culture to cultivate and build upon our
6286 past, then we have to ask whether this property should be redefined.
6287 </p><p>
6288 Not starkly. Or absolutely. My point is not that we should abolish copyright
6289 or go back to the eighteenth century. That would be a total mistake,
6290 disastrous for the most important creative enterprises within our culture
6291 today.
6292 </p><p>
6293 But there is a space between zero and one, Internet culture
6294 notwithstanding.  And these massive shifts in the effective power of
6295 copyright regulation, tied to increased concentration of the content
6296 industry and resting in the hands of technology that will increasingly
6297 enable control over the use of culture, should drive us to consider whether
6298 another adjustment is called for. Not an adjustment that increases
6299 copyright's power. Not an adjustment that increases its term. Rather, an
6300 adjustment to restore the balance that has traditionally defined copyright's
6301 regulation&#8212;a weakening of that regulation, to strengthen creativity.
6302 </p><p>
6303 Copyright law has not been a rock of Gibraltar. It's not a set of constant
6304 commitments that, for some mysterious reason, teenagers and geeks now
6305 flout. Instead, copyright power has grown dramatically in a short period of
6306 time, as the technologies of distribution and creation have changed and as
6307 lobbyists have pushed for more control by copyright holders. Changes in the
6308 past in response to changes in technology suggest that we may well need
6309 similar changes in the future. And these changes have to be
6310 <span class="emphasis"><em>reductions</em></span> in the scope of copyright, in response to
6311 the extraordinary increase in control that technology and the market enable.
6312 </p><p>
6313
6314 For the single point that is lost in this war on pirates is a point that we
6315 see only after surveying the range of these changes. When you add together
6316 the effect of changing law, concentrated markets, and changing technology,
6317 together they produce an astonishing conclusion: <span class="emphasis"><em>Never in our
6318 history have fewer had a legal right to control more of the development of
6319 our culture than now</em></span>.
6320 </p><p>
6321 Not when copyrights were perpetual, for when copyrights were perpetual, they
6322 affected only that precise creative work. Not when only publishers had the
6323 tools to publish, for the market then was much more diverse. Not when there
6324 were only three television networks, for even then, newspapers, film
6325 studios, radio stations, and publishers were independent of the
6326 networks. <span class="emphasis"><em>Never</em></span> has copyright protected such a wide
6327 range of rights, against as broad a range of actors, for a term that was
6328 remotely as long. This form of regulation&#8212;a tiny regulation of a tiny
6329 part of the creative energy of a nation at the founding&#8212;is now a
6330 massive regulation of the overall creative process. Law plus technology plus
6331 the market now interact to turn this historically benign regulation into the
6332 most significant regulation of culture that our free society has
6333 known.<sup>[<a name="id2585149" href="#ftn.id2585149" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
6334 </p><p>
6335 This has been a long chapter. Its point can now be briefly stated.
6336 </p><p>
6337 At the start of this book, I distinguished between commercial and
6338 noncommercial culture. In the course of this chapter, I have distinguished
6339 between copying a work and transforming it. We can now combine these two
6340 distinctions and draw a clear map of the changes that copyright law has
6341 undergone.  In 1790, the law looked like this:
6342 </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>
6343
6344 The act of publishing a map, chart, and book was regulated by copyright
6345 law. Nothing else was. Transformations were free. And as copyright attached
6346 only with registration, and only those who intended to benefit commercially
6347 would register, copying through publishing of noncommercial work was also
6348 free.
6349 </p><p>
6350 På slutten av det nittende århundre hadde loven blitt endret til dette:
6351 </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>
6352 Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law&#8212;if published,
6353 which again, given the economics of publishing at the time, means if offered
6354 commercially. But noncommercial publishing and transformation were still
6355 essentially free.
6356 </p><p>
6357 In 1909 the law changed to regulate copies, not publishing, and after this
6358 change, the scope of the law was tied to technology. As the technology of
6359 copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law expanded.  Thus by 1975,
6360 as photocopying machines became more common, we could say the law began to
6361 look like this:
6362 </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>
6363 The law was interpreted to reach noncommercial copying through, say, copy
6364 machines, but still much of copying outside of the commercial market
6365 remained free. But the consequence of the emergence of digital technologies,
6366 especially in the context of a digital network, means that the law now looks
6367 like this:
6368 </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>
6369
6370 Every realm is governed by copyright law, whereas before most creativity was
6371 not. The law now regulates the full range of creativity&#8212; commercial or
6372 not, transformative or not&#8212;with the same rules designed to regulate
6373 commercial publishers.
6374 </p><p>
6375 Obviously, copyright law is not the enemy. The enemy is regulation that does
6376 no good. So the question that we should be asking just now is whether
6377 extending the regulations of copyright law into each of these domains
6378 actually does any good.
6379 </p><p>
6380 I have no doubt that it does good in regulating commercial copying.  But I
6381 also have no doubt that it does more harm than good when regulating (as it
6382 regulates just now) noncommercial copying and, especially, noncommercial
6383 transformation. And increasingly, for the reasons sketched especially in
6384 chapters <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a> and
6385 <a class="xref" href="#transformers" title="8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere">8</a>, one might
6386 well wonder whether it does more harm than good for commercial
6387 transformation.  More commercial transformative work would be created if
6388 derivative rights were more sharply restricted.
6389 </p><p>
6390 The issue is therefore not simply whether copyright is property. Of course
6391 copyright is a kind of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property,</span>&#8221;</span> and of course, as with any
6392 property, the state ought to protect it. But first impressions
6393 notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all property
6394 rights<sup>[<a name="id2585505" href="#ftn.id2585505" class="footnote">153</a>]</sup>)  has been crafted to balance
6395 the important need to give authors and artists incentives with the equally
6396 important need to assure access to creative work. This balance has always
6397 been struck in light of new technologies.  And for almost half of our
6398 tradition, the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> did not control <span class="emphasis"><em>at
6399 all</em></span> the freedom of others to build upon or transform a creative
6400 work. American culture was born free, and for almost 180 years our country
6401 consistently protected a vibrant and rich free culture.
6402 </p><p>
6403
6404 We achieved that free culture because our law respected important limits on
6405 the scope of the interests protected by <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property.</span>&#8221;</span> The very
6406 birth of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> as a statutory right recognized those
6407 limits, by granting copyright owners protection for a limited time only (the
6408 story of chapter 6). The tradition of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span> is animated by
6409 a similar concern that is increasingly under strain as the costs of
6410 exercising any fair use right become unavoidably high (the story of chapter
6411 7). Adding statutory rights where markets might stifle innovation is another
6412 familiar limit on the property right that copyright is (chapter 8). And
6413 granting archives and libraries a broad freedom to collect, claims of
6414 property notwithstanding, is a crucial part of guaranteeing the soul of a
6415 culture (chapter 9). Free cultures, like free markets, are built with
6416 property. But the nature of the property that builds a free culture is very
6417 different from the extremist vision that dominates the debate today.
6418 </p><p>
6419 Free culture is increasingly the casualty in this war on piracy. In response
6420 to a real, if not yet quantified, threat that the technologies of the
6421 Internet present to twentieth-century business models for producing and
6422 distributing culture, the law and technology are being transformed in a way
6423 that will undermine our tradition of free culture. The property right that
6424 is copyright is no longer the balanced right that it was, or was intended to
6425 be. The property right that is copyright has become unbalanced, tilted
6426 toward an extreme. The opportunity to create and transform becomes weakened
6427 in a world in which creation requires permission and creativity must check
6428 with a lawyer.
6429 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2580428" href="#id2580428" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
6430
6431
6432 Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearings on H.R. 4783, H.R.  4794,
6433 H.R. 4808, H.R. 5250, H.R. 5488, and H.R. 5705 Before the Subcommittee on
6434 Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the Committee
6435 on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, 97th Cong., 2nd
6436 sess. (1982): 65 (testimony of Jack Valenti).
6437 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2580496" href="#id2580496" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
6438
6439
6440 Lawyers speak of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> not as an absolute thing, but as a
6441 bundle of rights that are sometimes associated with a particular
6442 object. Thus, my <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property right</span>&#8221;</span> to my car gives me the right
6443 to exclusive use, but not the right to drive at 150 miles an hour. For the
6444 best effort to connect the ordinary meaning of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> to
6445 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lawyer talk,</span>&#8221;</span> see Bruce Ackerman, <em class="citetitle">Private Property
6446 and the Constitution</em> (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977),
6447 26&#8211;27.
6448 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2580887" href="#id2580887" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
6449
6450
6451 By describing the way law affects the other three modalities, I don't mean
6452 to suggest that the other three don't affect law. Obviously, they do. Law's
6453 only distinction is that it alone speaks as if it has a right
6454 self-consciously to change the other three. The right of the other three is
6455 more timidly expressed.  See Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other
6456 Laws of Cyberspace</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90&#8211;95;
6457 Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The New Chicago School,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal
6458 of Legal Studies</em>, June 1998.
6459 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2580954" href="#id2580954" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
6460
6461 Some people object to this way of talking about <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">liberty.</span>&#8221;</span> They
6462 object because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at
6463 any particular moment are constraints imposed exclusively by the
6464 government. For instance, if a storm destroys a bridge, these people think
6465 it is meaningless to say that one's liberty has been restrained. A bridge
6466 has washed out, and it's harder to get from one place to another. To talk
6467 about this as a loss of freedom, they say, is to confuse the stuff of
6468 politics with the vagaries of ordinary life.  I don't mean to deny the value
6469 in this narrower view, which depends upon the context of the inquiry. I do,
6470 however, mean to argue against any insistence that this narrower view is the
6471 only proper view of liberty. As I argued in <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, we
6472 come from a long tradition of political thought with a broader focus than
6473 the narrow question of what the government did when.  John Stuart Mill
6474 defended freedom of speech, for example, from the tyranny of narrow minds,
6475 not from the fear of government prosecution; John Stuart Mill, <em class="citetitle">On
6476 Liberty</em> (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co., 1978), 19.  John
6477 R. Commons famously defended the economic freedom of labor from constraints
6478 imposed by the market; John R. Commons, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Right to Work,</span>&#8221;</span> in
6479 Malcom Rutherford and Warren J. Samuels, eds., <em class="citetitle">John R. Commons:
6480 Selected Essays</em> (London: Routledge: 1997), 62. The Americans
6481 with Disabilities Act increases the liberty of people with physical
6482 disabilities by changing the architecture of certain public places, thereby
6483 making access to those places easier; 42 <em class="citetitle">United States
6484 Code</em>, section 12101 (2000).  Each of these interventions to
6485 change existing conditions changes the liberty of a particular group. The
6486 effect of those interventions should be accounted for in order to understand
6487 the effective liberty that each of these groups might face.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2581008"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2581017"></a>
6488 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581176" href="#id2581176" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
6489
6490
6491 See Geoffrey Smith, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a
6492 Bridge?</span>&#8221;</span> BusinessWeek online, 2 August 1999, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #23</a>. For a more recent
6493 analysis of Kodak's place in the market, see Chana R. Schoenberger,
6494 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Can Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?</span>&#8221;</span> Forbes.com, 6 October
6495 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6496 #24</a>.
6497 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581238" href="#id2581238" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
6498
6499
6500 Fred Warshofsky, <em class="citetitle">The Patent Wars</em> (New York: Wiley,
6501 1994), 170&#8211;71.
6502 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581416" href="#id2581416" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
6503
6504
6505 See, for example, James Boyle, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">A Politics of Intellectual Property:
6506 Environmentalism for the Net?</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Duke Law
6507 Journal</em> 47 (1997): 87.
6508 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581647" href="#id2581647" class="para">125</a>] </sup>
6509
6510 William W. Crosskey, <em class="citetitle">Politics and the Constitution in the History
6511 of the United States</em> (London: Cambridge University Press, 1953),
6512 vol. 1, 485&#8211;86: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the
6513 supreme Law of the Land,' <span class="emphasis"><em>the perpetual rights which authors had,
6514 or were supposed by some to have, under the Common Law</em></span></span>&#8221;</span>
6515 (emphasis added).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2581665"></a>
6516 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581715" href="#id2581715" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
6517
6518
6519 Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790 to
6520 1799, only 556 copyright registrations were filed; John Tebbel, <em class="citetitle">A
6521 History of Book Publishing in the United States</em>, vol. 1,
6522 <em class="citetitle">The Creation of an Industry, 1630&#8211;1865</em> (New
6523 York: Bowker, 1972), 141. Of the 21,000 imprints recorded before 1790, only
6524 twelve were copyrighted under the 1790 act; William J. Maher,
6525 <em class="citetitle">Copyright Term, Retrospective Extension and the Copyright Law of
6526 1790 in Historical Context</em>, 7&#8211;10 (2002), available at
6527 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #25</a>.  Thus, the
6528 overwhelming majority of works fell immediately into the public domain. Even
6529 those works that were copyrighted fell into the public domain quickly,
6530 because the term of copyright was short. The initial term of copyright was
6531 fourteen years, with the option of renewal for an additional fourteen
6532 years. Copyright Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581782" href="#id2581782" class="para">127</a>] </sup>
6533
6534
6535 Few copyright holders ever chose to renew their copyrights. For instance, of
6536 the 25,006 copyrights registered in 1883, only 894 were renewed in 1910. For
6537 a year-by-year analysis of copyright renewal rates, see Barbara A. Ringer,
6538 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Studies on
6539 Copyright</em>, vol. 1 (New York: Practicing Law Institute, 1963),
6540 618. For a more recent and comprehensive analysis, see William M. Landes and
6541 Richard A.  Posner, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>&#8221;</span>
6542 <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 471,
6543 498&#8211;501, and accompanying figures.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581817" href="#id2581817" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
6544
6545
6546 Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2581919" href="#id2581919" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
6547
6548
6549 These statistics are understated. Between the years 1910 and 1962 (the first
6550 year the renewal term was extended), the average term was never more than
6551 thirty-two years, and averaged thirty years. See Landes and Posner,
6552 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>&#8221;</span> loc. cit.
6553 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582073" href="#id2582073" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
6554
6555
6556 See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Poets, Pirates, and the
6557 Creation of American Literature,</span>&#8221;</span> 29 <em class="citetitle">New York University
6558 Journal of International Law and Politics</em> 255 (1997), and James
6559 Gilraeth, ed., Federal Copyright Records, 1790&#8211;1800 (U.S. G.P.O.,
6560 1987).
6561
6562 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582160" href="#id2582160" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
6563
6564 Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Copyright Cage,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Legal
6565 Affairs</em>, July/August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #26</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2582189"></a>
6566 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582208" href="#id2582208" class="para">132</a>] </sup>
6567
6568 Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument about
6569 the difference that copyright law should draw (from the perspective of the
6570 First Amendment) between mere <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copies</span>&#8221;</span> and derivative
6571 works. See Jed Rubenfeld, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's
6572 Constitutionality,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 112
6573 (2002): 1&#8211;60 (see especially pp. 53&#8211;59).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2582226"></a>
6574 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582274" href="#id2582274" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
6575
6576
6577 This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly
6578 regulates more than <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copies</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;a public performance of a
6579 copyrighted song, for example, is regulated even though performance per se
6580 doesn't make a copy; 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section
6581 106(4). And it certainly sometimes doesn't regulate a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy</span>&#8221;</span>;
6582 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 112(a). But the
6583 presumption under the existing law (which regulates <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copies;</span>&#8221;</span>
6584 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 102) is that if there
6585 is a copy, there is a right.
6586 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582352" href="#id2582352" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
6587
6588
6589 Thus, my argument is not that in each place that copyright law extends, we
6590 should repeal it. It is instead that we should have a good argument for its
6591 extending where it does, and should not determine its reach on the basis of
6592 arbitrary and automatic changes caused by technology.
6593 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582283" href="#id2582283" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
6594
6595
6596 I don't mean <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">nature</span>&#8221;</span> in the sense that it couldn't be
6597 different, but rather that its present instantiation entails a copy. Optical
6598 networks need not make copies of content they transmit, and a digital
6599 network could be designed to delete anything it copies so that the same
6600 number of copies remain.
6601 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582891" href="#id2582891" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
6602
6603
6604 See David Lange, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Recognizing the Public Domain,</span>&#8221;</span>
6605 <em class="citetitle">Law and Contemporary Problems</em> 44 (1981):
6606 172&#8211;73.
6607 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2582914" href="#id2582914" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
6608
6609 Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
6610 Copywrongs</em>, 1&#8211;3.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2582906"></a>
6611 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2583205" href="#id2583205" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
6612
6613
6614 In principle, a contract might impose a requirement on me. I might, for
6615 example, buy a book from you that includes a contract that says I will read
6616 it only three times, or that I promise to read it three times. But that
6617 obligation (and the limits for creating that obligation) would come from the
6618 contract, not from copyright law, and the obligations of contract would not
6619 necessarily pass to anyone who subsequently acquired the book.
6620 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2583604" href="#id2583604" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
6621
6622 See Pamela Samuelson, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to
6623 Science,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan
6624 I. Koerner, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Play Dead: Sony Muzzles the Techies Who Teach a Robot Dog
6625 New Tricks,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">American Prospect</em>, January 2002;
6626 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Court Dismisses Computer Scientists' Challenge to DMCA,</span>&#8221;</span>
6627 <em class="citetitle">Intellectual Property Litigation Reporter</em>, 11
6628 December 2001; Bill Holland, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright Act Raising Free-Speech
6629 Concerns,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Billboard</em>, May 2001; Janelle Brown,
6630 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Is the RIAA Running Scared?</span>&#8221;</span> Salon.com, April 2001; Electronic
6631 Frontier Foundation, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Frequently Asked Questions about
6632 <em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
6633 Legal Case,</span>&#8221;</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #27</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2583660"></a>
6634 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584004" href="#id2584004" class="para">140</a>] </sup>
6635
6636 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corporation of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal
6637 City Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers
6638 never changed his view about the VCR. See James Lardner, <em class="citetitle">Fast
6639 Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR</em>
6640 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 270&#8211;71.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2582922"></a>
6641 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584187" href="#id2584187" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
6642
6643
6644 For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Legal
6645 Fictions, Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,</span>&#8221;</span>
6646 <em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17
6647 (1997): 651.
6648 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584301" href="#id2584301" class="para">142</a>] </sup>
6649
6650
6651 FCC Oversight: Hearing Before the Senate Commerce, Science and
6652 Transportation Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (22 May 2003)  (statement
6653 of Senator John McCain).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584313" href="#id2584313" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
6654
6655
6656 Lynette Holloway, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to
6657 Slide,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
6658 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584331" href="#id2584331" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
6659
6660
6661 Molly Ivins, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,</span>&#8221;</span>
6662 <em class="citetitle">Charleston Gazette</em>, 31 May 2003.
6663 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584425" href="#id2584425" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
6664
6665 James Fallows, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Age of Murdoch,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Atlantic
6666 Monthly</em> (September 2003): 89.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2584444"></a>
6667 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584553" href="#id2584553" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
6668
6669
6670 Leonard Hill, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Axis of Access,</span>&#8221;</span> remarks before Weidenbaum
6671 Center Forum, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry,</span>&#8221;</span>
6672 St. Louis, Missouri, 3 April 2003 (transcript of prepared remarks available
6673 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #28</a>; for the Lear
6674 story, not included in the prepared remarks, see <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #29</a>).
6675 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584615" href="#id2584615" class="para">147</a>] </sup>
6676
6677
6678 NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media
6679 Ownership Before the Senate Commerce Committee, 108th Cong., 1st
6680 sess. (2003) (testimony of Gene Kimmelman on behalf of Consumers Union and
6681 the Consumer Federation of America), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #30</a>. Kimmelman quotes
6682 Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West, in her Remarks
6683 at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia, 27 February 2003.
6684 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584643" href="#id2584643" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
6685
6686
6687 ibid.
6688 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584706" href="#id2584706" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
6689
6690
6691 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Now with
6692 Bill Moyers</em>, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, edited transcript
6693 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #31</a>.
6694 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584764" href="#id2584764" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
6695
6696
6697 Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
6698 Revolutionary National Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do
6699 Business</em> (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press,
6700 1997). Christensen acknowledges that the idea was first suggested by Dean
6701 Kim Clark. See Kim B. Clark, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Interaction of Design Hierarchies
6702 and Market Concepts in Technological Evolution,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Research
6703 Policy</em> 14 (1985): 235&#8211;51. For a more recent study, see
6704 Richard Foster and Sarah Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">Creative Destruction: Why
6705 Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market&#8212;and How to
6706 Successfully Transform Them</em> (New York: Currency/Doubleday,
6707 2001).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2584920" href="#id2584920" class="para">151</a>] </sup>
6708
6709 The Marijuana Policy Project, in February 2003, sought to place ads that
6710 directly responded to the Nick and Norm series on stations within the
6711 Washington, D.C., area. Comcast rejected the ads as <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">against [their]
6712 policy.</span>&#8221;</span> The local NBC affiliate, WRC, rejected the ads without
6713 reviewing them. The local ABC affiliate, WJOA, originally agreed to run the
6714 ads and accepted payment to do so, but later decided not to run the ads and
6715 returned the collected fees. Interview with Neal Levine, 15 October 2003.
6716 These restrictions are, of course, not limited to drug policy. See, for
6717 example, Nat Ives, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">On the Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet
6718 with Rejection from TV Networks,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
6719 Times</em>, 13 March 2003, C4.  Outside of election-related air time
6720 there is very little that the FCC or the courts are willing to do to even
6721 the playing field. For a general overview, see Rhonda Brown, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Ad Hoc
6722 Access: The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
6723 Radio,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law and Policy Review</em> 6 (1988):
6724 449&#8211;79, and for a more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the
6725 courts, see <em class="citetitle">Radio-Television News Directors
6726 Association</em> v. <em class="citetitle">FCC</em>, 184 F. 3d 872
6727 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as the
6728 networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San Francisco transit
6729 authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni diesel buses. Phillip
6730 Matier and Andrew Ross, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni Rejects
6731 Ad,</span>&#8221;</span> SFGate.com, 16 June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #32</a>. The ground was that
6732 the criticism was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">too controversial.</span>&#8221;</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2584984"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2584992"></a>
6733 <a class="indexterm" name="id2584998"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2585004"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2585011"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2585017"></a>
6734 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2585149" href="#id2585149" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
6735
6736 Siva Vaidhyanathan captures a similar point in his <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">four
6737 surrenders</span>&#8221;</span> of copyright law in the digital age. See Vaidhyanathan,
6738 159&#8211;60.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2584955"></a>
6739 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2585505" href="#id2585505" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
6740
6741 It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist movement
6742 to demonstrate that all property rights are always crafted to balance public
6743 and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Disintegration of
6744 Property,</span>&#8221;</span> in <em class="citetitle">Nomos XXII: Property</em>, J. Roland
6745 Pennock and John W.  Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press,
6746 1980).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2585520"></a>
6747 </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="11. Kapittel elleve: Chimera"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>11. Kapittel elleve: Chimera</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxchimera"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwells"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtcotb"></a><p>
6748 In a well-known short story by H. G. Wells, a mountain climber named Nunez
6749 trips (literally, down an ice slope) into an unknown and isolated valley in
6750 the Peruvian Andes.<sup>[<a name="id2585670" href="#ftn.id2585670" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is
6751 extraordinarily beautiful, with <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sweet water, pasture, an even
6752 climate, slopes of rich brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an
6753 excellent fruit.</span>&#8221;</span> But the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this
6754 as an opportunity. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In the Country of the Blind,</span>&#8221;</span> he tells
6755 himself, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the One-Eyed Man is King.</span>&#8221;</span> So he resolves to live
6756 with the villagers to explore life as a king.
6757 </p><p>
6758 Things don't go quite as he planned. He tries to explain the idea of sight
6759 to the villagers. They don't understand. He tells them they are
6760 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">blind.</span>&#8221;</span> They don't have the word
6761 <em class="citetitle">blind</em>. They think he's just thick.  Indeed, as they
6762 increasingly notice the things he can't do (hear the sound of grass being
6763 stepped on, for example), they increasingly try to control him. He, in turn,
6764 becomes increasingly frustrated. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">`You don't understand,' he cried, in
6765 a voice that was meant to be great and resolute, and which broke. `You are
6766 blind and I can see. Leave me alone!'</span>&#8221;</span>
6767 </p><p>
6768
6769
6770 The villagers don't leave him alone. Nor do they see (so to speak) the
6771 virtue of his special power. Not even the ultimate target of his affection,
6772 a young woman who to him seems <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the most beautiful thing in the whole
6773 of creation,</span>&#8221;</span> understands the beauty of sight. Nunez's description of
6774 what he sees <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">seemed to her the most poetical of fancies, and she
6775 listened to his description of the stars and the mountains and her own sweet
6776 white-lit beauty as though it was a guilty indulgence.</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">She
6777 did not believe,</span>&#8221;</span> Wells tells us, and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">she could only half
6778 understand, but she was mysteriously delighted.</span>&#8221;</span>
6779 </p><p>
6780 When Nunez announces his desire to marry his <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">mysteriously
6781 delighted</span>&#8221;</span> love, the father and the village object. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">You see,
6782 my dear,</span>&#8221;</span> her father instructs, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">he's an idiot. He has
6783 delusions. He can't do anything right.</span>&#8221;</span> They take Nunez to the
6784 village doctor.
6785 </p><p>
6786 After a careful examination, the doctor gives his opinion. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">His brain
6787 is affected,</span>&#8221;</span> he reports.
6788 </p><p>
6789 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">What affects it?</span>&#8221;</span> the father asks.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Those queer things
6790 that are called the eyes &#8230; are diseased &#8230; in such a way as to
6791 affect his brain.</span>&#8221;</span>
6792 </p><p>
6793 The doctor continues: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I think I may say with reasonable certainty
6794 that in order to cure him completely, all that we need to do is a simple and
6795 easy surgical operation&#8212;namely, to remove these irritant bodies [the
6796 eyes].</span>&#8221;</span>
6797 </p><p>
6798
6799 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Thank Heaven for science!</span>&#8221;</span> says the father to the doctor. They
6800 inform Nunez of this condition necessary for him to be allowed his bride.
6801 (You'll have to read the original to learn what happens in the end. I
6802 believe in free culture, but never in giving away the end of a story.)  It
6803 sometimes happens that the eggs of twins fuse in the mother's womb. That
6804 fusion produces a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">chimera.</span>&#8221;</span> A chimera is a single creature
6805 with two sets of DNA. The DNA in the blood, for example, might be different
6806 from the DNA of the skin. This possibility is an underused plot for murder
6807 mysteries. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But the DNA shows with 100 percent certainty that she was
6808 not the person whose blood was at the scene. &#8230;</span>&#8221;</span>
6809 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2585826"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2585833"></a><p>
6810 Before I had read about chimeras, I would have said they were impossible.  A
6811 single person can't have two sets of DNA. The very idea of DNA is that it is
6812 the code of an individual. Yet in fact, not only can two individuals have
6813 the same set of DNA (identical twins), but one person can have two different
6814 sets of DNA (a chimera). Our understanding of a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">person</span>&#8221;</span> should
6815 reflect this reality.
6816 </p><p>
6817 The more I work to understand the current struggle over copyright and
6818 culture, which I've sometimes called unfairly, and sometimes not unfairly
6819 enough, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the copyright wars,</span>&#8221;</span> the more I think we're dealing
6820 with a chimera. For example, in the battle over the question <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">What is
6821 p2p file sharing?</span>&#8221;</span> both sides have it right, and both sides have it
6822 wrong.  One side says, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">File sharing is just like two kids taping each
6823 others' records&#8212;the sort of thing we've been doing for the last thirty
6824 years without any question at all.</span>&#8221;</span> That's true, at least in
6825 part. When I tell my best friend to try out a new CD that I've bought, but
6826 rather than just send the CD, I point him to my p2p server, that is, in all
6827 relevant respects, just like what every executive in every recording company
6828 no doubt did as a kid: sharing music.
6829 </p><p>
6830 But the description is also false in part. For when my p2p server is on a
6831 p2p network through which anyone can get access to my music, then sure, my
6832 friends can get access, but it stretches the meaning of
6833 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">friends</span>&#8221;</span> beyond recognition to say <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">my ten thousand best
6834 friends</span>&#8221;</span> can get access. Whether or not sharing my music with my best
6835 friend is what <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">we have always been allowed to do,</span>&#8221;</span> we have not
6836 always been allowed to share music with <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">our ten thousand best
6837 friends.</span>&#8221;</span>
6838 </p><p>
6839 Likewise, when the other side says, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">File sharing is just like walking
6840 into a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out with
6841 it,</span>&#8221;</span> that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett (finally)
6842 releases a new album, rather than buying it, I go to Kazaa and find a free
6843 copy to take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower.
6844 <a class="indexterm" name="id2585916"></a>
6845 </p><p>
6846
6847
6848
6849 But it is not quite stealing from Tower. After all, when I take a CD from
6850 Tower Records, Tower has one less CD to sell. And when I take a CD from
6851 Tower Records, I get a bit of plastic and a cover, and something to show on
6852 my shelves. (And, while we're at it, we could also note that when I take a
6853 CD from Tower Records, the maximum fine that might be imposed on me, under
6854 California law, at least, is $1,000.  According to the RIAA, by contrast, if
6855 I download a ten-song CD, I'm liable for $1,500,000 in damages.)
6856 </p><p>
6857 The point is not that it is as neither side describes. The point is that it
6858 is both&#8212;both as the RIAA describes it and as Kazaa describes it. It is
6859 a chimera. And rather than simply denying what the other side asserts, we
6860 need to begin to think about how we should respond to this chimera. What
6861 rules should govern it?
6862 </p><p>
6863 We could respond by simply pretending that it is not a chimera. We could,
6864 with the RIAA, decide that every act of file sharing should be a felony. We
6865 could prosecute families for millions of dollars in damages just because
6866 file sharing occurred on a family computer. And we can get universities to
6867 monitor all computer traffic to make sure that no computer is used to commit
6868 this crime. These responses might be extreme, but each of them has either
6869 been proposed or actually implemented.<sup>[<a name="id2585966" href="#ftn.id2585966" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
6870
6871 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2586064"></a><p>
6872 Alternatively, we could respond to file sharing the way many kids act as
6873 though we've responded. We could totally legalize it. Let there be no
6874 copyright liability, either civil or criminal, for making copyrighted
6875 content available on the Net. Make file sharing like gossip: regulated, if
6876 at all, by social norms but not by law.
6877 </p><p>
6878 Either response is possible. I think either would be a mistake.  Rather than
6879 embrace one of these two extremes, we should embrace something that
6880 recognizes the truth in both. And while I end this book with a sketch of a
6881 system that does just that, my aim in the next chapter is to show just how
6882 awful it would be for us to adopt the zero-tolerance extreme. I believe
6883 <span class="emphasis"><em>either</em></span> extreme would be worse than a reasonable
6884 alternative.  But I believe the zero-tolerance solution would be the worse
6885 of the two extremes.
6886 </p><p>
6887
6888
6889
6890 Yet zero tolerance is increasingly our government's policy. In the middle of
6891 the chaos that the Internet has created, an extraordinary land grab is
6892 occurring. The law and technology are being shifted to give content holders
6893 a kind of control over our culture that they have never had before. And in
6894 this extremism, many an opportunity for new innovation and new creativity
6895 will be lost.
6896 </p><p>
6897 I'm not talking about the opportunities for kids to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">steal</span>&#8221;</span>
6898 music. My focus instead is the commercial and cultural innovation that this
6899 war will also kill. We have never seen the power to innovate spread so
6900 broadly among our citizens, and we have just begun to see the innovation
6901 that this power will unleash. Yet the Internet has already seen the passing
6902 of one cycle of innovation around technologies to distribute content. The
6903 law is responsible for this passing. As the vice president for global public
6904 policy at one of these new innovators, eMusic.com, put it when criticizing
6905 the DMCA's added protection for copyrighted material,
6906 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6907 eMusic opposes music piracy. We are a distributor of copyrighted material,
6908 and we want to protect those rights.
6909 </p><p>
6910 But building a technology fortress that locks in the clout of the major
6911 labels is by no means the only way to protect copyright interests, nor is it
6912 necessarily the best. It is simply too early to answer that question. Market
6913 forces operating naturally may very well produce a totally different
6914 industry model.
6915 </p><p>
6916 This is a critical point. The choices that industry sectors make with
6917 respect to these systems will in many ways directly shape the market for
6918 digital media and the manner in which digital media are distributed. This in
6919 turn will directly influence the options that are available to consumers,
6920 both in terms of the ease with which they will be able to access digital
6921 media and the equipment that they will require to do so. Poor choices made
6922 this early in the game will retard the growth of this market, hurting
6923 everyone's interests.<sup>[<a name="id2586152" href="#ftn.id2586152" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
6924 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6925 In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of
6926 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the major labels.</span>&#8221;</span> Its position on these matters has now
6927 changed.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2586178"></a>
6928 </p><p>
6929 Reversing our tradition of tolerance now will not merely quash piracy. It
6930 will sacrifice values that are important to this culture, and will kill
6931 opportunities that could be extraordinarily valuable.
6932 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2585670" href="#id2585670" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
6933
6934
6935 H. G. Wells, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Country of the Blind</span>&#8221;</span> (1904, 1911). See
6936 H. G. Wells, <em class="citetitle">The Country of the Blind and Other
6937 Stories</em>, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New York: Oxford University
6938 Press, 1996).
6939 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2585966" href="#id2585966" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
6940
6941 For an excellent summary, see the report prepared by GartnerG2 and the
6942 Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School,
6943 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>&#8221;</span> 27 June
6944 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6945 #33</a>. Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman
6946 (D-Calif.) have introduced a bill that would treat unauthorized on-line
6947 copying as a felony offense with punishments ranging as high as five years
6948 imprisonment; see Jon Healey, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">House Bill Aims to Up Stakes on
6949 Piracy,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 17 July 2003,
6950 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6951 #34</a>. Civil penalties are currently set at $150,000 per copied
6952 song. For a recent (and unsuccessful) legal challenge to the RIAA's demand
6953 that an ISP reveal the identity of a user accused of sharing more than 600
6954 songs through a family computer, see <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
6955 v. <em class="citetitle">Verizon Internet Services (In re. Verizon Internet
6956 Services)</em>, 240 F.  Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2003). Such a user could
6957 face liability ranging as high as $90 million. Such astronomical figures
6958 furnish the RIAA with a powerful arsenal in its prosecution of file
6959 sharers. Settlements ranging from $12,000 to $17,500 for four students
6960 accused of heavy file sharing on university networks must have seemed a mere
6961 pittance next to the $98 billion the RIAA could seek should the matter
6962 proceed to court. See Elizabeth Young, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Downloading Could Lead to
6963 Fines,</span>&#8221;</span> redandblack.com, August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #35</a>. For an example of the
6964 RIAA's targeting of student file sharing, and of the subpoenas issued to
6965 universities to reveal student file-sharer identities, see James Collins,
6966 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to Name Students,</span>&#8221;</span>
6967 <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 8 August 2003, D3, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #36</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2586047"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2586056"></a>
6968 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2586152" href="#id2586152" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
6969
6970
6971 WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
6972 Entertainment on the Internet and Other Media: Hearing Before the
6973 Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, House
6974 Committee on Commerce, 106th Cong. 29 (1999) (statement of Peter Harter,
6975 vice president, Global Public Policy and Standards, EMusic.com), available
6976 in LEXIS, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony File.  </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="12. Kapittel tolv: Skader"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="harms"></a>12. Kapittel tolv: Skader</h2></div></div></div><p>
6977 To fight <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy,</span>&#8221;</span> to protect <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property,</span>&#8221;</span> the
6978 content industry has launched a war. Lobbying and lots of campaign
6979 contributions have now brought the government into this war. As with any
6980 war, this one will have both direct and collateral damage. As with any war
6981 of prohibition, these damages will be suffered most by our own people.
6982 </p><p>
6983 My aim so far has been to describe the consequences of this war, in
6984 particular, the consequences for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free culture.</span>&#8221;</span> But my aim now
6985 is to extend this description of consequences into an argument. Is this war
6986 justified?
6987 </p><p>
6988 In my view, it is not. There is no good reason why this time, for the first
6989 time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the power of
6990 the property called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>&#8221;</span> is at its greatest
6991 in our history.
6992 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2586239"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2586246"></a><p>
6993 Yet <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">common sense</span>&#8221;</span> does not see it this way. Common sense is
6994 still on the side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme
6995 claims of control in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical
6996 rejection of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> still has play.
6997 </p><p>
6998
6999
7000 There will be many consequences of continuing this war. I want to describe
7001 just three. All three might be said to be unintended. I am quite confident
7002 the third is unintended. I'm less sure about the first two. The first two
7003 protect modern RCAs, but there is no Howard Armstrong in the wings to fight
7004 today's monopolists of culture.
7005 </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>
7006 In the next ten years we will see an explosion of digital technologies.
7007 These technologies will enable almost anyone to capture and share
7008 content. Capturing and sharing content, of course, is what humans have done
7009 since the dawn of man. It is how we learn and communicate. But capturing and
7010 sharing through digital technology is different. The fidelity and power are
7011 different. You could send an e-mail telling someone about a joke you saw on
7012 Comedy Central, or you could send the clip. You could write an essay about
7013 the inconsistencies in the arguments of the politician you most love to
7014 hate, or you could make a short film that puts statement against
7015 statement. You could write a poem to express your love, or you could weave
7016 together a string&#8212;a mash-up&#8212; of songs from your favorite artists
7017 in a collage and make it available on the Net.
7018 </p><p>
7019 This digital <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>&#8221;</span> is in part an extension of
7020 the capturing and sharing that has always been integral to our culture, and
7021 in part it is something new. It is continuous with the Kodak, but it
7022 explodes the boundaries of Kodak-like technologies. The technology of
7023 digital <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>&#8221;</span> promises a world of
7024 extraordinarily diverse creativity that can be easily and broadly
7025 shared. And as that creativity is applied to democracy, it will enable a
7026 broad range of citizens to use technology to express and criticize and
7027 contribute to the culture all around.
7028 </p><p>
7029
7030 Teknologien har dermed gitt oss en mulighet til å gjøre noe med kultur som
7031 bare har vært mulig for enkeltpersoner i små grupper, isolert fra andre
7032 grupper. Forestill deg en gammel mann som forteller en historie til en
7033 samling med naboer i en liten landsby.  Forestill deg så den samme
7034 historiefortellingen utvidet til å nå over hele verden.
7035 </p><p>
7036 Yet all this is possible only if the activity is presumptively legal. In the
7037 current regime of legal regulation, it is not. Forget file sharing for a
7038 moment. Think about your favorite amazing sites on the Net. Web sites that
7039 offer plot summaries from forgotten television shows; sites that catalog
7040 cartoons from the 1960s; sites that mix images and sound to criticize
7041 politicians or businesses; sites that gather newspaper articles on remote
7042 topics of science or culture. There is a vast amount of creative work spread
7043 across the Internet. But as the law is currently crafted, this work is
7044 presumptively illegal.
7045 </p><p>
7046 That presumption will increasingly chill creativity, as the examples of
7047 extreme penalties for vague infringements continue to proliferate. It is
7048 impossible to get a clear sense of what's allowed and what's not, and at the
7049 same time, the penalties for crossing the line are astonishingly harsh.  The
7050 four students who were threatened by the RIAA ( Jesse Jordan of chapter 3
7051 was just one) were threatened with a $98 billion lawsuit for building search
7052 engines that permitted songs to be copied. Yet World-Com&#8212;which
7053 defrauded investors of $11 billion, resulting in a loss to investors in
7054 market capitalization of over $200 billion&#8212;received a fine of a mere
7055 $750 million.<sup>[<a name="id2586362" href="#ftn.id2586362" class="footnote">157</a>]</sup> And under legislation
7056 being pushed in Congress right now, a doctor who negligently removes the
7057 wrong leg in an operation would be liable for no more than $250,000 in
7058 damages for pain and suffering.<sup>[<a name="id2586400" href="#ftn.id2586400" class="footnote">158</a>]</sup> Can
7059 common sense recognize the absurdity in a world where the maximum fine for
7060 downloading two songs off the Internet is more than the fine for a doctor's
7061 negligently butchering a patient? <a class="indexterm" name="id2586444"></a>
7062 </p><p>
7063 The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high
7064 penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never
7065 be exercised, or never be exercised in the open. We drive this creative
7066 process underground by branding the modern-day Walt Disneys
7067 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirates.</span>&#8221;</span> We make it impossible for businesses to rely upon a
7068 public domain, because the boundaries of the public domain are designed to
7069 be unclear. It never pays to do anything except pay for the right to create,
7070 and hence only those who can pay are allowed to create. As was the case in
7071 the Soviet Union, though for very different reasons, we will begin to see a
7072 world of underground art&#8212;not because the message is necessarily
7073 political, or because the subject is controversial, but because the very act
7074 of creating the art is legally fraught. Already, exhibits of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">illegal
7075 art</span>&#8221;</span> tour the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2586463" href="#ftn.id2586463" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In
7076 what does their <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">illegality</span>&#8221;</span> consist? In the act of mixing the
7077 culture around us with an expression that is critical or reflective.
7078 </p><p>
7079 Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the changing
7080 law. I described that change in detail in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;">10</a>. But an even bigger part has to do with
7081 the increasing ease with which infractions can be tracked. As users of
7082 file-sharing systems discovered in 2002, it is a trivial matter for
7083 copyright owners to get courts to order Internet service providers to reveal
7084 who has what content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a
7085 list of the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that
7086 anyone could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
7087 </p><p>
7088 Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether his painting
7089 infringed on someone else's work; but the modern-day painter, using the
7090 tools of Photoshop, sharing content on the Web, must worry all the
7091 time. Images are all around, but the only safe images to use in the act of
7092 creation are those purchased from Corbis or another image farm. And in
7093 purchasing, censoring happens. There is a free market in pencils; we needn't
7094 worry about its effect on creativity. But there is a highly regulated,
7095 monopolized market in cultural icons; the right to cultivate and transform
7096 them is not similarly free.
7097 </p><p>
7098 Lawyers rarely see this because lawyers are rarely empirical. As I described
7099 in chapter <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, in
7100 response to the story about documentary filmmaker Jon Else, I have been
7101 lectured again and again by lawyers who insist Else's use was fair use, and
7102 hence I am wrong to say that the law regulates such a use.
7103 </p><p>
7104
7105
7106
7107 But fair use in America simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend
7108 your right to create. And as lawyers love to forget, our system for
7109 defending rights such as fair use is astonishingly bad&#8212;in practically
7110 every context, but especially here. It costs too much, it delivers too
7111 slowly, and what it delivers often has little connection to the justice
7112 underlying the claim. The legal system may be tolerable for the very rich.
7113 For everyone else, it is an embarrassment to a tradition that prides itself
7114 on the rule of law.
7115 </p><p>
7116 Judges and lawyers can tell themselves that fair use provides adequate
7117 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">breathing room</span>&#8221;</span> between regulation by the law and the access
7118 the law should allow. But it is a measure of how out of touch our legal
7119 system has become that anyone actually believes this. The rules that
7120 publishers impose upon writers, the rules that film distributors impose upon
7121 filmmakers, the rules that newspapers impose upon journalists&#8212; these
7122 are the real laws governing creativity. And these rules have little
7123 relationship to the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">law</span>&#8221;</span> with which judges comfort themselves.
7124 </p><p>
7125 For in a world that threatens $150,000 for a single willful infringement of
7126 a copyright, and which demands tens of thousands of dollars to even defend
7127 against a copyright infringement claim, and which would never return to the
7128 wrongfully accused defendant anything of the costs she suffered to defend
7129 her right to speak&#8212;in that world, the astonishingly broad regulations
7130 that pass under the name <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> silence speech and
7131 creativity. And in that world, it takes a studied blindness for people to
7132 continue to believe they live in a culture that is free.
7133 </p><p>
7134 As Jed Horovitz, the businessman behind Video Pipeline, said to me,
7135 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7136
7137 We're losing [creative] opportunities right and left. Creative people are
7138 being forced not to express themselves. Thoughts are not being
7139 expressed. And while a lot of stuff may [still] be created, it still won't
7140 get distributed. Even if the stuff gets made &#8230; you're not going to
7141 get it distributed in the mainstream media unless you've got a little note
7142 from a lawyer saying, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">This has been cleared.</span>&#8221;</span> You're not even
7143 going to get it on PBS without that kind of permission. That's the point at
7144 which they control it.
7145 </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>
7146 The story of the last section was a crunchy-lefty story&#8212;creativity
7147 quashed, artists who can't speak, yada yada yada. Maybe that doesn't get you
7148 going. Maybe you think there's enough weird art out there, and enough
7149 expression that is critical of what seems to be just about everything.  And
7150 if you think that, you might think there's little in this story to worry
7151 you.
7152 </p><p>
7153 But there's an aspect of this story that is not lefty in any sense.  Indeed,
7154 it is an aspect that could be written by the most extreme promarket
7155 ideologue. And if you're one of these sorts (and a special one at that, 188
7156 pages into a book like this), then you can see this other aspect by
7157 substituting <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free market</span>&#8221;</span> every place I've spoken of
7158 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free culture.</span>&#8221;</span> The point is the same, even if the interests
7159 affecting culture are more fundamental.
7160 </p><p>
7161 The charge I've been making about the regulation of culture is the same
7162 charge free marketers make about regulating markets. Everyone, of course,
7163 concedes that some regulation of markets is necessary&#8212;at a minimum, we
7164 need rules of property and contract, and courts to enforce both. Likewise,
7165 in this culture debate, everyone concedes that at least some framework of
7166 copyright is also required. But both perspectives vehemently insist that
7167 just because some regulation is good, it doesn't follow that more regulation
7168 is better. And both perspectives are constantly attuned to the ways in which
7169 regulation simply enables the powerful industries of today to protect
7170 themselves against the competitors of tomorrow.
7171 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2586669"></a><p>
7172
7173 This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy
7174 that I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;">10</a>. The consequence of this massive threat of liability
7175 tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is that innovators who want to
7176 innovate in this space can safely innovate only if they have the sign-off
7177 from last generation's dominant industries.  That lesson has been taught
7178 through a series of cases that were designed and executed to teach venture
7179 capitalists a lesson. That lesson&#8212;what former Napster CEO Hank Barry
7180 calls a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">nuclear pall</span>&#8221;</span> that has fallen over the
7181 Valley&#8212;has been learned.
7182 </p><p>
7183 Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in
7184 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> and which has progressed in a way
7185 that even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
7186 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2586724"></a><p>
7187 In 1997, Michael Roberts launched a company called MP3.com.  MP3.com was
7188 keen to remake the music business. Their goal was not just to facilitate new
7189 ways to get access to content. Their goal was also to facilitate new ways to
7190 create content. Unlike the major labels, MP3.com offered creators a venue to
7191 distribute their creativity, without demanding an exclusive engagement from
7192 the creators.
7193 </p><p>
7194 To make this system work, however, MP3.com needed a reliable way to
7195 recommend music to its users. The idea behind this alternative was to
7196 leverage the revealed preferences of music listeners to recommend new
7197 artists. If you like Lyle Lovett, you're likely to enjoy Bonnie Raitt. And
7198 so on.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2586748"></a>
7199 </p><p>
7200 This idea required a simple way to gather data about user preferences.
7201 MP3.com came up with an extraordinarily clever way to gather this preference
7202 data. In January 2000, the company launched a service called
7203 my.mp3.com. Using software provided by MP3.com, a user would sign into an
7204 account and then insert into her computer a CD. The software would identify
7205 the CD, and then give the user access to that content.  So, for example, if
7206 you inserted a CD by Jill Sobule, then wherever you were&#8212;at work or at
7207 home&#8212;you could get access to that music once you signed into your
7208 account. The system was therefore a kind of music-lockbox.
7209 </p><p>
7210
7211 No doubt some could use this system to illegally copy content. But that
7212 opportunity existed with or without MP3.com. The aim of the my.mp3.com
7213 service was to give users access to their own content, and as a by-product,
7214 by seeing the content they already owned, to discover the kind of content
7215 the users liked.
7216 </p><p>
7217 To make this system function, however, MP3.com needed to copy 50,000 CDs to
7218 a server. (In principle, it could have been the user who uploaded the music,
7219 but that would have taken a great deal of time, and would have produced a
7220 product of questionable quality.) It therefore purchased 50,000 CDs from a
7221 store, and started the process of making copies of those CDs. Again, it
7222 would not serve the content from those copies to anyone except those who
7223 authenticated that they had a copy of the CD they wanted to access. So while
7224 this was 50,000 copies, it was 50,000 copies directed at giving customers
7225 something they had already bought.
7226 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxvivendiuniversal"></a><p>
7227 Nine days after MP3.com launched its service, the five major labels, headed
7228 by the RIAA, brought a lawsuit against MP3.com. MP3.com settled with four of
7229 the five. Nine months later, a federal judge found MP3.com to have been
7230 guilty of willful infringement with respect to the fifth. Applying the law
7231 as it is, the judge imposed a fine against MP3.com of $118 million. MP3.com
7232 then settled with the remaining plaintiff, Vivendi Universal, paying over
7233 $54 million. Vivendi purchased MP3.com just about a year later.
7234 </p><p>
7235 Den delen av historien har jeg fortalt før.  Nå kommer konklusjonen.
7236 </p><p>
7237 After Vivendi purchased MP3.com, Vivendi turned around and filed a
7238 malpractice lawsuit against the lawyers who had advised it that they had a
7239 good faith claim that the service they wanted to offer would be considered
7240 legal under copyright law. This lawsuit alleged that it should have been
7241 obvious that the courts would find this behavior illegal; therefore, this
7242 lawsuit sought to punish any lawyer who had dared to suggest that the law
7243 was less restrictive than the labels demanded.
7244 </p><p>
7245
7246 Den åpenbare hensikten med dette søksmålet (som ble avsluttet med et forlik
7247 for et uspesifisert beløp like etter at saken ikke lenger fikk
7248 pressedekning), var å sende en melding som ikke kan misforstås til advokater
7249 som gir råd til klienter på dette området: Det er ikke bare dine klienter
7250 som får lide hvis innholdsindustrien retter sine våpen mot dem.  Det får
7251 også du.  Så de av dere som tror loven burde være mindre restriktiv bør
7252 innse at et slikt syn på loven vil koste deg og ditt firma dyrt.
7253 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2586852"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2586860"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2586866"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2586872"></a><p>
7254 This strategy is not just limited to the lawyers. In April 2003, Universal
7255 and EMI brought a lawsuit against Hummer Winblad, the venture capital firm
7256 (VC) that had funded Napster at a certain stage of its development, its
7257 cofounder ( John Hummer), and general partner (Hank Barry).<sup>[<a name="id2586886" href="#ftn.id2586886" class="footnote">160</a>]</sup> The claim here, as well, was that the VC should
7258 have recognized the right of the content industry to control how the
7259 industry should develop. They should be held personally liable for funding a
7260 company whose business turned out to be beyond the law. Here again, the aim
7261 of the lawsuit is transparent: Any VC now recognizes that if you fund a
7262 company whose business is not approved of by the dinosaurs, you are at risk
7263 not just in the marketplace, but in the courtroom as well.  Your investment
7264 buys you not only a company, it also buys you a lawsuit.  So extreme has the
7265 environment become that even car manufacturers are afraid of technologies
7266 that touch content. In an article in <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>,
7267 Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW: <a class="indexterm" name="id2586933"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2586939"></a>
7268 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2586949"></a><p>
7269 I asked why, with all the storage capacity and computer power in the car,
7270 there was no way to play MP3 files. I was told that BMW engineers in Germany
7271 had rigged a new vehicle to play MP3s via the car's built-in sound system,
7272 but that the company's marketing and legal departments weren't comfortable
7273 with pushing this forward for release stateside. Even today, no new cars are
7274 sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. &#8230; <sup>[<a name="id2586623" href="#ftn.id2586623" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
7275 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7276 This is the world of the mafia&#8212;filled with <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">your money or your
7277 life</span>&#8221;</span> offers, governed in the end not by courts but by the threats
7278 that the law empowers copyright holders to exercise. It is a system that
7279 will obviously and necessarily stifle new innovation. It is hard enough to
7280 start a company. It is impossibly hard if that company is constantly
7281 threatened by litigation.
7282 </p><p>
7283
7284
7285
7286 The point is not that businesses should have a right to start illegal
7287 enterprises. The point is the definition of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">illegal.</span>&#8221;</span> The law
7288 is a mess of uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply to
7289 new technologies. Yet by reversing our tradition of judicial deference, and
7290 by embracing the astonishingly high penalties that copyright law imposes,
7291 that uncertainty now yields a reality which is far more conservative than is
7292 right. If the law imposed the death penalty for parking tickets, we'd not
7293 only have fewer parking tickets, we'd also have much less driving. The same
7294 principle applies to innovation. If innovation is constantly checked by this
7295 uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation
7296 and much less creativity.
7297 </p><p>
7298 The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
7299 use. Whatever the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">real</span>&#8221;</span> law is, realism about the effect of
7300 law in both contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation
7301 will systematically stifle creativity and innovation. It will protect some
7302 industries and some creators, but it will harm industry and creativity
7303 generally. Free market and free culture depend upon vibrant competition.
7304 Yet the effect of the law today is to stifle just this kind of competition.
7305 The effect is to produce an overregulated culture, just as the effect of too
7306 much control in the market is to produce an overregulatedregulated market.
7307 </p><p>
7308
7309 The building of a permission culture, rather than a free culture, is the
7310 first important way in which the changes I have described will burden
7311 innovation. A permission culture means a lawyer's culture&#8212;a culture in
7312 which the ability to create requires a call to your lawyer. Again, I am not
7313 antilawyer, at least when they're kept in their proper place. I am certainly
7314 not antilaw. But our profession has lost the sense of its limits. And
7315 leaders in our profession have lost an appreciation of the high costs that
7316 our profession imposes upon others. The inefficiency of the law is an
7317 embarrassment to our tradition. And while I believe our profession should
7318 therefore do everything it can to make the law more efficient, it should at
7319 least do everything it can to limit the reach of the law where the law is
7320 not doing any good. The transaction costs buried within a permission culture
7321 are enough to bury a wide range of creativity.  Someone needs to do a lot of
7322 justifying to justify that result.  The uncertainty of the law is one burden
7323 on innovation. There is a second burden that operates more directly. This is
7324 the effort by many in the content industry to use the law to directly
7325 regulate the technology of the Internet so that it better protects their
7326 content.
7327 </p><p>
7328 The motivation for this response is obvious. The Internet enables the
7329 efficient spread of content. That efficiency is a feature of the Internet's
7330 design. But from the perspective of the content industry, this feature is a
7331 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">bug.</span>&#8221;</span> The efficient spread of content means that content
7332 distributors have a harder time controlling the distribution of content.
7333 One obvious response to this efficiency is thus to make the Internet less
7334 efficient. If the Internet enables <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy,</span>&#8221;</span> then, this
7335 response says, we should break the kneecaps of the Internet.
7336 </p><p>
7337 The examples of this form of legislation are many. At the urging of the
7338 content industry, some in Congress have threatened legislation that would
7339 require computers to determine whether the content they access is protected
7340 or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<sup>[<a name="id2587121" href="#ftn.id2587121" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
7341 explore a mandatory <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>&#8221;</span> that would be required on
7342 any device capable of transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and
7343 that would disable the copying of any content that is marked with a
7344 broadcast flag. Other members of Congress have proposed immunizing content
7345 providers from liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt
7346 down copyright violators and disable their machines.<sup>[<a name="id2587151" href="#ftn.id2587151" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
7347 </p><p>
7348
7349 In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the code, why
7350 not regulate the code to remove the problem. But any regulation of technical
7351 infrastructure will always be tuned to the particular technology of the
7352 day. It will impose significant burdens and costs on the technology, but
7353 will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly those requirements.
7354 </p><p>
7355 In March 2002, a broad coalition of technology companies, led by Intel,
7356 tried to get Congress to see the harm that such legislation would
7357 impose.<sup>[<a name="id2587174" href="#ftn.id2587174" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
7358 not that copyright should not be protected. Instead, they argued, any
7359 protection should not do more harm than good.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2587187"></a>
7360 </p><p>
7361 There is one more obvious way in which this war has harmed
7362 innovation&#8212;again, a story that will be quite familiar to the free
7363 market crowd.
7364 </p><p>
7365 Copyright may be property, but like all property, it is also a form of
7366 regulation. It is a regulation that benefits some and harms others.  When
7367 done right, it benefits creators and harms leeches. When done wrong, it is
7368 regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
7369 </p><p>
7370 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;">10</a>, despite this feature of copyright as regulation, and
7371 subject to important qualifications outlined by Jessica Litman in her book
7372 <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em>,<sup>[<a name="id2587222" href="#ftn.id2587222" class="footnote">165</a>]</sup> overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10
7373 details, when new technologies have come along, Congress has struck a
7374 balance to assure that the new is protected from the old. Compulsory, or
7375 statutory, licenses have been one part of that strategy. Free use (as in the
7376 case of the VCR) has been another.
7377 </p><p>
7378 But that pattern of deference to new technologies has now changed with the
7379 rise of the Internet. Rather than striking a balance between the claims of a
7380 new technology and the legitimate rights of content creators, both the
7381 courts and Congress have imposed legal restrictions that will have the
7382 effect of smothering the new to benefit the old.
7383 </p><p>
7384 The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<sup>[<a name="id2587258" href="#ftn.id2587258" class="footnote">166</a>]</sup> It has been mirrored in the responses threatened
7385 and actually implemented by Congress. I won't catalog all of those responses
7386 here.<sup>[<a name="id2587293" href="#ftn.id2587293" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
7387 captures the flavor of them all. This is the story of the demise of Internet
7388 radio.
7389 </p><p>
7390
7391
7392 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="4. CHAPTER FOUR: &#8220;Pirates&#8221;">4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording artist
7393 doesn't get paid for that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">radio performance</span>&#8221;</span> unless he or she
7394 is also the composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had recorded a
7395 version of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;to memorialize her famous
7396 performance before President Kennedy at Madison Square Garden&#8212; then
7397 whenever that recording was played on the radio, the current copyright
7398 owners of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>&#8221;</span> would get some money, whereas
7399 Marilyn Monroe would not.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2587368"></a>
7400 </p><p>
7401 The reasoning behind this balance struck by Congress makes some sense. The
7402 justification was that radio was a kind of advertising. The recording artist
7403 thus benefited because by playing her music, the radio station was making it
7404 more likely that her records would be purchased.  Thus, the recording artist
7405 got something, even if only indirectly.  Probably this reasoning had less to
7406 do with the result than with the power of radio stations: Their lobbyists
7407 were quite good at stopping any efforts to get Congress to require
7408 compensation to the recording artists.
7409 </p><p>
7410 Enter Internet radio. Like regular radio, Internet radio is a technology to
7411 stream content from a broadcaster to a listener. The broadcast travels
7412 across the Internet, not across the ether of radio spectrum.  Thus, I can
7413 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">tune in</span>&#8221;</span> to an Internet radio station in Berlin while sitting
7414 in San Francisco, even though there's no way for me to tune in to a regular
7415 radio station much beyond the San Francisco metropolitan area.
7416 </p><p>
7417 This feature of the architecture of Internet radio means that there are
7418 potentially an unlimited number of radio stations that a user could tune in
7419 to using her computer, whereas under the existing architecture for broadcast
7420 radio, there is an obvious limit to the number of broadcasters and clear
7421 broadcast frequencies. Internet radio could therefore be more competitive
7422 than regular radio; it could provide a wider range of selections. And
7423 because the potential audience for Internet radio is the whole world, niche
7424 stations could easily develop and market their content to a relatively large
7425 number of users worldwide. According to some estimates, more than eighty
7426 million users worldwide have tuned in to this new form of radio.
7427 </p><p>
7428
7429
7430
7431 Internet radio is thus to radio what FM was to AM. It is an improvement
7432 potentially vastly more significant than the FM improvement over AM, since
7433 not only is the technology better, so, too, is the competition. Indeed,
7434 there is a direct parallel between the fight to establish FM radio and the
7435 fight to protect Internet radio. As one author describes Howard Armstrong's
7436 struggle to enable FM radio,
7437 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7438 An almost unlimited number of FM stations was possible in the shortwaves,
7439 thus ending the unnatural restrictions imposed on radio in the crowded
7440 longwaves. If FM were freely developed, the number of stations would be
7441 limited only by economics and competition rather than by technical
7442 restrictions. &#8230; Armstrong likened the situation that had grown up in
7443 radio to that following the invention of the printing press, when
7444 governments and ruling interests attempted to control this new instrument of
7445 mass communications by imposing restrictive licenses on it. This tyranny was
7446 broken only when it became possible for men freely to acquire printing
7447 presses and freely to run them. FM in this sense was as great an invention
7448 as the printing presses, for it gave radio the opportunity to strike off its
7449 shackles.<sup>[<a name="id2586965" href="#ftn.id2586965" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
7450 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7451 This potential for FM radio was never realized&#8212;not because Armstrong
7452 was wrong about the technology, but because he underestimated the power of
7453 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">vested interests, habits, customs and legislation</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2587476" href="#ftn.id2587476" class="footnote">169</a>]</sup> to retard the growth of this competing technology.
7454 </p><p>
7455 Now the very same claim could be made about Internet radio. For again, there
7456 is no technical limitation that could restrict the number of Internet radio
7457 stations. The only restrictions on Internet radio are those imposed by the
7458 law. Copyright law is one such law. So the first question we should ask is,
7459 what copyright rules would govern Internet radio?
7460 </p><p>
7461
7462 But here the power of the lobbyists is reversed. Internet radio is a new
7463 industry. The recording artists, on the other hand, have a very powerful
7464 lobby, the RIAA. Thus when Congress considered the phenomenon of Internet
7465 radio in 1995, the lobbyists had primed Congress to adopt a different rule
7466 for Internet radio than the rule that applies to terrestrial radio. While
7467 terrestrial radio does not have to pay our hypothetical Marilyn Monroe when
7468 it plays her hypothetical recording of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>&#8221;</span> on the
7469 air, <span class="emphasis"><em>Internet radio does</em></span>. Not only is the law not
7470 neutral toward Internet radio&#8212;the law actually burdens Internet radio
7471 more than it burdens terrestrial radio.
7472 </p><p>
7473 This financial burden is not slight. As Harvard law professor William Fisher
7474 estimates, if an Internet radio station distributed adfree popular music to
7475 (on average) ten thousand listeners, twenty-four hours a day, the total
7476 artist fees that radio station would owe would be over $1 million a
7477 year.<sup>[<a name="id2587523" href="#ftn.id2587523" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
7478 broadcasting the same content would pay no equivalent fee.
7479 </p><p>
7480 The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were
7481 proposed, an Internet radio station (but not a terrestrial radio station)
7482 would have to collect the following data from <span class="emphasis"><em>every listening
7483 transaction</em></span>:
7484 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
7485 navn på tjenesten,
7486 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7487 kanalen til programmet (AM/FM-stasjoner bruker stasjons-ID);
7488 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7489 type program (fra arkivet/i løkke/direkte);
7490 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7491 dato for sending;
7492 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7493 tidspunkt for sending;
7494 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7495 tidssone til opprinnelsen for sending;
7496 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7497 numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program;
7498 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7499 varigheten av sending (til nærmeste sekund):
7500 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7501 lydinnspilling-tittel;
7502 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7503 ISRC-kode for opptaket;
7504 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7505 release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of
7506 compilation albums, the release year of the album and copy- right date of
7507 the track;
7508 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7509 spillende plateartist;
7510 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7511 tittel på album i butikker;
7512 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7513 plateselskap;
7514 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7515 UPC-koden for albumet i butikker;
7516 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7517 katalognummer;
7518 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7519 informasjon om opphavsrettsinnehaver;
7520 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7521 musikksjanger for kanal eller programmet (stasjonsformat);
7522 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7523 navn på tjenesten eller selskap;
7524 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7525 kanal eller program;
7526 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7527 date and time that the user logged in (in the user's time zone);
7528 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7529 date and time that the user logged out (in the user's time zone);
7530 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7531 time zone where the signal was received (user);
7532 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7533 unik bruker-identifikator;
7534 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7535 landet til brukeren som mottok sendingene.
7536 </p></li></ol></div><p>
7537 The Librarian of Congress eventually suspended these reporting requirements,
7538 pending further study. And he also changed the original rates set by the
7539 arbitration panel charged with setting rates. But the basic difference
7540 between Internet radio and terrestrial radio remains: Internet radio has to
7541 pay a <span class="emphasis"><em>type of copyright fee</em></span> that terrestrial radio does
7542 not.
7543 </p><p>
7544 Why? What justifies this difference? Was there any study of the economic
7545 consequences from Internet radio that would justify these differences? Was
7546 the motive to protect artists against piracy?
7547 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2587746"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2587752"></a><p>
7548 In a rare bit of candor, one RIAA expert admitted what seemed obvious to
7549 everyone at the time. As Alex Alben, vice president for Public Policy at
7550 Real Networks, told me,
7551 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7552
7553 The RIAA, which was representing the record labels, presented some testimony
7554 about what they thought a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, and
7555 it was much higher. It was ten times higher than what radio stations pay to
7556 perform the same songs for the same period of time. And so the attorneys
7557 representing the webcasters asked the RIAA, &#8230; <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">How do you come
7558 up with a rate that's so much higher? Why is it worth more than radio?
7559 Because here we have hundreds of thousands of webcasters who want to pay,
7560 and that should establish the market rate, and if you set the rate so high,
7561 you're going to drive the small webcasters out of business. &#8230;</span>&#8221;</span>
7562 </p><p>
7563 And the RIAA experts said, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Well, we don't really model this as an
7564 industry with thousands of webcasters, <span class="emphasis"><em>we think it should be an
7565 industry with, you know, five or seven big players who can pay a high rate
7566 and it's a stable, predictable market</em></span>.</span>&#8221;</span> (Emphasis added.)
7567 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7568 Translation: The aim is to use the law to eliminate competition, so that
7569 this platform of potentially immense competition, which would cause the
7570 diversity and range of content available to explode, would not cause pain to
7571 the dinosaurs of old. There is no one, on either the right or the left, who
7572 should endorse this use of the law. And yet there is practically no one, on
7573 either the right or the left, who is doing anything effective to prevent it.
7574 </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>
7575 Overregulation stifles creativity. It smothers innovation. It gives
7576 dinosaurs a veto over the future. It wastes the extraordinary opportunity
7577 for a democratic creativity that digital technology enables.
7578 </p><p>
7579 In addition to these important harms, there is one more that was important
7580 to our forebears, but seems forgotten today. Overregulation corrupts
7581 citizens and weakens the rule of law.
7582 </p><p>
7583
7584 The war that is being waged today is a war of prohibition. As with every war
7585 of prohibition, it is targeted against the behavior of a very large number
7586 of citizens. According to <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, 43
7587 million Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<sup>[<a name="id2587847" href="#ftn.id2587847" class="footnote">171</a>]</sup> According to the RIAA, the behavior of those 43 million Americans
7588 is a felony. We thus have a set of rules that transform 20 percent of
7589 America into criminals. As the RIAA launches lawsuits against not only the
7590 Napsters and Kazaas of the world, but against students building search
7591 engines, and increasingly against ordinary users downloading content, the
7592 technologies for sharing will advance to further protect and hide illegal
7593 use. It is an arms race or a civil war, with the extremes of one side
7594 inviting a more extreme response by the other.
7595 </p><p>
7596 The content industry's tactics exploit the failings of the American legal
7597 system. When the RIAA brought suit against Jesse Jordan, it knew that in
7598 Jordan it had found a scapegoat, not a defendant. The threat of having to
7599 pay either all the money in the world in damages ($15,000,000) or almost all
7600 the money in the world to defend against paying all the money in the world
7601 in damages ($250,000 in legal fees)  led Jordan to choose to pay all the
7602 money he had in the world ($12,000) to make the suit go away. The same
7603 strategy animates the RIAA's suits against individual users. In September
7604 2003, the RIAA sued 261 individuals&#8212;including a twelve-year-old girl
7605 living in public housing and a seventy-year-old man who had no idea what
7606 file sharing was.<sup>[<a name="id2587514" href="#ftn.id2587514" class="footnote">172</a>]</sup> As these scapegoats
7607 discovered, it will always cost more to defend against these suits than it
7608 would cost to simply settle. (The twelve year old, for example, like Jesse
7609 Jordan, paid her life savings of $2,000 to settle the case.) Our law is an
7610 awful system for defending rights. It is an embarrassment to our
7611 tradition. And the consequence of our law as it is, is that those with the
7612 power can use the law to quash any rights they oppose.
7613 </p><p>
7614 Wars of prohibition are nothing new in America. This one is just something
7615 more extreme than anything we've seen before. We experimented with alcohol
7616 prohibition, at a time when the per capita consumption of alcohol was 1.5
7617 gallons per capita per year. The war against drinking initially reduced that
7618 consumption to just 30 percent of its preprohibition levels, but by the end
7619 of prohibition, consumption was up to 70 percent of the preprohibition
7620 level. Americans were drinking just about as much, but now, a vast number
7621 were criminals.<sup>[<a name="id2587937" href="#ftn.id2587937" class="footnote">173</a>]</sup> We have launched a war
7622 on drugs aimed at reducing the consumption of regulated narcotics that 7
7623 percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.<sup>[<a name="id2587954" href="#ftn.id2587954" class="footnote">174</a>]</sup> That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in 1979 of 14 percent of
7624 the population. We regulate automobiles to the point where the vast majority
7625 of Americans violate the law every day. We run such a complex tax system
7626 that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.<sup>[<a name="id2587970" href="#ftn.id2587970" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free
7627 society,</span>&#8221;</span> but an endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated
7628 within our society. And as a result, a huge proportion of Americans
7629 regularly violate at least some law.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2587992"></a>
7630 </p><p>
7631 This state of affairs is not without consequence. It is a particularly
7632 salient issue for teachers like me, whose job it is to teach law students
7633 about the importance of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ethics.</span>&#8221;</span> As my colleague Charlie
7634 Nesson told a class at Stanford, each year law schools admit thousands of
7635 students who have illegally downloaded music, illegally consumed alcohol and
7636 sometimes drugs, illegally worked without paying taxes, illegally driven
7637 cars. These are kids for whom behaving illegally is increasingly the
7638 norm. And then we, as law professors, are supposed to teach them how to
7639 behave ethically&#8212;how to say no to bribes, or keep client funds
7640 separate, or honor a demand to disclose a document that will mean that your
7641 case is over. Generations of Americans&#8212;more significantly in some
7642 parts of America than in others, but still, everywhere in America
7643 today&#8212;can't live their lives both normally and legally, since
7644 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">normally</span>&#8221;</span> entails a certain degree of illegality.
7645 <a class="indexterm" name="id2588010"></a>
7646 </p><p>
7647 The response to this general illegality is either to enforce the law more
7648 severely or to change the law. We, as a society, have to learn how to make
7649 that choice more rationally. Whether a law makes sense depends, in part, at
7650 least, upon whether the costs of the law, both intended and collateral,
7651 outweigh the benefits. If the costs, intended and collateral, do outweigh
7652 the benefits, then the law ought to be changed.  Alternatively, if the costs
7653 of the existing system are much greater than the costs of an alternative,
7654 then we have a good reason to consider the alternative.
7655 </p><p>
7656
7657
7658
7659 My point is not the idiotic one: Just because people violate a law, we
7660 should therefore repeal it. Obviously, we could reduce murder statistics
7661 dramatically by legalizing murder on Wednesdays and Fridays. But that
7662 wouldn't make any sense, since murder is wrong every day of the week. A
7663 society is right to ban murder always and everywhere.
7664 </p><p>
7665 My point is instead one that democracies understood for generations, but
7666 that we recently have learned to forget. The rule of law depends upon people
7667 obeying the law. The more often, and more repeatedly, we as citizens
7668 experience violating the law, the less we respect the law. Obviously, in
7669 most cases, the important issue is the law, not respect for the law. I don't
7670 care whether the rapist respects the law or not; I want to catch and
7671 incarcerate the rapist. But I do care whether my students respect the
7672 law. And I do care if the rules of law sow increasing disrespect because of
7673 the extreme of regulation they impose.  Twenty million Americans have come
7674 of age since the Internet introduced this different idea of
7675 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sharing.</span>&#8221;</span> We need to be able to call these twenty million
7676 Americans <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">citizens,</span>&#8221;</span> not <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">felons.</span>&#8221;</span>
7677 </p><p>
7678 When at least forty-three million citizens download content from the
7679 Internet, and when they use tools to combine that content in ways
7680 unauthorized by copyright holders, the first question we should be asking is
7681 not how best to involve the FBI. The first question should be whether this
7682 particular prohibition is really necessary in order to achieve the proper
7683 ends that copyright law serves. Is there another way to assure that artists
7684 get paid without transforming forty-three million Americans into felons?
7685 Does it make sense if there are other ways to assure that artists get paid
7686 without transforming America into a nation of felons?
7687 </p><p>
7688 This abstract point can be made more clear with a particular example.
7689 </p><p>
7690
7691 We all own CDs. Many of us still own phonograph records. These pieces of
7692 plastic encode music that in a certain sense we have bought.  The law
7693 protects our right to buy and sell that plastic: It is not a copyright
7694 infringement for me to sell all my classical records at a used record store
7695 and buy jazz records to replace them. That <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">use</span>&#8221;</span> of the
7696 recordings is free.
7697 </p><p>
7698 But as the MP3 craze has demonstrated, there is another use of phonograph
7699 records that is effectively free. Because these recordings were made without
7700 copy-protection technologies, I am <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free</span>&#8221;</span> to copy, or
7701 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rip,</span>&#8221;</span> music from my records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed,
7702 Apple Corporation went so far as to suggest that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">freedom</span>&#8221;</span> was
7703 a right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Rip, Mix,
7704 Burn</span>&#8221;</span> capacities of digital technologies.
7705 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2588138"></a><p>
7706 This <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">use</span>&#8221;</span> of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a
7707 large process at home of ripping all of my and my wife's CDs, and storing
7708 them in one archive. Then, using Apple's iTunes, or a wonderful program
7709 called Andromeda, we can build different play lists of our music: Bach,
7710 Baroque, Love Songs, Love Songs of Significant Others&#8212;the potential is
7711 endless. And by reducing the costs of mixing play lists, these technologies
7712 help build a creativity with play lists that is itself independently
7713 valuable. Compilations of songs are creative and meaningful in their own
7714 right.
7715 </p><p>
7716 This use is enabled by unprotected media&#8212;either CDs or records.  But
7717 unprotected media also enable file sharing. File sharing threatens (or so
7718 the content industry believes) the ability of creators to earn a fair return
7719 from their creativity. And thus, many are beginning to experiment with
7720 technologies to eliminate unprotected media. These technologies, for
7721 example, would enable CDs that could not be ripped. Or they might enable spy
7722 programs to identify ripped content on people's machines.
7723 </p><p>
7724
7725 If these technologies took off, then the building of large archives of your
7726 own music would become quite difficult. You might hang in hacker circles,
7727 and get technology to disable the technologies that protect the
7728 content. Trading in those technologies is illegal, but maybe that doesn't
7729 bother you much. In any case, for the vast majority of people, these
7730 protection technologies would effectively destroy the archiving use of
7731 CDs. The technology, in other words, would force us all back to the world
7732 where we either listened to music by manipulating pieces of plastic or were
7733 part of a massively complex <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">digital rights management</span>&#8221;</span> system.
7734 </p><p>
7735 If the only way to assure that artists get paid were the elimination of the
7736 ability to freely move content, then these technologies to interfere with
7737 the freedom to move content would be justifiable. But what if there were
7738 another way to assure that artists are paid, without locking down any
7739 content? What if, in other words, a different system could assure
7740 compensation to artists while also preserving the freedom to move content
7741 easily?
7742 </p><p>
7743 My point just now is not to prove that there is such a system. I offer a
7744 version of such a system in the last chapter of this book. For now, the only
7745 point is the relatively uncontroversial one: If a different system achieved
7746 the same legitimate objectives that the existing copyright system achieved,
7747 but left consumers and creators much more free, then we'd have a very good
7748 reason to pursue this alternative&#8212;namely, freedom.  The choice, in
7749 other words, would not be between property and piracy; the choice would be
7750 between different property systems and the freedoms each allowed.
7751 </p><p>
7752 I believe there is a way to assure that artists are paid without turning
7753 forty-three million Americans into felons. But the salient feature of this
7754 alternative is that it would lead to a very different market for producing
7755 and distributing creativity. The dominant few, who today control the vast
7756 majority of the distribution of content in the world, would no longer
7757 exercise this extreme of control. Rather, they would go the way of the
7758 horse-drawn buggy.
7759 </p><p>
7760 Except that this generation's buggy manufacturers have already saddled
7761 Congress, and are riding the law to protect themselves against this new form
7762 of competition. For them the choice is between fortythree million Americans
7763 as criminals and their own survival.
7764 </p><p>
7765 It is understandable why they choose as they do. It is not understandable
7766 why we as a democracy continue to choose as we do. Jack Valenti is charming;
7767 but not so charming as to justify giving up a tradition as deep and
7768 important as our tradition of free culture.  There's one more aspect to this
7769 corruption that is particularly important to civil liberties, and follows
7770 directly from any war of prohibition.  As Electronic Frontier Foundation
7771 attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">collateral
7772 damage</span>&#8221;</span> that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">arises whenever you turn a very large percentage
7773 of the population into criminals.</span>&#8221;</span> This is the collateral damage to
7774 civil liberties generally.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2588254"></a>
7775 </p><p>
7776 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">If you can treat someone as a putative lawbreaker,</span>&#8221;</span> von
7777 Lohmann explains, <a class="indexterm" name="id2588270"></a>
7778 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7779 then all of a sudden a lot of basic civil liberty protections evaporate to
7780 one degree or another. &#8230; If you're a copyright infringer, how can you
7781 hope to have any privacy rights? If you're a copyright infringer, how can
7782 you hope to be secure against seizures of your computer? How can you hope to
7783 continue to receive Internet access? &#8230; Our sensibilities change as
7784 soon as we think, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Oh, well, but that person's a criminal, a
7785 lawbreaker.</span>&#8221;</span> Well, what this campaign against file sharing has done
7786 is turn a remarkable percentage of the American Internet-using population
7787 into <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lawbreakers.</span>&#8221;</span>
7788 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7789 And the consequence of this transformation of the American public into
7790 criminals is that it becomes trivial, as a matter of due process, to
7791 effectively erase much of the privacy most would presume.
7792 </p><p>
7793 Users of the Internet began to see this generally in 2003 as the RIAA
7794 launched its campaign to force Internet service providers to turn over the
7795 names of customers who the RIAA believed were violating copyright
7796 law. Verizon fought that demand and lost. With a simple request to a judge,
7797 and without any notice to the customer at all, the identity of an Internet
7798 user is revealed.
7799 </p><p>
7800
7801 The RIAA then expanded this campaign, by announcing a general strategy to
7802 sue individual users of the Internet who are alleged to have downloaded
7803 copyrighted music from file-sharing systems. But as we've seen, the
7804 potential damages from these suits are astronomical: If a family's computer
7805 is used to download a single CD's worth of music, the family could be liable
7806 for $2 million in damages. That didn't stop the RIAA from suing a number of
7807 these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.<sup>[<a name="id2588328" href="#ftn.id2588328" class="footnote">176</a>]</sup>
7808
7809 </p><p>
7810 Even this understates the espionage that is being waged by the RIAA. A
7811 report from CNN late last summer described a strategy the RIAA had adopted
7812 to track Napster users.<sup>[<a name="id2588384" href="#ftn.id2588384" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> Using a
7813 sophisticated hashing algorithm, the RIAA took what is in effect a
7814 fingerprint of every song in the Napster catalog. Any copy of one of those
7815 MP3s will have the same <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fingerprint.</span>&#8221;</span>
7816 </p><p>
7817 So imagine the following not-implausible scenario: Imagine a friend gives a
7818 CD to your daughter&#8212;a collection of songs just like the cassettes you
7819 used to make as a kid. You don't know, and neither does your daughter, where
7820 these songs came from. But she copies these songs onto her computer. She
7821 then takes her computer to college and connects it to a college network, and
7822 if the college network is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">cooperating</span>&#8221;</span> with the RIAA's
7823 espionage, and she hasn't properly protected her content from the network
7824 (do you know how to do that yourself ?), then the RIAA will be able to
7825 identify your daughter as a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">criminal.</span>&#8221;</span> And under the rules
7826 that universities are beginning to deploy,<sup>[<a name="id2588428" href="#ftn.id2588428" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer
7827 network.  She can, in some cases, be expelled.
7828 </p><p>
7829 Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire a
7830 lawyer for her (at $300 per hour, if you're lucky), and she can plead that
7831 she didn't know anything about the source of the songs or that they came
7832 from Napster. And it may well be that the university believes her. But the
7833 university might not believe her. It might treat this
7834 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">contraband</span>&#8221;</span> as presumptive of guilt. And as any number of
7835 college students have already learned, our presumptions about innocence
7836 disappear in the middle of wars of prohibition. This war is no different.
7837 Says von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id2588516"></a>
7838 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7839 So when we're talking about numbers like forty to sixty million Americans
7840 that are essentially copyright infringers, you create a situation where the
7841 civil liberties of those people are very much in peril in a general
7842 matter. [I don't] think [there is any] analog where you could randomly
7843 choose any person off the street and be confident that they were committing
7844 an unlawful act that could put them on the hook for potential felony
7845 liability or hundreds of millions of dollars of civil liability. Certainly
7846 we all speed, but speeding isn't the kind of an act for which we routinely
7847 forfeit civil liberties. Some people use drugs, and I think that's the
7848 closest analog, [but] many have noted that the war against drugs has eroded
7849 all of our civil liberties because it's treated so many Americans as
7850 criminals. Well, I think it's fair to say that file sharing is an order of
7851 magnitude larger number of Americans than drug use. &#8230; If forty to
7852 sixty million Americans have become lawbreakers, then we're really on a
7853 slippery slope to lose a lot of civil liberties for all forty to sixty
7854 million of them.
7855 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7856 When forty to sixty million Americans are considered
7857 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">criminals</span>&#8221;</span> under the law, and when the law could achieve the
7858 same objective&#8212; securing rights to authors&#8212;without these
7859 millions being considered <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">criminals,</span>&#8221;</span> who is the villain?
7860 Americans or the law? Which is American, a constant war on our own people or
7861 a concerted effort through our democracy to change our law?
7862 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2586362" href="#id2586362" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
7863
7864 See Lynne W. Jeter, <em class="citetitle">Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at
7865 WorldCom</em> (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley &amp; Sons, 2003), 176, 204;
7866 for details of the settlement, see MCI press release, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">MCI Wins
7867 U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement</span>&#8221;</span> (7 July 2003),
7868 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #37</a>.
7869 <a class="indexterm" name="id2586387"></a>
7870 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2586400" href="#id2586400" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
7871  The bill, modeled after California's tort reform model, was passed in the
7872 House of Representatives but defeated in a Senate vote in July 2003. For an
7873 overview, see Tanya Albert, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be
7874 Back,' Say Tort Reformers,</span>&#8221;</span> amednews.com, 28 July 2003, available at
7875 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #38</a>, and
7876 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Senate Turns Back Malpractice Caps,</span>&#8221;</span> CBSNews.com, 9 July 2003,
7877 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7878 #39</a>. President Bush has continued to urge tort reform in recent
7879 months.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2586431"></a>
7880 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2586463" href="#id2586463" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
7881
7882
7883
7884 See Danit Lidor, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Artists Just Wanna Be Free,</span>&#8221;</span>
7885 <em class="citetitle">Wired</em>, 7 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #40</a>. For an overview of the
7886 exhibition, see <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #41</a>.
7887 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2586886" href="#id2586886" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
7888
7889
7890 See Joseph Menn, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,</span>&#8221;</span>
7891 <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 23 April 2003. For a parallel
7892 argument about the effects on innovation in the distribution of music, see
7893 Janelle Brown, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Music Revolution Will Not Be Digitized,</span>&#8221;</span>
7894 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,
7895 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Online Music Services Besieged,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
7896 Times</em>, 28 May 2001.
7897 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2586623" href="#id2586623" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
7898
7899 Rafe Needleman, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Driving in Cars with MP3s,</span>&#8221;</span>
7900 <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>, 16 June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #43</a>. I am grateful to
7901 Dr. Mohammad Al-Ubaydli for this example.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2586984"></a>
7902 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587121" href="#id2587121" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
7903
7904 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>&#8221;</span>
7905 GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law
7906 School (2003), 33&#8211;35, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.
7907 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587151" href="#id2587151" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
7908
7909
7910 GartnerG2, 26&#8211;27.
7911 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587174" href="#id2587174" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
7912
7913
7914 See David McGuire, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy,</span>&#8221;</span>
7915 Newsbytes, February 2002 (Entertainment).
7916 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587222" href="#id2587222" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
7917
7918 Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
7919 Prometheus Books, 2001).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2587229"></a>
7920 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587258" href="#id2587258" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
7921
7922
7923 The only circuit court exception is found in <em class="citetitle">Recording Industry
7924 Association of America (RIAA)</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Diamond Multimedia
7925 Systems</em>, 180 F. 3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999). There the court of
7926 appeals for the Ninth Circuit reasoned that makers of a portable MP3 player
7927 were not liable for contributory copyright infringement for a device that is
7928 unable to record or redistribute music (a device whose only copying function
7929 is to render portable a music file already stored on a user's hard drive).
7930 At the district court level, the only exception is found in
7931 <em class="citetitle">Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,
7932 Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Grokster, Ltd</em>., 259 F. Supp. 2d
7933 1029 (C.D.  Cal., 2003), where the court found the link between the
7934 distributor and any given user's conduct too attenuated to make the
7935 distributor liable for contributory or vicarious infringement liability.
7936 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587293" href="#id2587293" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
7937
7938 For example, in July 2002, Representative Howard Berman introduced the
7939 Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize
7940 copyright holders from liability for damage done to computers when the
7941 copyright holders use technology to stop copyright infringement. In August
7942 2002, Representative Billy Tauzin introduced a bill to mandate that
7943 technologies capable of rebroadcasting digital copies of films broadcast on
7944 TV (i.e., computers) respect a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>&#8221;</span> that would
7945 disable copying of that content. And in March of the same year, Senator
7946 Fritz Hollings introduced the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television
7947 Promotion Act, which mandated copyright protection technology in all digital
7948 media devices. See GartnerG2, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a
7949 Post-Napster World,</span>&#8221;</span> 27 June 2003, 33&#8211;34, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2587323"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2587331"></a>
7950 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2586965" href="#id2586965" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
7951
7952
7953 Lessing, 239.
7954 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587476" href="#id2587476" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
7955
7956
7957 Ibid., 229.
7958 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587523" href="#id2587523" class="para">170</a>] </sup>
7959
7960 This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright Arbitration
7961 Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an example offered by
7962 Professor William Fisher. Conference Proceedings, iLaw (Stanford), 3 July
7963 2003, on file with author. Professors Fisher and Zittrain submitted
7964 testimony in the CARP proceeding that was ultimately rejected.  See Jonathan
7965 Zittrain, Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral
7966 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
7967 analysis making a similar point, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright as
7968 Entry Policy: The Case of Digital Distribution,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Antitrust
7969 Bulletin</em> (Summer/Fall 2002): 461: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">This was not confusion,
7970 these are just old-fashioned entry barriers. Analog radio stations are
7971 protected from digital entrants, reducing entry in radio and diversity. Yes,
7972 this is done in the name of getting royalties to copyright holders, but,
7973 absent the play of powerful interests, that could have been done in a
7974 media-neutral way.</span>&#8221;</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2587560"></a>
7975 <a class="indexterm" name="id2587569"></a>
7976 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587847" href="#id2587847" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
7977
7978 Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Music Downloading Deluge,</span>&#8221;</span>
7979 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
7980 American Life Project reported that 37 million Americans had downloaded
7981 music files from the Internet by early 2001.
7982 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587514" href="#id2587514" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
7983
7984
7985 Alex Pham, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA
7986 Case,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 10 September 2003,
7987 Business.
7988 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587937" href="#id2587937" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
7989
7990
7991 Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Alcohol Consumption During
7992 Prohibition,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81,
7993 no. 2 (1991): 242.
7994 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587954" href="#id2587954" class="para">174</a>] </sup>
7995
7996
7997 National Drug Control Policy: Hearing Before the House Government Reform
7998 Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (5 March 2003) (statement of John
7999 P. Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy).
8000 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2587970" href="#id2587970" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
8001
8002
8003 See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Tax
8004 Compliance,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature</em> 36
8005 (1998): 818 (survey of compliance literature).
8006 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2588328" href="#id2588328" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
8007
8008
8009 See Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single
8010 Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>&#8221;</span>
8011 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10 September 2003, E1; Chris Cobbs,
8012 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Worried Parents Pull Plug on File `Stealing'; With the Music Industry
8013 Cracking Down on File Swapping, Parents are Yanking Software from Home PCs
8014 to Avoid Being Sued,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel
8015 Tribune</em>, 30 August 2003, C1; Jefferson Graham, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Recording
8016 Industry Sues Parents,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 15
8017 September 2003, 4D; John Schwartz, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">She Says She's No Music Pirate. No
8018 Snoop Fan, Either,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 25
8019 September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Is Brianna a Criminal?</span>&#8221;</span>
8020 <em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
8021 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2588384" href="#id2588384" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
8022
8023
8024 See <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Revealed: How RIAA Tracks Downloaders: Music Industry Discloses
8025 Some Methods Used,</span>&#8221;</span> CNN.com, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #47</a>.
8026 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2588428" href="#id2588428" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
8027
8028
8029 See Jeff Adler, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not
8030 Penitent,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 18 May 2003, City
8031 Weekly, 1; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Four Students Sued over Music Sites;
8032 Industry Group Targets File Sharing at Colleges,</span>&#8221;</span>
8033 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 4 April 2003, E1; Elizabeth
8034 Armstrong, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Students `Rip, Mix, Burn' at Their Own Risk,</span>&#8221;</span>
8035 <em class="citetitle">Christian Science Monitor</em>, 2 September 2003, 20;
8036 Robert Becker and Angela Rozas, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Music Pirate Hunt Turns to Loyola;
8037 Two Students Names Are Handed Over; Lawsuit Possible,</span>&#8221;</span>
8038 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 16 July 2003, 1C; Beth Cox,
8039 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">RIAA Trains Antipiracy Guns on Universities,</span>&#8221;</span>
8040 <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,
8041 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Download Warning 101: Freshman Orientation This Fall to Include
8042 Record Industry Warnings Against File Sharing,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">San
8043 Francisco Chronicle</em>, 11 August 2003, E11; <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Raid, Letters
8044 Are Weapons at Universities,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 26
8045 September 2000, 3D.
8046 </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>
8047 Så her er bildet: Du står på siden av veien. Bilen din er på brann. Du er
8048 sint og opprørt fordi du delvis bidro til å starte brannen. Nå vet du ikke
8049 hvordan du slokker den.  Ved siden av deg er en bøtte, fylt med
8050 bensin. Bensin vil åpenbart ikke slukke brannen.
8051 </p><p>
8052 Mens du tenker over situasjonen, kommer noen andre forbi.  I panikk griper
8053 hun bøtta, og før du har hatt sjansen til å be henne stoppe&#8212;eller før
8054 hun forstår hvorfor hun bør stoppe&#8212;er bøtten i svevet.  Bensinen er på
8055 tur mot den brennende bilen.  Og brannen som bensinen kommer til å fyre opp
8056 vil straks sette fyr på alt i omgivelsene.
8057 </p><p>
8058 En krig om opphavsrett pågår over alt&#8212; og vi fokuserer alle på feil
8059 ting.  Det er ingen tvil om at dagens teknologier truer eksisterende
8060 virksomheter.  Uten tvil kan de true artister.  Men teknologier endrer seg.
8061 Industrien og teknologer har en rekke måter å bruke teknologi til å beskytte
8062 dem selv mot dagens trusler på Internet.  Dette er en brann som overlatt til
8063 seg selv vil brenne ut.
8064 </p><p>
8065
8066
8067 Likevel er ikke besluttningstagere villig til å la denne brannen i fred.
8068 Ladet med masse penger fra lobbyister er de lystne på å gå i mellom for å
8069 fjerne problemet slik de oppfatter det.  Men problemet slik de oppfatter det
8070 er ikke den reelle trusselen som denne kulturen står med ansiktet mot.  For
8071 mens vi ser på denne lille brannen i hjørnet er det en massiv endring i
8072 hvordan kultur blir skapt som pågår over alt.
8073 </p><p>
8074 På en eller annen måte må vi klare å snu oppmerksomheten mot dette mer
8075 viktige og fundametale problemet.  Vi må finne en måte å unngå å helle
8076 bensin på denne brannen.
8077 </p><p>
8078 Vi har ikke funne denne måten ennå.  Istedet synes vi å være fanget i en
8079 enklere og sort-hvit tenkning.  Uansett hvor mange folk som presser på for å
8080 gjøre rammen for debatten litt bredere, er det dette enkle sort-hvit-synet
8081 som består.  Vi kjører sakte forbi og stirrer på brannen når vi i stedet
8082 burde holde øynene på veien.
8083 </p><p>
8084 Denne utfordringen har vært livet mitt de siste årene.  Det har også vært
8085 min falitt.  I de to neste kapittlene, beskriver jeg en liten innsats, så
8086 langt uten suksess, på å finne en måte å endre fokus på denne debatten.  Vi
8087 må forstå disse mislyktede forsøkene hvis vi skal forstå hva som kreves for
8088 å lykkes.
8089 </p></div><div class="chapter" title="13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred"></a>13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxhawthornenathaniel"></a><p>
8090 In 1995, a father was frustrated that his daughters didn't seem to like
8091 Hawthorne. No doubt there was more than one such father, but at least one
8092 did something about it. Eric Eldred, a retired computer programmer living in
8093 New Hampshire, decided to put Hawthorne on the Web. An electronic version,
8094 Eldred thought, with links to pictures and explanatory text, would make this
8095 nineteenth-century author's work come alive.
8096 </p><p>
8097 It didn't work&#8212;at least for his daughters. They didn't find Hawthorne
8098 any more interesting than before. But Eldred's experiment gave birth to a
8099 hobby, and his hobby begat a cause: Eldred would build a library of public
8100 domain works by scanning these works and making them available for free.
8101 </p><p>
8102
8103 Eldred's library was not simply a copy of certain public domain works,
8104 though even a copy would have been of great value to people across the world
8105 who can't get access to printed versions of these works. Instead, Eldred was
8106 producing derivative works from these public domain works. Just as Disney
8107 turned Grimm into stories more accessible to the twentieth century, Eldred
8108 transformed Hawthorne, and many others, into a form more
8109 accessible&#8212;technically accessible&#8212;today.
8110 </p><p>
8111 Eldred's freedom to do this with Hawthorne's work grew from the same source
8112 as Disney's. Hawthorne's <em class="citetitle">Scarlet Letter</em> had passed
8113 into the public domain in 1907. It was free for anyone to take without the
8114 permission of the Hawthorne estate or anyone else. Some, such as Dover Press
8115 and Penguin Classics, take works from the public domain and produce printed
8116 editions, which they sell in bookstores across the country. Others, such as
8117 Disney, take these stories and turn them into animated cartoons, sometimes
8118 successfully (<em class="citetitle">Cinderella</em>), sometimes not
8119 (<em class="citetitle">The Hunchback of Notre Dame</em>, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
8120 Planet</em>). These are all commercial publications of public domain
8121 works.
8122 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2588767"></a><p>
8123 The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of public
8124 domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally thousands of
8125 others. Hundreds of thousands from across the world have discovered this
8126 platform of expression and now use it to share works that are, by law, free
8127 for the taking. This has produced what we might call the
8128 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">noncommercial publishing industry,</span>&#8221;</span> which before the Internet
8129 was limited to people with large egos or with political or social
8130 causes. But with the Internet, it includes a wide range of individuals and
8131 groups dedicated to spreading culture generally.<sup>[<a name="id2588790" href="#ftn.id2588790" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
8132 </p><p>
8133 As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In 1998, Robert Frost's collection
8134 of poems <em class="citetitle">New Hampshire</em> was slated to pass into the
8135 public domain. Eldred wanted to post that collection in his free public
8136 library.  But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;">10</a>, in 1998, for the
8137 eleventh time in forty years, Congress extended the terms of existing
8138 copyrights&#8212;this time by twenty years. Eldred would not be free to add
8139 any works more recent than 1923 to his collection until 2019.  Indeed, no
8140 copyrighted work would pass into the public domain until that year (and not
8141 even then, if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, in the same
8142 period, more than 1 million patents will pass into the public domain.
8143 </p><p>
8144
8145
8146 This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), enacted in
8147 memory of the congressman and former musician Sonny Bono, who, his widow,
8148 Mary Bono, says, believed that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyrights should be
8149 forever.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2588846" href="#ftn.id2588846" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
8150
8151 </p><p>
8152 Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
8153 civil disobedience. In a series of interviews, Eldred announced that he
8154 would publish as planned, CTEA notwithstanding. But because of a second law
8155 passed in 1998, the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act, his act of publishing
8156 would make Eldred a felon&#8212;whether or not anyone complained. This was a
8157 dangerous strategy for a disabled programmer to undertake.
8158 </p><p>
8159 It was here that I became involved in Eldred's battle. I was a
8160 constitutional scholar whose first passion was constitutional
8161 interpretation.  And though constitutional law courses never focus upon the
8162 Progress Clause of the Constitution, it had always struck me as importantly
8163 different. As you know, the Constitution says,
8164 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
8165 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science &#8230; by
8166 securing for limited Times to Authors &#8230; exclusive Right to their
8167 &#8230; Writings. &#8230;
8168 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8169 As I've described, this clause is unique within the power-granting clause of
8170 Article I, section 8 of our Constitution. Every other clause granting power
8171 to Congress simply says Congress has the power to do something&#8212;for
8172 example, to regulate <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>&#8221;</span> or
8173 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">declare War.</span>&#8221;</span> But here, the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">something</span>&#8221;</span> is
8174 something quite specific&#8212;to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">promote &#8230;
8175 Progress</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;through means that are also specific&#8212; by
8176 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">securing</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">exclusive Rights</span>&#8221;</span> (i.e., copyrights)
8177 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">for limited Times.</span>&#8221;</span>
8178 </p><p>
8179 In the past forty years, Congress has gotten into the practice of extending
8180 existing terms of copyright protection. What puzzled me about this was, if
8181 Congress has the power to extend existing terms, then the Constitution's
8182 requirement that terms be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited</span>&#8221;</span> will have no practical
8183 effect. If every time a copyright is about to expire, Congress has the power
8184 to extend its term, then Congress can achieve what the Constitution plainly
8185 forbids&#8212;perpetual terms <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">on the installment plan,</span>&#8221;</span> as
8186 Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2588946"></a>
8187 </p><p>
8188 As an academic, my first response was to hit the books. I remember sitting
8189 late at the office, scouring on-line databases for any serious consideration
8190 of the question. No one had ever challenged Congress's practice of extending
8191 existing terms. That failure may in part be why Congress seemed so
8192 untroubled in its habit. That, and the fact that the practice had become so
8193 lucrative for Congress. Congress knows that copyright owners will be willing
8194 to pay a great deal of money to see their copyright terms extended. And so
8195 Congress is quite happy to keep this gravy train going.
8196 </p><p>
8197 For this is the core of the corruption in our present system of
8198 government. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Corruption</span>&#8221;</span> not in the sense that representatives
8199 are bribed.  Rather, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">corruption</span>&#8221;</span> in the sense that the system
8200 induces the beneficiaries of Congress's acts to raise and give money to
8201 Congress to induce it to act. There's only so much time; there's only so
8202 much Congress can do. Why not limit its actions to those things it must
8203 do&#8212;and those things that pay? Extending copyright terms pays.
8204 </p><p>
8205 If that's not obvious to you, consider the following: Say you're one of the
8206 very few lucky copyright owners whose copyright continues to make money one
8207 hundred years after it was created. The Estate of Robert Frost is a good
8208 example. Frost died in 1963. His poetry continues to be extraordinarily
8209 valuable. Thus the Robert Frost estate benefits greatly from any extension
8210 of copyright, since no publisher would pay the estate any money if the poems
8211 Frost wrote could be published by anyone for free.
8212 </p><p>
8213 So imagine the Robert Frost estate is earning $100,000 a year from three of
8214 Frost's poems. And imagine the copyright for those poems is about to
8215 expire. You sit on the board of the Robert Frost estate.  Your financial
8216 adviser comes to your board meeting with a very grim report:
8217 </p><p>
8218
8219 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Next year,</span>&#8221;</span> the adviser announces, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">our copyrights in
8220 works A, B, and C will expire. That means that after next year, we will no
8221 longer be receiving the annual royalty check of $100,000 from the publishers
8222 of those works.</span>&#8221;</span>
8223 </p><p>
8224 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">There's a proposal in Congress, however,</span>&#8221;</span> she continues,
8225 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">that could change this. A few congressmen are floating a bill to
8226 extend the terms of copyright by twenty years. That bill would be
8227 extraordinarily valuable to us. So we should hope this bill passes.</span>&#8221;</span>
8228 </p><p>
8229 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hope?</span>&#8221;</span> a fellow board member says. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Can't we be doing
8230 something about it?</span>&#8221;</span>
8231 </p><p>
8232 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Well, obviously, yes,</span>&#8221;</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">We could
8233 contribute to the campaigns of a number of representatives to try to assure
8234 that they support the bill.</span>&#8221;</span>
8235 </p><p>
8236 You hate politics. You hate contributing to campaigns. So you want to know
8237 whether this disgusting practice is worth it. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">How much would we get
8238 if this extension were passed?</span>&#8221;</span> you ask the adviser. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">How much
8239 is it worth?</span>&#8221;</span>
8240 </p><p>
8241 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Well,</span>&#8221;</span> the adviser says, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">if you're confident that you
8242 will continue to get at least $100,000 a year from these copyrights, and you
8243 use the `discount rate' that we use to evaluate estate investments (6
8244 percent), then this law would be worth $1,146,000 to the estate.</span>&#8221;</span>
8245 </p><p>
8246 You're a bit shocked by the number, but you quickly come to the correct
8247 conclusion:
8248 </p><p>
8249 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">So you're saying it would be worth it for us to pay more than
8250 $1,000,000 in campaign contributions if we were confident those
8251 contributions would assure that the bill was passed?</span>&#8221;</span>
8252 </p><p>
8253 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Absolutely,</span>&#8221;</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">It is worth it to
8254 you to contribute up to the `present value' of the income you expect from
8255 these copyrights. Which for us means over $1,000,000.</span>&#8221;</span>
8256 </p><p>
8257
8258 You quickly get the point&#8212;you as the member of the board and, I trust,
8259 you the reader. Each time copyrights are about to expire, every beneficiary
8260 in the position of the Robert Frost estate faces the same choice: If they
8261 can contribute to get a law passed to extend copyrights, they will benefit
8262 greatly from that extension. And so each time copyrights are about to
8263 expire, there is a massive amount of lobbying to get the copyright term
8264 extended.
8265 </p><p>
8266 Thus a congressional perpetual motion machine: So long as legislation can be
8267 bought (albeit indirectly), there will be all the incentive in the world to
8268 buy further extensions of copyright.
8269 </p><p>
8270 In the lobbying that led to the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term
8271 Extension Act, this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">theory</span>&#8221;</span> about incentives was proved
8272 real. Ten of the thirteen original sponsors of the act in the House received
8273 the maximum contribution from Disney's political action committee; in the
8274 Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2589140" href="#ftn.id2589140" class="footnote">181</a>]</sup> The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent
8275 over $1.5 million lobbying in the 1998 election cycle. They paid out more
8276 than $200,000 in campaign contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2589157" href="#ftn.id2589157" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to
8277 reelection campaigns in the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id2589176" href="#ftn.id2589176" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
8278
8279 </p><p>
8280 Constitutional law is not oblivious to the obvious. Or at least, it need not
8281 be. So when I was considering Eldred's complaint, this reality about the
8282 never-ending incentives to increase the copyright term was central to my
8283 thinking. In my view, a pragmatic court committed to interpreting and
8284 applying the Constitution of our framers would see that if Congress has the
8285 power to extend existing terms, then there would be no effective
8286 constitutional requirement that terms be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited.</span>&#8221;</span> If they
8287 could extend it once, they would extend it again and again and again.
8288 </p><p>
8289
8290 It was also my judgment that <span class="emphasis"><em>this</em></span> Supreme Court would
8291 not allow Congress to extend existing terms. As anyone close to the Supreme
8292 Court's work knows, this Court has increasingly restricted the power of
8293 Congress when it has viewed Congress's actions as exceeding the power
8294 granted to it by the Constitution. Among constitutional scholars, the most
8295 famous example of this trend was the Supreme Court's decision in 1995 to
8296 strike down a law that banned the possession of guns near schools.
8297 </p><p>
8298 Since 1937, the Supreme Court had interpreted Congress's granted powers very
8299 broadly; so, while the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate
8300 only <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>&#8221;</span> (aka <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">interstate
8301 commerce</span>&#8221;</span>), the Supreme Court had interpreted that power to include
8302 the power to regulate any activity that merely affected interstate commerce.
8303 </p><p>
8304 As the economy grew, this standard increasingly meant that there was no
8305 limit to Congress's power to regulate, since just about every activity, when
8306 considered on a national scale, affects interstate commerce.  A Constitution
8307 designed to limit Congress's power was instead interpreted to impose no
8308 limit.
8309 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2589254"></a><p>
8310 The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed that in
8311 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The
8312 government had argued that possessing guns near schools affected interstate
8313 commerce. Guns near schools increase crime, crime lowers property values,
8314 and so on. In the oral argument, the Chief Justice asked the government
8315 whether there was any activity that would not affect interstate commerce
8316 under the reasoning the government advanced. The government said there was
8317 not; if Congress says an activity affects interstate commerce, then that
8318 activity affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court, the government
8319 said, was not in the position to second-guess Congress.
8320 </p><p>
8321 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">We pause to consider the implications of the government's
8322 arguments,</span>&#8221;</span> the Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id2589288" href="#ftn.id2589288" class="footnote">184</a>]</sup> If anything Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be
8323 considered interstate commerce, then there would be no limit to Congress's
8324 power. The decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> was reaffirmed five
8325 years later in <em class="citetitle">United States</em>
8326 v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<sup>[<a name="id2589315" href="#ftn.id2589315" class="footnote">185</a>]</sup>
8327 </p><p>
8328
8329 If a principle were at work here, then it should apply to the Progress
8330 Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<sup>[<a name="id2589335" href="#ftn.id2589335" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
8331 And if it is applied to the Progress Clause, the principle should yield the
8332 conclusion that Congress can't extend an existing term. If Congress could
8333 extend an existing term, then there would be no <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stopping
8334 point</span>&#8221;</span> to Congress's power over terms, though the Constitution
8335 expressly states that there is such a limit. Thus, the same principle
8336 applied to the power to grant copyrights should entail that Congress is not
8337 allowed to extend the term of existing copyrights.
8338 </p><p>
8339 <span class="emphasis"><em>If</em></span>, that is, the principle announced in
8340 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for a principle.  Many believed the
8341 decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for politics&#8212;a
8342 conservative Supreme Court, which believed in states' rights, using its
8343 power over Congress to advance its own personal political preferences. But I
8344 rejected that view of the Supreme Court's decision. Indeed, shortly after
8345 the decision, I wrote an article demonstrating the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fidelity</span>&#8221;</span>
8346 in such an interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that the Supreme
8347 Court decides cases based upon its politics struck me as extraordinarily
8348 boring.  I was not going to devote my life to teaching constitutional law if
8349 these nine Justices were going to be petty politicians.
8350 </p><p>
8351 Now let's pause for a moment to make sure we understand what the argument in
8352 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was not about. By insisting on the
8353 Constitution's limits to copyright, obviously Eldred was not endorsing
8354 piracy.  Indeed, in an obvious sense, he was fighting a kind of
8355 piracy&#8212;piracy of the public domain. When Robert Frost wrote his work
8356 and when Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse, the maximum copyright term was
8357 just fifty-six years. Because of interim changes, Frost and Disney had
8358 already enjoyed a seventy-five-year monopoly for their work. They had gotten
8359 the benefit of the bargain that the Constitution envisions: In exchange for
8360 a monopoly protected for fifty-six years, they created new work. But now
8361 these entities were using their power&#8212;expressed through the power of
8362 lobbyists' money&#8212;to get another twenty-year dollop of monopoly. That
8363 twenty-year dollop would be taken from the public domain. Eric Eldred was
8364 fighting a piracy that affects us all.
8365 </p><p>
8366 Some people view the public domain with contempt. In their brief before the
8367 Supreme Court, the Nashville Songwriters Association wrote that the public
8368 domain is nothing more than <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2589425" href="#ftn.id2589425" class="footnote">187</a>]</sup> But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in
8369 our constitutional system, our law requires it. Some may not like the
8370 Constitution's requirements, but that doesn't make the Constitution a
8371 pirate's charter.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2589451"></a>
8372 </p><p>
8373 As we've seen, our constitutional system requires limits on copyright as a
8374 way to assure that copyright holders do not too heavily influence the
8375 development and distribution of our culture. Yet, as Eric Eldred discovered,
8376 we have set up a system that assures that copyright terms will be repeatedly
8377 extended, and extended, and extended. We have created the perfect storm for
8378 the public domain. Copyrights have not expired, and will not expire, so long
8379 as Congress is free to be bought to extend them again.
8380 </p><p>
8381 It is valuable copyrights that are responsible for terms being extended.
8382 Mickey Mouse and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Rhapsody in Blue.</span>&#8221;</span> These works are too
8383 valuable for copyright owners to ignore. But the real harm to our society
8384 from copyright extensions is not that Mickey Mouse remains Disney's.  Forget
8385 Mickey Mouse. Forget Robert Frost. Forget all the works from the 1920s and
8386 1930s that have continuing commercial value. The real harm of term extension
8387 comes not from these famous works. The real harm is to the works that are
8388 not famous, not commercially exploited, and no longer available as a result.
8389 </p><p>
8390 If you look at the work created in the first twenty years (1923 to 1942)
8391 affected by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 2 percent of that
8392 work has any continuing commercial value. It was the copyright holders for
8393 that 2 percent who pushed the CTEA through.  But the law and its effect were
8394 not limited to that 2 percent. The law extended the terms of copyright
8395 generally.<sup>[<a name="id2589496" href="#ftn.id2589496" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
8396
8397 </p><p>
8398
8399 Think practically about the consequence of this extension&#8212;practically,
8400 as a businessperson, and not as a lawyer eager for more legal work. In 1930,
8401 10,047 books were published. In 2000, 174 of those books were still in
8402 print. Let's say you were Brewster Kahle, and you wanted to make available
8403 to the world in your iArchive project the remaining 9,873. What would you
8404 have to do?
8405 </p><p>
8406 Well, first, you'd have to determine which of the 9,873 books were still
8407 under copyright. That requires going to a library (these data are not
8408 on-line) and paging through tomes of books, cross-checking the titles and
8409 authors of the 9,873 books with the copyright registration and renewal
8410 records for works published in 1930. That will produce a list of books still
8411 under copyright.
8412 </p><p>
8413 Then for the books still under copyright, you would need to locate the
8414 current copyright owners. How would you do that?
8415 </p><p>
8416 Most people think that there must be a list of these copyright owners
8417 somewhere. Practical people think this way. How could there be thousands and
8418 thousands of government monopolies without there being at least a list?
8419 </p><p>
8420 But there is no list. There may be a name from 1930, and then in 1959, of
8421 the person who registered the copyright. But just think practically about
8422 how impossibly difficult it would be to track down thousands of such
8423 records&#8212;especially since the person who registered is not necessarily
8424 the current owner. And we're just talking about 1930!
8425 </p><p>
8426 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But there isn't a list of who owns property generally,</span>&#8221;</span> the
8427 apologists for the system respond. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Why should there be a list of
8428 copyright owners?</span>&#8221;</span>
8429 </p><p>
8430 Well, actually, if you think about it, there <span class="emphasis"><em>are</em></span> plenty
8431 of lists of who owns what property. Think about deeds on houses, or titles
8432 to cars.  And where there isn't a list, the code of real space is pretty
8433 good at suggesting who the owner of a bit of property is. (A swing set in
8434 your backyard is probably yours.) So formally or informally, we have a
8435 pretty good way to know who owns what tangible property.
8436 </p><p>
8437
8438 So: You walk down a street and see a house. You can know who owns the house
8439 by looking it up in the courthouse registry. If you see a car, there is
8440 ordinarily a license plate that will link the owner to the car. If you see a
8441 bunch of children's toys sitting on the front lawn of a house, it's fairly
8442 easy to determine who owns the toys. And if you happen to see a baseball
8443 lying in a gutter on the side of the road, look around for a second for some
8444 kids playing ball. If you don't see any kids, then okay: Here's a bit of
8445 property whose owner we can't easily determine. It is the exception that
8446 proves the rule: that we ordinarily know quite well who owns what property.
8447 </p><p>
8448 Compare this story to intangible property. You go into a library.  The
8449 library owns the books. But who owns the copyrights? As I've already
8450 described, there's no list of copyright owners. There are authors' names, of
8451 course, but their copyrights could have been assigned, or passed down in an
8452 estate like Grandma's old jewelry. To know who owns what, you would have to
8453 hire a private detective. The bottom line: The owner cannot easily be
8454 located. And in a regime like ours, in which it is a felony to use such
8455 property without the property owner's permission, the property isn't going
8456 to be used.
8457 </p><p>
8458 The consequence with respect to old books is that they won't be digitized,
8459 and hence will simply rot away on shelves. But the consequence for other
8460 creative works is much more dire.
8461 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2589624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2589630"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2589637"></a><p>
8462 Consider the story of Michael Agee, chairman of Hal Roach Studios, which
8463 owns the copyrights for the Laurel and Hardy films. Agee is a direct
8464 beneficiary of the Bono Act. The Laurel and Hardy films were made between
8465 1921 and 1951. Only one of these films, <em class="citetitle">The Lucky
8466 Dog</em>, is currently out of copyright. But for the CTEA, films made
8467 after 1923 would have begun entering the public domain. Because Agee
8468 controls the exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal
8469 of money. According to one estimate, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Roach has sold about 60,000
8470 videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent
8471 films.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2589661" href="#ftn.id2589661" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2589684"></a>
8472 </p><p>
8473 Yet Agee opposed the CTEA. His reasons demonstrate a rare virtue in this
8474 culture: selflessness. He argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that
8475 the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act will, if left standing, destroy
8476 a whole generation of American film.
8477 </p><p>
8478
8479 His argument is straightforward. A tiny fraction of this work has any
8480 continuing commercial value. The rest&#8212;to the extent it survives at
8481 all&#8212;sits in vaults gathering dust. It may be that some of this work
8482 not now commercially valuable will be deemed to be valuable by the owners of
8483 the vaults. For this to occur, however, the commercial benefit from the work
8484 must exceed the costs of making the work available for distribution.
8485 </p><p>
8486 We can't know the benefits, but we do know a lot about the costs.  For most
8487 of the history of film, the costs of restoring film were very high; digital
8488 technology has lowered these costs substantially. While it cost more than
8489 $10,000 to restore a ninety-minute black-and-white film in 1993, it can now
8490 cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.<sup>[<a name="id2589721" href="#ftn.id2589721" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
8491
8492 </p><p>
8493 Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most important.
8494 Lawyers, too, are a cost, and increasingly, a very important one. In
8495 addition to preserving the film, a distributor needs to secure the rights.
8496 And to secure the rights for a film that is under copyright, you need to
8497 locate the copyright owner.
8498 </p><p>
8499 Or more accurately, <span class="emphasis"><em>owners</em></span>. As we've seen, there isn't
8500 only a single copyright associated with a film; there are many. There isn't
8501 a single person whom you can contact about those copyrights; there are as
8502 many as can hold the rights, which turns out to be an extremely large
8503 number. Thus the costs of clearing the rights to these films is
8504 exceptionally high.
8505 </p><p>
8506 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But can't you just restore the film, distribute it, and then pay the
8507 copyright owner when she shows up?</span>&#8221;</span> Sure, if you want to commit a
8508 felony. And even if you're not worried about committing a felony, when she
8509 does show up, she'll have the right to sue you for all the profits you have
8510 made. So, if you're successful, you can be fairly confident you'll be
8511 getting a call from someone's lawyer. And if you're not successful, you
8512 won't make enough to cover the costs of your own lawyer. Either way, you
8513 have to talk to a lawyer. And as is too often the case, saying you have to
8514 talk to a lawyer is the same as saying you won't make any money.
8515 </p><p>
8516
8517 For some films, the benefit of releasing the film may well exceed these
8518 costs. But for the vast majority of them, there is no way the benefit would
8519 outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old films, Agee
8520 argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until the copyright
8521 expires.
8522 </p><p>
8523 But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will have
8524 expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and nitrate stock
8525 dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal canisters in which
8526 they are now stored will be filled with nothing more than dust.
8527 </p><p>
8528 Of all the creative work produced by humans anywhere, a tiny fraction has
8529 continuing commercial value. For that tiny fraction, the copyright is a
8530 crucially important legal device. For that tiny fraction, the copyright
8531 creates incentives to produce and distribute the creative work. For that
8532 tiny fraction, the copyright acts as an <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">engine of free
8533 expression.</span>&#8221;</span>
8534 </p><p>
8535 But even for that tiny fraction, the actual time during which the creative
8536 work has a commercial life is extremely short. As I've indicated, most books
8537 go out of print within one year. The same is true of music and
8538 film. Commercial culture is sharklike. It must keep moving.  And when a
8539 creative work falls out of favor with the commercial distributors, the
8540 commercial life ends.
8541 </p><p>
8542 Yet that doesn't mean the life of the creative work ends. We don't keep
8543 libraries of books in order to compete with Barnes &amp; Noble, and we don't
8544 have archives of films because we expect people to choose between spending
8545 Friday night watching new movies and spending Friday night watching a 1930
8546 news documentary. The noncommercial life of culture is important and
8547 valuable&#8212;for entertainment but also, and more importantly, for
8548 knowledge. To understand who we are, and where we came from, and how we have
8549 made the mistakes that we have, we need to have access to this history.
8550 </p><p>
8551
8552 Copyrights in this context do not drive an engine of free expression.  In
8553 this context, there is no need for an exclusive right. Copyrights in this
8554 context do no good.
8555 </p><p>
8556 Yet, for most of our history, they also did little harm. For most of our
8557 history, when a work ended its commercial life, there was no
8558 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright-related use</em></span> that would be inhibited by an
8559 exclusive right.  When a book went out of print, you could not buy it from a
8560 publisher.  But you could still buy it from a used book store, and when a
8561 used book store sells it, in America, at least, there is no need to pay the
8562 copyright owner anything. Thus, the ordinary use of a book after its
8563 commercial life ended was a use that was independent of copyright law.
8564 </p><p>
8565 The same was effectively true of film. Because the costs of restoring a
8566 film&#8212;the real economic costs, not the lawyer costs&#8212;were so high,
8567 it was never at all feasible to preserve or restore film. Like the remains
8568 of a great dinner, when it's over, it's over. Once a film passed out of its
8569 commercial life, it may have been archived for a bit, but that was the end
8570 of its life so long as the market didn't have more to offer.
8571 </p><p>
8572 In other words, though copyright has been relatively short for most of our
8573 history, long copyrights wouldn't have mattered for the works that lost
8574 their commercial value. Long copyrights for these works would not have
8575 interfered with anything.
8576 </p><p>
8577 But this situation has now changed.
8578 </p><p>
8579 One crucially important consequence of the emergence of digital technologies
8580 is to enable the archive that Brewster Kahle dreams of.  Digital
8581 technologies now make it possible to preserve and give access to all sorts
8582 of knowledge. Once a book goes out of print, we can now imagine digitizing
8583 it and making it available to everyone, forever. Once a film goes out of
8584 distribution, we could digitize it and make it available to everyone,
8585 forever. Digital technologies give new life to copyrighted material after it
8586 passes out of its commercial life. It is now possible to preserve and assure
8587 universal access to this knowledge and culture, whereas before it was not.
8588 </p><p>
8589
8590
8591 And now copyright law does get in the way. Every step of producing this
8592 digital archive of our culture infringes on the exclusive right of
8593 copyright. To digitize a book is to copy it. To do that requires permission
8594 of the copyright owner. The same with music, film, or any other aspect of
8595 our culture protected by copyright. The effort to make these things
8596 available to history, or to researchers, or to those who just want to
8597 explore, is now inhibited by a set of rules that were written for a
8598 radically different context.
8599 </p><p>
8600 Here is the core of the harm that comes from extending terms: Now that
8601 technology enables us to rebuild the library of Alexandria, the law gets in
8602 the way. And it doesn't get in the way for any useful
8603 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span> purpose, for the purpose of copyright is to
8604 enable the commercial market that spreads culture. No, we are talking about
8605 culture after it has lived its commercial life. In this context, copyright
8606 is serving no purpose <span class="emphasis"><em>at all</em></span> related to the spread of
8607 knowledge. In this context, copyright is not an engine of free
8608 expression. Copyright is a brake.
8609 </p><p>
8610 You may well ask, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But if digital technologies lower the costs for
8611 Brewster Kahle, then they will lower the costs for Random House, too.  So
8612 won't Random House do as well as Brewster Kahle in spreading culture
8613 widely?</span>&#8221;</span>
8614 </p><p>
8615 Maybe. Someday. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that
8616 publishers would be as complete as libraries. If Barnes &amp; Noble offered
8617 to lend books from its stores for a low price, would that eliminate the need
8618 for libraries? Only if you think that the only role of a library is to serve
8619 what <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the market</span>&#8221;</span> would demand. But if you think the role of a
8620 library is bigger than this&#8212;if you think its role is to archive
8621 culture, whether there's a demand for any particular bit of that culture or
8622 not&#8212;then we can't count on the commercial market to do our library
8623 work for us.
8624 </p><p>
8625 I would be the first to agree that it should do as much as it can: We should
8626 rely upon the market as much as possible to spread and enable culture. My
8627 message is absolutely not antimarket. But where we see the market is not
8628 doing the job, then we should allow nonmarket forces the freedom to fill the
8629 gaps. As one researcher calculated for American culture, 94 percent of the
8630 films, books, and music produced between and 1946 is not commercially
8631 available. However much you love the commercial market, if access is a
8632 value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.<sup>[<a name="id2589983" href="#ftn.id2589983" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
8633
8634 </p><p>
8635 In January 1999, we filed a lawsuit on Eric Eldred's behalf in federal
8636 district court in Washington, D.C., asking the court to declare the Sonny
8637 Bono Copyright Term Extension Act unconstitutional. The two central claims
8638 that we made were (1) that extending existing terms violated the
8639 Constitution's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited Times</span>&#8221;</span> requirement, and (2) that
8640 extending terms by another twenty years violated the First Amendment.
8641 </p><p>
8642 The district court dismissed our claims without even hearing an argument.  A
8643 panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also dismissed our
8644 claims, though after hearing an extensive argument. But that decision at
8645 least had a dissent, by one of the most conservative judges on that
8646 court. That dissent gave our claims life.
8647 </p><p>
8648 Judge David Sentelle said the CTEA violated the requirement that copyrights
8649 be for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited Times</span>&#8221;</span> only. His argument was as elegant as it
8650 was simple: If Congress can extend existing terms, then there is no
8651 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stopping point</span>&#8221;</span> to Congress's power under the Copyright
8652 Clause. The power to extend existing terms means Congress is not required to
8653 grant terms that are <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited.</span>&#8221;</span> Thus, Judge Sentelle argued,
8654 the court had to interpret the term <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited Times</span>&#8221;</span> to give it
8655 meaning. And the best interpretation, Judge Sentelle argued, would be to
8656 deny Congress the power to extend existing terms.
8657 </p><p>
8658 We asked the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as a whole to hear the
8659 case. Cases are ordinarily heard in panels of three, except for important
8660 cases or cases that raise issues specific to the circuit as a whole, where
8661 the court will sit <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">en banc</span>&#8221;</span> to hear the case.
8662 </p><p>
8663
8664 The Court of Appeals rejected our request to hear the case en banc.  This
8665 time, Judge Sentelle was joined by the most liberal member of the
8666 D.C. Circuit, Judge David Tatel. Both the most conservative and the most
8667 liberal judges in the D.C. Circuit believed Congress had overstepped its
8668 bounds.
8669 </p><p>
8670 It was here that most expected Eldred v. Ashcroft would die, for the Supreme
8671 Court rarely reviews any decision by a court of appeals. (It hears about one
8672 hundred cases a year, out of more than five thousand appeals.) And it
8673 practically never reviews a decision that upholds a statute when no other
8674 court has yet reviewed the statute.
8675 </p><p>
8676 But in February 2002, the Supreme Court surprised the world by granting our
8677 petition to review the D.C. Circuit opinion. Argument was set for October of
8678 2002. The summer would be spent writing briefs and preparing for argument.
8679 </p><p>
8680 It is over a year later as I write these words. It is still astonishingly
8681 hard. If you know anything at all about this story, you know that we lost
8682 the appeal. And if you know something more than just the minimum, you
8683 probably think there was no way this case could have been won. After our
8684 defeat, I received literally thousands of missives by well-wishers and
8685 supporters, thanking me for my work on behalf of this noble but doomed
8686 cause. And none from this pile was more significant to me than the e-mail
8687 from my client, Eric Eldred.
8688 </p><p>
8689 Men min klient og disse vennene tok feil. Denne saken kunne vært vunnet. Det
8690 burde ha vært vunnet.  Og uansett hvor hardt jeg prøver å fortelle den
8691 historien til meg selv, kan jeg aldri unnslippe troen på at det er min feil
8692 at vi ikke vant.
8693 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2590112"></a><p>
8694
8695 Feil ble gjort tidlig, skjønt den ble først åpenbart på slutten. Vår sak
8696 hadde støtte hos en ekstraordinær advokat, Geoffrey Stewart, helt fra
8697 starten, og hos advokatfirmaet hadde han flyttet til, Jones, Day, Reavis og
8698 Pogue. Jones Day mottok mye press fra sine opphavsrettsbeskyttende klienter
8699 på grunn av sin støtte til oss.  De ignorert dette presset (noe veldig få
8700 advokatfirmaer noen sinne ville gjøre), og ga alt de hadde gjennom hele
8701 saken.
8702 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2590134"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2590141"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2590147"></a><p>
8703 There were three key lawyers on the case from Jones Day. Geoff Stewart was
8704 the first, but then Dan Bromberg and Don Ayer became quite
8705 involved. Bromberg and Ayer in particular had a common view about how this
8706 case would be won: We would only win, they repeatedly told me, if we could
8707 make the issue seem <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">important</span>&#8221;</span> to the Supreme Court. It had to
8708 seem as if dramatic harm were being done to free speech and free culture;
8709 otherwise, they would never vote against <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the most powerful media
8710 companies in the world.</span>&#8221;</span>
8711 </p><p>
8712 I hate this view of the law. Of course I thought the Sonny Bono Act was a
8713 dramatic harm to free speech and free culture. Of course I still think it
8714 is. But the idea that the Supreme Court decides the law based on how
8715 important they believe the issues are is just wrong. It might be
8716 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">right</span>&#8221;</span> as in <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">true,</span>&#8221;</span> I thought, but it is
8717 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">wrong</span>&#8221;</span> as in <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">it just shouldn't be that way.</span>&#8221;</span> As
8718 I believed that any faithful interpretation of what the framers of our
8719 Constitution did would yield the conclusion that the CTEA was
8720 unconstitutional, and as I believed that any faithful interpretation of what
8721 the First Amendment means would yield the conclusion that the power to
8722 extend existing copyright terms is unconstitutional, I was not persuaded
8723 that we had to sell our case like soap.  Just as a law that bans the
8724 swastika is unconstitutional not because the Court likes Nazis but because
8725 such a law would violate the Constitution, so too, in my view, would the
8726 Court decide whether Congress's law was constitutional based on the
8727 Constitution, not based on whether they liked the values that the framers
8728 put in the Constitution.
8729 </p><p>
8730 In any case, I thought, the Court must already see the danger and the harm
8731 caused by this sort of law. Why else would they grant review? There was no
8732 reason to hear the case in the Supreme Court if they weren't convinced that
8733 this regulation was harmful. So in my view, we didn't need to persuade them
8734 that this law was bad, we needed to show why it was unconstitutional.
8735 </p><p>
8736
8737 There was one way, however, in which I felt politics would matter and in
8738 which I thought a response was appropriate. I was convinced that the Court
8739 would not hear our arguments if it thought these were just the arguments of
8740 a group of lefty loons. This Supreme Court was not about to launch into a
8741 new field of judicial review if it seemed that this field of review was
8742 simply the preference of a small political minority.  Although my focus in
8743 the case was not to demonstrate how bad the Sonny Bono Act was but to
8744 demonstrate that it was unconstitutional, my hope was to make this argument
8745 against a background of briefs that covered the full range of political
8746 views. To show that this claim against the CTEA was grounded in
8747 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> and not politics, then, we tried to gather the
8748 widest range of credible critics&#8212;credible not because they were rich
8749 and famous, but because they, in the aggregate, demonstrated that this law
8750 was unconstitutional regardless of one's politics.
8751 </p><p>
8752 The first step happened all by itself. Phyllis Schlafly's organization,
8753 Eagle Forum, had been an opponent of the CTEA from the very beginning.
8754 Mrs. Schlafly viewed the CTEA as a sellout by Congress. In November 1998,
8755 she wrote a stinging editorial attacking the Republican Congress for
8756 allowing the law to pass. As she wrote, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Do you sometimes wonder why
8757 bills that create a financial windfall to narrow special interests slide
8758 easily through the intricate legislative process, while bills that benefit
8759 the general public seem to get bogged down?</span>&#8221;</span> The answer, as the
8760 editorial documented, was the power of money.  Schlafly enumerated Disney's
8761 contributions to the key players on the committees. It was money, not
8762 justice, that gave Mickey Mouse twenty more years in Disney's control,
8763 Schlafly argued.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2590272"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2590278"></a>
8764 </p><p>
8765 In the Court of Appeals, Eagle Forum was eager to file a brief supporting
8766 our position. Their brief made the argument that became the core claim in
8767 the Supreme Court: If Congress can extend the term of existing copyrights,
8768 there is no limit to Congress's power to set terms.  That strong
8769 conservative argument persuaded a strong conservative judge, Judge Sentelle.
8770 </p><p>
8771 In the Supreme Court, the briefs on our side were about as diverse as it
8772 gets. They included an extraordinary historical brief by the Free Software
8773 Foundation (home of the GNU project that made GNU/ Linux possible). They
8774 included a powerful brief about the costs of uncertainty by Intel. There
8775 were two law professors' briefs, one by copyright scholars and one by First
8776 Amendment scholars. There was an exhaustive and uncontroverted brief by the
8777 world's experts in the history of the Progress Clause. And of course, there
8778 was a new brief by Eagle Forum, repeating and strengthening its arguments.
8779 <a class="indexterm" name="id2590307"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2590316"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2590322"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2590328"></a>
8780 </p><p>
8781 Those briefs framed a legal argument. Then to support the legal argument,
8782 there were a number of powerful briefs by libraries and archives, including
8783 the Internet Archive, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the
8784 National Writers Union.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2590342"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2590349"></a>
8785 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2590356"></a><p>
8786 But two briefs captured the policy argument best. One made the argument I've
8787 already described: A brief by Hal Roach Studios argued that unless the law
8788 was struck, a whole generation of American film would disappear. The other
8789 made the economic argument absolutely clear.
8790 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2590370"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2590377"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2590383"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2590389"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2590395"></a><p>
8791 This economists' brief was signed by seventeen economists, including five
8792 Nobel Prize winners, including Ronald Coase, James Buchanan, Milton
8793 Friedman, Kenneth Arrow, and George Akerlof. The economists, as the list of
8794 Nobel winners demonstrates, spanned the political spectrum. Their
8795 conclusions were powerful: There was no plausible claim that extending the
8796 terms of existing copyrights would do anything to increase incentives to
8797 create. Such extensions were nothing more than
8798 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rent-seeking</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;the fancy term economists use to describe
8799 special-interest legislation gone wild.
8800 </p><p>
8801 The same effort at balance was reflected in the legal team we gathered to
8802 write our briefs in the case. The Jones Day lawyers had been with us from
8803 the start. But when the case got to the Supreme Court, we added three
8804 lawyers to help us frame this argument to this Court: Alan Morrison, a
8805 lawyer from Public Citizen, a Washington group that had made constitutional
8806 history with a series of seminal victories in the Supreme Court defending
8807 individual rights; my colleague and dean, Kathleen Sullivan, who had argued
8808 many cases in the Court, and who had advised us early on about a First
8809 Amendment strategy; and finally, former solicitor general Charles Fried.
8810 <a class="indexterm" name="id2590431"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2590440"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2590446"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2590452"></a>
8811 </p><p>
8812 Fried was a special victory for our side. Every other former solicitor
8813 general was hired by the other side to defend Congress's power to give media
8814 companies the special favor of extended copyright terms. Fried was the only
8815 one who turned down that lucrative assignment to stand up for something he
8816 believed in. He had been Ronald Reagan's chief lawyer in the Supreme
8817 Court. He had helped craft the line of cases that limited Congress's power
8818 in the context of the Commerce Clause. And while he had argued many
8819 positions in the Supreme Court that I personally disagreed with, his joining
8820 the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2590472"></a>
8821 </p><p>
8822 The government, in defending the statute, had its collection of friends, as
8823 well. Significantly, however, none of these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">friends</span>&#8221;</span> included
8824 historians or economists. The briefs on the other side of the case were
8825 written exclusively by major media companies, congressmen, and copyright
8826 holders.
8827 </p><p>
8828 The media companies were not surprising. They had the most to gain from the
8829 law. The congressmen were not surprising either&#8212;they were defending
8830 their power and, indirectly, the gravy train of contributions such power
8831 induced. And of course it was not surprising that the copyright holders
8832 would defend the idea that they should continue to have the right to control
8833 who did what with content they wanted to control.
8834 </p><p>
8835 Dr. Seuss's representatives, for example, argued that it was better for the
8836 Dr. Seuss estate to control what happened to Dr. Seuss's work&#8212; better
8837 than allowing it to fall into the public domain&#8212;because if this
8838 creativity were in the public domain, then people could use it to
8839 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">glorify drugs or to create pornography.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2590512" href="#ftn.id2590512" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate,
8840 which defended its <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">protection</span>&#8221;</span> of the work of George
8841 Gershwin. They refuse, for example, to license <em class="citetitle">Porgy and
8842 Bess</em> to anyone who refuses to use African Americans in the
8843 cast.<sup>[<a name="id2590537" href="#ftn.id2590537" class="footnote">193</a>]</sup> That's their view of how this
8844 part of American culture should be controlled, and they wanted this law to
8845 help them effect that control.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2590553"></a>
8846 </p><p>
8847 This argument made clear a theme that is rarely noticed in this debate.
8848 When Congress decides to extend the term of existing copyrights, Congress is
8849 making a choice about which speakers it will favor.  Famous and beloved
8850 copyright owners, such as the Gershwin estate and Dr. Seuss, come to
8851 Congress and say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Give us twenty years to control the speech about
8852 these icons of American culture. We'll do better with them than anyone
8853 else.</span>&#8221;</span> Congress of course likes to reward the popular and famous by
8854 giving them what they want. But when Congress gives people an exclusive
8855 right to speak in a certain way, that's just what the First Amendment is
8856 traditionally meant to block.
8857 </p><p>
8858 We argued as much in a final brief. Not only would upholding the CTEA mean
8859 that there was no limit to the power of Congress to extend
8860 copyrights&#8212;extensions that would further concentrate the market; it
8861 would also mean that there was no limit to Congress's power to play
8862 favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak.  Between
8863 February and October, there was little I did beyond preparing for this
8864 case. Early on, as I said, I set the strategy.
8865 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2590583"></a><p>
8866 The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we called
8867 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the Conservatives.</span>&#8221;</span> The other we called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the
8868 Rest.</span>&#8221;</span> The Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice
8869 O'Connor, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas. These five
8870 had been the most consistent in limiting Congress's power. They were the
8871 five who had supported the <em class="citetitle">Lopez/Morrison</em> line of
8872 cases that said that an enumerated power had to be interpreted to assure
8873 that Congress's powers had limits.
8874 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2590619"></a><p>
8875
8876 The Rest were the four Justices who had strongly opposed limits on
8877 Congress's power. These four&#8212;Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice
8878 Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer&#8212;had repeatedly argued that the
8879 Constitution gives Congress broad discretion to decide how best to implement
8880 its powers. In case after case, these justices had argued that the Court's
8881 role should be one of deference. Though the votes of these four justices
8882 were the votes that I personally had most consistently agreed with, they
8883 were also the votes that we were least likely to get.
8884 </p><p>
8885 In particular, the least likely was Justice Ginsburg's. In addition to her
8886 general view about deference to Congress (except where issues of gender are
8887 involved), she had been particularly deferential in the context of
8888 intellectual property protections. She and her daughter (an excellent and
8889 well-known intellectual property scholar) were cut from the same
8890 intellectual property cloth. We expected she would agree with the writings
8891 of her daughter: that Congress had the power in this context to do as it
8892 wished, even if what Congress wished made little sense.
8893 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2590653"></a><p>
8894 Close behind Justice Ginsburg were two justices whom we also viewed as
8895 unlikely allies, though possible surprises. Justice Souter strongly favored
8896 deference to Congress, as did Justice Breyer. But both were also very
8897 sensitive to free speech concerns. And as we strongly believed, there was a
8898 very important free speech argument against these retrospective extensions.
8899 </p><p>
8900 The only vote we could be confident about was that of Justice
8901 Stevens. History will record Justice Stevens as one of the greatest judges
8902 on this Court. His votes are consistently eclectic, which just means that no
8903 simple ideology explains where he will stand. But he had consistently argued
8904 for limits in the context of intellectual property generally. We were fairly
8905 confident he would recognize limits here.
8906 </p><p>
8907 This analysis of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the Rest</span>&#8221;</span> showed most clearly where our focus
8908 had to be: on the Conservatives. To win this case, we had to crack open
8909 these five and get at least a majority to go our way. Thus, the single
8910 overriding argument that animated our claim rested on the Conservatives'
8911 most important jurisprudential innovation&#8212;the argument that Judge
8912 Sentelle had relied upon in the Court of Appeals, that Congress's power must
8913 be interpreted so that its enumerated powers have limits.
8914 </p><p>
8915
8916 This then was the core of our strategy&#8212;a strategy for which I am
8917 responsible. We would get the Court to see that just as with the
8918 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, under the government's argument here,
8919 Congress would always have unlimited power to extend existing terms. If
8920 anything was plain about Congress's power under the Progress Clause, it was
8921 that this power was supposed to be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited.</span>&#8221;</span> Our aim would be
8922 to get the Court to reconcile <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> with
8923 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>: If Congress's power to regulate commerce was
8924 limited, then so, too, must Congress's power to regulate copyright be
8925 limited.
8926 </p><p>
8927 The argument on the government's side came down to this: Congress has done
8928 it before. It should be allowed to do it again. The government claimed that
8929 from the very beginning, Congress has been extending the term of existing
8930 copyrights. So, the government argued, the Court should not now say that
8931 practice is unconstitutional.
8932 </p><p>
8933 There was some truth to the government's claim, but not much. We certainly
8934 agreed that Congress had extended existing terms in 1831 and in 1909. And of
8935 course, in 1962, Congress began extending existing terms
8936 regularly&#8212;eleven times in forty years.
8937 </p><p>
8938
8939 But this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">consistency</span>&#8221;</span> should be kept in perspective. Congress
8940 extended existing terms once in the first hundred years of the Republic.  It
8941 then extended existing terms once again in the next fifty. Those rare
8942 extensions are in contrast to the now regular practice of extending existing
8943 terms. Whatever restraint Congress had had in the past, that restraint was
8944 now gone. Congress was now in a cycle of extensions; there was no reason to
8945 expect that cycle would end. This Court had not hesitated to intervene where
8946 Congress was in a similar cycle of extension.  There was no reason it
8947 couldn't intervene here.  Oral argument was scheduled for the first week in
8948 October. I arrived in D.C. two weeks before the argument. During those two
8949 weeks, I was repeatedly <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">mooted</span>&#8221;</span> by lawyers who had volunteered
8950 to help in the case. Such <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">moots</span>&#8221;</span> are basically practice
8951 rounds, where wannabe justices fire questions at wannabe winners.
8952 </p><p>
8953 I was convinced that to win, I had to keep the Court focused on a single
8954 point: that if this extension is permitted, then there is no limit to the
8955 power to set terms. Going with the government would mean that terms would be
8956 effectively unlimited; going with us would give Congress a clear line to
8957 follow: Don't extend existing terms. The moots were an effective practice; I
8958 found ways to take every question back to this central idea.
8959 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2590787"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2590793"></a><p>
8960 One moot was before the lawyers at Jones Day. Don Ayer was the skeptic. He
8961 had served in the Reagan Justice Department with Solicitor General Charles
8962 Fried. He had argued many cases before the Supreme Court. And in his review
8963 of the moot, he let his concern speak: <a class="indexterm" name="id2590806"></a>
8964 </p><p>
8965 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I'm just afraid that unless they really see the harm, they won't be
8966 willing to upset this practice that the government says has been a
8967 consistent practice for two hundred years. You have to make them see the
8968 harm&#8212;passionately get them to see the harm. For if they don't see
8969 that, then we haven't any chance of winning.</span>&#8221;</span>
8970 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2590819"></a><p>
8971
8972 He may have argued many cases before this Court, I thought, but he didn't
8973 understand its soul. As a clerk, I had seen the Justices do the right
8974 thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it was right. As a law
8975 professor, I had spent my life teaching my students that this Court does the
8976 right thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it is right. As I
8977 listened to Ayer's plea for passion in pressing politics, I understood his
8978 point, and I rejected it. Our argument was right. That was enough.  Let the
8979 politicians learn to see that it was also good.  The night before the
8980 argument, a line of people began to form in front of the Supreme Court. The
8981 case had become a focus of the press and of the movement to free
8982 culture. Hundreds stood in line for the chance to see the
8983 proceedings. Scores spent the night on the Supreme Court steps so that they
8984 would be assured a seat.
8985 </p><p>
8986 Not everyone has to wait in line. People who know the Justices can ask for
8987 seats they control. (I asked Justice Scalia's chambers for seats for my
8988 parents, for example.) Members of the Supreme Court bar can get a seat in a
8989 special section reserved for them. And senators and congressmen have a
8990 special place where they get to sit, too. And finally, of course, the press
8991 has a gallery, as do clerks working for the Justices on the Court. As we
8992 entered that morning, there was no place that was not taken. This was an
8993 argument about intellectual property law, yet the halls were filled. As I
8994 walked in to take my seat at the front of the Court, I saw my parents
8995 sitting on the left. As I sat down at the table, I saw Jack Valenti sitting
8996 in the special section ordinarily reserved for family of the Justices.
8997 </p><p>
8998 When the Chief Justice called me to begin my argument, I began where I
8999 intended to stay: on the question of the limits on Congress's power. This
9000 was a case about enumerated powers, I said, and whether those enumerated
9001 powers had any limit.
9002 </p><p>
9003 Justice O'Connor stopped me within one minute of my opening.  The history
9004 was bothering her.
9005 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9006 justice o'connor: Congress has extended the term so often through the years,
9007 and if you are right, don't we run the risk of upsetting previous extensions
9008 of time? I mean, this seems to be a practice that began with the very first
9009 act.
9010 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9011 She was quite willing to concede <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">that this flies directly in the face
9012 of what the framers had in mind.</span>&#8221;</span> But my response again and again was
9013 to emphasize limits on Congress's power.
9014 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9015
9016 mr. lessig: Well, if it flies in the face of what the framers had in mind,
9017 then the question is, is there a way of interpreting their words that gives
9018 effect to what they had in mind, and the answer is yes.
9019 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9020 There were two points in this argument when I should have seen where the
9021 Court was going. The first was a question by Justice Kennedy, who observed,
9022 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9023 justice kennedy: Well, I suppose implicit in the argument that the '76 act,
9024 too, should have been declared void, and that we might leave it alone
9025 because of the disruption, is that for all these years the act has impeded
9026 progress in science and the useful arts.  I just don't see any empirical
9027 evidence for that.
9028 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9029 Here follows my clear mistake. Like a professor correcting a student, I
9030 answered,
9031 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9032 mr. lessig: Justice, we are not making an empirical claim at all.  Nothing
9033 in our Copyright Clause claim hangs upon the empirical assertion about
9034 impeding progress. Our only argument is this is a structural limit necessary
9035 to assure that what would be an effectively perpetual term not be permitted
9036 under the copyright laws.
9037 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2590948"></a><p>
9038 That was a correct answer, but it wasn't the right answer. The right answer
9039 was instead that there was an obvious and profound harm. Any number of
9040 briefs had been written about it. He wanted to hear it. And here was the
9041 place Don Ayer's advice should have mattered. This was a softball; my answer
9042 was a swing and a miss.
9043 </p><p>
9044 The second came from the Chief, for whom the whole case had been
9045 crafted. For the Chief Justice had crafted the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
9046 ruling, and we hoped that he would see this case as its second cousin.
9047 </p><p>
9048
9049 It was clear a second into his question that he wasn't at all sympathetic.
9050 To him, we were a bunch of anarchists. As he asked:
9051
9052
9053 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9054 chief justice: Well, but you want more than that. You want the right to copy
9055 verbatim other people's books, don't you?
9056 </p><p>
9057 mr. lessig: We want the right to copy verbatim works that should be in the
9058 public domain and would be in the public domain but for a statute that
9059 cannot be justified under ordinary First Amendment analysis or under a
9060 proper reading of the limits built into the Copyright Clause.
9061 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9062 Things went better for us when the government gave its argument; for now the
9063 Court picked up on the core of our claim. As Justice Scalia asked Solicitor
9064 General Olson,
9065 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9066 justice scalia: You say that the functional equivalent of an unlimited time
9067 would be a violation [of the Constitution], but that's precisely the
9068 argument that's being made by petitioners here, that a limited time which is
9069 extendable is the functional equivalent of an unlimited time.
9070 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9071 When Olson was finished, it was my turn to give a closing rebuttal.  Olson's
9072 flailing had revived my anger. But my anger still was directed to the
9073 academic, not the practical. The government was arguing as if this were the
9074 first case ever to consider limits on Congress's Copyright and Patent Clause
9075 power. Ever the professor and not the advocate, I closed by pointing out the
9076 long history of the Court imposing limits on Congress's power in the name of
9077 the Copyright and Patent Clause&#8212; indeed, the very first case striking
9078 a law of Congress as exceeding a specific enumerated power was based upon
9079 the Copyright and Patent Clause. All true. But it wasn't going to move the
9080 Court to my side.
9081 </p><p>
9082
9083 As I left the court that day, I knew there were a hundred points I wished I
9084 could remake. There were a hundred questions I wished I had answered
9085 differently. But one way of thinking about this case left me optimistic.
9086 </p><p>
9087 The government had been asked over and over again, what is the limit? Over
9088 and over again, it had answered there is no limit. This was precisely the
9089 answer I wanted the Court to hear. For I could not imagine how the Court
9090 could understand that the government believed Congress's power was unlimited
9091 under the terms of the Copyright Clause, and sustain the government's
9092 argument. The solicitor general had made my argument for me. No matter how
9093 often I tried, I could not understand how the Court could find that
9094 Congress's power under the Commerce Clause was limited, but under the
9095 Copyright Clause, unlimited. In those rare moments when I let myself believe
9096 that we may have prevailed, it was because I felt this Court&#8212;in
9097 particular, the Conservatives&#8212;would feel itself constrained by the
9098 rule of law that it had established elsewhere.
9099 </p><p>
9100 The morning of January 15, 2003, I was five minutes late to the office and
9101 missed the 7:00 A.M. call from the Supreme Court clerk. Listening to the
9102 message, I could tell in an instant that she had bad news to report.The
9103 Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Seven
9104 justices had voted in the majority. There were two dissents.
9105 </p><p>
9106 A few seconds later, the opinions arrived by e-mail. I took the phone off
9107 the hook, posted an announcement to our blog, and sat down to see where I
9108 had been wrong in my reasoning.
9109 </p><p>
9110 My <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. Here was a case that pitted all the money
9111 in the world against <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. And here was the last
9112 naïve law professor, scouring the pages, looking for reasoning.
9113 </p><p>
9114 I first scoured the opinion, looking for how the Court would distinguish the
9115 principle in this case from the principle in
9116 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The argument was nowhere to be found. The case
9117 was not even cited. The argument that was the core argument of our case did
9118 not even appear in the Court's opinion.
9119 </p><p>
9120
9121
9122
9123 Justice Ginsburg simply ignored the enumerated powers argument.  Consistent
9124 with her view that Congress's power was not limited generally, she had found
9125 Congress's power not limited here.
9126 </p><p>
9127 Her opinion was perfectly reasonable&#8212;for her, and for Justice
9128 Souter. Neither believes in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. It would be too
9129 much to expect them to write an opinion that recognized, much less
9130 explained, the doctrine they had worked so hard to defeat.
9131 </p><p>
9132 But as I realized what had happened, I couldn't quite believe what I was
9133 reading. I had said there was no way this Court could reconcile limited
9134 powers with the Commerce Clause and unlimited powers with the Progress
9135 Clause. It had never even occurred to me that they could reconcile the two
9136 simply <span class="emphasis"><em>by not addressing the argument</em></span>. There was no
9137 inconsistency because they would not talk about the two together.  There was
9138 therefore no principle that followed from the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
9139 case: In that context, Congress's power would be limited, but in this
9140 context it would not.
9141 </p><p>
9142 Yet by what right did they get to choose which of the framers' values they
9143 would respect? By what right did they&#8212;the silent five&#8212;get to
9144 select the part of the Constitution they would enforce based on the values
9145 they thought important? We were right back to the argument that I said I
9146 hated at the start: I had failed to convince them that the issue here was
9147 important, and I had failed to recognize that however much I might hate a
9148 system in which the Court gets to pick the constitutional values that it
9149 will respect, that is the system we have.
9150 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2591139"></a><p>
9151 Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote very strong dissents. Stevens's opinion
9152 was crafted internal to the law: He argued that the tradition of
9153 intellectual property law should not support this unjustified extension of
9154 terms. He based his argument on a parallel analysis that had governed in the
9155 context of patents (so had we). But the rest of the Court discounted the
9156 parallel&#8212;without explaining how the very same words in the Progress
9157 Clause could come to mean totally different things depending upon whether
9158 the words were about patents or copyrights.  The Court let Justice Stevens's
9159 charge go unanswered.
9160 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2591158"></a><p>
9161
9162
9163 Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever written, was
9164 external to the Constitution. He argued that the term of copyrights has
9165 become so long as to be effectively unlimited. We had said that under the
9166 current term, a copyright gave an author 99.8 percent of the value of a
9167 perpetual term. Breyer said we were wrong, that the actual number was
9168 99.9997 percent of a perpetual term. Either way, the point was clear: If the
9169 Constitution said a term had to be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited,</span>&#8221;</span> and the existing
9170 term was so long as to be effectively unlimited, then it was
9171 unconstitutional.
9172 </p><p>
9173 These two justices understood all the arguments we had made. But because
9174 neither believed in the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, neither was
9175 willing to push it as a reason to reject this extension. The case was
9176 decided without anyone having addressed the argument that we had carried
9177 from Judge Sentelle. It was <em class="citetitle">Hamlet</em> without the
9178 Prince.
9179 </p><p>
9180 Defeat brings depression. They say it is a sign of health when depression
9181 gives way to anger. My anger came quickly, but it didn't cure the
9182 depression. This anger was of two sorts.
9183 </p><p>
9184 It was first anger with the five <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Conservatives.</span>&#8221;</span> It would have
9185 been one thing for them to have explained why the principle of
9186 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> didn't apply in this case. That wouldn't have
9187 been a very convincing argument, I don't believe, having read it made by
9188 others, and having tried to make it myself. But it at least would have been
9189 an act of integrity.  These justices in particular have repeatedly said that
9190 the proper mode of interpreting the Constitution is
9191 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">originalism</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;to first understand the framers' text,
9192 interpreted in their context, in light of the structure of the
9193 Constitution. That method had produced <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> and many
9194 other <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">originalist</span>&#8221;</span> rulings. Where was their
9195 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">originalism</span>&#8221;</span> now?
9196 </p><p>
9197
9198 Here, they had joined an opinion that never once tried to explain what the
9199 framers had meant by crafting the Progress Clause as they did; they joined
9200 an opinion that never once tried to explain how the structure of that clause
9201 would affect the interpretation of Congress's power. And they joined an
9202 opinion that didn't even try to explain why this grant of power could be
9203 unlimited, whereas the Commerce Clause would be limited. In short, they had
9204 joined an opinion that did not apply to, and was inconsistent with, their
9205 own method for interpreting the Constitution. This opinion may well have
9206 yielded a result that they liked. It did not produce a reason that was
9207 consistent with their own principles.
9208 </p><p>
9209 My anger with the Conservatives quickly yielded to anger with myself.  For I
9210 had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with a view of the law as
9211 it is.
9212 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2591271"></a><p>
9213 Most lawyers, and most law professors, have little patience for idealism
9214 about courts in general and this Supreme Court in particular.  Most have a
9215 much more pragmatic view. When Don Ayer said that this case would be won
9216 based on whether I could convince the Justices that the framers' values were
9217 important, I fought the idea, because I didn't want to believe that that is
9218 how this Court decides. I insisted on arguing this case as if it were a
9219 simple application of a set of principles.  I had an argument that followed
9220 in logic. I didn't need to waste my time showing it should also follow in
9221 popularity.
9222 </p><p>
9223
9224 As I read back over the transcript from that argument in October, I can see
9225 a hundred places where the answers could have taken the conversation in
9226 different directions, where the truth about the harm that this unchecked
9227 power will cause could have been made clear to this Court. Justice Kennedy
9228 in good faith wanted to be shown. I, idiotically, corrected his
9229 question. Justice Souter in good faith wanted to be shown the First
9230 Amendment harms. I, like a math teacher, reframed the question to make the
9231 logical point. I had shown them how they could strike this law of Congress
9232 if they wanted to. There were a hundred places where I could have helped
9233 them want to, yet my stubbornness, my refusal to give in, stopped me. I have
9234 stood before hundreds of audiences trying to persuade; I have used passion
9235 in that effort to persuade; but I refused to stand before this audience and
9236 try to persuade with the passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis
9237 on which a court should decide the issue.
9238 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2591313"></a><p>
9239 Would it have been different if I had argued it differently? Would it have
9240 been different if Don Ayer had argued it? Or Charles Fried? Or Kathleen
9241 Sullivan? <a class="indexterm" name="id2591324"></a>
9242 </p><p>
9243 My friends huddled around me to insist it would not. The Court was not
9244 ready, my friends insisted. This was a loss that was destined. It would take
9245 a great deal more to show our society why our framers were right. And when
9246 we do that, we will be able to show that Court.
9247 </p><p>
9248 Maybe, but I doubt it. These Justices have no financial interest in doing
9249 anything except the right thing. They are not lobbied. They have little
9250 reason to resist doing right. I can't help but think that if I had stepped
9251 down from this pretty picture of dispassionate justice, I could have
9252 persuaded.
9253 </p><p>
9254 And even if I couldn't, then that doesn't excuse what happened in
9255 January. For at the start of this case, one of America's leading
9256 intellectual property professors stated publicly that my bringing this case
9257 was a mistake. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Court is not ready,</span>&#8221;</span> Peter Jaszi said; this
9258 issue should not be raised until it is.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2591358"></a>
9259 </p><p>
9260
9261 After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly,
9262 that he was wrong. But if indeed that Court could not have been persuaded,
9263 then that is all the evidence that's needed to know that here again Peter
9264 was right. Either I was not ready to argue this case in a way that would do
9265 some good or they were not ready to hear this case in a way that would do
9266 some good. Either way, the decision to bring this case&#8212;a decision I
9267 had made four years before&#8212;was wrong.  While the reaction to the Sonny
9268 Bono Act itself was almost unanimously negative, the reaction to the Court's
9269 decision was mixed.  No one, at least in the press, tried to say that
9270 extending the term of copyright was a good idea. We had won that battle over
9271 ideas. Where the decision was praised, it was praised by papers that had
9272 been skeptical of the Court's activism in other cases. Deference was a good
9273 thing, even if it left standing a silly law. But where the decision was
9274 attacked, it was attacked because it left standing a silly and harmful
9275 law. <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> wrote in its editorial,
9276 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9277 In effect, the Supreme Court's decision makes it likely that we are seeing
9278 the beginning of the end of public domain and the birth of copyright
9279 perpetuity. The public domain has been a grand experiment, one that should
9280 not be allowed to die. The ability to draw freely on the entire creative
9281 output of humanity is one of the reasons we live in a time of such fruitful
9282 creative ferment.
9283 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9284 The best responses were in the cartoons. There was a gaggle of hilarious
9285 images&#8212;of Mickey in jail and the like. The best, from my view of the
9286 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">&#8220;<span class="quote">powerful and wealthy</span>&#8221;</span> line is a bit
9287 unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2591420"></a>
9288 </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="id2591441"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
9289 The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the quote from
9290 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>. That <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">grand
9291 experiment</span>&#8221;</span> we call the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">public domain</span>&#8221;</span> is over? When I
9292 can make light of it, I think, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Honey, I shrunk the
9293 Constitution.</span>&#8221;</span> But I can rarely make light of it. We had in our
9294 Constitution a commitment to free culture. In the case that I fathered, the
9295 Supreme Court effectively renounced that commitment. A better lawyer would
9296 have made them see differently.
9297 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2588790" href="#id2588790" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
9298
9299
9300 There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to describe, but
9301 it's a strong one. One phenomenon that the Internet created was a world of
9302 noncommercial pornographers&#8212;people who were distributing porn but were
9303 not making money directly or indirectly from that distribution.  Such a
9304 class didn't exist before the Internet came into being because the costs of
9305 distributing porn were so high. Yet this new class of distributors got
9306 special attention in the Supreme Court, when the Court struck down the
9307 Communications Decency Act of 1996. It was partly because of the burden on
9308 noncommercial speakers that the statute was found to exceed Congress's
9309 power. The same point could have been made about noncommercial publishers
9310 after the advent of the Internet. The Eric Eldreds of the world before the
9311 Internet were extremely few. Yet one would think it at least as important to
9312 protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2588846" href="#id2588846" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
9313
9314
9315 The full text is: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
9316 protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would
9317 violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen
9318 our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is
9319 also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last forever less one
9320 day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress,</span>&#8221;</span> 144
9321 Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
9322 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2589140" href="#id2589140" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
9323
9324 Associated Press, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey
9325 Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years,</span>&#8221;</span>
9326 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17 October 1998, 22.
9327 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2589157" href="#id2589157" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
9328
9329 See Nick Brown, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
9330 Age,</span>&#8221;</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
9331 #49</a>.
9332 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2589176" href="#id2589176" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
9333
9334
9335 Alan K. Ota, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars,</span>&#8221;</span>
9336 <em class="citetitle">Congressional Quarterly This Week</em>, 8 August 1990,
9337 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #50</a>.
9338 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2589288" href="#id2589288" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
9339
9340 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>, 514
9341 U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
9342 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2589315" href="#id2589315" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
9343
9344
9345 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>, 529
9346 U.S. 598 (2000).
9347 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2589335" href="#id2589335" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
9348
9349
9350 If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle carries
9351 from one enumerated power to another. The animating point in the context of
9352 the Commerce Clause was that the interpretation offered by the government
9353 would allow the government unending power to regulate commerce&#8212;the
9354 limitation to interstate commerce notwithstanding. The same point is true in
9355 the context of the Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's
9356 interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate
9357 copyrights&#8212;the limitation to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited times</span>&#8221;</span>
9358 notwithstanding.
9359 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2589425" href="#id2589425" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
9360
9361
9362 Brief of the Nashville Songwriters Association,
9363 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.
9364 186 (2003) (No. 01-618), n.10, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #51</a>.
9365 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2589496" href="#id2589496" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
9366
9367 The figure of 2 percent is an extrapolation from the study by the
9368 Congressional Research Service, in light of the estimated renewal
9369 ranges. See Brief of Petitioners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9370 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 7, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #52</a>.
9371 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2589661" href="#id2589661" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
9372
9373
9374 See David G. Savage, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright
9375 Law,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 6 October 2002; David
9376 Streitfeld, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court
9377 Hears Arguments Today on Striking Down Copyright Extension,</span>&#8221;</span>
9378 <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 9 October 2002.
9379 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2589721" href="#id2589721" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
9380
9381
9382 Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae Supporting the
9383 Petitoners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9384 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01- 618),
9385 12. See also Brief of Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of Petitioners by the
9386 Internet Archive, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9387 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #53</a>.
9388 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2589983" href="#id2589983" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
9389
9390
9391 Jason Schultz, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory,</span>&#8221;</span>
9392 20 December 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #54</a>.
9393 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2590512" href="#id2590512" class="para">192</a>] </sup>
9394
9395
9396 Brief of Amici Dr. Seuss Enterprise et al., <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9397 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.  (2003) (No. 01-618), 19.
9398 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2590537" href="#id2590537" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
9399
9400
9401 Dinitia Smith, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse
9402 Joins the Fray,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March
9403 1998, B7.
9404 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred-ii"></a>14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</h2></div></div></div><p>
9405 The day <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was decided, fate would have it that I
9406 was to travel to Washington, D.C. (The day the rehearing petition in
9407 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was denied&#8212;meaning the case was really
9408 finally over&#8212;fate would have it that I was giving a speech to
9409 technologists at Disney World.)  This was a particularly long flight to my
9410 least favorite city. The drive into the city from Dulles was delayed because
9411 of traffic, so I opened up my computer and wrote an op-ed piece.
9412 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2591493"></a><p>
9413 It was an act of contrition. During the whole of the flight from San
9414 Francisco to Washington, I had heard over and over again in my head the same
9415 advice from Don Ayer: You need to make them see why it is important. And
9416 alternating with that command was the question of Justice Kennedy:
9417 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">For all these years the act has impeded progress in science and the
9418 useful arts. I just don't see any empirical evidence for that.</span>&#8221;</span> And
9419 so, having failed in the argument of constitutional principle, finally, I
9420 turned to an argument of politics.
9421 </p><p>
9422
9423 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> published the piece. In it, I
9424 proposed a simple fix: Fifty years after a work has been published, the
9425 copyright owner would be required to register the work and pay a small
9426 fee. If he paid the fee, he got the benefit of the full term of
9427 copyright. If he did not, the work passed into the public domain.
9428 </p><p>
9429 We called this the Eldred Act, but that was just to give it a name.  Eric
9430 Eldred was kind enough to let his name be used once again, but as he said
9431 early on, it won't get passed unless it has another name.
9432 </p><p>
9433 Or another two names. For depending upon your perspective, this is either
9434 the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Public Domain Enhancement Act</span>&#8221;</span> or the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright
9435 Term Deregulation Act.</span>&#8221;</span> Either way, the essence of the idea is clear
9436 and obvious: Remove copyright where it is doing nothing except blocking
9437 access and the spread of knowledge. Leave it for as long as Congress allows
9438 for those works where its worth is at least $1. But for everything else, let
9439 the content go.
9440 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2591558"></a><p>
9441 The reaction to this idea was amazingly strong. Steve Forbes endorsed it in
9442 an editorial. I received an avalanche of e-mail and letters expressing
9443 support. When you focus the issue on lost creativity, people can see the
9444 copyright system makes no sense. As a good Republican might say, here
9445 government regulation is simply getting in the way of innovation and
9446 creativity. And as a good Democrat might say, here the government is
9447 blocking access and the spread of knowledge for no good reason. Indeed,
9448 there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans on this
9449 issue. Anyone can recognize the stupid harm of the present system.
9450 </p><p>
9451 Indeed, many recognized the obvious benefit of the registration
9452 requirement.  For one of the hardest things about the current system for
9453 people who want to license content is that there is no obvious place to look
9454 for the current copyright owners. Since registration is not required, since
9455 marking content is not required, since no formality at all is required, it
9456 is often impossibly hard to locate copyright owners to ask permission to use
9457 or license their work. This system would lower these costs, by establishing
9458 at least one registry where copyright owners could be identified.
9459 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2591592"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2591598"></a><p>
9460
9461 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;">10</a>, formalities in copyright law were removed in 1976,
9462 when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal requirement
9463 before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id2591616" href="#ftn.id2591616" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The
9464 Europeans are said to view copyright as a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">natural right.</span>&#8221;</span>
9465 Natural rights don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the
9466 Anglo-American tradition that required copyright owners to follow form if
9467 their rights were to be protected, did not, the Europeans thought, properly
9468 respect the dignity of the author. My right as a creator turns on my
9469 creativity, not upon the special favor of the government.
9470 </p><p>
9471 That's great rhetoric. It sounds wonderfully romantic. But it is absurd
9472 copyright policy. It is absurd especially for authors, because a world
9473 without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Walt
9474 Disney creativity</span>&#8221;</span> is destroyed when there is no simple way to know
9475 what's protected and what's not.
9476 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2591678"></a><p>
9477 The fight against formalities achieved its first real victory in Berlin in
9478 1908. International copyright lawyers amended the Berne Convention in 1908,
9479 to require copyright terms of life plus fifty years, as well as the
9480 abolition of copyright formalities. The formalities were hated because the
9481 stories of inadvertent loss were increasingly common. It was as if a Charles
9482 Dickens character ran all copyright offices, and the failure to dot an
9483 <em class="citetitle">i</em> or cross a <em class="citetitle">t</em> resulted in the
9484 loss of widows' only income.
9485 </p><p>
9486 These complaints were real and sensible. And the strictness of the
9487 formalities, especially in the United States, was absurd. The law should
9488 always have ways of forgiving innocent mistakes. There is no reason
9489 copyright law couldn't, as well. Rather than abandoning formalities totally,
9490 the response in Berlin should have been to embrace a more equitable system
9491 of registration.
9492 </p><p>
9493 Even that would have been resisted, however, because registration in the
9494 nineteenth and twentieth centuries was still expensive. It was also a
9495 hassle. The abolishment of formalities promised not only to save the
9496 starving widows, but also to lighten an unnecessary regulatory burden
9497 imposed upon creators.
9498 </p><p>
9499
9500 In addition to the practical complaint of authors in 1908, there was a moral
9501 claim as well. There was no reason that creative property should be a
9502 second-class form of property. If a carpenter builds a table, his rights
9503 over the table don't depend upon filing a form with the government.  He has
9504 a property right over the table <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">naturally,</span>&#8221;</span> and he can assert
9505 that right against anyone who would steal the table, whether or not he has
9506 informed the government of his ownership of the table.
9507 </p><p>
9508 This argument is correct, but its implications are misleading. For the
9509 argument in favor of formalities does not depend upon creative property
9510 being second-class property. The argument in favor of formalities turns upon
9511 the special problems that creative property presents.  The law of
9512 formalities responds to the special physics of creative property, to assure
9513 that it can be efficiently and fairly spread.
9514 </p><p>
9515 No one thinks, for example, that land is second-class property just because
9516 you have to register a deed with a court if your sale of land is to be
9517 effective. And few would think a car is second-class property just because
9518 you must register the car with the state and tag it with a license.  In both
9519 of those cases, everyone sees that there is an important reason to secure
9520 registration&#8212;both because it makes the markets more efficient and
9521 because it better secures the rights of the owner. Without a registration
9522 system for land, landowners would perpetually have to guard their
9523 property. With registration, they can simply point the police to a
9524 deed. Without a registration system for cars, auto theft would be much
9525 easier. With a registration system, the thief has a high burden to sell a
9526 stolen car. A slight burden is placed on the property owner, but those
9527 burdens produce a much better system of protection for property generally.
9528 </p><p>
9529 It is similarly special physics that makes formalities important in
9530 copyright law. Unlike a carpenter's table, there's nothing in nature that
9531 makes it relatively obvious who might own a particular bit of creative
9532 property. A recording of Lyle Lovett's latest album can exist in a billion
9533 places without anything necessarily linking it back to a particular
9534 owner. And like a car, there's no way to buy and sell creative property with
9535 confidence unless there is some simple way to authenticate who is the author
9536 and what rights he has. Simple transactions are destroyed in a world without
9537 formalities. Complex, expensive, <span class="emphasis"><em>lawyer</em></span> transactions
9538 take their place.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2591783"></a>
9539 </p><p>
9540 This was the understanding of the problem with the Sonny Bono Act that we
9541 tried to demonstrate to the Court. This was the part it didn't
9542 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">get.</span>&#8221;</span> Because we live in a system without formalities, there
9543 is no way easily to build upon or use culture from our past. If copyright
9544 terms were, as Justice Story said they would be, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">short,</span>&#8221;</span> then
9545 this wouldn't matter much. For fourteen years, under the framers' system, a
9546 work would be presumptively controlled. After fourteen years, it would be
9547 presumptively uncontrolled.
9548 </p><p>
9549 But now that copyrights can be just about a century long, the inability to
9550 know what is protected and what is not protected becomes a huge and obvious
9551 burden on the creative process. If the only way a library can offer an
9552 Internet exhibit about the New Deal is to hire a lawyer to clear the rights
9553 to every image and sound, then the copyright system is burdening creativity
9554 in a way that has never been seen before <span class="emphasis"><em>because there are no
9555 formalities</em></span>.
9556 </p><p>
9557 The Eldred Act was designed to respond to exactly this problem. If it is
9558 worth $1 to you, then register your work and you can get the longer
9559 term. Others will know how to contact you and, therefore, how to get your
9560 permission if they want to use your work. And you will get the benefit of an
9561 extended copyright term.
9562 </p><p>
9563 If it isn't worth it to you to register to get the benefit of an extended
9564 term, then it shouldn't be worth it for the government to defend your
9565 monopoly over that work either. The work should pass into the public domain
9566 where anyone can copy it, or build archives with it, or create a movie based
9567 on it. It should become free if it is not worth $1 to you.
9568 </p><p>
9569 Noen bekymrer seg over byrden på forfattere. Gjør ikke byrden med å
9570 registrere verket at beløpet $1 egentlig er misvisende?  Er ikke
9571 ekstraarbeidet verdt mer enn $1? Er ikke dette det virkelige problemet med
9572 registrering?
9573 </p><p>
9574
9575 It is. The hassle is terrible. The system that exists now is awful. I
9576 completely agree that the Copyright Office has done a terrible job (no doubt
9577 because they are terribly funded) in enabling simple and cheap
9578 registrations. Any real solution to the problem of formalities must address
9579 the real problem of <span class="emphasis"><em>governments</em></span> standing at the core of
9580 any system of formalities. In this book, I offer such a solution. That
9581 solution essentially remakes the Copyright Office. For now, assume it was
9582 Amazon that ran the registration system. Assume it was one-click
9583 registration.  The Eldred Act would propose a simple, one-click registration
9584 fifty years after a work was published. Based upon historical data, that
9585 system would move up to 98 percent of commercial work, commercial work that
9586 no longer had a commercial life, into the public domain within fifty
9587 years. What do you think?
9588 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2591876"></a><p>
9589 Da Steve Forbes støttet idéen, begynte enkelte i Washington å følge
9590 med. Mange kontaktet meg med tips til representanter som kan være villig til
9591 å introdusere en Eldred-lov. og jeg hadde noen få som foreslo direkte at de
9592 kan være villige til å ta det første skrittet.
9593 </p><p>
9594 One representative, Zoe Lofgren of California, went so far as to get the
9595 bill drafted. The draft solved any problem with international law. It
9596 imposed the simplest requirement upon copyright owners possible. In May
9597 2003, it looked as if the bill would be introduced. On May 16, I posted on
9598 the Eldred Act blog, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">we are close.</span>&#8221;</span> There was a general
9599 reaction in the blog community that something good might happen here.
9600 <a class="indexterm" name="id2591908"></a>
9601 </p><p>
9602 But at this stage, the lobbyists began to intervene. Jack Valenti and the
9603 MPAA general counsel came to the congresswoman's office to give the view of
9604 the MPAA. Aided by his lawyer, as Valenti told me, Valenti informed the
9605 congresswoman that the MPAA would oppose the Eldred Act. The reasons are
9606 embarrassingly thin. More importantly, their thinness shows something clear
9607 about what this debate is really about.
9608 </p><p>
9609
9610 The MPAA argued first that Congress had <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">firmly rejected the central
9611 concept in the proposed bill</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;that copyrights be renewed. That
9612 was true, but irrelevant, as Congress's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">firm rejection</span>&#8221;</span> had
9613 occurred long before the Internet made subsequent uses much more likely.
9614 Second, they argued that the proposal would harm poor copyright
9615 owners&#8212;apparently those who could not afford the $1 fee. Third, they
9616 argued that Congress had determined that extending a copyright term would
9617 encourage restoration work. Maybe in the case of the small percentage of
9618 work covered by copyright law that is still commercially valuable, but again
9619 this was irrelevant, as the proposal would not cut off the extended term
9620 unless the $1 fee was not paid. Fourth, the MPAA argued that the bill would
9621 impose <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">enormous</span>&#8221;</span> costs, since a registration system is not
9622 free. True enough, but those costs are certainly less than the costs of
9623 clearing the rights for a copyright whose owner is not known. Fifth, they
9624 worried about the risks if the copyright to a story underlying a film were
9625 to pass into the public domain. But what risk is that? If it is in the
9626 public domain, then the film is a valid derivative use.
9627 </p><p>
9628 Finally, the MPAA argued that existing law enabled copyright owners to do
9629 this if they wanted. But the whole point is that there are thousands of
9630 copyright owners who don't even know they have a copyright to give. Whether
9631 they are free to give away their copyright or not&#8212;a controversial
9632 claim in any case&#8212;unless they know about a copyright, they're not
9633 likely to.
9634 </p><p>
9635 At the beginning of this book, I told two stories about the law reacting to
9636 changes in technology. In the one, common sense prevailed.  In the other,
9637 common sense was delayed. The difference between the two stories was the
9638 power of the opposition&#8212;the power of the side that fought to defend
9639 the status quo. In both cases, a new technology threatened old
9640 interests. But in only one case did those interest's have the power to
9641 protect themselves against this new competitive threat.
9642 </p><p>
9643 Jeg brukte disse to tilfellene som en måte å ramme inn krigen som denne
9644 boken har handlet om.  For her er det også en ny teknologi som tvinger loven
9645 til å reagere.  Og her bør vi også spørre, er loven i tråd med eller i strid
9646 med sunn fornuft.  Hvis sunn fornuft støtter loven, hva forklarer denne
9647 sunne fornuften?
9648 </p><p>
9649
9650
9651
9652 When the issue is piracy, it is right for the law to back the copyright
9653 owners. The commercial piracy that I described is wrong and harmful, and the
9654 law should work to eliminate it. When the issue is p2p sharing, it is easy
9655 to understand why the law backs the owners still: Much of this sharing is
9656 wrong, even if much is harmless. When the issue is copyright terms for the
9657 Mickey Mouses of the world, it is possible still to understand why the law
9658 favors Hollywood: Most people don't recognize the reasons for limiting
9659 copyright terms; it is thus still possible to see good faith within the
9660 resistance.
9661 </p><p>
9662 But when the copyright owners oppose a proposal such as the Eldred Act,
9663 then, finally, there is an example that lays bare the naked selfinterest
9664 driving this war. This act would free an extraordinary range of content that
9665 is otherwise unused. It wouldn't interfere with any copyright owner's desire
9666 to exercise continued control over his content. It would simply liberate
9667 what Kevin Kelly calls the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Dark Content</span>&#8221;</span> that fills archives
9668 around the world. So when the warriors oppose a change like this, we should
9669 ask one simple question: <a class="indexterm" name="id2592026"></a>
9670 </p><p>
9671 Hva ønsker denne industrien egentlig?
9672 </p><p>
9673 With very little effort, the warriors could protect their content. So the
9674 effort to block something like the Eldred Act is not really about protecting
9675 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> content. The effort to block the Eldred Act is an
9676 effort to assure that nothing more passes into the public domain. It is
9677 another step to assure that the public domain will never compete, that there
9678 will be no use of content that is not commercially controlled, and that
9679 there will be no commercial use of content that doesn't require
9680 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> permission first.
9681 </p><p>
9682 The opposition to the Eldred Act reveals how extreme the other side is. The
9683 most powerful and sexy and well loved of lobbies really has as its aim not
9684 the protection of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> but the rejection of a tradition.
9685 Their aim is not simply to protect what is theirs. <span class="emphasis"><em>Their aim is to
9686 assure that all there is is what is theirs</em></span>.
9687 </p><p>
9688
9689 It is not hard to understand why the warriors take this view. It is not hard
9690 to see why it would benefit them if the competition of the public domain
9691 tied to the Internet could somehow be quashed. Just as RCA feared the
9692 competition of FM, they fear the competition of a public domain connected to
9693 a public that now has the means to create with it and to share its own
9694 creation.
9695 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2592083"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2592089"></a><p>
9696 Det som er vanskelig å forstå er hvorfor folket innehar dette synet. Det er
9697 som om loven gjorde at flymaskiner tok seg inn på annen manns eiendom.  MPAA
9698 står side om side med Causbyene og krever at deres fjerne og ubrukelige
9699 eierrettigheter blir respektert, slik at disse fjerne og glemte
9700 opphavsrettsinnehaverne kan blokkere fremgangen til andre.
9701 </p><p>
9702 All this seems to follow easily from this untroubled acceptance of the
9703 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> in intellectual property. Common sense supports it,
9704 and so long as it does, the assaults will rain down upon the technologies of
9705 the Internet. The consequence will be an increasing <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">permission
9706 society.</span>&#8221;</span> The past can be cultivated only if you can identify the
9707 owner and gain permission to build upon his work. The future will be
9708 controlled by this dead (and often unfindable) hand of the past.
9709 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2591616" href="#id2591616" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
9710
9711
9712 Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright
9713 legislation sometimes made protection depend upon compliance with
9714 formalities such as registration, deposit, and affixation of notice of the
9715 author's claim of copyright. However, starting with the 1908 act, every text
9716 of the Convention has provided that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the enjoyment and the
9717 exercise</span>&#8221;</span> of rights guaranteed by the Convention <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">shall not be
9718 subject to any formality.</span>&#8221;</span> The prohibition against formalities is
9719 presently embodied in Article 5(2) of the Paris Text of the Berne
9720 Convention. Many countries continue to impose some form of deposit or
9721 registration requirement, albeit not as a condition of copyright. French
9722 law, for example, requires the deposit of copies of works in national
9723 repositories, principally the National Museum.  Copies of books published in
9724 the United Kingdom must be deposited in the British Library. The German
9725 Copyright Act provides for a Registrar of Authors where the author's true
9726 name can be filed in the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works. Paul
9727 Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">International Intellectual Property Law, Cases and
9728 Materials</em> (New York: Foundation Press, 2001), 153&#8211;54.  </p></div></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="15. Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>15. Konklusjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
9729 Det er mer enn trettifem millioner mennesker over hele verden med
9730 AIDS-viruset. Tjuefem millioner av dem bor i Afrika sør for Sahara.  Sytten
9731 millioner har allerede dødd.  Sytten millioner afrikanere er prosentvis
9732 proporsjonalt med syv millioner amerikanere.  Viktigere er det at dette er
9733 17 millioner afrikanere.
9734 </p><p>
9735 Det finnes ingen kur for AIDS, men det finnes medisiner som kan hemme
9736 sykdommens utvikling.  Disse antiretrovirale terapiene er fortsatt
9737 eksperimentelle, men de har hatt en dramatisk effekt allerede.  I USA øker
9738 AIDS-pasienter som regelmessig tar en cocktail av disse medisinene sin
9739 levealder med ti til tjue år. For noen gjøre medisinene sykdommen nesten
9740 usynlig.
9741 </p><p>
9742 Disse medisinene er dyre.  Da de ble først introdusert i USA, kostet de
9743 mellom $10 000 og $15 000 pr. person hvert år.  I dag koster noen
9744 av dem $25 000 pr. år.  Med disse prisene har, selvfølgelig, ingen
9745 afrikansk stat  råd til medisinen for det store flertall av sine innbyggere:
9746 $15 000 er tredve ganger brutto nasjonalprodukt pr. innbygger i
9747 Zimbabwe.  Med slike priser er disse medisinene fullstendig
9748 utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id2592175" href="#ftn.id2592175" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
9749 </p><p>
9750
9751
9752 Disse prisene er ikke høye fordi ingrediensene til medisinene er dyre.
9753 Disse prisene er høye fordi medisinene er beskyttet av patenter.
9754 Farmasiselskapene som produserer disse livreddende blandingene nyter minst
9755 tjue års monopol på sine oppfinnelser.  De bruker denne monopolmakten til å
9756 hente ut så mye de kan fra markedet.  Ved hjelp av denne makten holder de
9757 prisene høye.
9758 </p><p>
9759 Det er mange som er skeptiske til patenter, spesielt patenter på
9760 medisiner. Det er ikke jeg. Faktisk av alle forskningsområder som kan være
9761 støttet av patenter, er forskning på medisiner, etter min mening, det
9762 klareste tilfelle der patenter er nødvendig. Patenter gir et farmasøytiske
9763 firma en viss forsikring om at hvis det lykkes i å finne opp et nytt
9764 medikament som kan behandle en sykdom, vil det kunne tjene tilbake
9765 investeringen og mer til. Dette ber sosialt et ekstremt verdifullt
9766 insentiv. Jeg er den siste personen som vil argumentere for at loven skal
9767 avskaffe dette, i det minste uten andre endringer.
9768 </p><p>
9769 Men det er én ting å støtte patenter, selv patenter på medisiner. Det er en
9770 annen ting å avgjøre hvordan en best skal håndtere en krise. Og i det
9771 afrikanske ledere begynte å erkjenne ødeleggelsen AIDS brakte, begynte de å
9772 se etter måter å importere HIV-medisiner til kostnader betydelig under
9773 markedspris.
9774 </p><p>
9775 In 1997, South Africa tried one tack. It passed a law to allow the
9776 importation of patented medicines that had been produced or sold in another
9777 nation's market with the consent of the patent owner. For example, if the
9778 drug was sold in India, it could be imported into Africa from India. This is
9779 called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">parallel importation,</span>&#8221;</span> and it is generally permitted
9780 under international trade law and is specifically permitted within the
9781 European Union.<sup>[<a name="id2592262" href="#ftn.id2592262" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
9782 </p><p>
9783 However, the United States government opposed the bill. Indeed, more than
9784 opposed. As the International Intellectual Property Association
9785 characterized it, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The U.S. government pressured South Africa &#8230;
9786 not to permit compulsory licensing or parallel imports.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2588915" href="#ftn.id2588915" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup> Through the Office of the United States Trade
9787 Representative, the government asked South Africa to change the
9788 law&#8212;and to add pressure to that request, in 1998, the USTR listed
9789 South Africa for possible trade sanctions.  That same year, more than forty
9790 pharmaceutical companies began proceedings in the South African courts to
9791 challenge the government's actions. The United States was then joined by
9792 other governments from the EU. Their claim, and the claim of the
9793 pharmaceutical companies, was that South Africa was violating its
9794 obligations under international law by discriminating against a particular
9795 kind of patent&#8212; pharmaceutical patents. The demand of these
9796 governments, with the United States in the lead, was that South Africa
9797 respect these patents as it respects any other patent, regardless of any
9798 effect on the treatment of AIDS within South Africa.<sup>[<a name="id2592318" href="#ftn.id2592318" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
9799 </p><p>
9800 Vi bør sette intervensjonen til USA i sammenheng.  Det er ingen tvil om at
9801 patenter ikke er den viktigste årsaken til at Afrikanere ikke har tilgang
9802 til medisiner.  Fattigdom og den totale mangel på effektivt helsevesen betyr
9803 mer. Men uansett om patenter er en viktigste grunnen eller ikke, så har
9804 prisen på medisiner en effekt på etterspørselen, og patenter påvirker
9805 prisen. Så uansett, massiv eller marginal, så var det en effekt av våre
9806 myndigheters intervensjon for å stoppe flyten av medisiner inn til Afrika.
9807 </p><p>
9808 Ved å stoppe flyten av HIV-behandling til Afrika, sikret ikke myndighetene i
9809 USA medisiner til USA borgere. Dette er ikke som hvete (hvis de spise det så
9810 kan ikke vi spise det). Det som USA i effekt intervenerte for å stoppe, var
9811 flyten av kunnskap: Informasjon om hvordan en kan ta kjemikalier som finnes
9812 i Afrika og gjøre disse kjemikaliene om til medisiner som kan redde 15 til
9813 30 millioner liv.
9814 </p><p>
9815 Intervensjonen fra USA ville heller ikke beskytte fortjenesten til
9816 medisinselskapene i USA&#8212; i hvert fall ikke betydelig.  Det var jo ikke
9817 slik at disse landene hadde mulighet til å kjøpe medisinene til de prisene
9818 som medisinselskapene forlangte.  Igjen var afrikanerne for fattige til å ha
9819 råd til disse medisinene til de tilbudte prisene.  Å blokkere for
9820 parallellimport av disse medisinene ville ikke øke salget til de amerikanske
9821 selskapene betydelig.
9822 </p><p>
9823 Instead, the argument in favor of restricting this flow of information,
9824 which was needed to save the lives of millions, was an argument about the
9825 sanctity of property.<sup>[<a name="id2592406" href="#ftn.id2592406" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup> It was because
9826 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>&#8221;</span> would be violated that these drugs
9827 should not flow into Africa. It was a principle about the importance of
9828 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>&#8221;</span> that led these government actors to
9829 intervene against the South African response to AIDS.
9830 </p><p>
9831 Now just step back for a moment. There will be a time thirty years from now
9832 when our children look back at us and ask, how could we have let this
9833 happen? How could we allow a policy to be pursued whose direct cost would be
9834 to speed the death of 15 to 30 million Africans, and whose only real benefit
9835 would be to uphold the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sanctity</span>&#8221;</span> of an idea? What possible
9836 justification could there ever be for a policy that results in so many
9837 deaths? What exactly is the insanity that would allow so many to die for
9838 such an abstraction?
9839 </p><p>
9840 Noen skylder på farmasiselskapene.  Det gjør ikke jeg.  De er selskaper, og
9841 deres ledere er lovpålagt å tjene penger for selskapene.  De presser på for
9842 en bestemt patentpolitikk, ikke på grunn av idealer, men fordi det er dette
9843 som gjør at de tjener mest penger.  Og dette gjør kun at de tjener mest
9844 penger på grunn av en slags korrupsjon i vårt politiske system&#8212; en
9845 korrupsjon som farmasiselskapene helt klart ikke er ansvarlige for.
9846 </p><p>
9847 Denne korrupsjonen er våre egne politikeres manglende integritet.  For
9848 medisinprodusentene ville elske&#8212;sier de selv, og jeg tror dem &#8212;
9849 å selge sine medisiner så billig som de kan til land i Afrika og andre
9850 steder. Det er utfordringer de må løse å sikre at medisinene ikke kommer
9851 tilbake til USA, men dette er bare teknologiske utfordring. De kan bli
9852 overvunnet.
9853 </p><p>
9854
9855 A different problem, however, could not be overcome. This is the fear of the
9856 grandstanding politician who would call the presidents of the drug companies
9857 before a Senate or House hearing, and ask, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">How is it you can sell
9858 this HIV drug in Africa for only $1 a pill, but the same drug would cost an
9859 American $1,500?</span>&#8221;</span> Because there is no <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sound bite</span>&#8221;</span>
9860 answer to that question, its effect would be to induce regulation of prices
9861 in America. The drug companies thus avoid this spiral by avoiding the first
9862 step. They reinforce the idea that property should be sacred. They adopt a
9863 rational strategy in an irrational context, with the unintended consequence
9864 that perhaps millions die. And that rational strategy thus becomes framed in
9865 terms of this ideal&#8212;the sanctity of an idea called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual
9866 property.</span>&#8221;</span>
9867 </p><p>
9868 Så når du konfronteres av ditt barns sunne fornuft, hva vil du si?  Når den
9869 sunne fornuften hos en generasjon endelig gjør opprør mot hva vi har gjort,
9870 hvordan vil vi rettferdiggjøre det?  Hva er argumentet?
9871 </p><p>
9872 En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk støtte til
9873 patentsystemet uten å måtte nå alle overalt på nøyaktig samme måte. På samme
9874 måte som en fornuftig opphavsrettspolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk
9875 støtte til et opphavsretts-system uten å måtte regulere spredningen av
9876 kultur perfekt og for alltid.  En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for
9877 og gi sterk støtte til et patentsystem uten å måtte blokkere spredning av
9878 medisiner til et land som uansett ikke er rikt nok til å ha råd til
9879 markedsprisen.  En fornuftig politikk kan en dermed si kunne være en
9880 balansert politikk.  For det meste av vår historie har både opphavsrett- og
9881 patentpolitikken i denne forstand vært balansert.
9882 </p><p>
9883
9884 Men vi som kultur har mistet denne følelsen for balanse.  Vi har mistet det
9885 kritiske blikket som hjelper oss til å se forskjellen mellom sannhet og
9886 ekstremisme.  En slags eiendomsfundamentalisme, uten grunnlag i vår
9887 tradisjon, hersker nå i vår kultur&#8212;sært, og med konsekvenser mer
9888 alvorlig for spredningen av idéer og kultur enn nesten enhver annen politisk
9889 enkeltavgjørelse vi som demokrati kan fatte.  En enkel idé blender oss, og
9890 under dekke av mørket skjer mye som de fleste av oss ville avvist hvis vi
9891 hadde fulgt med.  Så ukritisk aksepterer vi idéen om eierskap til idéer at
9892 vi ikke engang legger merke til hvor uhyrlig det er å nekte tilgang til
9893 idéer for et folk som dør uten dem.  Så ukritisk aksepterer vi idéen om
9894 eiendom til kulturen at vi ikke engang stiller spørsmål ved når kontrollen
9895 over denne eiendommen fjerner vår evne, som folk, til å utvikle vår kultur
9896 demokratisk.  Blindhet blir vår sunne fornuft, og utfordringen for enhver
9897 som vil gjenvinne retten til å dyrke vår kultur er å finne en måte å få
9898 denne sunne fornuften til å åpne sine øyne.
9899 </p><p>
9900 So far, common sense sleeps. There is no revolt. Common sense does not yet
9901 see what there could be to revolt about. The extremism that now dominates
9902 this debate fits with ideas that seem natural, and that fit is reinforced by
9903 the RCAs of our day. They wage a frantic war to fight <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy,</span>&#8221;</span>
9904 and devastate a culture for creativity. They defend the idea of
9905 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property,</span>&#8221;</span> while transforming real creators into
9906 modern-day sharecroppers. They are insulted by the idea that rights should
9907 be balanced, even though each of the major players in this content war was
9908 itself a beneficiary of a more balanced ideal. The hypocrisy reeks. Yet in a
9909 city like Washington, hypocrisy is not even noticed. Powerful lobbies,
9910 complex issues, and MTV attention spans produce the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">perfect
9911 storm</span>&#8221;</span> for free culture.
9912 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2592632"></a><p>
9913 In August 2003, a fight broke out in the United States about a decision by
9914 the World Intellectual Property Organization to cancel a
9915 meeting.<sup>[<a name="id2592642" href="#ftn.id2592642" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> At the request of a wide range
9916 of interests, WIPO had decided to hold a meeting to discuss <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open and
9917 collaborative projects to create public goods.</span>&#8221;</span> These are projects
9918 that have been successful in producing public goods without relying
9919 exclusively upon a proprietary use of intellectual property. Examples
9920 include the Internet and the World Wide Web, both of which were developed on
9921 the basis of protocols in the public domain. It included an emerging trend
9922 to support open academic journals, including the Public Library of Science
9923 project that I describe in the Afterword. It included a project to develop
9924 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which are thought to have great
9925 significance in biomedical research. (That nonprofit project comprised a
9926 consortium of the Wellcome Trust and pharmaceutical and technological
9927 companies, including Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer,
9928 Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola,
9929 Novartis, Pfizer, and Searle.) It included the Global Positioning System,
9930 which Ronald Reagan set free in the early 1980s. And it included <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open
9931 source and free software.</span>&#8221;</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2592732"></a>
9932 <a class="indexterm" name="id2592741"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2592747"></a>
9933 </p><p>
9934 Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles
9935 perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell
9936 ekstremisme. I stedet, hos alle disse, ble immaterielle rettigheter
9937 balansert med avtaler om å holde tilgang åpen, eller for å legge
9938 begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
9939 </p><p>
9940 Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen
9941 ideell.<sup>[<a name="id2592772" href="#ftn.id2592772" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
9942 både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker.  De involverte i hovedsak
9943 vitenskapen, men fra mange perspektiver.  Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for
9944 denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som
9945 drev med immaterielle rettighetsspørsmål.
9946 </p><p>
9947
9948 Indeed, I was once publicly scolded for not recognizing this fact about
9949 WIPO. In February 2003, I delivered a keynote address to a preparatory
9950 conference for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). At a
9951 press conference before the address, I was asked what I would say. I
9952 responded that I would be talking a little about the importance of balance
9953 in intellectual property for the development of an information society. The
9954 moderator for the event then promptly interrupted to inform me and the
9955 assembled reporters that no question about intellectual property would be
9956 discussed by WSIS, since those questions were the exclusive domain of
9957 WIPO. In the talk that I had prepared, I had actually made the issue of
9958 intellectual property relatively minor. But after this astonishing
9959 statement, I made intellectual property the sole focus of my talk. There was
9960 no way to talk about an <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Information Society</span>&#8221;</span> unless one also
9961 talked about the range of information and culture that would be free. My
9962 talk did not make my immoderate moderator very happy. And she was no doubt
9963 correct that the scope of intellectual property protections was ordinarily
9964 the stuff of WIPO. But in my view, there couldn't be too much of a
9965 conversation about how much intellectual property is needed, since in my
9966 view, the very idea of balance in intellectual property had been lost.
9967 </p><p>
9968 So whether or not WSIS can discuss balance in intellectual property, I had
9969 thought it was taken for granted that WIPO could and should. And thus the
9970 meeting about <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open and collaborative projects to create public
9971 goods</span>&#8221;</span> seemed perfectly appropriate within the WIPO agenda.
9972 </p><p>
9973 But there is one project within that list that is highly controversial, at
9974 least among lobbyists. That project is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open source and free
9975 software.</span>&#8221;</span> Microsoft in particular is wary of discussion of the
9976 subject. From its perspective, a conference to discuss open source and free
9977 software would be like a conference to discuss Apple's operating
9978 system. Both open source and free software compete with Microsoft's
9979 software. And internationally, many governments have begun to explore
9980 requirements that they use open source or free software, rather than
9981 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">proprietary software,</span>&#8221;</span> for their own internal uses.
9982 </p><p>
9983 I don't mean to enter that debate here. It is important only to make clear
9984 that the distinction is not between commercial and noncommercial
9985 software. There are many important companies that depend fundamentally upon
9986 open source and free software, IBM being the most prominent. IBM is
9987 increasingly shifting its focus to the GNU/Linux operating system, the most
9988 famous bit of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free software</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;and IBM is emphatically a
9989 commercial entity. Thus, to support <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open source and free
9990 software</span>&#8221;</span> is not to oppose commercial entities. It is, instead, to
9991 support a mode of software development that is different from
9992 Microsoft's.<sup>[<a name="id2592880" href="#ftn.id2592880" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2592932"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2592938"></a>
9993 <a class="indexterm" name="id2592946"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2592953"></a>
9994 </p><p>
9995
9996 More important for our purposes, to support <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open source and free
9997 software</span>&#8221;</span> is not to oppose copyright. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Open source and free
9998 software</span>&#8221;</span> is not software in the public domain. Instead, like
9999 Microsoft's software, the copyright owners of free and open source software
10000 insist quite strongly that the terms of their software license be respected
10001 by adopters of free and open source software. The terms of that license are
10002 no doubt different from the terms of a proprietary software license.  Free
10003 software licensed under the General Public License (GPL), for example,
10004 requires that the source code for the software be made available by anyone
10005 who modifies and redistributes the software. But that requirement is
10006 effective only if copyright governs software. If copyright did not govern
10007 software, then free software could not impose the same kind of requirements
10008 on its adopters. It thus depends upon copyright law just as Microsoft does.
10009 </p><p>
10010 Det er dermed forståelig at Microsoft, som utviklere av proprietær
10011 programvare, gikk imot et slikt WIPO-møte, og like fullt forståelig at de
10012 bruker sine lobbyister til å få USAs myndigheter til å gå imot møtet.  Og
10013 ganske riktig, det er akkurat dette som i følge rapporter hadde skjedd.  I
10014 følge Jonathan Krim i <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, lyktes
10015 Microsofts lobbyister i å få USAs myndigheter til å legge ned veto mot et
10016 slikt møte.<sup>[<a name="id2593008" href="#ftn.id2593008" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
10017 møtet avlyst.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2593026"></a>
10018 </p><p>
10019 Jeg klandrer ikke Microsoft for å gjøre det de kan for å fremme sine egne
10020 interesser i samsvar med loven. Og lobbyvirksomhet mot myndighetene er
10021 åpenbart i samsvar med loven. Det er ikke noe overraskende her med deres
10022 lobbyvirksomhet, og ikke veldig overraskende at den mektigste
10023 programvareprodusenten i USA har lyktes med sin lobbyvirksomhet.
10024 </p><p>
10025 What was surprising was the United States government's reason for opposing
10026 the meeting. Again, as reported by Krim, Lois Boland, acting director of
10027 international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, explained
10028 that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which
10029 is to promote intellectual-property rights.</span>&#8221;</span> She is quoted as saying,
10030 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such
10031 rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO.</span>&#8221;</span>
10032 </p><p>
10033 Disse utsagnene er forbløffende på flere nivåer.
10034 </p><p>
10035 First, they are just flat wrong. As I described, most open source and free
10036 software relies fundamentally upon the intellectual property right called
10037 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span>.  Without it, restrictions imposed by those
10038 licenses wouldn't work. Thus, to say it <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">runs counter</span>&#8221;</span> to the
10039 mission of promoting intellectual property rights reveals an extraordinary
10040 gap in understanding&#8212;the sort of mistake that is excusable in a
10041 first-year law student, but an embarrassment from a high government official
10042 dealing with intellectual property issues.
10043 </p><p>
10044 Second, who ever said that WIPO's exclusive aim was to
10045 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">promote</span>&#8221;</span> intellectual property maximally? As I had been
10046 scolded at the preparatory conference of WSIS, WIPO is to consider not only
10047 how best to protect intellectual property, but also what the best balance of
10048 intellectual property is. As every economist and lawyer knows, the hard
10049 question in intellectual property law is to find that balance. But that
10050 there should be limits is, I had thought, uncontested. One wants to ask
10051 Ms. Boland, are generic drugs (drugs based on drugs whose patent has
10052 expired) contrary to the WIPO mission? Does the public domain weaken
10053 intellectual property? Would it have been better if the protocols of the
10054 Internet had been patented?
10055 </p><p>
10056 Third, even if one believed that the purpose of WIPO was to maximize
10057 intellectual property rights, in our tradition, intellectual property rights
10058 are held by individuals and corporations. They get to decide what to do with
10059 those rights because, again, they are <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> rights. If
10060 they want to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">waive</span>&#8221;</span> or <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">disclaim</span>&#8221;</span> their rights,
10061 that is, within our tradition, totally appropriate. When Bill Gates gives
10062 away more than $20 billion to do good in the world, that is not inconsistent
10063 with the objectives of the property system. That is, on the contrary, just
10064 what a property system is supposed to be about: giving individuals the right
10065 to decide what to do with <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> property.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2593135"></a>
10066 </p><p>
10067
10068 When Ms. Boland says that there is something wrong with a meeting
10069 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights,</span>&#8221;</span>
10070 she's saying that WIPO has an interest in interfering with the choices of
10071 the individuals who own intellectual property rights. That somehow, WIPO's
10072 objective should be to stop an individual from <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">waiving</span>&#8221;</span> or
10073 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">disclaiming</span>&#8221;</span> an intellectual property right. That the interest
10074 of WIPO is not just that intellectual property rights be maximized, but that
10075 they also should be exercised in the most extreme and restrictive way
10076 possible.
10077 </p><p>
10078 There is a history of just such a property system that is well known in the
10079 Anglo-American tradition. It is called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">feudalism.</span>&#8221;</span> Under
10080 feudalism, not only was property held by a relatively small number of
10081 individuals and entities. And not only were the rights that ran with that
10082 property powerful and extensive. But the feudal system had a strong interest
10083 in assuring that property holders within that system not weaken feudalism by
10084 liberating people or property within their control to the free
10085 market. Feudalism depended upon maximum control and concentration. It fought
10086 any freedom that might interfere with that control.
10087 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2593192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2593198"></a><p>
10088 Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
10089 vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2593211" href="#ftn.id2593211" class="footnote">204</a>]</sup>
10090 Vi kommer til å få et informasjonssamfunn.  Så mye er sikkert.  Vårt eneste
10091 valg nå er hvorvidt dette informasjonssamfunnet skal være
10092 <span class="emphasis"><em>fritt</em></span> eller <span class="emphasis"><em>føydalt</em></span>.  Trenden er
10093 mot det føydale.
10094 </p><p>
10095 Da denne bataljen brøt ut, blogget jeg om dette.  En heftig debatt brøt ut i
10096 kommentarfeltet.  Ms. Boland hadde en rekke støttespillere som forsøkte å
10097 vise hvorfor hennes kommentarer ga mening.  Men det var spesielt en
10098 kommentar som gjorde meg trist.  En anonym kommentator skrev,
10099 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
10100
10101 George, you misunderstand Lessig: He's only talking about the world as it
10102 should be (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the goal of WIPO, and the goal of any government, should
10103 be to promote the right balance of intellectual property rights, not simply
10104 to promote intellectual property rights</span>&#8221;</span>), not as it is. If we were
10105 talking about the world as it is, then of course Boland didn't say anything
10106 wrong. But in the world as Lessig would have it, then of course she
10107 did. Always pay attention to the distinction between Lessig's world and
10108 ours.
10109 </p></blockquote></div><p>
10110 Jeg gikk glipp av ironien først gangen jeg leste den. Jeg lese den raskt og
10111 trodde forfatteren støttet idéen om at det våre myndigheter burde gjøre var
10112 å søke balanse. (Min kritikk av Ms Boland, selvfølgelig, var ikke om
10113 hvorvidt hun søkte balanse eller ikke; min kritikk var at hennes kommentarer
10114 avslørte en feil kun en førsteårs jusstudent burde kunne gjøre. Jeg har noen
10115 illusjon om ekstremismen hos våre myndigheter, uansett om de er
10116 republikanere eller demokrater. Min eneste tilsynelatende illusjon er
10117 hvorvidt våre myndigheter bør snakke sant eller ikke.)
10118 </p><p>
10119 Obviously, however, the poster was not supporting that idea.  Instead, the
10120 poster was ridiculing the very idea that in the real world, the
10121 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">goal</span>&#8221;</span> of a government should be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">to promote the right
10122 balance</span>&#8221;</span> of intellectual property. That was obviously silly to
10123 him. And it obviously betrayed, he believed, my own silly
10124 utopianism. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Typical for an academic,</span>&#8221;</span> the poster might well
10125 have continued.
10126 </p><p>
10127 Jeg forstår kritikken av akademisk utopisme.  Jeg mener også at utopisme er
10128 tåpelig, og jeg vil være blant de første til å gjøre narr av de absurde
10129 urealistiske idealer til akademikere gjennom historien (og ikke bare i vårt
10130 eget lands historie).
10131 </p><p>
10132 But when it has become silly to suppose that the role of our government
10133 should be to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">seek balance,</span>&#8221;</span> then count me with the silly, for
10134 that means that this has become quite serious indeed. If it should be
10135 obvious to everyone that the government does not seek balance, that the
10136 government is simply the tool of the most powerful lobbyists, that the idea
10137 of holding the government to a different standard is absurd, that the idea
10138 of demanding of the government that it speak truth and not lies is just
10139 naïve, then who have we, the most powerful democracy in the world,
10140 become?
10141 </p><p>
10142
10143 Det kan være galskap å forvente at en mektig myndigshetsperson skal si
10144 sannheten. Det kan være galskap å tro at myndighetenes politikk skal gjøre
10145 mer enn å tjene de mektigste interesser. Det kan være galskap å argumentere
10146 for å bevare en tradisjon som har vært en del av vår tradisjon for
10147 mesteparten av vår historie&#8212;fri kultur.
10148 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2593339"></a><p>
10149 Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger.  Snart. Det finnes
10150 øyeblikk av håp i denne kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte
10151 mindre strenge eierskapsregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere
10152 medieeierskap, dannet det seg en en ekstraordinær koalisjon på tvers av
10153 partiene for å bekjempe endringen. For kanskje første gang i historien
10154 organiserte interesser så forskjellige som NRA, ACLU, moveon.org, William
10155 Safire, Ted Turner og Codepink Women for Piece seg for å protestere på denne
10156 endringen i FCC-reglene.  Så mange som 700 000 brev ble sendt til FCC med
10157 krav om flere høringer og et annet resultat.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2593367"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2593374"></a>
10158 </p><p>
10159 Disse protestene stoppet ikke FCC, men like etter stemte en bred koalisjon i
10160 senatet for å reversere avgjørelsen i FCC. De fiendtlige høringene som ledet
10161 til avstemmingen avslørte hvor mektig denne bevegelsen hadde blitt.  Det var
10162 ingen betydningsfull støtte for FCCs avgjørelse, mens det var bred og
10163 vedvarende støtte for å bekjempe ytterligere konsentrasjon i media.
10164 </p><p>
10165 Men selv denne bevegelsen går glipp av en viktig brikke i puslespillet.  Å
10166 være stor er ikke ille i seg selv. Frihet er ikke truet bare på grunn av at
10167 noen blir veldig rik, eller på grunn av at det bare er en håndfull store
10168 aktører.  Den dårlige kvaliteten til Big Macs eller Quartar Punders betyr
10169 ikke at du ikke kan få en god hamburger andre steder.
10170 </p><p>
10171 Faren med mediekonsentrasjon kommer ikke fra selve konsentrasjonen, men
10172 kommer fra føydalismen som denne konsentrasjonen fører til når den kobles
10173 til endringer i opphavsretten. Det er ikke kun at det er noen mektige
10174 selskaper som styrer en stadig voksende andel av mediene. Det er at denne
10175 konsentrasjonen kan påkalle en like oppsvulmet rekke
10176 rettigheter&#8212;eiendomsrettigheter i en historisk ekstrem form&#8212;som
10177 gjør størrelsen ille.
10178 </p><p>
10179 It is therefore significant that so many would rally to demand competition
10180 and increased diversity. Still, if the rally is understood as being about
10181 bigness alone, it is not terribly surprising. We Americans have a long
10182 history of fighting <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">big,</span>&#8221;</span> wisely or not. That we could be
10183 motivated to fight <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">big</span>&#8221;</span> again is not something new.
10184 </p><p>
10185 It would be something new, and something very important, if an equal number
10186 could be rallied to fight the increasing extremism built within the idea of
10187 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>&#8221;</span> Not because balance is alien to our
10188 tradition; indeed, as I've argued, balance is our tradition. But because the
10189 muscle to think critically about the scope of anything called
10190 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> is not well exercised within this tradition anymore.
10191 </p><p>
10192 Hvis vi var Akilles, så ville dette være vår hæl. Dette ville være stedet
10193 for våre tragedie.
10194 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2593472"></a><p>
10195 As I write these final words, the news is filled with stories about the RIAA
10196 lawsuits against almost three hundred individuals.<sup>[<a name="id2593483" href="#ftn.id2593483" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup> Eminem has just been sued for
10197 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sampling</span>&#8221;</span> someone else's music.<sup>[<a name="id2593550" href="#ftn.id2593550" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup> The story about Bob Dylan <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stealing</span>&#8221;</span> from a Japanese
10198 author has just finished making the rounds.<sup>[<a name="id2593571" href="#ftn.id2593571" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup> An insider from Hollywood&#8212;who insists he must remain
10199 anonymous&#8212;reports <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">an amazing conversation with these studio
10200 guys. They've got extraordinary [old] content that they'd love to use but
10201 can't because they can't begin to clear the rights. They've got scores of
10202 kids who could do amazing things with the content, but it would take scores
10203 of lawyers to clean it first.</span>&#8221;</span> Congressmen are talking about
10204 deputizing computer viruses to bring down computers thought to violate the
10205 law. Universities are threatening expulsion for kids who use a computer to
10206 share content.
10207 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2593605"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2593612"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2593618"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2593624"></a><p>
10208
10209 Yet on the other side of the Atlantic, the BBC has just announced that it
10210 will build a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Creative Archive,</span>&#8221;</span> from which British citizens
10211 can download BBC content, and rip, mix, and burn it.<sup>[<a name="id2593641" href="#ftn.id2593641" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup> And in Brazil, the culture minister, Gilberto Gil,
10212 himself a folk hero of Brazilian music, has joined with Creative Commons to
10213 release content and free licenses in that Latin American
10214 country.<sup>[<a name="id2593662" href="#ftn.id2593662" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup> I've told a dark story. The
10215 truth is more mixed. A technology has given us a new freedom. Slowly, some
10216 begin to understand that this freedom need not mean anarchy. We can carry a
10217 free culture into the twenty-first century, without artists losing and
10218 without the potential of digital technology being destroyed. It will take
10219 some thought, and more importantly, it will take some will to transform the
10220 RCAs of our day into the Causbys.
10221 </p><p>
10222
10223 Sunn fornuft må gjøre opprør. Den må handle for å frigjøre kulturen. Og
10224 snart, hvis dette potensialet skal noen gang bli realisert.
10225
10226
10227
10228 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2592175" href="#id2592175" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
10229
10230 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Final Report: Integrating
10231 Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy</span>&#8221;</span> (London, 2002),
10232 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10233 #55</a>. According to a World Health Organization press release issued 9
10234 July 2002, only 230,000 of the 6 million who need drugs in the developing
10235 world receive them&#8212;and half of them are in Brazil.
10236 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2592262" href="#id2592262" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
10237
10238 Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: <em class="citetitle">Who
10239 Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New Press, 2003),
10240 37.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2592271"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2592279"></a>
10241 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2588915" href="#id2588915" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
10242
10243
10244 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10245 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, a
10246 Report Prepared for the World Intellectual Property Organization</em>
10247 (Washington, D.C., 2000), 14, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #56</a>. For a firsthand
10248 account of the struggle over South Africa, see Hearing Before the
10249 Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, House
10250 Committee on Government Reform, H. Rep., 1st sess., Ser. No. 106-126 (22
10251 July 1999), 150&#8211;57 (statement of James Love).
10252 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2592318" href="#id2592318" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
10253
10254
10255 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10256 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, en
10257 rapport forberedt for the World Intellectual Property
10258 Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2592406" href="#id2592406" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
10259
10260
10261
10262 See Sabin Russell, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's
10263 Needs at Odds with Firms' Profit Motive,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
10264 Chronicle</em>, 24 May 1999, A1, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #57</a> (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">compulsory
10265 licenses and gray markets pose a threat to the entire system of intellectual
10266 property protection</span>&#8221;</span>); Robert Weissman, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">AIDS and Developing
10267 Countries: Democratizing Access to Essential Medicines,</span>&#8221;</span>
10268 <em class="citetitle">Foreign Policy in Focus</em> 4:23 (August 1999), available
10269 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #58</a> (describing
10270 U.S. policy); John A. Harrelson, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents, and
10271 the HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between Intellectual
10272 Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Widener Law
10273 Symposium Journal</em> (Spring 2001): 175.
10274
10275 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2592642" href="#id2592642" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
10276
10277 Jonathan Krim, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source,</span>&#8221;</span>
10278 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, August 2003, E1, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #59</a>; William New,
10279 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Global Group's Shift on `Open Source' Meeting Spurs Stir,</span>&#8221;</span>
10280 <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19 August 2003,
10281 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #60</a>;
10282 William New, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks at
10283 WIPO,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19
10284 August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10285 #61</a>.
10286 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2592772" href="#id2592772" class="para">201</a>] </sup>
10287
10288 Jeg bør nevne at jeg var en av folkene som ba WIPO om dette møtet.
10289 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2592880" href="#id2592880" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
10290
10291
10292 Microsoft's position about free and open source software is more
10293 sophisticated.  As it has repeatedly asserted, it has no problem with
10294 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open source</span>&#8221;</span> software or software in the public
10295 domain. Microsoft's principal opposition is to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free software</span>&#8221;</span>
10296 licensed under a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyleft</span>&#8221;</span> license, meaning a license that
10297 requires the licensee to adopt the same terms on any derivative work. See
10298 Bradford L. Smith, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Future of Software: Enabling the Marketplace
10299 to Decide,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Government Policy Toward Open Source
10300 Software</em> (Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for
10301 Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
10302 Research, 2002), 69, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #62</a>. See also Craig Mundie,
10303 Microsoft senior vice president, <em class="citetitle">The Commercial Software
10304 Model</em>, discussion at New York University Stern School of
10305 Business (3 May 2001), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #63</a>.
10306 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2593008" href="#id2593008" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
10307
10308
10309 Krim, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source,</span>&#8221;</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #64</a>.
10310 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2593211" href="#id2593211" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
10311
10312 Se Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
10313 210&#8211;20.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2592321"></a>
10314 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2593483" href="#id2593483" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
10315
10316
10317 John Borland, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers,</span>&#8221;</span> CNET News.com,
10318 September 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10319 #65</a>; Paul R. La Monica, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Music Industry Sues Swappers,</span>&#8221;</span>
10320 CNN/Money, 8 September 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #66</a>; Soni Sangha and
10321 Phyllis Furman with Robert Gearty, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Sued for a Song, N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old
10322 Among 261 Cited as Sharers,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Daily
10323 News</em>, 9 September 2003, 3; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits
10324 Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in
10325 N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10
10326 September 2003, E1; Katie Dean, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA,</span>&#8221;</span>
10327 <em class="citetitle">Wired News</em>, 10 September 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #67</a>.
10328 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2593550" href="#id2593550" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
10329
10330
10331 Jon Wiederhorn, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Eminem Gets Sued &#8230; by a Little Old
10332 Lady,</span>&#8221;</span> mtv.com, 17 September 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #68</a>.
10333 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2593571" href="#id2593571" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
10334
10335
10336
10337 Kenji Hall, Associated Press, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for
10338 Dylan Songs,</span>&#8221;</span> Kansascity.com, 9 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #69</a>.
10339
10340 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2593641" href="#id2593641" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
10341
10342 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public,</span>&#8221;</span> BBC press
10343 release, 24 August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #70</a>.
10344 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2593662" href="#id2593662" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
10345
10346
10347 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Creative Commons and Brazil,</span>&#8221;</span> Creative Commons Weblog, 6
10348 August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10349 #71</a>.
10350 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="16. Etterord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-afterword"></a>16. Etterord</h2></div></div></div><p>
10351
10352
10353
10354 I hvert fall noen av de som har lest helt hit vil være enig med meg om at
10355 noe må gjøres for å endre retningen vi holder.  Balansen i denne boken
10356 kartlegger hva som kan gjøres.
10357 </p><p>
10358 Jeg deler dette kartet i to deler: det som enhver kan gjøre nå, og det som
10359 krever hjelp fra lovgiverne.  Hvis det er en lærdom vi kan trekke fra
10360 historien om å endre på sunn fornuft, så er det at det krever å endre
10361 hvordan mange mennesker tenker på den aktuelle saken.
10362 </p><p>
10363 Det betyr at denne bevegelsen må starte i gatene.  Det må rekrutteres et
10364 signifikant antall foreldre, lærere, bibliotekarer, skapere, forfattere,
10365 musikere, filmskapere, forskere&#8212;som alle må fortelle denne historien
10366 med sine egne ord, og som kan fortelle sine naboer hvorfor denne kampen er
10367 så viktig.
10368 </p><p>
10369 Når denne bevegelsen har hatt sin effekt i gatene, så er det et visst håp om
10370 at det kan ha effekt i Washington.  Vi er fortsatt et demokrati. Hva folk
10371 mener betyr noe.  Ikke så mye som det burde, i hvert fall når en RCA står
10372 imot, men likevel, det betyr noe.  Og dermed vil jeg skissere, i den andre
10373 delen som følger, endringer som kongressen kunne gjøre for å bedre sikre en
10374 fri kultur.
10375 </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>
10376 Common sense is with the copyright warriors because the debate so far has
10377 been framed at the extremes&#8212;as a grand either/or: either property or
10378 anarchy, either total control or artists won't be paid. If that really is
10379 the choice, then the warriors should win.
10380 </p><p>
10381 The mistake here is the error of the excluded middle. There are extremes in
10382 this debate, but the extremes are not all that there is. There are those who
10383 believe in maximal copyright&#8212;<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;
10384 and those who reject copyright&#8212;<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved.</span>&#8221;</span> The
10385 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>&#8221;</span> sorts believe that you should ask
10386 permission before you <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">use</span>&#8221;</span> a copyrighted work in any way. The
10387 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved</span>&#8221;</span> sorts believe you should be able to do
10388 with content as you wish, regardless of whether you have permission or not.
10389 </p><p>
10390
10391 When the Internet was first born, its initial architecture effectively
10392 tilted in the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>&#8221;</span> direction. Content could be
10393 copied perfectly and cheaply; rights could not easily be controlled. Thus,
10394 regardless of anyone's desire, the effective regime of copyright under the
10395 original design of the Internet was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">no rights reserved.</span>&#8221;</span>
10396 Content was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taken</span>&#8221;</span> regardless of the rights. Any rights were
10397 effectively unprotected.
10398 </p><p>
10399 This initial character produced a reaction (opposite, but not quite equal)
10400 by copyright owners. That reaction has been the topic of this book. Through
10401 legislation, litigation, and changes to the network's design, copyright
10402 holders have been able to change the essential character of the environment
10403 of the original Internet. If the original architecture made the effective
10404 default <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">no rights reserved,</span>&#8221;</span> the future architecture will make
10405 the effective default <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">all rights reserved.</span>&#8221;</span> The architecture
10406 and law that surround the Internet's design will increasingly produce an
10407 environment where all use of content requires permission.  The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">cut
10408 and paste</span>&#8221;</span> world that defines the Internet today will become a
10409 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">get permission to cut and paste</span>&#8221;</span> world that is a creator's
10410 nightmare.
10411 </p><p>
10412 What's needed is a way to say something in the middle&#8212;neither
10413 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">all rights reserved</span>&#8221;</span> nor <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>&#8221;</span> but
10414 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">some rights reserved</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212; and thus a way to respect
10415 copyrights but enable creators to free content as they see fit. In other
10416 words, we need a way to restore a set of freedoms that we could just take
10417 for granted before.
10418 </p><div class="section" title="16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="examples"></a>16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</h3></div></div></div><p>
10419 If you step back from the battle I've been describing here, you will
10420 recognize this problem from other contexts. Think about privacy. Before the
10421 Internet, most of us didn't have to worry much about data about our lives
10422 that we broadcast to the world. If you walked into a bookstore and browsed
10423 through some of the works of Karl Marx, you didn't need to worry about
10424 explaining your browsing habits to your neighbors or boss. The
10425 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">privacy</span>&#8221;</span> of your browsing habits was assured.
10426 </p><p>
10427 Hva gjorde at det var sikret?
10428 </p><p>
10429 Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;">10</a>, your privacy was
10430 assured because of an inefficient architecture for gathering data and hence
10431 a market constraint (cost) on anyone who wanted to gather that data. If you
10432 were a suspected spy for North Korea, working for the CIA, no doubt your
10433 privacy would not be assured.  But that's because the CIA would (we hope)
10434 find it valuable enough to spend the thousands required to track you. But
10435 for most of us (again, we can hope), spying doesn't pay. The highly
10436 inefficient architecture of real space means we all enjoy a fairly robust
10437 amount of privacy. That privacy is guaranteed to us by friction. Not by law
10438 (there is no law protecting <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">privacy</span>&#8221;</span> in public places), and in
10439 many places, not by norms (snooping and gossip are just fun), but instead,
10440 by the costs that friction imposes on anyone who would want to spy.
10441 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2593929"></a><p>
10442 Enter the Internet, where the cost of tracking browsing in particular has
10443 become quite tiny. If you're a customer at Amazon, then as you browse the
10444 pages, Amazon collects the data about what you've looked at. You know this
10445 because at the side of the page, there's a list of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">recently
10446 viewed</span>&#8221;</span> pages. Now, because of the architecture of the Net and the
10447 function of cookies on the Net, it is easier to collect the data than
10448 not. The friction has disappeared, and hence any <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">privacy</span>&#8221;</span>
10449 protected by the friction disappears, too.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2593952"></a>
10450 </p><p>
10451 Amazon, of course, is not the problem. But we might begin to worry about
10452 libraries. If you're one of those crazy lefties who thinks that people
10453 should have the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">right</span>&#8221;</span> to browse in a library without the
10454 government knowing which books you look at (I'm one of those lefties, too),
10455 then this change in the technology of monitoring might concern you. If it
10456 becomes simple to gather and sort who does what in electronic spaces, then
10457 the friction-induced privacy of yesterday disappears.
10458 </p><p>
10459
10460 It is this reality that explains the push of many to define
10461 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">privacy</span>&#8221;</span> on the Internet. It is the recognition that
10462 technology can remove what friction before gave us that leads many to push
10463 for laws to do what friction did.<sup>[<a name="id2593986" href="#ftn.id2593986" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup> And
10464 whether you're in favor of those laws or not, it is the pattern that is
10465 important here. We must take affirmative steps to secure a kind of freedom
10466 that was passively provided before. A change in technology now forces those
10467 who believe in privacy to affirmatively act where, before, privacy was given
10468 by default.
10469 </p><p>
10470 A similar story could be told about the birth of the free software
10471 movement. When computers with software were first made available
10472 commercially, the software&#8212;both the source code and the
10473 binaries&#8212; was free. You couldn't run a program written for a Data
10474 General machine on an IBM machine, so Data General and IBM didn't care much
10475 about controlling their software.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2594027"></a>
10476 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2594038"></a><p>
10477 Dette var verden Richard Stallman ble født inn i, og mens han var forsker
10478 ved MIT, lærte han til å elske samfunnet som utviklet seg når en var fri til
10479 å utforske og fikle med programvaren som kjørte på datamaskiner. Av den
10480 smarte sorten selv, og en talentfull programmerer, begynte Stallman å basere
10481 seg frihet til å legge til eller endre på andre personers arbeid.
10482 </p><p>
10483 In an academic setting, at least, that's not a terribly radical idea. In a
10484 math department, anyone would be free to tinker with a proof that someone
10485 offered. If you thought you had a better way to prove a theorem, you could
10486 take what someone else did and change it. In a classics department, if you
10487 believed a colleague's translation of a recently discovered text was flawed,
10488 you were free to improve it. Thus, to Stallman, it seemed obvious that you
10489 should be free to tinker with and improve the code that ran a machine. This,
10490 too, was knowledge. Why shouldn't it be open for criticism like anything
10491 else?
10492 </p><p>
10493 No one answered that question. Instead, the architecture of revenue for
10494 computing changed. As it became possible to import programs from one system
10495 to another, it became economically attractive (at least in the view of some)
10496 to hide the code of your program. So, too, as companies started selling
10497 peripherals for mainframe systems. If I could just take your printer driver
10498 and copy it, then that would make it easier for me to sell a printer to the
10499 market than it was for you.
10500 </p><p>
10501
10502 Thus, the practice of proprietary code began to spread, and by the early
10503 1980s, Stallman found himself surrounded by proprietary code.  The world of
10504 free software had been erased by a change in the economics of computing. And
10505 as he believed, if he did nothing about it, then the freedom to change and
10506 share software would be fundamentally weakened.
10507 </p><p>
10508 Therefore, in 1984, Stallman began a project to build a free operating
10509 system, so that at least a strain of free software would survive. That was
10510 the birth of the GNU project, into which Linus Torvalds's
10511 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Linux</span>&#8221;</span> kernel was added to produce the GNU/Linux operating
10512 system.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2594106"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2594112"></a>
10513 </p><p>
10514 Stallman's technique was to use copyright law to build a world of software
10515 that must be kept free. Software licensed under the Free Software
10516 Foundation's GPL cannot be modified and distributed unless the source code
10517 for that software is made available as well. Thus, anyone building upon
10518 GPL'd software would have to make their buildings free as well. This would
10519 assure, Stallman believed, that an ecology of code would develop that
10520 remained free for others to build upon. His fundamental goal was freedom;
10521 innovative creative code was a byproduct.
10522 </p><p>
10523 Stallman was thus doing for software what privacy advocates now do for
10524 privacy. He was seeking a way to rebuild a kind of freedom that was taken
10525 for granted before. Through the affirmative use of licenses that bind
10526 copyrighted code, Stallman was affirmatively reclaiming a space where free
10527 software would survive. He was actively protecting what before had been
10528 passively guaranteed.
10529 </p><p>
10530 Finally, consider a very recent example that more directly resonates with
10531 the story of this book. This is the shift in the way academic and scientific
10532 journals are produced.
10533 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxacademocjournals"></a><p>
10534
10535 As digital technologies develop, it is becoming obvious to many that
10536 printing thousands of copies of journals every month and sending them to
10537 libraries is perhaps not the most efficient way to distribute
10538 knowledge. Instead, journals are increasingly becoming electronic, and
10539 libraries and their users are given access to these electronic journals
10540 through password-protected sites. Something similar to this has been
10541 happening in law for almost thirty years: Lexis and Westlaw have had
10542 electronic versions of case reports available to subscribers to their
10543 service.  Although a Supreme Court opinion is not copyrighted, and anyone is
10544 free to go to a library and read it, Lexis and Westlaw are also free to
10545 charge users for the privilege of gaining access to that Supreme Court
10546 opinion through their respective services.
10547 </p><p>
10548 There's nothing wrong in general with this, and indeed, the ability to
10549 charge for access to even public domain materials is a good incentive for
10550 people to develop new and innovative ways to spread knowledge.  The law has
10551 agreed, which is why Lexis and Westlaw have been allowed to flourish. And if
10552 there's nothing wrong with selling the public domain, then there could be
10553 nothing wrong, in principle, with selling access to material that is not in
10554 the public domain.
10555 </p><p>
10556 But what if the only way to get access to social and scientific data was
10557 through proprietary services? What if no one had the ability to browse this
10558 data except by paying for a subscription?
10559 </p><p>
10560 As many are beginning to notice, this is increasingly the reality with
10561 scientific journals. When these journals were distributed in paper form,
10562 libraries could make the journals available to anyone who had access to the
10563 library. Thus, patients with cancer could become cancer experts because the
10564 library gave them access. Or patients trying to understand the risks of a
10565 certain treatment could research those risks by reading all available
10566 articles about that treatment. This freedom was therefore a function of the
10567 institution of libraries (norms) and the technology of paper journals
10568 (architecture)&#8212;namely, that it was very hard to control access to a
10569 paper journal.
10570 </p><p>
10571 As journals become electronic, however, the publishers are demanding that
10572 libraries not give the general public access to the journals. This means
10573 that the freedoms provided by print journals in public libraries begin to
10574 disappear. Thus, as with privacy and with software, a changing technology
10575 and market shrink a freedom taken for granted before.
10576 </p><p>
10577 This shrinking freedom has led many to take affirmative steps to restore the
10578 freedom that has been lost. The Public Library of Science (PLoS), for
10579 example, is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making scientific research
10580 available to anyone with a Web connection. Authors of scientific work submit
10581 that work to the Public Library of Science.  That work is then subject to
10582 peer review. If accepted, the work is then deposited in a public, electronic
10583 archive and made permanently available for free. PLoS also sells a print
10584 version of its work, but the copyright for the print journal does not
10585 inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2594249"></a>
10586 </p><p>
10587 This is one of many such efforts to restore a freedom taken for granted
10588 before, but now threatened by changing technology and markets.  There's no
10589 doubt that this alternative competes with the traditional publishers and
10590 their efforts to make money from the exclusive distribution of content. But
10591 competition in our tradition is presumptively a good&#8212;especially when
10592 it helps spread knowledge and science.
10593 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2594259"></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>
10594 Den samme strategien kan brukes på kultur, som et svar på den økende
10595 kontrollen som gjennomføres gjennom lov og teknologi.
10596 </p><p>
10597 Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation
10598 established in Massachusetts, but with its home at Stanford University. Its
10599 aim is to build a layer of <span class="emphasis"><em>reasonable</em></span> copyright on top
10600 of the extremes that now reign. It does this by making it easy for people to
10601 build upon other people's work, by making it simple for creators to express
10602 the freedom for others to take and build upon their work. Simple tags, tied
10603 to human-readable descriptions, tied to bulletproof licenses, make this
10604 possible.
10605 </p><p>
10606
10607 <span class="emphasis"><em>Simple</em></span>&#8212;which means without a middleman, or
10608 without a lawyer.  By developing a free set of licenses that people can
10609 attach to their content, Creative Commons aims to mark a range of content
10610 that can easily, and reliably, be built upon. These tags are then linked to
10611 machine-readable versions of the license that enable computers automatically
10612 to identify content that can easily be shared. These three expressions
10613 together&#8212;a legal license, a human-readable description, and
10614 machine-readable tags&#8212;constitute a Creative Commons license. A
10615 Creative Commons license constitutes a grant of freedom to anyone who
10616 accesses the license, and more importantly, an expression of the ideal that
10617 the person associated with the license believes in something different than
10618 the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All</span>&#8221;</span> or <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No</span>&#8221;</span> extremes. Content is marked with
10619 the CC mark, which does not mean that copyright is waived, but that certain
10620 freedoms are given.
10621 </p><p>
10622 These freedoms are beyond the freedoms promised by fair use. Their precise
10623 contours depend upon the choices the creator makes. The creator can choose a
10624 license that permits any use, so long as attribution is given. She can
10625 choose a license that permits only noncommercial use.  She can choose a
10626 license that permits any use so long as the same freedoms are given to other
10627 uses (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">share and share alike</span>&#8221;</span>). Or any use so long as no
10628 derivative use is made. Or any use at all within developing nations. Or any
10629 sampling use, so long as full copies are not made. Or lastly, any
10630 educational use.
10631 </p><p>
10632 These choices thus establish a range of freedoms beyond the default of
10633 copyright law. They also enable freedoms that go beyond traditional fair
10634 use. And most importantly, they express these freedoms in a way that
10635 subsequent users can use and rely upon without the need to hire a
10636 lawyer. Creative Commons thus aims to build a layer of content, governed by
10637 a layer of reasonable copyright law, that others can build upon. Voluntary
10638 choice of individuals and creators will make this content available. And
10639 that content will in turn enable us to rebuild a public domain.
10640 </p><p>
10641 This is just one project among many within the Creative Commons.  And of
10642 course, Creative Commons is not the only organization pursuing such
10643 freedoms. But the point that distinguishes the Creative Commons from many is
10644 that we are not interested only in talking about a public domain or in
10645 getting legislators to help build a public domain. Our aim is to build a
10646 movement of consumers and producers of content (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">content
10647 conducers,</span>&#8221;</span> as attorney Mia Garlick calls them)  who help build the
10648 public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the importance of the public
10649 domain to other creativity.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2594398"></a>
10650 </p><p>
10651 The aim is not to fight the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>&#8221;</span> sorts. The
10652 aim is to complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a
10653 culture are produced by insane and unintended consequences of laws written
10654 centuries ago, applied to a technology that only Jefferson could have
10655 imagined. The rules may well have made sense against a background of
10656 technologies from centuries ago, but they do not make sense against the
10657 background of digital technologies. New rules&#8212;with different freedoms,
10658 expressed in ways so that humans without lawyers can use them&#8212;are
10659 needed. Creative Commons gives people a way effectively to begin to build
10660 those rules.
10661 </p><p>
10662 Why would creators participate in giving up total control? Some participate
10663 to better spread their content. Cory Doctorow, for example, is a science
10664 fiction author. His first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
10665 Kingdom</em>, was released on-line and for free, under a Creative
10666 Commons license, on the same day that it went on sale in bookstores.
10667 </p><p>
10668 Why would a publisher ever agree to this? I suspect his publisher reasoned
10669 like this: There are two groups of people out there: (1)  those who will buy
10670 Cory's book whether or not it's on the Internet, and (2) those who may never
10671 hear of Cory's book, if it isn't made available for free on the
10672 Internet. Some part of (1) will download Cory's book instead of buying
10673 it. Call them bad-(1)s. Some part of (2)  will download Cory's book, like
10674 it, and then decide to buy it. Call them (2)-goods.  If there are more
10675 (2)-goods than bad-(1)s, the strategy of releasing Cory's book free on-line
10676 will probably <span class="emphasis"><em>increase</em></span> sales of Cory's book.
10677 </p><p>
10678 Indeed, the experience of his publisher clearly supports that conclusion.
10679 The book's first printing was exhausted months before the publisher had
10680 expected. This first novel of a science fiction author was a total success.
10681 </p><p>
10682 The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content was
10683 confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner, who wrote a
10684 book about the free software movement titled <em class="citetitle">Free for
10685 All</em>, made an electronic version of his book free on-line under a
10686 Creative Commons license after the book went out of print. He then monitored
10687 used book store prices for the book. As predicted, as the number of
10688 downloads increased, the used book price for his book increased, as well.
10689 <a class="indexterm" name="id2594473"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2594482"></a>
10690 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2594489"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2594495"></a><p>
10691 These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary
10692 content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the Commons. There
10693 are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other reasons. Many who use
10694 the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sampling license</span>&#8221;</span> do so because anything else would be
10695 hypocritical. The sampling license says that others are free, for commercial
10696 or noncommercial purposes, to sample content from the licensed work; they
10697 are just not free to make full copies of the licensed work available to
10698 others. This is consistent with their own art&#8212;they, too, sample from
10699 others. Because the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal</em></span> costs of sampling are so high
10700 (Walter Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born
10701 sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not
10702 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">allow</span>&#8221;</span> Public Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs
10703 are so high<sup>[<a name="id2594527" href="#ftn.id2594527" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), these artists release
10704 into the creative environment content that others can build upon, so that
10705 their form of creativity might grow.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2594549"></a>
10706 </p><p>
10707 Finally, there are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons
10708 license just because they want to express to others the importance of
10709 balance in this debate. If you just go along with the system as it is, you
10710 are effectively saying you believe in the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>&#8221;</span>
10711 model. Good for you, but many do not. Many believe that however appropriate
10712 that rule is for Hollywood and freaks, it is not an appropriate description
10713 of how most creators view the rights associated with their content. The
10714 Creative Commons license expresses this notion of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Some Rights
10715 Reserved,</span>&#8221;</span> and gives many the chance to say it to others.
10716 </p><p>
10717
10718 In the first six months of the Creative Commons experiment, over 1 million
10719 objects were licensed with these free-culture licenses. The next step is
10720 partnerships with middleware content providers to help them build into their
10721 technologies simple ways for users to mark their content with Creative
10722 Commons freedoms. Then the next step is to watch and celebrate creators who
10723 build content based upon content set free.
10724 </p><p>
10725 These are first steps to rebuilding a public domain. They are not mere
10726 arguments; they are action. Building a public domain is the first step to
10727 showing people how important that domain is to creativity and
10728 innovation. Creative Commons relies upon voluntary steps to achieve this
10729 rebuilding. They will lead to a world in which more than voluntary steps are
10730 possible.
10731 </p><p>
10732 Creative Commons is just one example of voluntary efforts by individuals and
10733 creators to change the mix of rights that now govern the creative field. The
10734 project does not compete with copyright; it complements it. Its aim is not
10735 to defeat the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and
10736 creators to exercise their rights more flexibly and cheaply. That
10737 difference, we believe, will enable creativity to spread more easily.
10738 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2594608"></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>
10739 We will not reclaim a free culture by individual action alone. It will also
10740 take important reforms of laws. We have a long way to go before the
10741 politicians will listen to these ideas and implement these reforms.  But
10742 that also means that we have time to build awareness around the changes that
10743 we need.
10744 </p><p>
10745 In this chapter, I outline five kinds of changes: four that are general, and
10746 one that's specific to the most heated battle of the day, music. Each is a
10747 step, not an end. But any of these steps would carry us a long way to our
10748 end.
10749 </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>
10750 If you buy a house, you have to record the sale in a deed. If you buy land
10751 upon which to build a house, you have to record the purchase in a deed.  If
10752 you buy a car, you get a bill of sale and register the car. If you buy an
10753 airplane ticket, it has your name on it.
10754 </p><p>
10755
10756
10757 These are all formalities associated with property. They are requirements
10758 that we all must bear if we want our property to be protected.
10759 </p><p>
10760 In contrast, under current copyright law, you automatically get a copyright,
10761 regardless of whether you comply with any formality. You don't have to
10762 register. You don't even have to mark your content. The default is control,
10763 and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">formalities</span>&#8221;</span> are banished.
10764 </p><p>
10765 Why?
10766 </p><p>
10767 As I suggested in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="10. CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;">10</a>, the motivation to abolish formalities was a good
10768 one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities imposed a burden
10769 on copyright holders without much benefit. Thus, it was progress when the
10770 law relaxed the formal requirements that a copyright owner must bear to
10771 protect and secure his work. Those formalities were getting in the way.
10772 </p><p>
10773 But the Internet changes all this. Formalities today need not be a
10774 burden. Rather, the world without formalities is the world that burdens
10775 creativity. Today, there is no simple way to know who owns what, or with
10776 whom one must deal in order to use or build upon the creative work of
10777 others. There are no records, there is no system to trace&#8212; there is no
10778 simple way to know how to get permission. Yet given the massive increase in
10779 the scope of copyright's rule, getting permission is a necessary step for
10780 any work that builds upon our past. And thus, the <span class="emphasis"><em>lack</em></span>
10781 of formalities forces many into silence where they otherwise could speak.
10782 </p><p>
10783 The law should therefore change this requirement<sup>[<a name="id2594716" href="#ftn.id2594716" class="footnote">212</a>]</sup>&#8212;but it should not change it by going back to the old, broken
10784 system. We should require formalities, but we should establish a system that
10785 will create the incentives to minimize the burden of these formalities.
10786 </p><p>
10787 The important formalities are three: marking copyrighted work, registering
10788 copyrights, and renewing the claim to copyright. Traditionally, the first of
10789 these three was something the copyright owner did; the second two were
10790 something the government did. But a revised system of formalities would
10791 banish the government from the process, except for the sole purpose of
10792 approving standards developed by others.
10793 </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>
10794 Under the old system, a copyright owner had to file a registration with the
10795 Copyright Office to register or renew a copyright. When filing that
10796 registration, the copyright owner paid a fee. As with most government
10797 agencies, the Copyright Office had little incentive to minimize the burden
10798 of registration; it also had little incentive to minimize the fee.  And as
10799 the Copyright Office is not a main target of government policymaking, the
10800 office has historically been terribly underfunded. Thus, when people who
10801 know something about the process hear this idea about formalities, their
10802 first reaction is panic&#8212;nothing could be worse than forcing people to
10803 deal with the mess that is the Copyright Office.
10804 </p><p>
10805 Yet it is always astonishing to me that we, who come from a tradition of
10806 extraordinary innovation in governmental design, can no longer think
10807 innovatively about how governmental functions can be designed.  Just because
10808 there is a public purpose to a government role, it doesn't follow that the
10809 government must actually administer the role. Instead, we should be creating
10810 incentives for private parties to serve the public, subject to standards
10811 that the government sets.
10812 </p><p>
10813 In the context of registration, one obvious model is the Internet.  There
10814 are at least 32 million Web sites registered around the world.  Domain name
10815 owners for these Web sites have to pay a fee to keep their registration
10816 alive. In the main top-level domains (.com, .org, .net), there is a central
10817 registry. The actual registrations are, however, performed by many competing
10818 registrars. That competition drives the cost of registering down, and more
10819 importantly, it drives the ease with which registration occurs up.
10820 </p><p>
10821
10822 We should adopt a similar model for the registration and renewal of
10823 copyrights. The Copyright Office may well serve as the central registry, but
10824 it should not be in the registrar business. Instead, it should establish a
10825 database, and a set of standards for registrars. It should approve
10826 registrars that meet its standards. Those registrars would then compete with
10827 one another to deliver the cheapest and simplest systems for registering and
10828 renewing copyrights. That competition would substantially lower the burden
10829 of this formality&#8212;while producing a database of registrations that
10830 would facilitate the licensing of content.
10831 </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>
10832 It used to be that the failure to include a copyright notice on a creative
10833 work meant that the copyright was forfeited. That was a harsh punishment for
10834 failing to comply with a regulatory rule&#8212;akin to imposing the death
10835 penalty for a parking ticket in the world of creative rights.  Here again,
10836 there is no reason that a marking requirement needs to be enforced in this
10837 way. And more importantly, there is no reason a marking requirement needs to
10838 be enforced uniformly across all media.
10839 </p><p>
10840 The aim of marking is to signal to the public that this work is copyrighted
10841 and that the author wants to enforce his rights. The mark also makes it easy
10842 to locate a copyright owner to secure permission to use the work.
10843 </p><p>
10844 One of the problems the copyright system confronted early on was that
10845 different copyrighted works had to be differently marked. It wasn't clear
10846 how or where a statue was to be marked, or a record, or a film. A new
10847 marking requirement could solve these problems by recognizing the
10848 differences in media, and by allowing the system of marking to evolve as
10849 technologies enable it to. The system could enable a special signal from the
10850 failure to mark&#8212;not the loss of the copyright, but the loss of the
10851 right to punish someone for failing to get permission first.
10852 </p><p>
10853
10854 Let's start with the last point. If a copyright owner allows his work to be
10855 published without a copyright notice, the consequence of that failure need
10856 not be that the copyright is lost. The consequence could instead be that
10857 anyone has the right to use this work, until the copyright owner complains
10858 and demonstrates that it is his work and he doesn't give
10859 permission.<sup>[<a name="id2594840" href="#ftn.id2594840" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
10860 work would therefore be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">use unless someone complains.</span>&#8221;</span> If
10861 someone does complain, then the obligation would be to stop using the work
10862 in any new work from then on though no penalty would attach for existing
10863 uses.  This would create a strong incentive for copyright owners to mark
10864 their work.
10865 </p><p>
10866 That in turn raises the question about how work should best be marked. Here
10867 again, the system needs to adjust as the technologies evolve. The best way
10868 to ensure that the system evolves is to limit the Copyright Office's role to
10869 that of approving standards for marking content that have been crafted
10870 elsewhere.
10871 </p><p>
10872 For example, if a recording industry association devises a method for
10873 marking CDs, it would propose that to the Copyright Office. The Copyright
10874 Office would hold a hearing, at which other proposals could be made. The
10875 Copyright Office would then select the proposal that it judged preferable,
10876 and it would base that choice <span class="emphasis"><em>solely</em></span> upon the
10877 consideration of which method could best be integrated into the registration
10878 and renewal system. We would not count on the government to innovate; but we
10879 would count on the government to keep the product of innovation in line with
10880 its other important functions.
10881 </p><p>
10882 Finally, marking content clearly would simplify registration requirements.
10883 If photographs were marked by author and year, there would be little reason
10884 not to allow a photographer to reregister, for example, all photographs
10885 taken in a particular year in one quick step. The aim of the formality is
10886 not to burden the creator; the system itself should be kept as simple as
10887 possible.
10888 </p><p>
10889 The objective of formalities is to make things clear. The existing system
10890 does nothing to make things clear. Indeed, it seems designed to make things
10891 unclear.
10892 </p><p>
10893 If formalities such as registration were reinstated, one of the most
10894 difficult aspects of relying upon the public domain would be removed.  It
10895 would be simple to identify what content is presumptively free; it would be
10896 simple to identify who controls the rights for a particular kind of content;
10897 it would be simple to assert those rights, and to renew that assertion at
10898 the appropriate time.
10899 </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>
10900 Vernetiden i opphavsretten har gått fra fjorten år til nittifem år der
10901 selskap har forfatterskapet , og livstiden til forfatteren pluss sytti år
10902 for individuelle forfattere.
10903 </p><p>
10904 In <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>, I proposed a
10905 seventy-five-year term, granted in five-year increments with a requirement
10906 of renewal every five years.  That seemed radical enough at the time. But
10907 after we lost <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
10908 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, the proposals became even more
10909 radical. <em class="citetitle">The Economist</em> endorsed a proposal for a
10910 fourteen-year copyright term.<sup>[<a name="id2594968" href="#ftn.id2594968" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup> Others
10911 have proposed tying the term to the term for patents.
10912 </p><p>
10913 I agree with those who believe that we need a radical change in copyright's
10914 term. But whether fourteen years or seventy-five, there are four principles
10915 that are important to keep in mind about copyright terms.
10916 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
10917
10918
10919 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it short:</em></span> The term should be as long as necessary
10920 to give incentives to create, but no longer. If it were tied to very strong
10921 protections for authors (so authors were able to reclaim rights from
10922 publishers), rights to the same work (not derivative works) might be
10923 extended further. The key is not to tie the work up with legal regulations
10924 when it no longer benefits an author.
10925 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10926
10927
10928
10929 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it simple:</em></span> The line between the public domain and
10930 protected content must be kept clear. Lawyers like the fuzziness of
10931 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use,</span>&#8221;</span> and the distinction between <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ideas</span>&#8221;</span>
10932 and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">expression.</span>&#8221;</span> That kind of law gives them lots of work. But
10933 our framers had a simpler idea in mind: protected versus unprotected.  The
10934 value of short terms is that there is little need to build exceptions into
10935 copyright when the term itself is kept short. A clear and active
10936 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lawyer-free zone</span>&#8221;</span> makes the complexities of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair
10937 use</span>&#8221;</span> and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">idea/expression</span>&#8221;</span> less necessary to navigate.
10938
10939 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10940
10941 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it alive:</em></span> Copyright should have to be renewed.
10942 Especially if the maximum term is long, the copyright owner should be
10943 required to signal periodically that he wants the protection continued. This
10944 need not be an onerous burden, but there is no reason this monopoly
10945 protection has to be granted for free. On average, it takes ninety minutes
10946 for a veteran to apply for a pension.<sup>[<a name="id2595072" href="#ftn.id2595072" class="footnote">215</a>]</sup>
10947 If we make veterans suffer that burden, I don't see why we couldn't require
10948 authors to spend ten minutes every fifty years to file a single form.
10949 <a class="indexterm" name="id2595092"></a>
10950 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10951
10952
10953 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it prospective:</em></span> Whatever the term of copyright
10954 should be, the clearest lesson that economists teach is that a term once
10955 given should not be extended. It might have been a mistake in 1923 for the
10956 law to offer authors only a fifty-six-year term. I don't think so, but it's
10957 possible. If it was a mistake, then the consequence was that we got fewer
10958 authors to create in 1923 than we otherwise would have. But we can't correct
10959 that mistake today by increasing the term. No matter what we do today, we
10960 will not increase the number of authors who wrote in 1923. Of course, we can
10961 increase the reward that those who write now get (or alternatively, increase
10962 the copyright burden that smothers many works that are today invisible). But
10963 increasing their reward will not increase their creativity in 1923.  What's
10964 not done is not done, and there's nothing we can do about that now.  </p></li></ol></div><p>
10965 Disse endringene vil sammen gi en <span class="emphasis"><em>gjennomsnittlig</em></span>
10966 opphavsrettslig vernetid som er mye kortere enn den gjeldende vernetiden.
10967 Frem til 1976 var gjennomsnittlig vernetid kun 32.2 år.  Vårt mål bør være
10968 det samme.
10969 </p><p>
10970 No doubt the extremists will call these ideas <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">radical.</span>&#8221;</span> (After
10971 all, I call them <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">extremists.</span>&#8221;</span>) But again, the term I
10972 recommended was longer than the term under Richard Nixon. How
10973 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">radical</span>&#8221;</span> can it be to ask for a more generous copyright law
10974 than Richard Nixon presided over?
10975 </p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="freefairuse"></a>16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</h3></div></div></div><p>
10976 As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally granted
10977 property owners the right to control their property from the ground to the
10978 heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property rights quickly
10979 changed. There was no fuss, no constitutional challenge.  It made no sense
10980 anymore to grant that much control, given the emergence of that new
10981 technology.
10982 </p><p>
10983 Our Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">exclusive
10984 right</span>&#8221;</span> to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">their writings.</span>&#8221;</span> Congress has given authors
10985 an exclusive right to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">their writings</span>&#8221;</span> plus any derivative
10986 writings (made by others) that are sufficiently close to the author's
10987 original work. Thus, if I write a book, and you base a movie on that book, I
10988 have the power to deny you the right to release that movie, even though that
10989 movie is not <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">my writing.</span>&#8221;</span>
10990 </p><p>
10991 Congress granted the beginnings of this right in 1870, when it expanded the
10992 exclusive right of copyright to include a right to control translations and
10993 dramatizations of a work.<sup>[<a name="id2595202" href="#ftn.id2595202" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> The courts
10994 have expanded it slowly through judicial interpretation ever since. This
10995 expansion has been commented upon by one of the law's greatest judges, Judge
10996 Benjamin Kaplan.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2595217"></a>
10997 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
10998 So inured have we become to the extension of the monopoly to a large range
10999 of so-called derivative works, that we no longer sense the oddity of
11000 accepting such an enlargement of copyright while yet intoning the
11001 abracadabra of idea and expression.<sup>[<a name="id2595232" href="#ftn.id2595232" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
11002 </p></blockquote></div><p>
11003 I think it's time to recognize that there are airplanes in this field and
11004 the expansiveness of these rights of derivative use no longer make
11005 sense. More precisely, they don't make sense for the period of time that a
11006 copyright runs. And they don't make sense as an amorphous grant.  Consider
11007 each limitation in turn.
11008 </p><p>
11009 <span class="emphasis"><em>Term:</em></span> If Congress wants to grant a derivative right,
11010 then that right should be for a much shorter term. It makes sense to protect
11011 John Grisham's right to sell the movie rights to his latest novel (or at
11012 least I'm willing to assume it does); but it does not make sense for that
11013 right to run for the same term as the underlying copyright. The derivative
11014 right could be important in inducing creativity; it is not important long
11015 after the creative work is done.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2595263"></a>
11016 </p><p>
11017 <span class="emphasis"><em>Scope:</em></span> Likewise should the scope of derivative rights
11018 be narrowed.  Again, there are some cases in which derivative rights are
11019 important.  Those should be specified. But the law should draw clear lines
11020 around regulated and unregulated uses of copyrighted material. When all
11021 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">reuse</span>&#8221;</span> of creative material was within the control of
11022 businesses, perhaps it made sense to require lawyers to negotiate the
11023 lines. It no longer makes sense for lawyers to negotiate the lines. Think
11024 about all the creative possibilities that digital technologies enable; now
11025 imagine pouring molasses into the machines. That's what this general
11026 requirement of permission does to the creative process. Smothers it.
11027 </p><p>
11028 This was the point that Alben made when describing the making of the Clint
11029 Eastwood CD. While it makes sense to require negotiation for foreseeable
11030 derivative rights&#8212;turning a book into a movie, or a poem into a
11031 musical score&#8212;it doesn't make sense to require negotiation for the
11032 unforeseeable. Here, a statutory right would make much more sense.
11033 </p><p>
11034 In each of these cases, the law should mark the uses that are protected, and
11035 the presumption should be that other uses are not protected.  This is the
11036 reverse of the recommendation of my colleague Paul Goldstein.<sup>[<a name="id2595316" href="#ftn.id2595316" class="footnote">218</a>]</sup> His view is that the law should be written so that
11037 expanded protections follow expanded uses.
11038 </p><p>
11039 Goldstein's analysis would make perfect sense if the cost of the legal
11040 system were small. But as we are currently seeing in the context of the
11041 Internet, the uncertainty about the scope of protection, and the incentives
11042 to protect existing architectures of revenue, combined with a strong
11043 copyright, weaken the process of innovation.
11044 </p><p>
11045
11046 The law could remedy this problem either by removing protection beyond the
11047 part explicitly drawn or by granting reuse rights upon certain statutory
11048 conditions. Either way, the effect would be to free a great deal of culture
11049 to others to cultivate. And under a statutory rights regime, that reuse
11050 would earn artists more income.
11051 </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>
11052 The battle that got this whole war going was about music, so it wouldn't be
11053 fair to end this book without addressing the issue that is, to most people,
11054 most pressing&#8212;music. There is no other policy issue that better
11055 teaches the lessons of this book than the battles around the sharing of
11056 music.
11057 </p><p>
11058 The appeal of file-sharing music was the crack cocaine of the Internet's
11059 growth. It drove demand for access to the Internet more powerfully than any
11060 other single application. It was the Internet's killer app&#8212;possibly in
11061 two senses of that word. It no doubt was the application that drove demand
11062 for bandwidth. It may well be the application that drives demand for
11063 regulations that in the end kill innovation on the network.
11064 </p><p>
11065 The aim of copyright, with respect to content in general and music in
11066 particular, is to create the incentives for music to be composed, performed,
11067 and, most importantly, spread. The law does this by giving an exclusive
11068 right to a composer to control public performances of his work, and to a
11069 performing artist to control copies of her performance.
11070 </p><p>
11071 File-sharing networks complicate this model by enabling the spread of
11072 content for which the performer has not been paid. But of course, that's not
11073 all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="5. CHAPTER FIVE: &#8220;Piracy&#8221;">5</a>, they enable four
11074 different kinds of sharing:
11075 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
11076
11077
11078 Det er noen som bruker delingsnettverk som erstatninger for å kjøpe CDer.
11079 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11080
11081
11082 There are also some who are using sharing networks to sample, on the way to
11083 purchasing CDs.
11084 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11085
11086
11087
11088
11089 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk til å få tilgang til innhold som
11090 ikke lenger er i salg, men fortsatt er vernet av opphavsrett eller som ville
11091 ha vært altfor vanskelig å få kjøpt via nettet.
11092 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11093
11094
11095 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk for å få tilgang til innhold som
11096 ikke er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, eller for å få tilgang som
11097 opphavsrettsinnehaveren åpenbart går god for.
11098 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11099 Any reform of the law needs to keep these different uses in focus. It must
11100 avoid burdening type D even if it aims to eliminate type A. The eagerness
11101 with which the law aims to eliminate type A, moreover, should depend upon
11102 the magnitude of type B. As with VCRs, if the net effect of sharing is
11103 actually not very harmful, the need for regulation is significantly
11104 weakened.
11105 </p><p>
11106 As I said in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="5. CHAPTER FIVE: &#8220;Piracy&#8221;">5</a>, the actual harm caused by sharing is controversial.  For
11107 the purposes of this chapter, however, I assume the harm is real. I assume,
11108 in other words, that type A sharing is significantly greater than type B,
11109 and is the dominant use of sharing networks.
11110 </p><p>
11111 Uansett, det er et avgjørende faktum om den gjeldende teknologiske
11112 omgivelsen som vi må huske på hvis vi skal forstå hvordan loven bør reagere.
11113 </p><p>
11114 Today, file sharing is addictive. In ten years, it won't be. It is addictive
11115 today because it is the easiest way to gain access to a broad range of
11116 content.  It won't be the easiest way to get access to a broad range of
11117 content in ten years. Today, access to the Internet is cumbersome and
11118 slow&#8212;we in the United States are lucky to have broadband service at
11119 1.5 MBs, and very rarely do we get service at that speed both up and
11120 down. Although wireless access is growing, most of us still get access
11121 across wires. Most only gain access through a machine with a keyboard. The
11122 idea of the always on, always connected Internet is mainly just an idea.
11123 </p><p>
11124
11125 But it will become a reality, and that means the way we get access to the
11126 Internet today is a technology in transition. Policy makers should not make
11127 policy on the basis of technology in transition. They should make policy on
11128 the basis of where the technology is going. The question should not be, how
11129 should the law regulate sharing in this world? The question should be, what
11130 law will we require when the network becomes the network it is clearly
11131 becoming? That network is one in which every machine with electricity is
11132 essentially on the Net; where everywhere you are&#8212;except maybe the
11133 desert or the Rockies&#8212;you can instantaneously be connected to the
11134 Internet. Imagine the Internet as ubiquitous as the best cell-phone service,
11135 where with the flip of a device, you are connected.
11136 </p><p>
11137 In that world, it will be extremely easy to connect to services that give
11138 you access to content on the fly&#8212;such as Internet radio, content that
11139 is streamed to the user when the user demands. Here, then, is the critical
11140 point: When it is <span class="emphasis"><em>extremely</em></span> easy to connect to services
11141 that give access to content, it will be <span class="emphasis"><em>easier</em></span> to
11142 connect to services that give you access to content than it will be to
11143 download and store content <span class="emphasis"><em>on the many devices you will have for
11144 playing content</em></span>. It will be easier, in other words, to subscribe
11145 than it will be to be a database manager, as everyone in the
11146 download-sharing world of Napster-like technologies essentially is. Content
11147 services will compete with content sharing, even if the services charge
11148 money for the content they give access to. Already cell-phone services in
11149 Japan offer music (for a fee) streamed over cell phones (enhanced with plugs
11150 for headphones). The Japanese are paying for this content even though
11151 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free</span>&#8221;</span> content is available in the form of MP3s across the
11152 Web.<sup>[<a name="id2595564" href="#ftn.id2595564" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
11153
11154 </p><p>
11155
11156 This point about the future is meant to suggest a perspective on the
11157 present: It is emphatically temporary. The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">problem</span>&#8221;</span> with file
11158 sharing&#8212;to the extent there is a real problem&#8212;is a problem that
11159 will increasingly disappear as it becomes easier to connect to the
11160 Internet.  And thus it is an extraordinary mistake for policy makers today
11161 to be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">solving</span>&#8221;</span> this problem in light of a technology that will
11162 be gone tomorrow.  The question should not be how to regulate the Internet
11163 to eliminate file sharing (the Net will evolve that problem away). The
11164 question instead should be how to assure that artists get paid, during this
11165 transition between twentieth-century models for doing business and
11166 twenty-first-century technologies.
11167 </p><p>
11168 The answer begins with recognizing that there are different
11169 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">problems</span>&#8221;</span> here to solve. Let's start with type D
11170 content&#8212;uncopyrighted content or copyrighted content that the artist
11171 wants shared. The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">problem</span>&#8221;</span> with this content is to make sure
11172 that the technology that would enable this kind of sharing is not rendered
11173 illegal. You can think of it this way: Pay phones are used to deliver ransom
11174 demands, no doubt.  But there are many who need to use pay phones who have
11175 nothing to do with ransoms. It would be wrong to ban pay phones in order to
11176 eliminate kidnapping.
11177 </p><p>
11178 Type C content raises a different <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">problem.</span>&#8221;</span> This is content
11179 that was, at one time, published and is no longer available. It may be
11180 unavailable because the artist is no longer valuable enough for the record
11181 label he signed with to carry his work. Or it may be unavailable because the
11182 work is forgotten. Either way, the aim of the law should be to facilitate
11183 the access to this content, ideally in a way that returns something to the
11184 artist.
11185 </p><p>
11186 Again, the model here is the used book store. Once a book goes out of print,
11187 it may still be available in libraries and used book stores. But libraries
11188 and used book stores don't pay the copyright owner when someone reads or
11189 buys an out-of-print book. That makes total sense, of course, since any
11190 other system would be so burdensome as to eliminate the possibility of used
11191 book stores' existing. But from the author's perspective, this
11192 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sharing</span>&#8221;</span> of his content without his being compensated is less
11193 than ideal.
11194 </p><p>
11195 The model of used book stores suggests that the law could simply deem
11196 out-of-print music fair game. If the publisher does not make copies of the
11197 music available for sale, then commercial and noncommercial providers would
11198 be free, under this rule, to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">share</span>&#8221;</span> that content, even though
11199 the sharing involved making a copy. The copy here would be incidental to the
11200 trade; in a context where commercial publishing has ended, trading music
11201 should be as free as trading books.
11202 </p><p>
11203
11204
11205
11206 Alternatively, the law could create a statutory license that would ensure
11207 that artists get something from the trade of their work. For example, if the
11208 law set a low statutory rate for the commercial sharing of content that was
11209 not offered for sale by a commercial publisher, and if that rate were
11210 automatically transferred to a trust for the benefit of the artist, then
11211 businesses could develop around the idea of trading this content, and
11212 artists would benefit from this trade.
11213 </p><p>
11214 This system would also create an incentive for publishers to keep works
11215 available commercially. Works that are available commercially would not be
11216 subject to this license. Thus, publishers could protect the right to charge
11217 whatever they want for content if they kept the work commercially
11218 available. But if they don't keep it available, and instead, the computer
11219 hard disks of fans around the world keep it alive, then any royalty owed for
11220 such copying should be much less than the amount owed a commercial
11221 publisher.
11222 </p><p>
11223 The hard case is content of types A and B, and again, this case is hard only
11224 because the extent of the problem will change over time, as the technologies
11225 for gaining access to content change. The law's solution should be as
11226 flexible as the problem is, understanding that we are in the middle of a
11227 radical transformation in the technology for delivering and accessing
11228 content.
11229 </p><p>
11230 Så her er en løsning som i første omgang kan virke veldig undelig for begge
11231 sider i denne krigen, men som jeg tror vil gi mer mening når en får tenkt
11232 seg om.
11233 </p><p>
11234 Stripped of the rhetoric about the sanctity of property, the basic claim of
11235 the content industry is this: A new technology (the Internet)  has harmed a
11236 set of rights that secure copyright. If those rights are to be protected,
11237 then the content industry should be compensated for that harm. Just as the
11238 technology of tobacco harmed the health of millions of Americans, or the
11239 technology of asbestos caused grave illness to thousands of miners, so, too,
11240 has the technology of digital networks harmed the interests of the content
11241 industry.
11242 </p><p>
11243
11244
11245 Jeg elsker internett, så jeg liker ikke å sammenligne det med tobakk eller
11246 asbest.  Men analogien er rimelig når en ser det fra lovens perspektiv. Og
11247 det foreslår en rimelig respons: I stedet for å forsøke å ødelegge internett
11248 eller p2p-teknologien som i dag skader innholdsleverandører på internett, så
11249 bør vi finne en relativt enkel måte å kompensere de som blir skadelidende.
11250 </p><p>
11251 The idea would be a modification of a proposal that has been floated by
11252 Harvard law professor William Fisher.<sup>[<a name="id2595744" href="#ftn.id2595744" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
11253 Fisher suggests a very clever way around the current impasse of the
11254 Internet. Under his plan, all content capable of digital transmission would
11255 (1) be marked with a digital watermark (don't worry about how easy it is to
11256 evade these marks; as you'll see, there's no incentive to evade them). Once
11257 the content is marked, then entrepreneurs would develop (2) systems to
11258 monitor how many items of each content were distributed. On the basis of
11259 those numbers, then (3) artists would be compensated. The compensation would
11260 be paid for by (4) an appropriate tax.
11261 </p><p>
11262 Fisher's proposal is careful and comprehensive. It raises a million
11263 questions, most of which he answers well in his upcoming book,
11264 <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep</em>. The modification that I would make
11265 is relatively simple: Fisher imagines his proposal replacing the existing
11266 copyright system.  I imagine it complementing the existing system. The aim
11267 of the proposal would be to facilitate compensation to the extent that harm
11268 could be shown. This compensation would be temporary, aimed at facilitating
11269 a transition between regimes. And it would require renewal after a period of
11270 years. If it continues to make sense to facilitate free exchange of content,
11271 supported through a taxation system, then it can be continued. If this form
11272 of protection is no longer necessary, then the system could lapse into the
11273 old system of controlling access.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2595910"></a>
11274 </p><p>
11275
11276 Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim is
11277 not just to ensure that artists are paid, but also to ensure that the system
11278 supports the widest range of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">semiotic democracy</span>&#8221;</span> possible. But
11279 the aims of semiotic democracy would be satisfied if the other changes I
11280 described were accomplished&#8212;in particular, the limits on derivative
11281 uses. A system that simply charges for access would not greatly burden
11282 semiotic democracy if there were few limitations on what one was allowed to
11283 do with the content itself.
11284 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2595928"></a><p>
11285 No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of
11286 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">harm</span>&#8221;</span> to an industry. But the difficulty of making that
11287 calculation would be outweighed by the benefit of facilitating
11288 innovation. This background system to compensate would also not need to
11289 interfere with innovative proposals such as Apple's MusicStore. As experts
11290 predicted when Apple launched the MusicStore, it could beat
11291 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free</span>&#8221;</span> by being easier than free is. This has proven correct:
11292 Apple has sold millions of songs at even the very high price of 99 cents a
11293 song. (At 99 cents, the cost is the equivalent of a per-song CD price,
11294 though the labels have none of the costs of a CD to pay.) Apple's move was
11295 countered by Real Networks, offering music at just 79 cents a song. And no
11296 doubt there will be a great deal of competition to offer and sell music
11297 on-line.
11298 </p><p>
11299 This competition has already occurred against the background of
11300 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free</span>&#8221;</span> music from p2p systems. As the sellers of cable
11301 television have known for thirty years, and the sellers of bottled water for
11302 much more than that, there is nothing impossible at all about
11303 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">competing with free.</span>&#8221;</span> Indeed, if anything, the competition
11304 spurs the competitors to offer new and better products. This is precisely
11305 what the competitive market was to be about. Thus in Singapore, though
11306 piracy is rampant, movie theaters are often luxurious&#8212;with
11307 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">first class</span>&#8221;</span> seats, and meals served while you watch a
11308 movie&#8212;as they struggle and succeed in finding ways to compete with
11309 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free.</span>&#8221;</span>
11310 </p><p>
11311 Dette konkurranseregimet, med en sikringsmekanisme for å sikre at kunstnere
11312 ikke taper, ville bidra mye til nyskapning innen levering av
11313 innhold. Konkurransen ville fortsette å redusere type-A-deling.  Det ville
11314 inspirere en ekstraordinær rekke av nye innovatører&#8212;som ville ha
11315 retten til a bruke innhold, og ikke lenger frykte usikre og barbarisk
11316 strenge straffer fra loven.
11317 </p><p>
11318 Oppsummert, så er dette mitt forslag:
11319 </p><p>
11320
11321
11322
11323 Internett er i endring. Vi bør ikke regulere en teknologi i endring. Vi bør
11324 i stedet regulere for å minimere skaden påført interesser som er berørt av
11325 denne teknologiske endringen, samtidig vi muliggjør, og oppmuntrer, den mest
11326 effektive teknologien vi kan lage.
11327 </p><p>
11328 Vi kan minimere skaden og samtidig maksimere fordelen med innovasjon ved å
11329 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
11330
11331
11332 garantere retten til å engasjere seg i type-D-deling;
11333 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11334
11335
11336 tillate ikke-kommersiell type-C-deling uten erstatningsansvar, og
11337 kommersiell type-C-deling med en lav og fast rate fastsatt ved lov.
11338 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11339
11340
11341 mens denne overgangen pågår, skattlegge og kompensere for type-A-deling, i
11342 den grad faktiske skade kan påvises.
11343 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11344 But what if <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> doesn't disappear? What if there is a
11345 competitive market providing content at a low cost, but a significant number
11346 of consumers continue to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">take</span>&#8221;</span> content for nothing? Should the
11347 law do something then?
11348 </p><p>
11349 Ja, det bør den.  Men, nok en gang, hva den bør gjøre avhenger hvordan
11350 realitetene utvikler seg. Disse endringene fjerner kanskje ikke all
11351 type-A-deling. Men det virkelige spørmålet er ikke om de eliminerer deling i
11352 abstrakt betydning.  Det virkelige spørsmålet er hvilken effekt det har på
11353 markedet.  Er det bedre (a) å ha en teknologi som er 95 prosent sikker og
11354 gir et marked av størrelse <em class="citetitle">x</em>, eller (b) å ha en
11355 teknologi som er 50 prosent sikker, og som gir et marked som er fem ganger
11356 større enn <em class="citetitle">x</em>?  Mindre sikker kan gi mer uautorisert
11357 deling, men det vil sannsynligvis også gi et mye større marked for
11358 autorisert deling. Det viktigste er å sikre kunstneres kompensasjon uten å
11359 ødelegge internettet.  Når det er på plass, kan det hende det er riktig å
11360 finne måter å spore opp de smålige piratene.
11361 </p><p>
11362
11363 Men vi er langt unna å spikke problemet ned til dette delsettet av
11364 type-A-delere.  Og vårt fokus inntil er der bør ikke være å finne måter å
11365 ødelegge internettet.  Var fokus inntil vi er der bør være hvordan sikre at
11366 artister får betalt, mens vi beskytter rommet for nyskapning og kreativitet
11367 som internettet er.
11368 </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>
11369 Jeg er en advokat. Jeg lever av å utdanne advokater. Jeg tror på loven. Jeg
11370 tror på opphavsrettsloven. Jeg har faktisk viet livet til å jobbe med loven,
11371 ikke fordi det er mye penger å tjene, men fordi det innebærer idealer som
11372 jeg elsker å leve opp til.
11373 </p><p>
11374 Likevel har mye av denne boken vært kritikk av advokater, eller rollen
11375 advokater har spilt i denne debatten.  Loven taler om idealer, mens det er
11376 min oppfatning av vår yrkesgruppe er blitt for knyttet til klienten.  Og i
11377 en verden der rike klienter har sterke synspunkter vil uviljen hos vår
11378 yrkesgruppe til å stille spørsmål med eller protestere mot dette sterke
11379 synet ødelegge loven.
11380 </p><p>
11381 The evidence of this bending is compelling. I'm attacked as a
11382 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">radical</span>&#8221;</span> by many within the profession, yet the positions that
11383 I am advocating are precisely the positions of some of the most moderate and
11384 significant figures in the history of this branch of the law. Many, for
11385 example, thought crazy the challenge that we brought to the Copyright Term
11386 Extension Act. Yet just thirty years ago, the dominant scholar and
11387 practitioner in the field of copyright, Melville Nimmer, thought it
11388 obvious.<sup>[<a name="id2596176" href="#ftn.id2596176" class="footnote">221</a>]</sup>
11389
11390 </p><p>
11391 Min kritikk av rollen som advokater har spilt i denne debatten handler
11392 imidlertid ikke bare om en profesjonell skjevhet. Det handler enda viktigere
11393 om vår manglende evne til å faktisk ta inn over oss hva loven koster.
11394 </p><p>
11395 Økonomer er forventet å være gode til å forstå utgifter og inntekter.  Men
11396 som oftest antar økonomene uten peiling på hvordan det juridiske systemet
11397 egentlig fungerer, at transaksjonskostnaden i det juridiske systemet er
11398 lav.<sup>[<a name="id2596212" href="#ftn.id2596212" class="footnote">222</a>]</sup>  De ser et system som har
11399 eksistert i hundrevis av år, og de antar at det fungerer slik grunnskolens
11400 samfunnsfagsundervisning lærte dem at det fungerer.
11401 </p><p>
11402
11403
11404 Men det juridiske systemet fungerer ikke. Eller for å være mer nøyaktig, det
11405 fungerer kun for de med mest ressurser.  Det er ikke fordi systemet er
11406 korrupt. Jeg tror overhodet ikke vårt juridisk system (på føderalt nivå, i
11407 hvert fall) er korrupt. Jeg mener ganske enkelt at på grunn av at kostnadene
11408 med vårt juridiske systemet er så hårreisende høyt vil en praktisk talt
11409 aldri oppnå rettferdighet.
11410 </p><p>
11411 Disse kostnadene forstyrrer fri kultur på mange vis.  En advokats tid
11412 faktureres hos de største firmaene for mer enn $400 pr. time. Hvor mye tid
11413 bør en slik advokat bruke på å lese sakene nøye, eller undersøke obskure
11414 rettskilder.  Svaret er i økende grad: svært lite. Jussen er avhengig av
11415 nøye formulering og utvikling av doktrine, men nøye formulering og utvikling
11416 av doktrine er avhengig av nøyaktig arbeid.  Men nøyaktig arbeid koster for
11417 mye, bortsett fra i de mest høyprofilerte og kostbare sakene.
11418 </p><p>
11419 Kostbarheten, klomsetheten og tilfeldigheten til dette systemet håner vår
11420 tradisjon. Og advokater, såvel som akademikere, bør se det som sin plikt å
11421 endre hvordan loven praktiseres&#8212; eller bedre, endre loven slik at den
11422 fungerer. Det er galt at systemet fungerer godt bare for den øverste
11423 1-prosenten av klientene.  Det kan gjøres radikalt mer effektivt, og billig,
11424 og dermed radikalt mer rettferdig.
11425 </p><p>
11426 Men inntil en slik reform er gjennomført, bør vi som samfunn holde lover
11427 unna områder der vi vet den bare vil skade.  Og det er nettopp det loven
11428 altfor ofte vil gjøre hvis for mye av vår kultur er lovregulert.
11429 </p><p>
11430 Tenk på de fantastiske tingene ditt barn kan gjøre eller lage med digital
11431 teknologi&#8212;filmen, musikken, web-siden, bloggen. Eller tenk på de
11432 fantastiske tingene ditt fellesskap kunne få til med digital
11433 teknologi&#8212;en wiki, oppsetting av låve, kampanje til å endre noe. Tenk
11434 på alle de kreative tingene, og tenk deretter på kald sirup helt inn i
11435 maskinene. Dette er hva et hvert regime som krever tillatelser fører
11436 til. Dette er virkeligheten slik den var i Brezhnevs Russland.
11437 </p><p>
11438
11439 The law should regulate in certain areas of culture&#8212;but it should
11440 regulate culture only where that regulation does good. Yet lawyers rarely
11441 test their power, or the power they promote, against this simple pragmatic
11442 question: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Will it do good?</span>&#8221;</span> When challenged about the
11443 expanding reach of the law, the lawyer answers, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Why not?</span>&#8221;</span>
11444 </p><p>
11445 We should ask, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Why?</span>&#8221;</span> Show me why your regulation of culture is
11446 needed. Show me how it does good. And until you can show me both, keep your
11447 lawyers away.
11448 </p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2593986" href="#id2593986" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
11449
11450
11451
11452 See, for example, Marc Rotenberg, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Fair Information Practices and the
11453 Architecture of Privacy (What Larry Doesn't Get),</span>&#8221;</span>
11454 <em class="citetitle">Stanford Technology Law Review</em> 1 (2001):
11455 par. 6&#8211;18, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a> (describing examples in
11456 which technology defines privacy policy). See also Jeffrey Rosen,
11457 <em class="citetitle">The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious
11458 Age</em> (New York: Random House, 2004) (mapping tradeoffs between
11459 technology and privacy).</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2594527" href="#id2594527" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
11460
11461
11462 <em class="citetitle">Willful Infringement: A Report from the Front Lines of the Real
11463 Culture Wars</em> (2003), produced by Jed Horovitz, directed by Greg
11464 Hittelman, a Fiat Lucre production, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a>.
11465 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2594716" href="#id2594716" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
11466
11467
11468 The proposal I am advancing here would apply to American works only.
11469 Obviously, I believe it would be beneficial for the same idea to be adopted
11470 by other countries as well.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2594840" href="#id2594840" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
11471
11472
11473 There would be a complication with derivative works that I have not solved
11474 here. In my view, the law of derivatives creates a more complicated system
11475 than is justified by the marginal incentive it creates.
11476 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2594968" href="#id2594968" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
11477
11478
11479
11480 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">A Radical Rethink,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 366:8308
11481 (25 January 2003): 15, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #74</a>.
11482 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2595072" href="#id2595072" class="para">215</a>] </sup>
11483
11484
11485 Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation
11486 and/or Pension, VA Form 21-526 (OMB Approved No. 2900-0001), tilgjengelig
11487 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #75</a>.
11488 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2595202" href="#id2595202" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
11489
11490
11491 Benjamin Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">An Unhurried View of Copyright</em> (New
11492 York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 32.
11493 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2595232" href="#id2595232" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
11494
11495 Ibid., 56.
11496 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2595316" href="#id2595316" class="para">218</a>] </sup>
11497
11498 Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the
11499 Celestial Jukebox</em> (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003),
11500 187&#8211;216.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2594000"></a>
11501 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2595564" href="#id2595564" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
11502
11503
11504 See, for example, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Music Media Watch,</span>&#8221;</span> The J@pan
11505 Inc. Newsletter, 3 April 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #76</a>.
11506 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2595744" href="#id2595744" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
11507
11508 William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital Music: Problems and
11509 Possibilities</em> (last revised: 10 October 2000), available at
11510 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #77</a>; William Fisher,
11511 <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep: Technology, Law, and the Future of
11512 Entertainment</em> (forthcoming) (Stanford: Stanford University
11513 Press, 2004), ch. 6, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #78</a>. Professor Netanel has
11514 proposed a related idea that would exempt noncommercial sharing from the
11515 reach of copyright and would establish compensation to artists to balance
11516 any loss. See Neil Weinstock Netanel, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Impose a Noncommercial Use Levy
11517 to Allow Free P2P File Sharing,</span>&#8221;</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #79</a>. For other proposals,
11518 see Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Who's Holding Back Broadband?</span>&#8221;</span>
11519 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 8 January 2002, A17; Philip
11520 S. Corwin on behalf of Sharman Networks, A Letter to Senator Joseph
11521 R. Biden, Jr., Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 26
11522 February 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11523 #80</a>; Serguei Osokine, <em class="citetitle">A Quick Case for Intellectual
11524 Property Use Fee (IPUF)</em>, 3 March 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #81</a>; Jefferson Graham,
11525 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Kazaa, Verizon Propose to Pay Artists Directly,</span>&#8221;</span>
11526 <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 13 May 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #82</a>; Steven M. Cherry,
11527 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Getting Copyright Right,</span>&#8221;</span> IEEE Spectrum Online, 1 July 2002,
11528 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #83</a>;
11529 Declan McCullagh, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Verizon's Copyright Campaign,</span>&#8221;</span> CNET
11530 News.com, 27 August 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #84</a>.  Fisher's proposal is
11531 very similar to Richard Stallman's proposal for DAT. Unlike Fisher's,
11532 Stallman's proposal would not pay artists directly proportionally, though
11533 more popular artists would get more than the less popular. As is typical
11534 with Stallman, his proposal predates the current debate by about a
11535 decade. See <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #85</a>.
11536 <a class="indexterm" name="id2595858"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2595866"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2595872"></a>
11537 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2596176" href="#id2596176" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
11538
11539
11540 Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright's First Amendment</span>&#8221;</span> (Melville
11541 B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture), <em class="citetitle">UCLA Law Review</em> 48
11542 (2001): 1057, 1069&#8211;70.
11543 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2596212" href="#id2596212" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
11544
11545 A good example is the work of Professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz is to be
11546 commended for his careful review of data about infringement, leading him to
11547 question his own publicly stated position&#8212;twice. He initially
11548 predicted that downloading would substantially harm the industry. He then
11549 revised his view in light of the data, and he has since revised his view
11550 again.  Compare Stan J. Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network
11551 Economy: The True Forces That Drive the Digital Marketplace</em> (New
11552 York: Amacom, 2002), (reviewing his original view but expressing skepticism)
11553 with Stan J.  Liebowitz, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Will MP3s Annihilate the Record
11554 Industry?</span>&#8221;</span> working paper, June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #86</a>.  Liebowitz's careful
11555 analysis is extremely valuable in estimating the effect of file-sharing
11556 technology. In my view, however, he underestimates the costs of the legal
11557 system. See, for example, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174&#8211;76.
11558 <a class="indexterm" name="id2596188"></a>
11559 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="17. Notater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>17. Notater</h2></div></div></div><p>
11560 I denne teksten er det referanser til lenker på verdensveven.  Og som alle
11561 som har forsøkt å bruke nettet vet, så vil disse lenkene være svært
11562 ustabile.  Jeg har forsøkt å motvirke denne ustabiliteten ved å omdirigere
11563 lesere til den originale kilden gjennom en nettside som hører til denne
11564 boken.  For hver lenke under, så kan du gå til http://free-culture.cc/notes
11565 og finne den originale kilden ved å klikke på nummeret etter #-tegnet.  Hvis
11566 den originale lenken fortsatt er i live, så vil du bli omdirigert til den
11567 lenken.  Hvis den originale lenken har forsvunnet, så vil du bli omdirigert
11568 til en passende referanse til materialet.
11569 </p></div><div class="chapter" title="18. Takk til"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>18. Takk til</h2></div></div></div><p>
11570 Denne boken er produktet av en lang og så langt mislykket kamp som begynte
11571 da jeg leste om Eric Eldreds krig for å sørge for at bøker forble
11572 frie. Eldreds innsats bidro til å lansere en bevegelse, fri
11573 kultur-bevegelsen, og denne boken er tilegnet ham.
11574 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2596422"></a><p>
11575 Jeg fikk veiledning på ulike steder fra venner og akademikere, inkludert
11576 Glenn Brown, Peter DiCola, Jennifer Mnookin, Richard Posner, Mark Rose og
11577 Kathleen Sullivan. Og jeg fikk korreksjoner og veiledning fra mange
11578 fantastiske studenter ved Stanford Law School og Stanford University. Det
11579 inkluderer Andrew B. Coan, John Eden, James P. Fellers, Christopher
11580 Guzelian, Erica Goldberg, Robert Hallman, Andrew Harris, Matthew Kahn,
11581 Brian-Link, Ohad Mayblum, Alina Ng og Erica Platt. Jeg er særlig takknemlig
11582 overfor Catherine Crump og Harry Surden, som hjalp til med å styre deres
11583 forskning og til Laura Lynch, som briljant håndterte hæren de samlet, samt
11584 bidro med sitt egen kritisk blikk på mye av dette.
11585 </p><p>
11586
11587 Yuko Noguchi hjalp meg å forstå lovene i Japan, så vel som Japans
11588 kultur. Jeg er henne takknemlig, og til de mange i Japan som hjalp meg med
11589 forundersøkelsene til denne boken: Joi Ito, Takayuki Matsutani, Naoto
11590 Misaki, Michihiro Sasaki, Hiromichi Tanaka, Hiroo Yamagata og Yoshihiro
11591 Yonezawa.  Jeg er også takknemlig til professor Nobuhiro Nakayama og Tokyo
11592 University Business Law Center, som ga meg muligheten til å bruke tid i
11593 Japan, og Tadashi Shiraishi og Kiyokazu Yamagami for deres generøse hjelp
11594 mens jeg var der.
11595 </p><p>
11596 These are the traditional sorts of help that academics regularly draw
11597 upon. But in addition to them, the Internet has made it possible to receive
11598 advice and correction from many whom I have never even met. Among those who
11599 have responded with extremely helpful advice to requests on my blog about
11600 the book are Dr. Mohammad Al-Ubaydli, David Gerstein, and Peter DiMauro, as
11601 well as a long list of those who had specific ideas about ways to develop my
11602 argument. They included Richard Bondi, Steven Cherry, David Coe, Nik
11603 Cubrilovic, Bob Devine, Charles Eicher, Thomas Guida, Elihu M. Gerson,
11604 Jeremy Hunsinger, Vaughn Iverson, John Karabaic, Jeff Keltner, James
11605 Lindenschmidt, K. L. Mann, Mark Manning, Nora McCauley, Jeffrey McHugh, Evan
11606 McMullen, Fred Norton, John Pormann, Pedro A. D.  Rezende, Shabbir Safdar,
11607 Saul Schleimer, Clay Shirky, Adam Shostack, Kragen Sitaker, Chris Smith,
11608 Bruce Steinberg, Andrzej Jan Taramina, Sean Walsh, Matt Wasserman, Miljenko
11609 Williams, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Wink,</span>&#8221;</span> Roger Wood, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Ximmbo da Jazz,</span>&#8221;</span>
11610 and Richard Yanco. (I apologize if I have missed anyone; with computers come
11611 glitches, and a crash of my e-mail system meant I lost a bunch of great
11612 replies.)
11613 </p><p>
11614 Richard Stallman og Michael Carroll har begge lest hele boken i utkast, og
11615 hver av dem har bidratt med svært nyttige korreksjoner og råd. Michael hjalp
11616 meg å se mer tydelig betydningen av regulering for avledede verker . Og
11617 Richard korrigerte en pinlig stor mengde feil.  Selv om mitt arbeid er
11618 delvis inspirert av Stallmans, er han ikke enig med meg på vesentlige steder
11619 i denne boken.
11620 </p><p>
11621 Til slutt, og for evig, er jeg Bettina takknemlig, som alltid har insistert
11622 på at det ville være endeløs lykke utenfor disse kampene, og som alltid har
11623 hatt rett.  Denne trege eleven er som alltid takknemlig for hennes
11624 evigvarende tålmodighet og kjærlighet.
11625 </p></div><div class="index" title="Index"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2596549"></a>Index</h2></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>A</h3><dl><dt>ABC, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Adobe eBook Reader, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Adromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>agricultural patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Aibo robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>akademiske tidsskrifter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Aristoteles, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>artister</dt><dd><dl><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2570650">&#8220;PIRACY&#8221;</a></dt><dt>AT&amp;T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bern-konvensjonen (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a></dt><dt>chimeras, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Coase, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>CodePink Women in Peace, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Coe, Brian, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Comcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>copyleft licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Creative Commons, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Crichton, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Crosskey, William W., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>D</h3><dl><dt>Daguerre, Louis, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Daley, Elizabeth, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a></dt><dt>dataspill, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Day After Trinity, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>DDT, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Dean, Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Drahos, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2570650">&#8220;PIRACY&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Elektronisk forpost-stiftelsen (EFF), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2570650">&#8220;PIRACY&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>fotografering, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Fried, Charles, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Friedman, Milton, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>G</h3><dl><dt>Garlick, Mia, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Gates, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>General Film Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, Konge av England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Internet Explorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>jernbaneindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>kjørehastighet, begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2570650">&#8220;PIRACY&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2570650">&#8220;PIRACY&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Marijuana Policy Project, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Microsoft</dt><dd><dl><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Picker, Randal C., <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Politikk, (Aristotles), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#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="#id2570650">&#8220;PIRACY&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></dt><dt>RPI (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">CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a></dt><dt>tegnefilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>veterans' pensions, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">CHAPTER TEN: &#8220;Property&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Worldcom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">CHAPTER TWO: &#8220;Mere Copyists&#8221;</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2570650">&#8220;PIRACY&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div></body></html>