archive/freeculture.nb.html

   1 <html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"><title>Fri kultur</title><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.76.1"><meta name="description" content="Om forfatteren Lawrense Lessig (http://www.lessig.org), professor i juss og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School, er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og styreleder i Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org). Forfatteren har gitt ut The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) og Code: And other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), og er medlem av styrene i Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, og Public Knowledge. Han har vunnet Free Software Foundation's Award for the Advancement of Free Software, to ganger vært oppført i BusinessWeek's e.biz 25, og omtalt som en av Scientific American's 50 visjonærer. Etter utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, og Yale Law School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals."></head><body bgcolor="white" text="black" link="#0000FF" vlink="#840084" alink="#0000FF"><div lang="nb" class="book" title="Fri kultur"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="index"></a>Fri kultur</h1></div><div><h2 class="subtitle">Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
   2 og kontrollere kreativiteten</h2></div><div><div class="authorgroup"><div class="author"><h3 class="author"><span class="firstname">Lawrence</span> <span class="surname">Lessig</span></h3></div></div></div><div><p class="releaseinfo">Versjon 2004-02-10</p></div><div><p class="copyright">Opphavsrett © 2004 Lawrence Lessig</p></div><div><div class="legalnotice" title="Rettslig merknad"><a name="id2728489"></a><p>
   3      <span class="inlinemediaobject"><img src="images/cc.png" align="middle" height="37.5" alt="Creative Commons, noen rettigheter reservert"></span>
   4    </p><p>
   5 Denne versjonen av <em class="citetitle">Fri Kultur</em> er lisensiert med en
   6 Creative Commons-lisens.  Denne lisensen tillater ikke-kommersiell
   7 utnyttelse av verket, hvis opphavsinnehaveren er navngitt.  For mer
   8 informasjon om lisensen, klikk på ikonet over eller besøk <a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/</a>
   9    </p></div></div><div><p class="pubdate">2004-03-25</p></div><div><div class="abstract" title="Om forfatteren"><p class="title"><b>Om forfatteren</b></p><p>
  10 Lawrense Lessig (<a class="ulink" href="http://www.lessig.org" target="_top">http://www.lessig.org</a>), professor i juss
  11 og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School,
  12 er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og styreleder i
  13 Creative Commons (<a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org</a>).
  14 Forfatteren har gitt ut The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) og Code:
  15 And other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), og er medlem av styrene i
  16 Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, og Public
  17 Knowledge.  Han har vunnet Free Software Foundation's Award for the
  18 Advancement of Free Software, to ganger vært oppført i BusinessWeek's
  19 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">e.biz 25,</span>»</span> og omtalt som en av Scientific American's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">50
  20 visjonærer</span>»</span>.  Etter utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania,
  21 Cambridge University, og Yale Law School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard
  22 Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
  23   </p></div></div></div><hr></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="salespoints"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  24 Du kan kjøpe et eksemplar av denne boken ved å klikke på en av lenkene
  25 nedenfor:
  26 </p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="number" compact><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.amazon.com/" target="_top">Amazon</a></p></li><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/" target="_top">B&amp;N</a></p></li><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.penguin.com/" target="_top">Penguin</a></p></li></ul></div></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="alsobylessig"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  27 Andre bøker av Lawrence Lessig
  28 </p><p>
  29 The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World
  30 </p><p>
  31 Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace
  32 </p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2727443"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  33 Til Eric Eldred &#8212; hvis arbeid først trakk meg til denne saken, og for
  34 hvem saken fortsetter.
  35 </p></div><div class="toc"><dl><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">Forord</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">0. <a href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="part">I. <a href="#c-piracy"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">1. <a href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">2. <a href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">3. <a href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">4. <a href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirater</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">4.1. <a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.2. <a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.3. <a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.4. <a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">5. <a href="#piracy">Kapittel fem: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">5.1. <a href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">5.2. <a href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">II. <a href="#c-property"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">6. <a href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">7. <a href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">8. <a href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">9. <a href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">10. <a href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">10.1. <a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.2. <a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.3. <a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.4. <a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.5. <a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.6. <a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.7. <a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.8. <a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">III. <a href="#c-puzzles">Nøtter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">11. <a href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">12. <a href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">12.1. <a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.2. <a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.3. <a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">IV. <a href="#c-balances">Maktfordeling</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">13. <a href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">14. <a href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">15. <a href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">16. <a href="#c-afterword">Etterord</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1. <a href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1.1. <a href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.1.2. <a href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2. <a href="#themsoon">Dem, snart</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1. <a href="#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.1. <a href="#registration">Registrering og fornying</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.2. <a href="#marking">Merking</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2.2. <a href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.3. <a href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.4. <a href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.5. <a href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">17. <a href="#c-notes">Notater</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">18. <a href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#id2818045">Indeks</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Kolofon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id2727791"></a>Kolofon</h2><p>
  36 THE PENGUIN PRESS, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.  375 Hudson Street
  37 New York, New York
  38 </p><p>
  39 Opphavsrettbeskyttet © Lawrence Lessig.  Alle rettigheter reservert.
  40 </p><p>
  41 Excerpt from an editorial titled <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Coming of Copyright
  42 Perpetuity,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, January 16,
  43 2003. Copyright © 2003 by The New York Times Co.  Reprinted with
  44 permission.
  45 </p><p>
  46 Cartoon in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1711" title="Figur 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.">Figur 10.18, &#8220;VCR/handgun cartoon.&#8221;</a> by Paul Conrad, copyright Tribune
  47 Media Services, Inc.  All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
  48 </p><p>
  49 Diagram in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1761" title="Figur 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.">Figur 10.19, &#8220;Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.&#8221;</a> courtesy of the office of FCC
  50 Commissioner, Michael J. Copps.
  51 </p><p>
  52 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
  53 </p><p>
  54 Lessig, Lawrence.  Free culture : how big media uses technology and the law
  55 to lock down culture and control creativity / Lawrence Lessig.
  56 </p><p>
  57 p. cm.
  58 </p><p>
  59 Includes index.
  60 </p><p>
  61 ISBN 1-59420-006-8 (hardcover)
  62 </p><p>
  63 1. Intellectual property&#8212;United States. 2. Mass media&#8212;United
  64 States.
  65 </p><p>
  66 3. Technological innovations&#8212;United States. 4. Art&#8212;United
  67 States. I. Title.
  68 </p><p>
  69 KF2979.L47
  70 </p><p>
  71 343.7309'9&#8212;dc22
  72 </p><p>
  73 This book is printed on acid-free paper.
  74 </p><p>
  75 Printed in the United States of America
  76 </p><p>
  77 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4
  78 </p><p>
  79 Designed by Marysarah Quinn
  80 </p><p>
  81 Oversatt til bokmål av Petter Reinholdtsen og Anders Hagen
  82 Jarmund. Kildefilene til oversetterprosjektet er <a class="ulink" href="https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/free-culture-lessig" target="_top">tilgjengelig
  83 fra github</a>.  Rapporter feil med oversettelsen via github.
  84 </p><p>
  85 Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this
  86 publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval
  87 system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
  88 photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission
  89 of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.
  90 </p><p>
  91 The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the Internet or
  92 via any other means without the permission of the publisher is illegal and
  93 punishable by law.  Please purchase only authorized electronic editions and
  94 do not participate in or encourage electronic piracy of copyrighted
  95 materials. Your support of the author's rights is appreciated.
  96 </p></div><div class="preface" title="Forord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="preface"></a>Forord</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpoguedavid"></a><p>
  97 <span class="bold"><strong>På slutten av</strong></span> hans gjennomgang av min
  98 første bok <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace</em>, skrev
  99 David Pogue, en glimrende skribent og forfatter av utallige tekniske
 100 datarelaterte tekster, dette:
 101 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 102 I motsetning til faktiske lover, så har ikke internett-programvare
 103 kapasiteten til å straffe.  Den påvirker ikke folk som ikke er online (og
 104 kun en veldig liten minoritet av verdens befolkning er online).  Og hvis du
 105 ikke liker systemet på internett, så kan du alltid slå av
 106 modemet.<sup>[<a name="preface01" href="#ftn.preface01" class="footnote">1</a>]</sup>
 107 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 108 Pogue var skeptisk til argumentet som er kjernen av boken &#8212; at
 109 programvaren, eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">koden</span>»</span>, fungerte som en slags lov &#8212;
 110 og foreslo i sin anmeldelse den lykkelig tanken at hvis livet i cyberspace
 111 gikk dårlig, så kan vi alltid som med en trylleformel slå over en bryter og
 112 komme hjem igjen. Slå av modemet, koble fra datamaskinen, og eventuelle
 113 problemer som finnes <span class="emphasis"><em>den</em></span> virkeligheten ville ikke
 114 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">påvirke</span>»</span> oss mer.
 115 </p><p>
 116
 117 Pogue kan ha hatt rett i 1999 &#8212; jeg er skeptisk, men det kan
 118 hende. Men selv om han hadde rett da, så er ikke argumentet gyldig
 119 nå. <em class="citetitle">Fri Kultur</em> er om problemene internett forårsaker
 120 selv etter at modemet er slått av.  Den er et argument om hvordan slagene
 121 som nå brer om seg i livet on-line har fundamentalt påvirket <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">folk som
 122 er ikke pålogget.</span>»</span>  Det finnes ingen bryter som kan isolere oss fra
 123 internettets effekt.
 124 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2728221"></a><p>
 125 Men i motsetning til i boken <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, er argumentet her
 126 ikke så mye om internett i seg selv. Istedet er det om konsekvensen av
 127 internett for en del av vår tradisjon som er mye mer grunnleggende, og
 128 uansett hvor hardt dette er for en geek-wanna-be å innrømme, mye viktigere.
 129 </p><p>
 130 Den tradisjonen er måten vår kultur blir laget på.  Som jeg vil forklare i
 131 sidene som følger, kommer vi fra en tradisjon av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri
 132 kultur</span>»</span>&#8212;ikke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri</span>»</span> som i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri bar</span>»</span>
 133 (for å låne et uttrykk fra stifteren av fri
 134 programvarebevegelsen<sup>[<a name="id2728266" href="#ftn.id2728266" class="footnote">2</a>]</sup>), men
 135 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri</span>»</span> som i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">talefrihet</span>»</span>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fritt
 136 marked</span>»</span>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frihandel</span>»</span>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri konkurranse</span>»</span>,
 137 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri vilje</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frie valg</span>»</span>.  En fri kultur støtter
 138 og beskytter skapere og oppfinnere.  Dette gjør den direkte ved å tildele
 139 immaterielle rettigheter.  Men det gjør den indirekte ved å begrense
 140 rekkevidden for disse rettighetene, for å garantere at neste generasjon
 141 skapere og oppfinnere forblir <span class="emphasis"><em>så fri som mulig</em></span> fra
 142 kontroll fra fortiden.  En fri kultur er ikke en kultur uten eierskap, like
 143 lite som et fritt marked er et marked der alt er gratis.  Det motsatte av
 144 fri kultur er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tillatelseskultur</span>»</span>&#8212;en kultur der skapere
 145 kun kan skape med tillatelse fra de mektige, eller fra skaperne fra
 146 fortiden.
 147 </p><p>
 148 Hvis vi forsto denne endringen, så tror jeg vi ville stå imot den.  Ikke
 149 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vi</span>»</span> på venstresiden eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">dere</span>»</span> på høyresiden,
 150 men vi som ikke har investert i den spesifikke kulturindustrien som har
 151 definert det tjuende århundre. Enten du er på venstre eller høyresiden, hvis
 152 du i denne forstand ikke har interesser, vil historien jeg forteller her gi
 153 deg problemer. For endringene jeg beskriver påvirker verdier som begge sider
 154 av vår politiske kultur anser som grunnleggende.
 155 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2728347"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2728353"></a><p>
 156 Vi så et glimt av dette tverrpolitiske raseri på forsommeren i 2003. Da FCC
 157 vurderte endringer i reglene for medieeierskap som ville slakke på
 158 begrensningene rundt mediekonsentrasjon, sendte en ekstraordinær koalisjon
 159 mer enn 700 000 brev til FCC for å motsette seg endringen.  Mens William
 160 Safire beskrev å marsjere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ubehagelig sammen med CodePink Women for
 161 Peace and the National Rifle Association, mellom liberale Olympia Snowe og
 162 konservative Ted Stevens</span>»</span>, formulerte han  kanskje det enkleste
 163 uttrykket for hva som var på spill: konsentrasjonen av makt.  Så spurte han:
 164 <a class="indexterm" name="id2728383"></a>
 165 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 166 Høres dette ikke-konservativt ut?  Ikke for meg.  Denne konsentrasjonen av
 167 makt&#8212;politisk, selskapsmessig, pressemessig, kulturelt&#8212;bør være
 168 bannlyst av konservative.  Spredningen av makt gjennom lokal kontroll, og
 169 derigjennom oppmuntre til individuell deltagelse, er essensen i føderalismen
 170 og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<sup>[<a name="id2787103" href="#ftn.id2787103" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
 171 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 172 Denne idéen er et element i argumentet til <em class="citetitle">Fri
 173 Kultur</em>, selv om min fokus ikke bare er på konsentrasjonen av
 174 makt som følger av konsentrasjonen i eierskap, men mer viktig, og fordi det
 175 er mindre synlig, på konsentrasjonen av makt som er resultat av en radikal
 176 endring i det effektive virkeområdet til loven.  Loven er i endring, og
 177 endringen forandrer på hvordan vår kultur blir skapt. Den endringen bør
 178 bekymre deg&#8212;Uansett om du bryr deg om internett eller ikke, og uansett
 179 om du er til venstre for Safires eller til høyre.
 180 </p><p>
 181 <span class="strong"><strong>Inspirasjonen</strong></span> til tittelen og mye av
 182 argumentet i denne boken kommer fra arbeidet til Richard Stallman og Free
 183 Software Foundation. Faktisk, da jeg leste Stallmans egne tekster på nytt,
 184 spesielt essyene i <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free Society</em>,
 185 innser jeg at alle de teoretiske innsiktene jeg utvikler her er innsikter
 186 som Stallman beskrev for tiår siden.  Man kan dermed godt argumentere for at
 187 dette verket <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kun</span>»</span> er et avledet verk.
 188 </p><p>
 189
 190 Jeg godtar kritikken, hvis det faktisk er kritikk.  Arbeidet til en advokat
 191 er alltid avledede verker, og jeg mener ikke å gjøre noe mer i denne boken
 192 enn å minne en kultur om en tradisjon som alltid har vært deres egen. Som
 193 Stallman forsvarer jeg denne tradisjonen på grunnlag av verdier. Som
 194 Stallman tror jeg dette er verdiene til frihet.  Og som Stallman, tror jeg
 195 dette er verdier fra vår fortid som må forsvares i vår fremtid.  En fri
 196 kultur har vært vår fortid, men vil bare være vår fremtid hvis vi endrer
 197 retningen vi følger akkurat nå.  På samme måte som Stallmans argumenter for
 198 fri programvare, treffer argumenter for en fri kultur på forvirring som er
 199 vanskelig å unngå, og enda vanskeligere å forstå.  En fri kultur er ikke en
 200 kultur uten eierskap. Det er ikke en kultur der kunstnere ikke får
 201 betalt. En kultur uten eierskap eller en der skaperne ikke kan få betalt, er
 202 anarki, ikke frihet.  Anarki er ikke hva jeg fremmer her.
 203 </p><p>
 204 I stedet er den frie kulturen som jeg forsvarer i denne boken en balanse
 205 mellom anarki og kontroll.  En fri kultur, i likhet med et fritt marked, er
 206 fylt med eierskap.  Den er fylt med regler for eierskap og kontrakter som
 207 blir håndhevet av staten.  Men på samme måte som det frie markedet blir
 208 pervertert hvis dets eierskap blir føydalt, så kan en fri kultur bli ødelagt
 209 av ekstremisme i eierskapsrettighetene som definerer den.  Det er dette jeg
 210 frykter om vår kultur i dag.  Det er som motpol til denne ekstremismen at
 211 denne boken er skrevet.
 212 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.preface01" href="#preface01" class="para">1</a>] </sup>
 213 David Pogue, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Don't Just Chat, Do Something,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
 214 York Times</em>, 30. januar 2000
 215 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2728266" href="#id2728266" class="para">2</a>] </sup>
 216 Richard M. Stallman, <em class="citetitle">Fri programvare, Frie samfunn</em> 57
 217 (Joshua Gay, red. 2002).
 218 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2787103" href="#id2787103" class="para">3</a>] </sup> William Safire, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Great Media Gulp,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
 219 Times</em>, 22. mai 2003.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2787112"></a>
 220 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Introduksjon</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxairtraffic"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlandownership"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxproprigtair"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2787292"></a><p>
 221 <span class="strong"><strong>Den 17. desember</strong></span> 1903, på en vindfylt
 222 strand i Nord-Carolina i såvidt under hundre sekunder, demonstrerte
 223 Wright-brødrene at et selvdrevet fartøy tyngre enn luft kunne fly.
 224 Øyeblikket var elektrisk, og dens betydning ble alment forstått. Nesten
 225 umiddelbart, eksploderte interessen for denne nye teknologien som
 226 muliggjorde bemannet luftfart og en hærskare av oppfinnere begynte å bygge
 227 videre på den.
 228 </p><p>
 229 Da Wright-brødrene fant opp flymaskinen, hevdet loven i USA at en grunneier
 230 ble antatt å eie ikke bare overflaten på området sitt, men også alt landet
 231 under bakken, helt ned til senterpunktet i jorda, og alt volumet over
 232 bakken, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2787330" href="#ftn.id2787330" class="footnote">4</a>]</sup> I mange år undret lærde over hvordan en best skulle tolke idéen om
 233 at eiendomsretten gikk helt til himmelen. Betød dette at du eide stjernene?
 234 Kunne en dømme gjess for at de regelmessig og med vilje tok seg inn på annen
 235 manns eiendom?
 236 </p><p>
 237 Så kom flymaskiner, og for første gang hadde dette prinsippet i lovverket i
 238 USA&#8212;dypt nede i grunnlaget for vår tradisjon og akseptert av de
 239 viktigste juridiske tenkerne i vår fortid&#8212;en betydning. Hvis min
 240 eiendom rekker til himmelen, hva skjer når United flyr over mitt område?
 241 Har jeg rett til å nekte dem å bruke min eiendom?  Har jeg mulighet til å
 242 inngå en eksklusiv avtale med Delta Airlines?  Kan vi gjennomføre en auksjon
 243 for å finne ut hvor mye disse rettighetene er verdt?
 244 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2787350"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2787375"></a><p>
 245 I 1945 ble disse spørsmålene en føderal sak. Da bøndene Thomas Lee og Tinie
 246 Causby i Nord Carolina begynte å miste kyllinger på grunn av lavtflygende
 247 militære fly (vettskremte kyllinger fløy tilsynelatende i låveveggene og
 248 døde), saksøkte Causbyene regjeringen for å trenge seg inn på deres
 249 eiendom. Flyene rørte selvfølgelig aldri overflaten på Causbys' eiendom. Men
 250 hvis det stemte som Blackstone, Kent, og Cola hadde sagt, at deres eiendom
 251 strakk seg <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover,</span>»</span> så hadde regjeringen
 252 trengt seg inn på deres eiendom, og Causbys ønsket å sette en stopper for
 253 dette.
 254 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2787401"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2787408"></a><p>
 255 Høyesterett gikk med på å ta opp Causbys sak. Kongressen hadde vedtatt at
 256 luftfartsveiene var tilgjengelig for alle, men hvis ens eiendom virkelig
 257 rakk til himmelen, da kunne muligens kongressens vedtak ha vært i strid med
 258 grunnlovens forbud mot å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> eiendom uten kompensasjon.
 259 Retten erkjente at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er gammel doktrine etter sedvane at en eiendom
 260 rakk til utkanten av universet.</span>»</span>, men dommer Douglas hadde ikke
 261 tålmodighet for forhistoriske doktriner.  I et enkelt avsnitt, ble hundrevis
 262 av år med eiendomslovgivningen strøket. Som han skrev på vegne av retten,
 263 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 264 [Denne] doktrinen har ingen plass i den moderne verden.  Luften er en
 265 offentlig motorvei, slik kongressen har erklært.  Hvis det ikke var
 266 tilfelle, ville hver eneste transkontinentale flyrute utsette operatørene
 267 for utallige søksmål om inntrenging på annen manns eiendom.  Idéen er i
 268 strid med sunn fornuft.  Å anerkjenne slike private krav til luftrommet
 269 ville blokkere disse motorveiene, seriøst forstyrre muligheten til kontroll
 270 og utvikling av dem i fellesskapets interesse og overføre til privat
 271 eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.<sup>[<a name="id2787459" href="#ftn.id2787459" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
 272 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 273 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>»</span>
 274 </p><p>
 275
 276 Det er hvordan loven vanligvis fungerer.  Ikke ofte like brått eller
 277 utålmodig, men til slutt er dette hvordan loven fungerer.  Det var ikke
 278 stilen til Douglas å utbrodere.  Andre dommere ville ha skrevet mange flere
 279 sider før de nådde sin konklusjon, men for Douglas holdt det med en enkel
 280 linje: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>»</span>.  Men uansett om
 281 det tar flere sider eller kun noen få ord, så er det en genial egenskap med
 282 et rettspraksis-system, slik som vårt er, at loven tilpasser seg til
 283 aktuelle teknologiene.  Og mens den tilpasser seg, så endres den.  Idéer som
 284 var solide som fjell i en tidsalder knuses i en annen.
 285 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2787545"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2787551"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2787558"></a><p>
 286 Eller, det er hvordan ting skjer når det ikke er noen mektige på andre siden
 287 av endringen.  Causbyene var bare bønder.  Og selv om det uten tvil var
 288 mange som dem som var lei av den økende trafikken i luften (og en håper ikke
 289 for mange kyllinger flakset seg inn i vegger), ville Causbyene i verden
 290 finne det svært hardt å samles for å stoppe idéen, og teknologien, som
 291 Wright-brødrene hadde ført til verden.  Wright-brødrene spyttet flymaskiner
 292 inn i den teknologiske meme-dammen. Idéen spredte seg deretter som et virus
 293 i en kyllingfarm. Causbyene i verden fant seg selv omringet av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det
 294 synes rimelig</span>»</span> gitt teknologien som Wright-brødrene hadde produsert.
 295 De kunne stå på sine gårder, med døde kyllinger i hendene, og heve
 296 knyttneven mot disse nye teknologiene så mye de ville.  De kunne ringe sine
 297 representanter eller til og med saksøke.  Men når alt kom til alt, ville
 298 kraften i det som virket <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpenbart</span>»</span> for alle andre&#8212;makten
 299 til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>»</span>&#8212;ville vinne frem.  Deres
 300 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">personlige interesser</span>»</span> ville ikke få lov til å nedkjempe en
 301 åpenbar fordel for fellesskapet.
 302 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2787608"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2787619"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2787630"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxarmstrongedwin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2787654"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2787661"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2787668"></a><p>
 303
 304 <span class="strong"><strong>Edwin Howard Armstrong</strong></span> er en av USAs
 305 glemte oppfinnergenier. Han dukket opp på oppfinnerscenen etter titaner som
 306 Thomas Edison og Alexander Graham Bell.  Alle hans bidrag på området
 307 radioteknologi gjør han til kanskje den viktigste av alle enkeltoppfinnere i
 308 de første femti årene av radio.  Han var bedre utdannet enn Michael Faraday,
 309 som var bokbinderlærling da han oppdaget elektrisk induksjon i 1831.  Men
 310 han hadde like god intuisjon om hvordan radioverden virket, og ved minst tre
 311 anledninger, fant Armstrong opp svært viktig teknologier som brakte vår
 312 forståelse av radio et hopp videre.
 313
 314 </p><p>
 315 Dagen etter julaften i 1933, ble fire patenter utstedt til Armstrong for
 316 hans mest signifikante oppfinnelse&#8212;FM-radio.  Inntil da hadde
 317 forbrukerradioer vært amplitude-modulert (AM) radio.  Tidens teoretikere
 318 hadde sagt at frekvens-modulert (FM) radio.  De hadde rett når det gjelder
 319 et smalt bånd av spektrumet.  Men Armstrong oppdaget at frekvens-modulert
 320 radio i et vidt bånd i spektrumet leverte en forbløffende gjengivelse av
 321 lyd, med mye mindre senderstyrke og støy.
 322 </p><p>
 323 Den 5. november 1935 demonstrerte han teknologien på et møte hos institutt
 324 for radioingeniører ved Empire State-bygningen i New York City.  Han vred
 325 radiosøkeren over en rekke AM-stasjoner, inntil radioen låste seg mot en
 326 kringkasting som han hadde satt opp 27 kilometer unna.  Radioen ble helt
 327 stille, som om den var død, og så, med en klarhet ingen andre i rommet noen
 328 gang hadde hørt fra et elektrisk apparat, produserte det lyden av en
 329 opplesers stemme: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dette er amatørstasjon W2AG ved Yonkers, New York,
 330 som opererer på frekvensmodulering ved to og en halv meter.</span>»</span>
 331 </p><p>
 332 Publikum hørte noe ingen hadde trodd var mulig:
 333 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 334 Et glass vann ble fylt opp foran mikrofonen i Yonkers, og det hørtes ut som
 335 et glass som ble fylt opp. &#8230; Et papir ble krøllet og revet opp, og
 336 det hørtes ut som papir og ikke som en sprakende skogbrann. &#8230;
 337 Sousa-marsjer ble spilt av fra plater og en pianosolo og et gitarnummer ble
 338 utført. &#8230; Musikken ble presentert med en livaktighet som sjeldent om
 339 noen gang før hadde vært hørt fra en
 340 radio-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">musikk-boks</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2787767" href="#ftn.id2787767" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
 341 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 342
 343 Som vår egen sunn fornuft forteller oss, hadde Armstrong oppdaget en mye
 344 bedre radioteknologi.  Men på tidspunktet for hans oppfinnelse, jobbet
 345 Armstrong for RCA. RCA var den dominerende aktøren i det da dominerende
 346 AM-radiomarkedet. I 1935 var det tusen radiostasjoner over hele USA, men
 347 stasjonene i de store byene var alle eid av en liten håndfull selskaper.
 348
 349 </p><p>
 350 Presidenten i RCA, David Sarnoff, en venn av Armstrong, var ivrig etter å få
 351 Armstrong til å oppdage en måte å fjerne støyen fra AM-radio. Så Sarnoff var
 352 ganske spent da Armstrong fortalte ham at han hadde en enhet som fjernet
 353 støy fra <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radio.</span>»</span>.   Men da Armstrong demonstrerte sin
 354 oppfinnelse, var ikke Sarnoff fornøyd.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2787811"></a>
 355 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 356 Jeg trodde Armstrong ville finne opp et slags filter for å fjerne skurring
 357 fra AM-radioen vår. Jeg trodde ikke han skulle starte en revolusjon &#8212;
 358 starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.<sup>[<a name="id2787704" href="#ftn.id2787704" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
 359 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessing"></a><p>
 360 Armstrongs oppfinnelse truet RCAs AM-herredømme, så selskapet lanserte en
 361 kampanje for å knuse FM-radio. Mens FM kan ha vært en overlegen teknologi,
 362 var Sarnoff en overlegen taktiker. En forfatter beskrev det slik,
 363 <a class="indexterm" name="id2787871"></a>
 364 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 365 Kreftene til fordel for FM, i hovedsak ingeniørfaglige, kunne ikke overvinne
 366 tyngden til strategien utviklet av avdelingene for salg, patenter og juss
 367 for å undertrykke denne trusselen til selskapets posisjon.  For FM utgjorde,
 368 hvis det fikk utvikle seg uten begrensninger &#8230; en komplett endring i
 369 maktforholdene rundt radio &#8230; og muligens fjerningen av det nøye
 370 begrensede AM-systemet som var grunnlaget for RCA stigning til
 371 makt.<sup>[<a name="id2787898" href="#ftn.id2787898" class="footnote">8</a>]</sup>
 372 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 373 RCA holdt først teknologien innomhus, og insistere på at det var nødvendig
 374 med ytterligere tester. Da Armstrong, etter to år med testing, ble
 375 utålmodig, begynte RCA å bruke sin makt hos myndighetene til holde tilbake
 376 den generelle spredningen av FM-radio. I 1936, ansatte RCA den tidligere
 377 lederen av FCC og ga ham oppgaven med å sikre at FCC tilordnet
 378 radiospekteret på en måte som ville kastrere FM&#8212;hovedsakelig ved å
 379 flytte FM-radio til et annet band i spekteret. I første omgang lyktes ikke
 380 disse forsøkene.  Men mens Armstrong og nasjonen var distrahert av andre
 381 verdenskrig, begynte RCAs arbeid å bære frukter.  Like etter at krigen var
 382 over, annonserte FCC et sett med avgjørelser som ville ha en klar effekt:
 383 FM-radio ville bli forkrøplet.Lawrence lessing beskrevet det slik,
 384 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 385 Serien med slag mot kroppen som FM-radio mottok rett etter krigen, i en
 386 serie med avgjørelser manipulert gjennom FCC av de store radiointeressene,
 387 var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.<sup>[<a name="id2787912" href="#ftn.id2787912" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
 388 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2787954"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2787962"></a><p>
 389 For å gjøre plass i spektrumet for RCAs nyeste satsingsområde, televisjon,
 390 skulle FM-radioens brukere flyttes til et helt nytt band i spektrumet.
 391 Sendestyrken til FM-radioene ble også redusert, og gjorde at FM ikke lenger
 392 kunne brukes for å sende programmer fra en del av landet til en annen.
 393 (Denne endringen ble sterkt støttet av AT&amp;T, på grunn av at fjerningen
 394 av FM-videresendingsstasjoner ville bety at radiostasjonene ville bli nødt
 395 til å kjøpe kablede linker fra AT&amp;T.)  Spredningen av FM-radio var
 396 dermed kvalt, i hvert fall midlertidig.
 397 </p><p>
 398 Armstrong sto imot RCAs innsats. Som svar motsto RCA Armstrongs patenter.
 399 Etter å ha bakt FM-teknologi inn i den nye standarden for TV, erklærte RCS
 400 patentene ugyldige&#8212;uten grunn og nesten femten år etter at de ble
 401 utstedet.  De nektet dermed å betale ham for bruken av patentene.  I seks år
 402 kjempet Armstrong en dyr søksmålskrig for å forsvare patentene sine.  Til
 403 slutt, samtidig som patentene utløp, tilbød RCA et forlik så lavt at det
 404 ikke engang dekket Armstrongs advokatregning.  Beseiret, knust og nå blakk,
 405 skrev Armstrong i 1954 en kort beskjed til sin kone, før han gikk ut av et
 406 vindu i trettende etasje og falt i døden.
 407 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2726658"></a><p>
 408
 409 Dette er slik loven virker noen ganger.  Ikke ofte like tragisk, og sjelden
 410 med heltemodig drama, men noen ganger er det slik det virker. Fra starten
 411 har myndigheter og myndighetsorganer blitt tatt til fange. Det er mer
 412 sannsynlig at de blir fanget når en mektig interesse er truet av enten en
 413 juridisk eller teknologisk endring.  Denne mektige interessen utøver for
 414 ofte sin innflytelse hos myndighetene til å få myndighetene til å beskytte
 415 den.  Retorikken for denne beskyttelsen er naturligvis alltid med fokus på
 416 fellesskapets beste.  Realiteten er noe annet.  Idéer som kan være solide
 417 som fjell i en tidsalder, men som overlatt til seg selv, vil falle sammen i
 418 en annen, er videreført gjennom denne subtile korrupsjonen i vår politiske
 419 prosess.  RCA hadde hva Causby-ene ikke hadde: Makten til å undertrykke
 420 effekten av en teknologisk endring.
 421 </p><p>
 422 <span class="strong"><strong>Det er ingen</strong></span> enkeltoppfinner av
 423 Internet.  Ei heller er det en god dato som kan brukes til å markere når det
 424 ble født.  Likevel har internettet i løpet av svært kort tid blitt en del av
 425 vanlige amerikaneres liv.  I følge the Pew Internet and American
 426 Life-prosjektet, har 58 prosent av amerikanerne hatt tilgang til internettet
 427 i 2002, opp fra 49 prosent to år tidligere.<sup>[<a name="id2726732" href="#ftn.id2726732" class="footnote">10</a>]</sup> Det tallet kan uten problemer passere to tredjedeler av nasjonen
 428 ved utgangen av 2004.
 429 </p><p>
 430 Etter hvert som internett er blitt integrert inn i det vanlige liv har ting
 431 blitt endret.  Noen av disse endringene er teknisk&#8212;internettet har
 432 gjort kommunikasjon raskere, det har redusert kostnaden med å samle inn
 433 data, og så videre.  Disse tekniske endringene er ikke fokus for denne
 434 boken.  De er viktige.  De er ikke godt forstått.  Men de er den type ting
 435 som ganske enkelt ville blir borte hvis vi alle bare slo av internettet.  De
 436 påvirker ikke folk som ikke bruker internettet, eller i det miste påvirker
 437 det ikke dem direkte.  De er et godt tema for en bok om internettet.  Men
 438 dette er ikke en bok om internettet.
 439 </p><p>
 440 I stedet er denne boken om effekten av internettet ut over internettet i seg
 441 selv.  En effekt på hvordan kultur blir skapt.  Min påstand er at
 442 internettet har ført til en viktig og ukjent endring i denne prosessen.
 443 Denne endringen vil forandre en tradisjon som er like gammel som republikken
 444 selv.  De fleste, hvis de la merke til denne endringen, ville avvise den.
 445 Men de fleste legger ikke engang merke til denne endringen som internettet
 446 har introdusert.
 447 </p><p>
 448 Vi kan få en følelse av denne endringen ved å skille mellom kommersiell og
 449 ikke-kommersiell kultur, ved å knytte lovens reguleringer til hver av dem.
 450 Med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kommersiell kultur</span>»</span> mener jeg den delen av vår kultur som
 451 er produsert og solgt eller produsert for å bli solgt.  Med
 452 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke-kommersiell kultur</span>»</span> mener jeg alt det andre. Da gamle
 453 menn satt rundt i parker eller på gatehjørner og fortalte historier som
 454 unger og andre lyttet til, så var det ikke-kommersiell kultur.  Da Noah
 455 Webster publiserte sin <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Reader</span>»</span>, eller Joel Barlow sin poesi,
 456 så var det kommersiell kultur.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2788282"></a>
 457 <a class="indexterm" name="id2788290"></a>
 458 </p><p>
 459 Fra historisk tid, og for omtrent hele vår tradisjon, har ikke-kommersiell
 460 kultur i hovedsak ikke vært regulert.  Selvfølgelig, hvis din historie var
 461 utuktig, eller hvis dine sanger forstyrret freden, kunne loven gripe inn.
 462 Men loven var aldri direkte interessert i skapingen eller spredningen av
 463 denne form for kultur, og lot denne kulturen være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri</span>»</span>.  Den
 464 vanlige måten som vanlige individer delte og formet deres
 465 kultur&#8212;historiefortelling, formidling av scener fra teater eller TV,
 466 delta i fan-klubber, deling av musikk, laging av kassetter&#8212;ble ikke
 467 styrt av lovverket.
 468 </p><p>
 469 Fokuset på loven var kommersiell kreativitet.  I starten forsiktig, etter
 470 hvert betraktelig, beskytter loven insentivet til skaperne ved å tildele dem
 471 en eksklusiv rett til deres kreative verker, slik at de kan selge disse
 472 eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.<sup>[<a name="id2788332" href="#ftn.id2788332" class="footnote">11</a>]</sup> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
 473 kreativitet og kultur, og det har blitt en viktigere og viktigere del i
 474 USA.  Men det var på ingen måte dominerende i vår tradisjon.  Det var i
 475 stedet bare en del, en kontrollert del, balansert mot det frie.
 476 </p><p>
 477 Denne grove inndelingen mellom den frie og den kontrollerte har nå blitt
 478 fjernet.<sup>[<a name="id2788374" href="#ftn.id2788374" class="footnote">12</a>]</sup> Internettet har satt scenen
 479 for denne fjerningen, og pressen frem av store medieaktører har loven nå
 480 påvirket det.  For første gang i vår tradisjon, har de vanlige måtene som
 481 individer skaper og deler kultur havnet innen rekekvidde for reguleringene
 482 til loven, som har blitt utvidet til å dra inn i sitt kontrollområde den
 483 enorme mengden kultur og kreativitet som den aldri tidligere har nådd over.
 484 Teknologien som tok vare på den historiske balansen&#8212;mellom bruken av
 485 den delen av kulturen vår som var fri og bruken av vår kultur som krevde
 486 tillatelse&#8212;har blitt borte.  Konsekvensen er at vi er mindre og mindre
 487 en fri kultur, og mer og mer en tillatelseskultur.
 488 </p><p>
 489 Denne endringen blir rettferdiggjort som nødvendig for å beskytte
 490 kommersiell kreativitet.  Og ganske riktig, proteksjonisme er nøyaktig det
 491 som motiverer endringen.  Men proteksjonismen som rettferdiggjør endringene
 492 som jeg skal beskrive lenger ned er ikke den begrensede og balanserte typen
 493 som har definert loven tidligere.  Dette er ikke en proteksjonisme for å
 494 beskytte artister.  Det er i stedet en proteksjonisme for å beskytte
 495 bestemte forretningsformer.  Selskaper som er truet av potensialet til
 496 internettet for å endre måten både kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell kultur
 497 blir skapt og delt, har samlet seg for å få lovgiverne til å bruke loven for
 498 å beskytte selskapene.  Dette er historien om RCA og Armstrong, og det er
 499 drømmen til Causbyene.
 500 </p><p>
 501 For internettet har sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mulighet for mange til å
 502 delta i prosessen med å bygge og kultivere en kultur som rekker lagt utenfor
 503 lokale grenselinjer.  Den makten har endret markedsplassen for å lage og
 504 kultivere kultur generelt, og den endringen truer i neste omgang etablerte
 505 innholdsindustrier. Internettet er dermed for industriene som bygget og
 506 distribuerte innhold i det tjuende århundret hva FM-radio var for AM-radio,
 507 eller hva traileren var for jernbaneindustrien i det nittende århundret:
 508 begynnelsen på slutten, eller i hvert fall en markant endring. Digitale
 509 teknologier, knyttet til internettet, kunne produsere et mye mer
 510 konkurransedyktig og levende marked for å bygge og kultivere kultur.  Dette
 511 markedet kunne inneholde en mye videre og mer variert utvalg av skapere.
 512 Disse skaperne kunne produsere og distribuere et mye mer levende utvalg av
 513 kreativitet. Og avhengig av noen få viktige faktorer, så kunne disse
 514 skaperne tjenere mer i snitt fra dette systemet enn skaperne gjør i
 515 dag&#8212;så lenge RCA-ene av i dag ikke bruker loven til å beskytte dem
 516 selv mot denne konkurransen.
 517 </p><p>
 518 Likevel, som jeg argumenterer for i sidene som følger, er dette nøyaktig det
 519 som skjer i vår kultur i dag.  Dette som er dagens ekvivalenter til tidlig
 520 tjuende århundres radio og nittende århundres jernbaner bruker deres makt
 521 til å få loven til å beskytte dem mot dette nye, mer effektive, mer levende
 522 teknologi for å bygge kultur. De lykkes i deres plan om å gjøre om
 523 internettet før internettet gjør om på dem.
 524 </p><p>
 525 Det ser ikke slik ut for mange.  Kamphandlingene over opphavsrett og
 526 internettet er fjernt for de fleste.  For de få som følger dem, virker de i
 527 hovedsak å handle om et enklere sett med spørsmål&#8212;hvorvidt
 528 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> vil bli akseptert, og hvorvidt
 529 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>»</span> vil bli beskyttet.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Krigen</span>»</span> som
 530 har blitt erklært mot teknologiene til internettet&#8212;det presidenten for
 531 Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) Jack Valenti kaller sin
 532 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">egen terroristkrig</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2788514" href="#ftn.id2788514" class="footnote">13</a>]</sup>&#8212;har blitt rammet inn som en kamp om å følge loven og
 533 respektere eiendomsretten.  For å vite hvilken side vi bør ta i denne
 534 krigen, de fleste tenker at vi kun trenger å bestemme om hvorvidt vi er for
 535 eiendomsrett eller mot den.
 536 </p><p>
 537 Hvis dette virkelig var alternativene, så ville jeg være enig med Jack
 538 Valenti og innholdsindustrien.  Jeg tror også på eiendomsretten, og spesielt
 539 på viktigheten av hva Mr. Valenti så pent kaller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativ
 540 eiendomsrett</span>»</span>.  Jeg tror at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> er galt,
 541 og at loven, riktig innstilt, bør straffe <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>,
 542 både på og utenfor internettet.
 543 </p><p>
 544 Men disse enkle trosoppfatninger maskerer et mye mer grunnleggende spørsmål
 545 og en mye mer dramatisk endring. Min frykt er at med mindre vi begynner å
 546 legge merke til denne endringen, så vil krigen for å befri verden fra
 547 internettets <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span> også fjerne verdier fra vår kultur som
 548 har vært integrert til vår tradisjon helt fra starten.
 549 </p><p>
 550 Disse verdiene bygget en tradisjon som, for i hvert fall de første 180 årene
 551 av vår republikk, garanterte skaperne rettigheten til å bygge fritt på deres
 552 fortid, og beskyttet skaperne og innovatørene fra både statlig og privat
 553 kontroll.  Det første grunnlovstillegget beskyttet skaperne fra statlig
 554 kontroll.  Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,<sup>[<a name="id2788594" href="#ftn.id2788594" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
 555 skaperne mot privat kontroll.  Vår tradisjon var dermed hverken Sovjet eller
 556 tradisjonen til velgjørere.  I stedet skar det ut en bred manøvreringsrom
 557 hvor skapere kunne kultivere og utvide vår kultur.
 558 </p><p>
 559 Likevel har lovens respons til internettet, når det knyttes sammen til
 560 endringer i teknologien i internettet selv, ført til massiv økting av den
 561 effektive reguleringen av kreativitet i USA.  For å bygge på eller kritisere
 562 kulturen rundt oss må en spørre, som Oliver Twist, om tillatelse først.
 563 Tillatelse er, naturligvis, ofte innvilget&#8212;men det er ikke ofte
 564 innvilget til den kritiske eller den uavhengige.  Vi har bygget en slags
 565 kulturell adel.  De innen dette adelskapet har et enkelt liv, mens de på
 566 utsiden har det ikke.  Men det er adelskap i alle former som er fremmed for
 567 vår tradisjon.
 568 </p><p>
 569 Historien som følger er om denne krigen.  Er det ikke om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">betydningen
 570 av teknologi</span>»</span> i vanlig liv.  Jeg tror ikke på guder, hverken digitale
 571 eller andre typer.  Det er heller ikke et forsøk på å demonisere noen
 572 individer eller gruppe, jeg tro heller ikke i en djevel, selskapsmessig
 573 eller på annen måte.  Det er ikke en moralsk historie.  Ei heller er det et
 574 rop om hellig krig mot en industri.
 575 </p><p>
 576 Det er i stedet et forsøk på å forstå en håpløst ødeleggende krig som er
 577 inspirert av teknologiene til internettet, men som rekker lang utenfor dens
 578 kode.  Og ved å forstå denne kampen er den en innsats for å finne veien til
 579 fred.  Det er ingen god grunn for å fortsette dagens batalje rundt
 580 internett-teknologiene.  Det vil være til stor skade for vår tradisjon og
 581 kultur hvis den får lov til å fortsette ukontrollert. Vi må forstå kilden
 582 til denne krigen.  Vi må finne en løsning snart.
 583 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2788680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2788686"></a><p>
 584 <span class="strong"><strong>Lik Causbyenes</strong></span> kamp er denne krigen,
 585 delvis, om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>»</span>. Eiendommen i denne krigen er ikke
 586 like håndfast som den til Causbyene, og ingen uskyldige kyllinger har så
 587 langt mistet livet.  Likevel er idéene rundt denne
 588 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>»</span> like åpenbare for de fleste som Causbyenes
 589 krav om ukrenkeligheten til deres bondegård var for dem. De fleste av oss
 590 tar for gitt de uvanlig mektige krav som eierne av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle
 591 rettigheter</span>»</span> nå hevder.  De fleste av oss, som Causbyene, behandler
 592 disse kravene som åpenbare.  Og dermed protesterer vi, som Causbyene,, når
 593 ny teknologi griper inn i denne eiendomsretten.  Det er så klart for oss som
 594 det var fro dem at de nye teknologiene til internettet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tar seg til
 595 rette</span>»</span> mot legitime krav til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>»</span>.  Det er
 596 like klart for oss som det var for dem at loven skulle ta affære for å
 597 stoppe denne inntrengingen i annen manns eiendom.
 598 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2788741"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2788748"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2788754"></a><p>
 599
 600 Og dermed, når nerder og teknologer forsvarer sin tids Armstrong og
 601 Wright-brødenes teknologi, får de lite sympati fra de fleste av oss. Sunn
 602 fornuft gjør ikke opprør.  I motsetning til saken til de uheldige Causbyene,
 603 er sunn fornuft på samme side som eiendomseierne i denne krigen.  I
 604 motsetning til hos de heldige Wright-brødrene, har internettet ikke
 605 inspirert en revolusjon til fordel for seg.
 606 </p><p>
 607 Mitt håp er å skyve denne sunne fornuften videre.  Jeg har blitt stadig mer
 608 overrasket over kraften til denne idéen om immaterielle rettigheter og, mer
 609 viktig, dets evne til å slå av kritisk tanke hos lovmakere og innbyggere.
 610 Det har aldri før i vår historie vært så mye av vår <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kultur</span>»</span>
 611 som har vært <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eid</span>»</span> enn det er nå.  Og likevel har aldri før
 612 konsentrasjonen av makt til å kontrollere <span class="emphasis"><em>bruken</em></span> av
 613 kulturen vært mer akseptert uten spørsmål enn det er nå.
 614 </p><p>
 615 Gåten er, hvorfor det?  Er det fordi vi fått en innsikt i sannheten om
 616 verdien og betydningen av absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur? Er det
 617 fordi vi har oppdaget at vår tradisjon med å avvise slike absolutte krav var
 618 feil?
 619 </p><p>
 620 Eller er det på grunn av at idéer om absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur
 621 gir fordeler til RCA-ene i vår tid, og passer med vår ureflekterte
 622 intuisjon?
 623 </p><p>
 624 Er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår tradisjon om fri kultur en
 625 forekomst av USA som korrigerer en feil fra sin fortid, slik vi gjorde det
 626 etter en blodig krig mot slaveri, og slik vi sakte gjør det mot
 627 forskjellsbehandling?  Eller er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår
 628 tradisjon med fri kultur nok et eksempel på at vårt politiske system er
 629 fanget av noen få mektige særinteresser?
 630 </p><p>
 631 Fører sunn fornuft til det ekstreme i dette spørsmålet på grunn av at sunn
 632 fornuft faktisk tror på dette ekstreme?  Eller står sunn fornuft i stillhet
 633 i møtet med dette ekstreme fordi, som med Armstrong versus RCA, at den mer
 634 mektige siden har sikret seg at det har et mye mer mektig synspunkt?
 635 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2788853"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2788860"></a><p>
 636
 637 Jeg forsøker ikke å være mystisk.  Mine egne synspunkter er klare. Jeg mener
 638 det var riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør mot ekstremismen til
 639 Causbyene.  Jeg mener det ville være riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør
 640 mot de ekstreme krav som gjøres i dag på vegne av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle
 641 rettigheter</span>»</span>.  Det som loven krever i dag er mer å mer like dumt som
 642 om lensmannen skulle arrestere en flymaskin for å trenge inn på annen manns
 643 eiendom.  Men konsekvensene av den nye dumskapen vil bli mye mer
 644 dyptgripende.
 645
 646 </p><p>
 647 <span class="strong"><strong>Basketaket</strong></span> som pågår akkurat nå senterer
 648 seg rundt to idéer: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> og
 649 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span>.  Mitt mål med denne bokens neste to deler er å
 650 utforske disse to idéene.
 651 </p><p>
 652 Metoden min er ikke den vanlige metoden for en akademiker.  Jeg ønsker ikke
 653 å pløye deg inn i et komplisert argument, steinsatt med referanser til
 654 obskure franske teoretikere&#8212;uansett hvor naturlig det har blitt for
 655 den rare sorten vi akademikere har blitt.  Jeg vil i stedet begynne hver del
 656 med en samling historier som etablerer en sammenheng der disse
 657 tilsynelatende enkle idéene kan bli fullt ut forstått.
 658 </p><p>
 659 De to delene setter opp kjernen i påstanden til denne boken: at mens
 660 internettet faktisk har produsert noe fantastisk og nytt, bidrar våre
 661 myndigheter, presset av store medieaktører for å møte dette <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">noe
 662 nytt</span>»</span> til å ødelegge noe som er svært gammelt.  I stedet for å forstå
 663 endringene som internettet kan gjøre mulig, og i stedet for å ta den tiden
 664 som trengs for å la <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>»</span> finne ut hvordan best svare
 665 på utfordringen, så lar vi de som er mest truet av endringene bruke sin makt
 666 til å endre loven&#8212;og viktigere, å bruke sin makt til å endre noe
 667 fundamentalt om hvordan vi alltid har fungert.
 668 </p><p>
 669 Jeg tror vi tillater dette, ikke fordi det er riktig, og heller ikke fordi
 670 de fleste av oss tror på disse endringene.  Vi tillater det på grunn av at
 671 de interessene som er mest truet er blant de mest mektige aktørene i vår
 672 deprimerende kompromitterte prosess for å utforme lover. Denne boken er
 673 historien om nok en konsekvens for denne type korrupsjon&#8212;en konsekvens
 674 for de fleste av oss forblir ukjent med.
 675 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2787330" href="#id2787330" class="para">4</a>] </sup>
 676 St. George Tucker, <em class="citetitle">Blackstone's Commentaries</em> 3 (South
 677 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1969), 18.
 678 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2787459" href="#id2787459" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
 679 USA mot Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. Domstolen fant at det kunne være
 680 å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> hvis regjeringens bruk av sitt land reelt sett hadde
 681 ødelagt verdien av eiendomen til Causby.  Dette eksemplet ble foreslått for
 682 meg i Keith Aokis flotte stykke, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">(intellectual) Property and
 683 Sovereignty: Notes Toward a cultural Geography of Authorship</span>»</span>,
 684 <em class="citetitle">Stanford Law Review</em> 48 (1996): 1293, 1333. Se også
 685 Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Real Property</em> (Mineola, N.Y.:
 686 Foundation Press (1984)), 1112&#8211;13.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2787498"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2787494"></a>
 687 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2787767" href="#id2787767" class="para">6</a>] </sup>
 688 Lawrence Lessing, <em class="citetitle">Man of High Fidelity:: Edwin Howard
 689 Armstrong</em> (Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company, 1956), 209.
 690 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2787704" href="#id2787704" class="para">7</a>] </sup> Se <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era,</span>»</span>
 691 første elektroniske kirke i USA, hos www.webstationone.com/fecha,
 692 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #1</a>.
 693 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2787898" href="#id2787898" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
 694 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2787912" href="#id2787912" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
 695 Lessing, 256.
 696 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2726732" href="#id2726732" class="para">10</a>] </sup>
 697 Amanda Lenhart, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
 698 Internet Access and the Digital Divide,</span>»</span> Pew Internet and American
 699 Life Project, 15. april 2003: 6, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #2</a>.
 700 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2788332" href="#id2788332" class="para">11</a>] </sup>
 701 Dette er ikke det eneste formålet med opphavsrett, men det er helt klart
 702 hovedformålet med opphavsretten slik den er etablert i føderal grunnlov.
 703 Opphavsrettslovene i delstatene beskyttet historisk ikke bare kommersielle
 704 interesse når det gjaldt publikasjoner, men også personverninteresser.  Ved
 705 å gi forfattere eneretten til å publisere først, ga delstatenes
 706 opphavsrettslovene forfatterne makt til å kontrollere spredningen av fakta
 707 om seg selv. Se Samuel D. Warren og Louis Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to
 708 Privacy</span>»</span>, Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198&#8211;200.
 709 <a class="indexterm" name="id2787680"></a>
 710 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2788374" href="#id2788374" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
 711 Se Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (New York:
 712 Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2788382"></a>
 713 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2788514" href="#id2788514" class="para">13</a>] </sup>
 714 Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates Use New
 715 Tools to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
 716 York Times</em>, 17. januar 2002.
 717 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2788594" href="#id2788594" class="para">14</a>] </sup>
 718 Neil W. Netanel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society,</span>»</span>
 719 <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2788604"></a>
 720 </p></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Del I. «Piratvirksomhet»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Del I. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="«Piratvirksomhet»"><div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield1"></a><p>
 721 <span class="strong"><strong>Helt siden</strong></span> loven begynte å regulere
 722 kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært en krig mot
 723 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>.  De presise konturene av dette konseptet,
 724 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>, har vært vanskelig å tegne opp, men bildet
 725 av urettferdighet er enkelt å beskrive.  Som Lord Mansfield skrev i en sak
 726 som utvidet rekkevidden for engelsk opphavsrettslov til å inkludere noteark,
 727 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 728 En person kan bruke kopien til å spille den, men han har ingen rett til å
 729 robbe forfatteren for profitten, ved å lage flere kopier og distribuere
 730 etter eget forgodtbefinnende.<sup>[<a name="id2789033" href="#ftn.id2789033" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
 731 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2789048"></a></blockquote></div><p>
 732
 733 I dag er vi midt inne i en annen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">krig</span>»</span> mot
 734 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>. Internettet har fremprovosert denne krigen.
 735 Internettet gjør det mulig å effektivt spre innhold.  Peer-to-peer (p2p)
 736 fildeling er blant det mest effektive av de effektive teknologier
 737 internettet muliggjør. Ved å bruke distribuert intelligens, kan p2p-systemer
 738 muliggjøre enkel spredning av innhold på en måte som ingen forestilte seg
 739 for en generasjon siden.
 740
 741 </p><p>
 742 Denne effektiviteten respekterer ikke de tradisjonelle skillene i
 743 opphavsretten. Nettverket skiller ikke mellom deling av
 744 opphavsrettsbeskyttet og ikke opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold. Dermed har det
 745 vært deling av en enorm mengde opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold.  Denne
 746 delingen har i sin tur ansporet til krigen, på grunn av at eiere av
 747 opphavsretter frykter delingen vil <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frata forfatteren
 748 overskuddet.</span>»</span>
 749 </p><p>
 750 Krigerne har snudd seg til domstolene, til lovgiverne, og i stadig større
 751 grad til teknologi for å forsvare sin <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> mot denne
 752 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>»</span>.  En generasjon amerikanere, advarer
 753 krigerne, blir oppdratt til å tro at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> skal være
 754 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratis</span>»</span>.  Glem tatoveringer, ikke tenk på
 755 kroppspiercing&#8212;våre barn blir <span class="emphasis"><em>tyver</em></span>!
 756 </p><p>
 757 Det er ingen tvil om at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> er galt, og at
 758 pirater bør straffes.  Men før vi roper på bødlene, bør vi sette dette
 759 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhets</span>»</span>-begrepet i en sammenheng.  For mens begrepet
 760 blir mer og mer brukt, har det i sin kjerne en ekstraordinær idé som nesten
 761 helt sikkert er feil.
 762 </p><p>
 763 Idéen høres omtrent slik ut:
 764 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 765 Kreativt arbeid har verdi.  Når jeg bruker, eller tar, eller bygger på det
 766 kreative arbeidet til andre, så tar jeg noe fra dem som har verdi.  Når jeg
 767 tar noe av verdi fra noen andre, bør jeg få tillatelse fra dem.  Å ta noe
 768 som har verdi fra andre uten tillatelse er galt.  Det er en form for
 769 piratvirksomhet.
 770 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2789170"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2789176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxifvalue"></a><p>
 771 Dette synet går dypt i de pågående debattene.  Det er hva jussprofessor
 772 Rochelle Dreyfuss ved NYU kritiserer som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så
 773 rettighet</span>»</span>-teorien for kreative eierrettigheter <sup>[<a name="id2789208" href="#ftn.id2789208" class="footnote">16</a>]</sup>&#8212;hvis det finnes verdi, så må noen ha
 774 rettigheten til denne verdien.  Det er perspektivet som fikk komponistenes
 775 rettighetsorganisasjon, ASCAP, til å saksøke jentespeiderne for å ikke
 776 betale for sangene som jentene sagt rundt jentespeidernes
 777 leirbål.<sup>[<a name="id2789231" href="#ftn.id2789231" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> Det fantes
 778 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">verdi</span>»</span> (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en
 779 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rettighet</span>»</span>&#8212;til og med mot jentespeiderne.
 780 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2789275"></a><p>
 781
 782 Denne idéen er helt klart en mulig forståelse om hvordan kreative
 783 eierrettigheter bør virke.  Det er helt klart et mulig design for et
 784 lovsystem som beskytter kreative eierrettigheter.  Men teorien om
 785 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så rettighet</span>»</span> for kreative eierrettigheter har
 786 aldri vært USAs teori for kreative eierrettigheter.  It har aldri stått rot
 787 i vårt lovverk.
 788 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2789302"></a><p>
 789 I vår tradisjon har immaterielle rettigheter i stedet vært et instrument.
 790 Det bygger fundamentet for et rikt kreativt samfunn, men er fortsatt servilt
 791 til verdien av kreativitet.  Dagens debatt har snudd dette helt rundt.  Vi
 792 har blitt så opptatt av å beskytte instrumentet at vi mister verdien av
 793 syne.
 794 </p><p>
 795 Kilden til denne forvirringen er et skille som loven ikke lenger bryr seg om
 796 å markere&#8212;skillet mellom å gjenpublisere noens verk på den ene siden,
 797 og bygge på og gjøre om verket på den andre.  Da opphavsretten kom var det
 798 kun publisering som ble berørt. Opphavsretten i dag regulerer begge.
 799 </p><p>
 800 Før teknologiene til internettet dukket opp, betød ikke denne begrepsmessige
 801 sammenblandingen mye.  Teknologiene for å publisere var kostbare, som betød
 802 at det meste av publisering var kommersiell. Kommersielle aktører kunne
 803 håndtere byrden pålagt av loven&#8212;til og med byrden som den bysantiske
 804 kompleksiteten som opphavsrettsloven har blitt.  Det var bare nok en kostnad
 805 ved å drive forretning.
 806 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2789340"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2789346"></a><p>
 807 Men da internettet dukket opp, forsvant denne naturlige begrensningen til
 808 lovens virkeområde.  Loven kontrollerer ikke bare kreativiteten til
 809 kommersielle skapere, men effektivt sett kreativiteten til alle. Selv om
 810 utvidelsen ikke ville bety stort hvis opphavsrettsloven kun regulerte
 811 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopiering</span>»</span>, så betyr utvidelsen mye når loven regulerer så
 812 bredt og obskurt som den gjør.  Byrden denne loven gir oppveier nå langt
 813 fordelene den ga da den ble vedtatt&#8212;helt klart slik den påvirker
 814 ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, og i stadig større grad slik den påvirker
 815 kommersiell kreativitet.  Dermed, slik vi ser klarere i kapitlene som
 816 følger, er lovens rolle mindre og mindre å støtte kreativitet, og mer og mer
 817 å beskytte enkelte industrier mot konkurranse.  Akkurat på tidspunktet da
 818 digital teknologi kunne sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mengde med kommersiell
 819 og ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, tynger loven denne kreativiteten med
 820 sinnsykt kompliserte og vage regler og med trusselen om uanstendig harde
 821 straffer.  Vi ser kanskje, som Richard Florida skriver, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fremveksten
 822 av den kreative klasse</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2789385" href="#ftn.id2789385" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup>
 823 Dessverre ser vi også en ekstraordinær fremvekst av reguleringer av denne
 824 kreative klassen.
 825 </p><p>
 826 Disse byrdene gir ingen mening i vår tradisjon.  Vi bør begynne med å forstå
 827 den tradisjonen litt mer, og ved å plassere dagens slag om oppførsel med
 828 merkelappen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> i sin rette sammenheng.
 829 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2789033" href="#id2789033" class="para">15</a>] </sup>
 830
 831
 832 <em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
 833 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777) (Mansfield).
 834 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2789208" href="#id2789208" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
 835
 836
 837 Se Rochelle Dreyfuss, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language
 838 in the Pepsi Generation,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Notre Dame Law
 839 Review</em> 65 (1990): 397.
 840 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2789231" href="#id2789231" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
 841
 842 Lisa Bannon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay
 843 Up,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 21. august 1996,
 844 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #3</a>;
 845 Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of
 846 Property vs. Free Speech, No One Wins,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston
 847 Globe</em>, 24. november 2002.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2789256"></a>
 848 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2789385" href="#id2789385" class="para">18</a>] </sup>
 849
 850 I <em class="citetitle">The Rise of the Creative Class</em> (New York: Basic
 851 Books, 2002), dokumenterer Richard Florida en endring i arbeidsstokken mot
 852 kreativitetsarbeide.  Hans tekst omhandler derimot ikke direkte de juridiske
 853 vilkår som kreativiteten blir muliggjort eller hindret under.  Jeg er helt
 854 klart enig med ham i viktigheten og betydningen av denne endringen, men jeg
 855 tror også at vilkårene som disse endringene blir aktivert under er mye
 856 vanskeligere.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2789427"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2789436"></a>
 857 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>Kapittel en: Skaperne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxanimadedcartoons"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcartoonfilms"></a><p>
 858 <span class="strong"><strong>I 1928</strong></span> ble en tegnefilmfigur født.  En
 859 tidlig Mikke Mus debuterte i mai dette året, i en stille flopp ved navn
 860 <em class="citetitle">Plane Crazy</em>.  I november, i Colony teateret i New
 861 York City, ble den første vidt distribuerte tegnefilmen med synkronisert
 862 lyd, <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willy</em>, vist frem med figuren som
 863 skulle bli til Mikke Mus.
 864 </p><p>
 865 Film med synkronisert lyd hadde blitt introdusert et år tidligere i filmen
 866 <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em>.  Suksessen fikk Walt Disney til å
 867 kopiere teknikken og mikse lyd med tegnefilm.  Ingen visste hvorvidt det
 868 ville virke eller ikke, og om det fungere, hvorvidt publikum villa ha sans
 869 for det.  Men da Disney gjorde en test sommeren 1928, var resultatet
 870 entydig.  Som Disney beskriver dette første eksperimentet,
 871 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 872
 873 Et par av guttene mine kunne lese noteark, og en av dem kunne spille
 874 munnspill.  Vi stappet dem inn i et rom hvor de ikke kunne se skjermen, og
 875 gjorde det slik at lyden de spilte ble sendt videre til et rom hvor våre
 876 koner og venner var plassert for å se på bildet.
 877
 878 </p><p>
 879 Guttene brukte et note- og lydeffekt-ark.  Etter noen dårlige oppstarter,
 880 kom endelig lyd og handling i gang med et smell. Munnspilleren spilte
 881 melodien, og resten av oss i lydavdelingen slamret på tinnkasseroller og
 882 blåste på slide-fløyte til rytmen. Synkroniseringen var nesten helt riktig.
 883 </p><p>
 884 Effekten på vårt lille publikum var intet mindre enn elektrisk.  De reagerte
 885 nesten instinktivt til denne union av lyd og bevegelse.  Jeg trodde de
 886 tullet med meg.  Så de puttet meg i publikum og satte igang på nytt.  Det
 887 var grufullt, men det var fantastisk.  Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id2789583" href="#ftn.id2789583" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
 888 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 889 Disneys daværende partner, og en av animasjonsverdenens mest ekstraordinære
 890 talenter, Ub Iwerks, uttalte det sterkere: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg har aldri vært så
 891 begeistret i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like
 892 bra.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2789610"></a>
 893 </p><p>
 894 Disney hadde laget noe helt nyt, basert på noe relativt nytt. Synkronisert
 895 lyd ga liv til en form for kreativitet som sjeldent hadde&#8212;unntatt fra
 896 Disneys hender&#8212;vært noe annet en fyllstoff for andre filmer.  Gjennom
 897 animasjonens tidligere historie var det Disneys oppfinnelse som satte
 898 standarden som andre måtte sloss for å oppfylle.  Og ganske ofte var Disneys
 899 store geni, hans gnist av kreativitet, bygget på arbeidet til andre.
 900 </p><p>
 901 Dette er kjent stoff.  Det du kanskje ikke vet er at 1928 også markerer en
 902 annen viktig overgang.  I samme år laget et komedie-geni (i motsetning til
 903 tegnefilm-geni) sin siste uavhengig produserte stumfilm.  Dette geniet var
 904 Buster Keaton.  Filmen var <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>.
 905 </p><p>
 906 Keaton ble født inn i en vauderville-familie i 1895.  I stumfilm-æraen hadde
 907 han mestret bruken av bredpenslet fysisk komedie på en måte som tente
 908 ukontrollerbar latter fra hans publikum. <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill,
 909 Jr</em>. var en klassiker av denne typen, berømt blant film-elskere
 910 for sine utrolige stunts.  Filmen var en klassisk Keaton&#8212;fantastisk
 911 populær og blant de beste i sin sjanger.
 912 </p><p>
 913 <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>. kom før Disneys tegnefilm
 914 Steamboat Willie.  Det er ingen tilfeldighet at titlene er så
 915 like. Steamboat Willie er en direkte tegneserieparodi av Steamboat
 916 Bill,<sup>[<a name="id2789681" href="#ftn.id2789681" class="footnote">20</a>]</sup> og begge bygger på en felles sang
 917 som kilde.  Det er ikke kun fra nyskapningen med synkronisert lyd i
 918 <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em> at vi får <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
 919 Willie</em>.  Det er også fra Buster Keatons nyskapning Steamboat
 920 Bill, Jr., som igjen var inspirert av sangen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill</span>»</span>,
 921 at vi får Steamboat Willie.  Og fra Steamboat Willie får vi så Mikke Mus.
 922 </p><p>
 923 Denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">låningen</span>»</span> var ikke unik, hverken for Disney eller for
 924 industrien.  Disney apet alltid etter full-lengde massemarkedsfilmene rundt
 925 ham.<sup>[<a name="id2789753" href="#ftn.id2789753" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> Det samme gjorde mange andre.
 926 Tidlige tegnefilmer er stappfulle av etterapninger&#8212;små variasjoner
 927 over suksessfulle temaer, gamle historier fortalt på nytt.  Nøkkelen til
 928 suksess var brilliansen i forskjellene.  Med Disney var det lyden som ga
 929 gnisten til hans animasjoner.  Senere var det kvaliteten på hans arbeide
 930 relativt til de masseproduserte tegnefilmene som han konkurrerte med.
 931 Likevel var disse bidragene bygget på toppen av fundamentet som var lånt.
 932 Disney bygget på arbeidet til andre som kom før han, og skapte noe nytt ut
 933 av noe som bare var litt gammelt.
 934 </p><p>
 935 Noen ganger var låningen begrenset, og noen ganger var den betydelig. Tenkt
 936 på eventyrene til brødrene Grimm.  Hvis du er like ubevisst som jeg var, så
 937 tror du sannsynlighvis at disse fortellingene er glade, søte historier som
 938 passer for ethvert barn ved leggetid.  Realiteten er at Grimm-eventyrene er,
 939 for oss, ganske dystre.  Det er noen sjeldne og kanskje spesielt ambisiøse
 940 foreldre som ville våge å lese disse blodige moralistiske historiene til
 941 sine barn, ved leggetid eller hvilken som helst annet tidspunkt.
 942 </p><p>
 943
 944 Disney tok disse historiene og fortalte dem på nytt på en måte som førte dem
 945 inn i en ny tidsalder. Han ga historiene liv, med både karakterer og
 946 lys. Uten å fjerne bitene av frykt og fare helt, gjorde han morsomt det som
 947 var mørkt og satte inn en ekte følelse av medfølelse der det før var
 948 frykt. Og ikke bare med verkene av brødrene Grimm.  Faktisk er katalogen
 949 over Disney-arbeid som baserer seg på arbeidet til andre ganske forbløffende
 950 når den blir samlet: <em class="citetitle">Snøhvit</em> (1937),
 951 <em class="citetitle">Fantasia</em> (1940), <em class="citetitle">Pinocchio</em>
 952 (1940), <em class="citetitle">Dumbo</em> (1941), <em class="citetitle">Bambi</em>
 953 (1942), <em class="citetitle">Song of the South</em> (1946),
 954 <em class="citetitle">Askepott</em> (1950), <em class="citetitle">Alice in
 955 Wonderland</em> (1951), <em class="citetitle">Robin Hood</em> (1952),
 956 <em class="citetitle">Peter Pan</em> (1953), <em class="citetitle">Lady og
 957 landstrykeren</em> (1955), <em class="citetitle">Mulan</em> (1998),
 958 <em class="citetitle">Tornerose</em> (1959), <em class="citetitle">101
 959 dalmatinere</em> (1961), <em class="citetitle">Sverdet i steinen</em>
 960 (1963), og <em class="citetitle">Jungelboken</em> (1967)&#8212;for ikke å nevne
 961 et nylig eksempel som vi bør kanskje glemme raskt, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
 962 Planet</em> (2003). I alle disse tilfellene, har Disney (eller
 963 Disney, Inc.) hentet kreativitet fra kultur rundt ham, blandet med
 964 kreativiteten fra sitt eget ekstraordinære talent, og deretter brent denne
 965 blandingen inn i sjelen til sin kultur. Hente, blande og brenne.
 966 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2789884"></a><p>
 967 Dette er en type kreativitet.  Det er en kreativitet som vi bør huske på og
 968 feire.  Det er noen som vil si at det finnes ingen kreativitet bortsett fra
 969 denne typen.  Vi trenger ikke gå så langt for å anerkjenne dens betydning.
 970 Vi kan kalle dette <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span>, selv om det vil være
 971 litt misvisende.  Det er mer presist <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt
 972 Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span>&#8212;en uttrykksform og genialitet som bygger på
 973 kulturen rundt oss og omformer den til noe annet.
 974 </p><p> I 1928 var kulturen som Disney fritt kunne trekke veksler på relativt
 975 fersk.  Allemannseie i 1928 var ikke veldig gammelt og var dermed ganske
 976 levende.  Gjennomsnittlig vernetid i opphavsretten var bare rundt tredve
 977 år&#8212;for den lille delen av kreative verk som faktisk var
 978 opphavsrettsbeskyttet.<sup>[<a name="id2789910" href="#ftn.id2789910" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> Det betyr at i
 979 tredve år, i gjennomsnitt, hadde forfattere eller kreative verks
 980 opphavsrettighetsinnehaver en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eksklusiv rett</span>»</span> til a
 981 kontrollere bestemte typer bruk av verket.  For å bruke disse
 982 opphavsrettsbeskyttede verkene på de begrensede måtene krevde tillatelse fra
 983 opphavsrettsinnehaveren.
 984 </p><p>
 985 Når opphavsrettens vernetid er over, faller et verk i det fri og blir
 986 allemannseie.  Ingen tillatelse trengs da for å bygge på eller bruke dette
 987 verket.  Ingen tillatelse og dermed, ingen advokater. Allemannseie er en
 988 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">advokat-fri sone</span>»</span>.  Det meste av innhold fra det nittende
 989 århundre var dermed fritt tilgjengelig for Disney å bruke eller bygge på i
 990 1928.  Det var tilgjengelig for enhver&#8212;uansett om de hadde
 991 forbindelser eller ikke, om de var rik eller ikke, om de var akseptert eller
 992 ikke&#8212;til å bruke og bygge videre på.
 993 </p><p>
 994
 995 Dette er slik det alltid har vært&#8212;inntil ganske nylig.  For
 996 mesteparten av vår historie, har allemannseiet vært like over horisonten.
 997 Fram til 1978 var den gjennomsnittlige opphavsrettslige vernetiden aldri mer
 998 enn trettito år, som gjorde at det meste av kultur fra en og en halv
 999 generasjon tidligere var tilgjengelig for enhver å bygge på uten tillatelse
1000 fra noen.  Tilsvarende for i dag ville være at kreative verker fra 1960- og
1001 1970-tallet nå ville være fritt tilgjengelig for de neste Walt Disney å
1002 bygge på uten tillatelse.  Men i dag er allemannseie presumtivt kun for
1003 innhold fra før mellomkrigstiden.
1004 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2790012"></a><p>
1005 <span class="strong"><strong>Walt Disney</strong></span> hadde selvfølgelig ikke
1006 monopol på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span>.  Det har heller ikke
1007 USA.  Normen med fri kultur har, inntil nylig, og unntatt i totalitære
1008 nasjoner, vært bredt utnyttet og svært universell.
1009 </p><p>
1010 Vurder for eksempel en form for kreativitet som synes underlig for mange
1011 amerikanere, men som er overalt i japansk kultur:
1012 <em class="citetitle">manga</em>, eller tegneserier.  Japanerne er fanatiske når
1013 det gjelder tegneserier.  Over 40 prosent av publikasjoner er tegneserier,
1014 og 30 prosent av publikasjonsomsetningen stammer fra tegneserier.  De er
1015 over alt i det japanske samfunnet, tilgjengelig fra ethvert
1016 tidsskriftsutsalg, og i hendene på en stor andel av pendlere på Japans
1017 ekstraordinære system for offentlig transport.
1018 </p><p>
1019 Amerikanere har en tendens til å se ned på denne formen for kultur. Det er
1020 et lite attraktivt kjennetegn hos oss.  Vi misforstår sannsynligvis mye
1021 rundt manga, på grunn av at få av oss noen gang har lest noe som ligner på
1022 historiene i disse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grafiske historiene</span>»</span> forteller.  For en
1023 japaner dekker manga ethvert aspekt ved det sosiale liv.  For oss er
1024 tegneserier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menn i strømpebukser</span>»</span>.  Og uansett er det ikke
1025 slik at T-banen i New York er full av folk som leser Joyse eller Hemingway
1026 for den saks skyld.  Folk i ulike kulturer skiller seg ut på forskjellig
1027 måter, og japanerne på dette interessante viset.
1028 </p><p>
1029 Men mitt formål her er ikke å forstå manga.  Det er å beskrive en variant av
1030 manga som fra en advokats perspektiv er ganske merkelig, men som fra en
1031 Disneys perspektiv er ganske godt kjent.
1032 </p><p>
1033
1034 Dette er fenomenet <em class="citetitle">doujinshi</em>.  Doujinshi er også
1035 tegneserier, men de er slags etterapings-tegneserier.  En rik etikk styrer
1036 de som skaper doujinshi.  Det er ikke doujinshi hvis det
1037 <span class="emphasis"><em>bare</em></span> er en kopi.  Kunstneren må gjøre et bidrag til
1038 kunsten han kopierer ved å omforme det enten subtilt eller betydelig.  En
1039 doujinshi-tegneserie kan dermed ta en massemarkeds-tegneserie og utvikle den
1040 i en annen retning&#8212;med en annen historie-linje.  Eller tegneserien kan
1041 beholde figuren som seg selv men endre litt på utseendet.  Det er ingen
1042 bestemt formel for hva som gjør en doujinshi tilstrekkelig
1043 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">forskjellig</span>»</span>.  Men de må være forskjellige hvis de skal anses
1044 som ekte doujinshi.  Det er faktisk komiteer som går igjennom doujinshi for
1045 å bli med på messer, og avviser etterapninger som bare er en kopi.
1046 </p><p>
1047 Disse etterapings-tegneseriene er ikke en liten del av manga-markedet.  Det
1048 er enorme.  Mer en 33 000 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sirkler</span>»</span> av skapere over hele Japan
1049 som produserer disse bitene av Walt Disney-kreativitet.  Mer en 450 000
1050 japanere samles to ganger i året, i den største offentlige samlingen i
1051 langet, for å bytte og selge dem.  Dette markedet er parallelt med det
1052 kommersielle massemarkeds-manga-markedet.  På noen måter konkurrerer det
1053 åpenbart med det markedet, men det er ingen vedvarende innsats fra de som
1054 kontrollerer det kommersielle manga-markedet for å stenge
1055 doujinshi-markedet.  Det blomstrer, på tross av konkurransen og til tross
1056 for loven.
1057 </p><p>
1058 Den mest gåtefulle egenskapen med doujinshi-markedet, for de som har
1059 juridisk trening i hvert fall, er at det overhodet tillates å eksistere.
1060 Under japansk opphavsrettslov, som i hvert fall på dette området (på
1061 papiret) speiler USAs opphavsrettslov, er doujinshi-markedet ulovlig.
1062 Doujinshi er helt klart <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">avledede verk</span>»</span>.  Det er ingen generell
1063 praksis hos doujinshi-kunstnere for å sikre seg tillatelse hos
1064 manga-skaperne.  I stedet er praksisen ganske enkelt å ta og endre det andre
1065 har laget, slik Walt Disney gjorde med <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill,
1066 Jr</em>.  For både japansk og USAs lov, er å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> uten
1067 tillatelse fra den opprinnelige opphavsrettsinnehaver ulovlig.  Det er et
1068 brudd på opphavsretten til det opprinnelige verket å lage en kopi eller et
1069 avledet verk uten tillatelse fra den opprinnelige rettighetsinnehaveren.
1070 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
1071 Likevel eksisterer dette illegale markedet og faktisk blomstrer i Japan, og
1072 etter manges syn er det nettopp fordi det eksisterer at japansk manga
1073 blomstrer.  Som USAs tegneserieskaper Judd Winick fortalte meg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I
1074 amerikansk tegneseriers første dager var det ganske likt det som foregår i
1075 Japan i dag. &#8230; Amerikanske tegneserier kom til verden ved å kopiere
1076 hverandre. &#8230; Det er slik [kunstnerne] lærer å tegne&#8212;ved å se i
1077 tegneseriebøker og ikke følge streken, men ved å se på dem og kopiere
1078 dem</span>»</span> og bygge basert på dem.<sup>[<a name="id2790220" href="#ftn.id2790220" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
1079 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2790246"></a><p>
1080 Amerikanske tegneserier nå er ganske annerledes, forklarer Winick, delvis på
1081 grunn av de juridiske problemene med å tilpasse tegneserier slik doujinshi
1082 får lov til.  Med for eksempel Supermann, fortalte Winick meg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er det
1083 en rekke regler, og du må følge dem</span>»</span>.  Det er ting som Supermann
1084 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke kan</span>»</span> gjøre.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For en som lager tegneserier er det
1085 frustrerende å måtte begrense seg til noen parameter som er femti år
1086 gamle.</span>»</span>
1087 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2790279"></a><p>
1088 Normen i Japan reduserer denne juridiske utfordringen.  Noen sier at det
1089 nettopp er den oppsamlede fordelen i det japanske mangamarkedet som
1090 forklarer denne reduksjonen.  Jussprofessor Salil Mehra ved Temple
1091 University hypnotiserer for eksempel med at manga-markedet aksepterer disse
1092 teoretiske bruddene fordi de får mangamarkedet til å bli rikere og mer
1093 produktivt.  Alle ville få det verre hvis doujinshi ble bannlyst, så loven
1094 bannlyser ikke doujinshi.<sup>[<a name="id2790305" href="#ftn.id2790305" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
1095 </p><p>
1096 Problemet med denne historien, derimot, og som Mehra helt klart erkjenner,
1097 er at mekanismen som produserer denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hold hendene
1098 borte</span>»</span>-responsen ikke er forstått.  Det kan godt være at markedet som
1099 helhet gjør det bedre hvis doujinshi tillates i stedet for å bannlyse den,
1100 men det forklarer likevel ikke hvorfor individuelle opphavsrettsinnehavere
1101 ikke saksøker.  Hvis loven ikke har et generelt unntak for doujinshi, og det
1102 finnes faktisk noen tilfeller der individuelle manga-kunstnere har saksøkt
1103 doujinshi-kunstnere, hvorfor er det ikke et mer generelt mønster for å
1104 blokkere denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frie takingen</span>»</span> hos doujinshi-kulturen?
1105 </p><p>
1106 Jeg var fire nydelige måneder i Japan, og jeg stilte dette spørsmål så ofte
1107 som jeg kunne.  Kanskje det beste svaret til slutt kom fra en venn i et
1108 større japansk advokatfirma. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vi har ikke nok advokater</span>»</span>,
1109 fortalte han meg en ettermiddag.  Det er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bare ikke nok ressurser til
1110 å tiltale tilfeller som dette</span>»</span>.
1111 </p><p>
1112
1113 Dette er et tema vi kommer tilbake til: at lovens regulering både er en
1114 funksjon av ordene i bøkene, og kostnadene med å få disse ordene til å ha
1115 effekt.  Akkurat nå er det endel åpenbare spørsmål som presser seg frem:
1116 Ville Japan gjøre det bedre med flere advokater? Ville manga være rikere
1117 hvis doujinshi-kunstnere ble regelmessig rettsforfulgt?  Ville Japan vinne
1118 noe viktig hvis de kunne stoppe praksisen med deling uten kompensasjon?
1119 Skader piratvirksomhet ofrene for piratvirksomheten, eller hjelper den dem?
1120 Ville advokaters kamp mot denne piratvirksomheten hjelpe deres klienter,
1121 eller skade dem?
1122 </p><p>
1123 <span class="strong"><strong>La oss ta</strong></span> et øyeblikks pause.
1124 </p><p>
1125 Hvis du er som meg et tiår tilbake, eller som folk flest når de først
1126 begynner å tenke på disse temaene, da bør du omtrent nå være rådvill om noe
1127 du ikke hadde tenkt igjennom før.
1128 </p><p>
1129 Vi lever i en verden som feirer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span>.  Jeg er en av de som
1130 feierer.  Jeg tror på verdien av eiendom generelt, og jeg tror også på
1131 verdien av den sære formen for eiendom som advokater kaller
1132 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immateriell eiendom</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2790426" href="#ftn.id2790426" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> Et
1133 stort og variert samfunn kan ikke overleve uten eiendom, og et moderne
1134 samfunn kan ikke blomstre uten immaterielle eierrettigheter.
1135 </p><p>
1136 Men det tar bare noen sekunders refleksjon for å innse at det er masse av
1137 verdi der ute som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> ikke dekker.  Jeg mener ikke
1138 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kjærlighet kan ikke kjøpes med penger</span>»</span> men heller, at en verdi
1139 som ganske enkelt er del av produksjonsprosessen, både for kommersiell og
1140 ikke-kommersiell produksjon.  Hvis Disneys animatører hadde stjålet et sett
1141 med blyanter for å tegne Steamboat Willie, vi ville ikke nølt med å dømme
1142 det som galt&#8212;selv om det er trivielt og selv om det ikke blir
1143 oppdaget.  Men det var intet galt, i hvert fall slik loven var da, med at
1144 Disney tok fra Buster Keaton eller fra Grimm-brødrene.  Det var intet galt
1145 med å ta fra Keaton, fordi Disneys bruk ville blitt ansett som
1146 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig</span>»</span>.  Det var intet galt med å ta fra brødrene Grimm
1147 fordi deres verker var allemannseie.
1148 </p><p>
1149
1150 Dermed, selv om de tingene som Disney tok&#8212;eller mer generelt, tingene
1151 som blir tatt av enhver som utøver Walt Disney-kreativitet&#8212;er
1152 verdifulle, så anser ikke vår tradisjon det som galt å ta disse tingene.
1153 Noen ting forblir frie til å bli tatt i en fri kultur og denne friheten er
1154 bra.
1155 </p><p>
1156 Det er det samme med doujinshi-kulturen.  Hvis en doujinshi-kunstner brøt
1157 seg inn på kontoret til en forlegger, og stakk av med tusen kopier av hans
1158 siste verk&#8212;eller bare en kopi&#8212;uten å betale, så ville vi uten å
1159 nøle si at kunstneren har gjort noe galt.  I tillegg til å ha trengt seg inn
1160 på andres eiendom, ville han ha stjålet noe av verdi. Loven forbyr stjeling
1161 i enhver form, uansett hvor stort eller lite som blir tatt.
1162 </p><p>
1163 Likevel er det en åpenbar motvilje, selv blant japanske advokater, for å si
1164 at etterapende tegneseriekunstnere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeler</span>»</span>.  Denne formen for
1165 Walt Disney-kreativitet anses som rimelig og riktig, selv om spesielt
1166 advokater synes det er vanskelig å forklare hvorfor.
1167 </p><p>
1168 Det er det same med tusen eksempler som dukker opp over alt med en gang en
1169 begynner å se etter dem.  Forskerne bygger på arbeidet til andre forskere
1170 uten å spørre eller betale for privilegiet. (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Unnskyld meg, professor
1171 Einstein, men kan jeg få tillatelse til å bruke din relativitetsteori til å
1172 vise at du tok feil om kvantefysikk?</span>»</span>) Teatertropper viser frem
1173 bearbeidelser av verkene til Shakespeare uten å sikre seg noen tillatelser.
1174 (Er det <span class="emphasis"><em>noen</em></span> som tror at Shakespeare ville vært mer
1175 spredt i vår kultur om det var et sentralt rettighetsklareringskontor for
1176 Shakespeare som alle som laget Shakespeare-produksjoner måtte appellere til
1177 først?)  Og Hollywood går igjennom sykluser med en bestemt type filmer: fem
1178 astroidefilmer i slutten av 1990-tallet, to vulkankatastrofefilmer i 1997.
1179 </p><p>
1180
1181 Skapere her og overalt har alltid og til alle tider bygd på kreativiteten
1182 som eksisterte før og som omringer dem nå.  Denne byggingen er alltid og
1183 overalt i det minste delvis gjort uten tillatelse og uten å kompensere den
1184 opprinnelige skaperen.  Intet samfunn, fritt eller kontrollert, har noen
1185 gang krevd at enhver bruk skulle bli betalt for eller at tillatelse for Walt
1186 Disney-kreativitet alltid måtte skaffes.  Istedet har ethvert samfunn latt
1187 en bestemt bit av sin kultur være fritt tilgjengelig for alle å
1188 ta&#8212;frie samfunn muligens i større grad enn ufrie, men en viss grad i
1189 alle samfunn.
1190
1191 </p><p>
1192 Det vanskelige spørsmålet er derfor ikke <span class="emphasis"><em>om</em></span> en kultur
1193 er fri.  Alle kulturer er frie til en viss grad. Det vanskelige spørsmålet
1194 er i stedet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><span class="emphasis"><em>hvor</em></span> fri er denne kulturen
1195 er?</span>»</span> Hvor mye og hvor bredt, er kulturen fritt tilgjengelig for andre
1196 å ta, og bygge på?  Er den friheten begrenset til partimedlemmer?  Til
1197 medlemmer av kongefamilien?  Til de ti største selskapene på New
1198 York-børsen?  Eller er at frihet bredt tilgjengelig? Til kunstnere generelt,
1199 uansett om de er tilknyttet til nasjonalmuseet eller ikke?  Til musikere
1200 generelt, uansett om de er hvite eller ikke? Til filmskapere generelt,
1201 uansett om de er tilknyttet et studio eller ikke?
1202 </p><p>
1203 Frie kulturer er kulturer som etterlater mye åpent for andre å bygge på.
1204 Ufrie, eller tillatelse-kulturer etterlater mye mindre.  Vår var en fri
1205 kultur. Den er på tur til å bli mindre fri.
1206 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2789583" href="#id2789583" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
1207
1208
1209 Leonard Maltin, <em class="citetitle">Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated
1210 Cartoons</em> (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 34&#8211;35.
1211 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2789681" href="#id2789681" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
1212
1213
1214 Jeg er takknemlig overfor David Gerstein og hans nøyaktige historie,
1215 beskrevet på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #4</a>.  I
1216 følge Dave Smith ved the Disney Archives, betalte Disney for å bruke
1217 musikken til fem sanger i <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willie</em>:
1218 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill,</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Simpleton</span>»</span> (Delille),
1219 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mischief Makers</span>»</span> (Carbonara), <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Joyful Hurry
1220 No. 1</span>»</span> (Baron), og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Gawky Rube</span>»</span> (Lakay). En sjette sang,
1221 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Turkey in the Straw,</span>»</span> var allerede allemannseie.  Brev fra
1222 David Smith til Harry Surden, 10. juli 2003, tilgjenglig i arkivet til
1223 forfatteren.
1224 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2789753" href="#id2789753" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
1225
1226
1227 Han var også tilhenger av allmannseiet. Se Chris Sprigman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Mouse
1228 that Ate the Public Domain,</span>»</span> Findlaw, 5. mars 2002, fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #5</a>.
1229 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2789910" href="#id2789910" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
1230
1231
1232 Inntil 1976 ga opphavsrettsloven en forfatter to mulige verneperioder: en
1233 initiell periode, og en fornyingsperiode.  Jeg har beregnet
1234 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gjennomsnittlig</span>»</span> vernetid ved å finne vektet gjennomsnitt av
1235 de totale registreringer for et gitt år, og andelen fornyinger.  Hvis 100
1236 opphavsretter ble registrert i år 1, bare 15 av dem ble fornyet, og
1237 fornyingsvernetiden er 28 år, så er gjennomsnittlig vernetid 32,2
1238 år. Fornyingsdata og andre relevante data ligger på nettsidene tilknyttet
1239 denne boka, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
1240 #6</a>.
1241 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2790220" href="#id2790220" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
1242
1243
1244 For en utmerket historie, se Scott McCloud, <em class="citetitle">Reinventing
1245 Comics</em> (New York: Perennial, 2000).
1246 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2790305" href="#id2790305" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
1247
1248
1249 Se Salil K. Mehra, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain
1250 Why All the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?</span>»</span>
1251 <em class="citetitle">Rutgers Law Review</em> 55 (2002): 155, 182. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det
1252 kan være en kollektiv økonomisk rasjonalitet som får manga- og
1253 anime-kunstnere til ikke å saksøke for opphavsrettsbrudd. Én hypotese er at
1254 alle manga-kunstnere kan være bedre stilt hvis de setter sin individuelle
1255 egeninteresse til side og bestemmer seg for ikke å forfølge sine juridiske
1256 rettigheter. Dette er essensielt en løsning på fangens dilemma.</span>»</span>
1257 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2790426" href="#id2790426" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
1258
1259 Begrepet <em class="citetitle">immateriell eiendom</em> er av relativ ny
1260 opprinnelse. Se See Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
1261 Copywrongs</em>, 11 (New York: New York University Press, 2001). Se
1262 også Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> (New York:
1263 Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. Begrepet presist beskriver et sett med
1264 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendoms</span>»</span>-rettigheter&#8212;opphavsretter, patenter,
1265 varemerker og forretningshemmeligheter&#8212;men egenskapene til disse
1266 rettighetene er svært forskjellige.<a class="indexterm" name="id2790447"></a>
1267 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Kapittel to: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2790683"></a><p>
1268 <span class="strong"><strong>I 1839</strong></span> fant Louis Daguerre opp den første
1269 praktiske teknologien for å produsere det vi ville kalle
1270 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fotografier</span>»</span>.  Rimelig nok ble de kalt
1271 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">daguerreotyper</span>»</span>.  Prosessen var komplisert og kostbar, og
1272 feltet var dermed begrenset til profesjonelle og noen få ivrige og
1273 velstående amatører.  (Det var til og med en amerikansk Daguerre-forening
1274 som hjalp til med å regulere industrien, slik alle slike foreninger gjør,
1275 ved å holde konkurransen ned slik at prisene var høye.)
1276 </p><p>
1277 Men til tross for høye priser var etterspørselen etter daguerreotyper
1278 sterk.  Dette inspirerte oppfinnere til å finne enklere og billigere måter å
1279 lage <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">automatiske bilder</span>»</span>.  William Talbot oppdaget snart en
1280 prosess for å lage <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">negativer</span>»</span>.  Men da negativene var av
1281 glass, og måtte holdes fuktige, forble prosessen kostbar og tung.  På
1282 1870-tallet ble tørrplater utviklet, noe som gjorde det enklere å skille det
1283 å ta et bilde fra å fremkalle det.  Det var fortsatt plater av glass, og
1284 dermed var det fortsatt ikke en prosess som var innenfor rekkevidden til de
1285 fleste amatører. <a class="indexterm" name="id2790746"></a>
1286 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxeastmangeorge"></a><p>
1287
1288 Den teknologiske endringen som gjorde masse-fotografering mulig skjedde ikke
1289 før i 1888, og det var takket være en eneste mann. George Eastman, selv en
1290 amatørfotograf, var frustrert over den plate-baserte fotografi-teknologien.
1291 I et lysglimt av innsikt (for å si det slik), forsto Eastman at hvis filmen
1292 kunne gjøres bøyelig, så kunne den holdes på en enkel rull.  Denne rullen
1293 kunne så sendes til en fremkaller, og senke kostnadene til fotografering
1294 vesentlig.  Ved å redusere kostnadene, forventet Eastman at han dramatisk
1295 kunne utvide andelen fotografer.
1296 </p><p>
1297 Eastman utviklet bøyelig, emulsjons-belagt papirfilm og plasserte ruller med
1298 dette i små, enkle kameraer: Kodaken.  Enheten ble markedsfør med grunnlag
1299 dens enkelhet. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Du trykker på knappen og vi fikser
1300 resten.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2790796" href="#ftn.id2790796" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> Som han beskrev det i
1301 <em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>: <a class="indexterm" name="id2790809"></a>
1302 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1303 Prinsippet til Kodak-systemet er skillet mellom arbeidet som enhver kan
1304 utføre når en tar fotografier, fra arbeidet som kun en ekspert kan
1305 gjøre. &#8230; Vi utstyrte alle, menn, kvinner og barn, som hadde
1306 tilstrekkelig intelligens til å peke en boks i riktig retning og trykke på
1307 en knapp, med et instrument som helt fjernet fra praksisen med å fotografere
1308 nødvendigheten av uvanlig utstyr eller for den del, noe som helst spesiell
1309 kunnskap om kunstarten.  Det kan tas i bruk uten forutgående studier, uten
1310 et mørkerom og uten kjemikalier.<sup>[<a name="id2787944" href="#ftn.id2787944" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
1311 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1312 For $25 kunne alle ta bilder.  Det var allerede film i kameraet, og når det
1313 var brukt ble kameraet returnert til en Eastman-fabrikk hvor filmen ble
1314 fremkalt.  Etter hvert, naturligvis, ble både kostnaden til kameraet og hvor
1315 enkelt et var å bruke forbedret.  Film på rull ble dermed grunnlaget for en
1316 eksplosiv vekst i fotografering blant folket. Eastmans kamera ble lagt ut
1317 for salg i 1888, og et år senere trykket Kodak mer enn seks tusen negativer
1318 om dagen.  Fra 1888 til 1909, mens produksjonen i industrien vokste med 4,7
1319 prosent, økte salget av fotografisk utstyr og materiale med 11
1320 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2790875" href="#ftn.id2790875" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
1321 samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2790884" href="#ftn.id2790884" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
1322 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2790893"></a><p>
1323
1324
1325 Den virkelige betydningen av oppfinnelsen til Eastman, var derimot ikke
1326 økonomisk.  Den var sosial.  Profesjonell fotografering ga individer et
1327 glimt av steder de ellers aldri ville se. Amatørfotografering ga dem
1328 muligheten til å arkivere deres liv på en måte som de aldri hadde vært i
1329 stand til tidligere.  Som forfatter Brian Coe skriver, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For første
1330 gang tilbød fotoalbumet mannen i gata et permanent arkiv over hans familie
1331 og dens aktiviteter. &#8230; For første gang i historien fantes det en
1332 autentisk visuell oppføring av utseende og aktivitet til vanlige mennesker
1333 laget uten [skrivefør] tolkning eller forutinntatthet.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2790826" href="#ftn.id2790826" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
1334 </p><p>
1335 På denne måten var Kodak-kameraet og film uttrykksteknologier. Blyanten og
1336 malepenselen var selvfølgelig også en uttrykksteknologi. Men det tok årevis
1337 med trening før de kunne bli brukt nyttig og effektiv av amatører.  Med
1338 Kodaken var uttrykk mulig mye raskere og enklere.  Barrièren for å uttrykke
1339 seg var senket.  Snobber ville fnyse over <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kvaliteten</span>»</span>,
1340 profesjonelle ville avvise den som irrelevant.  Men se et barn studere
1341 hvordan best velge bildemotiv og du får følelsen av hva slags
1342 kreativitetserfaring som Kodaken muliggjorde.  Demokratiske verktøy ga
1343 vanlige folk en måte å uttrykke dem selv på enklere enn noe annet verktøy
1344 kunne ha gjort før.
1345 </p><p>
1346 Hva krevdes for at denne teknologien skulle blomstre.  Eastmans genialitet
1347 var åpenbart en viktig del.  Men den juridiske miljøet som Eastmans
1348 oppfinnelse vokste i var også viktig.  For tidlig i historien til
1349 fotografering, var det en rekke av rettsavgjørelser som godt kunne ha endret
1350 kursen til fotograferingen betydelig.  Domstoler ble spurt om fotografen,
1351 amatør eller profesjonell, måtte ha ha tillatelse før han kunne fange og
1352 trykke hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket.  Svaret var nei.<sup>[<a name="id2790977" href="#ftn.id2790977" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
1353 </p><p>
1354
1355 Argumentene til fordel for å kreve tillatelser vil høres overraskende kjent
1356 ut.  Fotografen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tok</span>»</span> noe fra personen eller bygningen som ble
1357 fotografert&#8212;røvet til seg noe av verdi.  Noen trodde til og med at han
1358 tok målets sjel.  På samme måte som Disney ikke var fri til å ta blyantene
1359 som hans animatører brukte til å tegne Mikke, så skulle heller ikke disse
1360 fotografene være fri til å ta bilder som de fant verdi i.
1361 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2790607"></a><p>
1362 På den andre siden var et argument som også bør bør være kjent. Joda, det
1363 var kanskje noe av verdi som ble brukt.  Men borgerne burde ha rett til å
1364 fange i hvert fall de bildene som var tatt av offentlig område.  (Louis
1365 Brandeis, som senere ble høyesterettsjustitiarus, mente regelen skulle være
1366 annerledes for bilder tatt av private områder.<sup>[<a name="id2791047" href="#ftn.id2791047" class="footnote">32</a>]</sup>) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting.
1367 På samme måte som Disney kunne hente inspirasjon fra <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
1368 Bill, Jr</em>. eller Grimm-brødrene, så burde fotografene stå fritt
1369 til å fange et bilde uten å kompensere kilden.
1370 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2791087"></a><p>
1371 Heldigvis for Mr. Eastman, og for fotografering generelt, gikk disse
1372 tidligere avgjørelsene i favør av piratene.  Generelt ble det ikke nødvendig
1373 å sikre seg tillatelse før et bilde kunne tas og deles med andre.  I stedet
1374 var det antatt at tillatelse var gitt.  Frihet var utgangspunktet.  (Loven
1375 ga etter en stund et unntak for berømte personer: kommersielle fotografer
1376 som tok bilder av berømte personer for kommersielle formål har flere
1377 begrensninger enn resten av oss.  Men i det vanlige tilfellet, kan bildet
1378 fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.<sup>[<a name="id2791108" href="#ftn.id2791108" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
1379 </p><p>
1380 Vi kan kun spekulere om hvordan fotografering ville ha utviklet seg om loven
1381 hadde slått ut den andre veien.  Hvis den hadde vært mot fotografen, da
1382 ville fotografen måttet dokumentere at tillatelse var på plass.  Kanskje
1383 Eastman Kodak også måtte ha dokumentert at tillatelse var gitt, før de
1384 utviklet filmen som bildene ble fanget på.  Tross alt, hvis tillatelse ikke
1385 var gitt, da ville Eastman Kodak ha nytt fordeler fra
1386 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tyveriet</span>»</span> begått av fotografer.  På samme måte som Napster nøt
1387 fordeler fra opphavsrettsbrudd utført av Napster-brukere, så ville Kodak
1388 nytt fordeler fra <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bilde-rettighets</span>»</span>-brudd til deres
1389 fotografer.  Vi kan forestille oss at loven da krevede at en form for
1390 tillatelse ble vist frem før et selskap fremkalte bildene.  Vi kan
1391 forestille oss et system bli utviklet for å legge frem slike tillatelser.
1392 </p><p>
1393
1394
1395
1396 Men selv om vi kan tenke oss dette godkjenningssystemet, så vil det være
1397 svært vanskelig å se hvordan fotografering skulle ha blomstret slik det
1398 gjorde hvis det var bygd inn krav om godkjenning i reglene som styrte det.
1399 Fotografering ville eksistert.  Det ville ha økt sin betydning over tid.
1400 Profesjonelle ville ha fortsatt å bruke teknologien slik de
1401 gjorde&#8212;siden profesjonelle enklere kunne håndtert byrdene pålagt dem
1402 av godkjenningssystemet.  Men spredningen av fotografering til vanlige folk
1403 villa aldri ha skjedd.  Veksten det skapte kunne aldri ha skjedd.  Og det
1404 ville uten tvil aldri vært realisert en slik vekst i demokratisk
1405 uttrykksteknologi.
1406 </p><p>
1407 <span class="strong"><strong>Hvis du kjører</strong></span> gjennom området Presidio i
1408 San Francisco, kan det hende du ser to gusjegule skolebusser overmalt med
1409 fargefulle og iøynefallende bilder, og logoen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Just Think!</span>»</span> i
1410 stedet for navnet på en skole. Men det er lite som er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bare</span>»</span>
1411 mentalt i prosjektene som disse bussene muliggjør.  Disse bussene er fylt
1412 med teknologi som lærer unger å fikle med film.  Ikke filmen til Eastman.
1413 Ikke en gang filmen i din videospiller.  I stedet er det snakk om
1414 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">filmen</span>»</span> til digitale kamera.  Just Think! er et prosjekt som
1415 gjør det mulig for unger å lage filmer, som en måte å forstå og kritisere
1416 den filmede kulturen som de finner over alt rundt seg.  Hvert år besøker
1417 disse bussene mer enn tredve skoler og gir mellom tre hundre og fire hundre
1418 barn muligheten til å lære noe om media ved å gjøre noe med media.  Ved å
1419 gjøre, så tenker de.  Ved å fikle, så lærer de.
1420 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2791248"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2791256"></a><p>
1421 Disse bussene er ikke billige, men teknologien de har med seg blir billigere
1422 og billigere.  Kostnaden til et høykvalitets digitalt videosystem har falt
1423 dramatisk.  Som en analytiker omtalte det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for fem år siden kostet et
1424 godt sanntids redigerinssystem for digital video $25 000.  I dag kan du
1425 få profesjonell kvalitet for $595.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2791287" href="#ftn.id2791287" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup> Disse bussene er fylt med teknologi som ville kostet
1426 hundre-tusenvis av dollar for bare ti år siden.  Og det er nå mulig å
1427 forestille seg ikke bare slike busser, men klasserom rundt om i landet hvor
1428 unger kan lære mer og mer av det lærerne kaller
1429 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">medie-skriveføre</span>»</span> eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mediekompetanse</span>»</span>.
1430 </p><p>
1431
1432 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Media-skriveføre,</span>»</span> eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mediekompetanse</span>»</span> som
1433 administrerende direktør Dave Yanofsky i Just Think!, sier det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er
1434 evnen til &#8230; å forstå, analysere og dekonstruere mediebilder. Dets mål
1435 er å gjøre [unger] i stand til å forstå hvordan mediene fungerer, hvordan de
1436 er konstruert, hvordan de blir levert, og hvordan folk bruker
1437 dem</span>»</span>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2791342"></a>
1438 </p><p>
1439 Dette kan virke som en litt rar måte å tenke på
1440 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">skrivefør</span>»</span>. For de fleste handler skrivefør å kunne lese og
1441 skrive. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Skriveføre</span>»</span> folk kjenner ting som Faulkner, Hemingway
1442 og å kjenne igjen delte infinitiver.
1443 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2791369"></a><p>
1444 Mulig det.  Men i en verden hvor barn ser i gjennomsnitt 390 timer med
1445 TV-reklaager i året, eller generelt mellom 20 000 og 45 000
1446 reklameinnslag,<sup>[<a name="id2791384" href="#ftn.id2791384" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> så er det mer og mer
1447 viktig å forstå <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gramatikken</span>»</span> til media.  For på samme måte som
1448 det er en gramatikk for det skrevne ord, så er det også en for media.  Og
1449 akkurat slik som unger lærer å skrive ved å skrive masse grusom prosa, så
1450 lærer unger å skrive media ved å konstruere masse (i hvert fall i
1451 begynnelsen) grusom media.
1452 </p><p>
1453 Et voksende felt av akademikere og aktivister ser denne formen for
1454 skriveføre som avgjørende for den neste generasjonen av kultur. For selv om
1455 de som har skrevet forstår hvor vanskelig det er å skrive&#8212;hvor
1456 vanskelig det er å bestemme rekkefølge i historien, å holde på
1457 oppmerksomheten hos leseren, å forme språket slik at det er
1458 forståelig&#8212;så har få av oss en reell følelse av hvor vanskelig medier
1459 er. Eller mer fundamentalt, de færreste av av oss har en følelse for
1460 hvordan media fungerer, hvordan det holder et publikum eller leder leseren
1461 gjennom historien, hvordan det utløser følelser eller bygger opp spenningen.
1462 </p><p>
1463 Det tok filmkusten en generasjon før den kunne gjøre disse tingene bra.  Men
1464 selv da, så var kunnskapen i filmingen, ikke i å skrive om filmen.
1465 Ferdigheten kom fra erfaring med å lage en film, ikke fra å lese en bok om
1466 den.  En lærer å skrive ved å skrive, og deretter reflektere over det en har
1467 skrevet.  En lærer å skrive med bilder ved å lage dem, og deretter
1468 reflektere over det en har laget.
1469 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2791424"></a><p>
1470 Denne gramatikken har endret seg etter hvert som media har endret seg.  Da
1471 det kun var film, som Elizabeth Daley, administrerende direktør ved
1472 Universitetet i Sør-Califorias Anneberg-senter for kommunkasjon og rektor
1473 ved USC skole for Kino-Televisjon, forklarte for meg, var gramatikken om
1474 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">plasseringen av objekter, farger, &#8230; rytme, skritt og
1475 tekstur</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2791483" href="#ftn.id2791483" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> Men etter hvert som
1476 datamaskiner åpner opp et interaktivt rom hvor en historie blir
1477 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">spillt</span>»</span> i tillegg til opplevd, endrer gramatikken seg.  Den
1478 enkle kontrollen til forstellerstemmen er forsvunnet, og dermed er andre
1479 teknikker nødvendig.  Forfatter Michael Crichton hadde mestret
1480 fortellerstemmen til science fiction.  Men da han forsøkte å lage et
1481 dataspill basert på et av sine verk, så var det et nytt håndverk han måtte
1482 lære.  Det var ikke åpenbart hvordan en leder folk gjennom et spill uten at
1483 de far følelsen av å ha blitt ledet, selv for en enormt vellykket
1484 forfatter.<sup>[<a name="id2791527" href="#ftn.id2791527" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
1485 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2791555"></a><p>
1486 Akkurat denne ferdigheten er håndverket en lærer til de som lager
1487 filmer. Som Daley skriver, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">folk er svært overrasket over hvordan de
1488 blir ledet gjennom en film.  Den er perfekt konstruert for å hindre deg fra
1489 å se det, så du aner det ikke.  Hvis en som lager filmer lykkes så vet du
1490 ikke at du har vært ledet.</span>»</span> Hvis du vet at du ble ledet igjennom en
1491 film, så har filmen feilet.
1492 </p><p>
1493 Likevel er innsatsen for å utvide skriveføren&#8212;til en som går ut over
1494 tekst til å ta med lyd og visuelle elementer&#8212;handler ikke om å lage
1495 bedre filmregisører.  Målet er ikke å forbedre filmyrket i det hele tatt.  I
1496 stedet, som Daley forklarer,
1497 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1498 Fra mitt perspektiv er antagelig det viktigste digitale skillet ikke om en
1499 har tilgang til en boks eller ikke.  Det er evnen til å ha kontroll over
1500 språket som boksen bruker.  I motsatt fall er det bare noen få som kan
1501 skrive i dette språket, og alle oss andre er redusert til å ikke kunne
1502 skrive.
1503 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1504 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke kunne skrive.</span>»</span> Passive mottakerne av kultur produsert
1505 andre steder. Sofapoteter. Forbrukere. Dette er medieverden fra det tjuende
1506 århundre.
1507 </p><p>
1508 Det tjueførste århundret kan bli annerledes.  Dette er et kritisk punkt: Det
1509 kan bli både lesing og skriving.  Eller i det minste lesing og bedre
1510 forståelse for håndverket å skrive.  Eller det beste, lesing og forstå
1511 verktøyene som gir skriving mulighet til å veilede eller villede.  Målet med
1512 enhver skriveførhet, og denne skriveførheten spesielt, er å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gi folket
1513 myndighet til å velge det språket som passer for det de trenger å lage eller
1514 uttrykke</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2791640" href="#ftn.id2791640" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> Det gir studenter
1515 mulighet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">til å kommunisere i språket til det tjueførste
1516 århundret</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2791662" href="#ftn.id2791662" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
1517 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2791669"></a><p>
1518 Som det alle andre språk, læres dette språket lettere for noen enn for
1519 andre.  Det kommer ikke nødvendigvis lettere for de som gjør det godt
1520 skriftlig. Daley og Stephanie Barish, direktør for Institutt for
1521 Multimedia-skriveføre ved Annenberg-senteret, beskriver et spesielt sterkt
1522 eksempel fra et prosjekt de gjennomførte i en videregående skole.  Den
1523 videregående skolen var en veldig fattig skole i den indre byen i Los
1524 Angeles.  Etter alle tradisjonelle måleenheter for suksess var denne skolen
1525 en fiasko.  Men Daley og Barish gjennomførte et program som ga ungene en
1526 mulighet til å bruke film til å uttrykke sine meninger om noe som studentene
1527 visste noe om&#8212;våpen-relatert vold.
1528 </p><p>
1529 Klassen møttes fredag ettermiddag, og skapte et relativt nytt problem for
1530 skolen.  Mens utfordringen i de fleste klasser var å få ungene til å dukke
1531 opp, var utfordringen for denne klassen å holde dem unna. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ungene
1532 dukket opp 06:00, og dro igjen 05:00 på natta</span>»</span>, sa Barish. De jobbet
1533 hardere enn i noen annen klasse for å gjøre det utdanning burde handle
1534 om&#8212;å lære hvordan de skulle uttrykke seg.
1535 </p><p>
1536 Ved å bruke hva som helst av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fritt tilgjengelig web-stoff de kunne
1537 finne</span>»</span>, og relativt enkle verktøy som gjorde det mulig for ungene å
1538 blande <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bilde, lyd og tekst</span>»</span>, sa Barish at denne klassen
1539 produserte en serie av prosjekter som viste noe om våpen-basert vold som få
1540 ellers ville forstå. Dette var et tema veldig nært livene til disse
1541 studentene.  Prosjektet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ga dem et verktøy og bemyndiget dem slik at
1542 de både ble i stand til å forstå det og snakke om det</span>»</span>, forklarer
1543 Barish.  Dette verktøyet lyktes med å skape uttrykk&#8212;mye mer vellykket
1544 og kraffylt enn noe som hadde blitt laget ved å kun bruke tekst.
1545 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis du hadde sagt til disse studentene at 'du må gjøre dette i
1546 tekstform', så hadde de bare kastet hendene i været og gått og gjort noe
1547 annet</span>»</span>, forklarer Barish.  Delvis, uten tvil, fordi å uttrykke seg
1548 selv i tekstform ikke er noe disse studentene gjør godt. Heller ikke er
1549 tekstform en form som kan uttrykke <span class="emphasis"><em>disse</em></span> idéene godt.
1550 Kraften i denne meldingen avhenger av dens forbindelse med denne for for
1551 uttrykk.
1552 </p><p>
1553
1554
1555
1556 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Men handler ikke utdanning om å lære unger å skrive?</span>»</span> spurte
1557 jeg. Jo delvis, naturligvis.  Men hvorfor lærer vi unger å skrive?
1558 Utdanning, forklarer Daley, handler om å gi studentene en måte å
1559 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">konstruere mening</span>»</span>.  Å si at det kun betyr skriving er som å
1560 si at å lære bort skriving kun handler om å lære ungene å
1561 stave. Tekstforming er bare en del&#8212;og i større grad ikke den
1562 kraftigste delen&#8212;for å konstruere mening.  Som Daley forklarte i den
1563 mest rørende delen av vårt intervju,
1564 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1565 Det du ønsker er å gi disse studentene en måte å konstruere mening. Hvis alt
1566 du gir dem er tekst, så kommer de ikke til å gjøre det. Fordi de kan ikke.
1567 Du vet, du har Johnny som kan se på en video, han kan spille på et TV-spill,
1568 han kan spre grafitti over alle dine vegger, han kan ta fra hverandre bilen
1569 din, og han kan gjøre alle mulige andre ting.  Men han kan ikke lese teksten
1570 din.  Så Jonny kommer på skolen og du sier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Johnny, du er analfabet.
1571 Ingenting du gjør betyr noe</span>»</span>.  Vel, da har Johnny to valg: Han kan
1572 avvise deg eller han kan avvise seg selv.  Hvis han har et sunt ego så vil
1573 han avvise deg.  Men hvis du i stedet sier, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vel, med alle disse
1574 tingene som du kan gjøre, la oss snakke om dette temaet.  Spill musikk til
1575 meg som du mener reflekterer over temaet, eller vis meg bilder som du mener
1576 reflekterer over temaet, eller tegn noe til meg som reflektere
1577 temaet</span>»</span>.  Ikke ved å gi en unge et videokamera og &#8230; si
1578 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">La oss dra å ha det morsomt med videokameraet og lage en liten
1579 film</span>»</span>. Men istedet, virkelig hjelpe deg å ta disse elementene som du
1580 forstår, som er ditt språk, og konstruer mening om temaet.&#8230;
1581 </p><p>
1582 Dette bemyndiger enormt.  Og det som skjer til slutt, selvfølgelig, som det
1583 har skjedd i alle disse klassene, er at de stopper opp når de treffer
1584 faktumet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">jeg trenger å forklare dette, og da trenger jeg virkelig å
1585 skrive noe</span>»</span>.  Og som en av lærerne fortalte Stephanie, de vil skrive
1586 om avsnittet 5, 6, 7, 8 ganger, helt til det blir riktig.
1587 </p><p>
1588
1589 Fordi de trengte det.  Det var en grunn til å gjøre det.  De trengte å si
1590 noe, i motsetning til å kun danse etter din pipe.  De trengte faktisk å
1591 bruke det språket de ikke håndterte veldig bra.  Men de hadde begynt å
1592 forstå at de hadde mye gjennomslagskraft med dette språket.
1593 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2791892"></a><p>
1594 <span class="strong"><strong>Da to fly</strong></span> krasjet inn i World Trade
1595 Center, og et annet inn i Pentagon, og et fjerde inn i et jorde i
1596 Pennsylvania, snudde alle medier verden rundt seg til denne nyheten.
1597 Ethvert moment for omtreng hver eneste dag den uka, og ukene som fulgte
1598 gjenfortalte TV spesielt, men media generelt, historien om disse hendelsene
1599 som vi nettopp hadde vært vitne til.  Genialiteten i denne forferdelige
1600 terrorhandlingen var at det forsinkede andre-angrepet var perfekt tidsatt
1601 for å sikre at hele verden ville være der for å se på.
1602 </p><p>
1603 Disse gjenfortellingene ga en økende familiær følelse.  Det var musikk
1604 spesiallaget for mellom-innslagene, og avansert grafikk som blinket tvers
1605 over skjermen.  Det var en formel for intervjuer.  Det var
1606 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balanse</span>»</span> og seriøsitet.  Dette var nyheter koreaografert slik
1607 vi i stadig større grad forventer det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nyheter som
1608 underholdning</span>»</span>, selv om underholdningen er en tragedie.
1609 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2791942"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2791948"></a><p>
1610 Men i tillegg til disse produserte nyhetene om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tragedien
1611 11. september</span>»</span>, kunne de av oss som er knyttet til internettet i
1612 tillegg se en svært annerledes produksjon. Internettet er fullt av
1613 fortellinger om de samme hendelsene.  Men disse internet-fortellingene hadde
1614 en veldig annerledes smak.  Noen folk konstruerte foto-sider som fanget
1615 bilder fra hele verden og presenterte dem som lysbildepresentasjoner med
1616 tekst.  Noen tilbød åpne brev.  Det var lydopptak.  Det var sinne og
1617 frustrasjon.  Det var forsøk på å tilby en sammenheng.  Det var, kort og
1618 godt, en ekstraordinær verdensomspennende låvebygging, slik Mike Godwin
1619 bruker begrepet i hans bok <em class="citetitle">Cyber Rights</em>, rundt en
1620 nyhetshendelse som hadde fanget oppmerksomheten til hele verden.  Det var
1621 ABC og CBS, men det var også internettet.
1622 </p><p>
1623
1624 Det er ikke så enkelt som at jeg ønsker å lovprise internettet&#8212;selv om
1625 jeg mener at folkene som støtter denne formen for tale bør lovprises.  Jeg
1626 ønsker i stedet å peke på viktigheten av denne formen for tale.  For på
1627 samme måte som en Kodak, gjør internettet folk i stand til å fange bilder.
1628 Og på samme måte som med en film laget av en av studentene på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Just
1629 Think!</span>»</span>-bussen, kan visuelle bilder bli blandet med lyd og tekst.
1630 </p><p>
1631 Men i motsetning til en hvilken som helst teknologi for å enkelt fange
1632 bilder, tillater internettet at en nesten umiddelbart deler disse
1633 kreasjonene med et ekstraordinært antall menesker.  Dette er noe nytt i vår
1634 tradisjon&#8212;ikke bare kan kultur fanges inn mekanisk, og åpenbart heller
1635 ikke at hendelser blir kommentert kritisk, men at denne blandingen av
1636 bilder, lyd og kommentar kan spres vidt omkring nesten umiddelbart.
1637 </p><p>
1638 11. september var ikke et avvik.  Det var en start.  Omtrent på samme tid,
1639 begynte en form for kommunkasjon som hadde vokst dramatisk å komme inn i
1640 offentlig bevissthet: web-loggen, eller blog.  Bloggen er en slags offentlig
1641 dagbok, og i noen kulturer, slik som i Japan, fungerer den veldig lik en
1642 dagbok.  I disse kulturene registrerer den private fakta på en offentlig
1643 måte&#8212;det er en slags elektronisk <em class="citetitle">Jerry
1644 Springer</em>, tilgjengelig overalt i verden.
1645 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2792036"></a><p>
1646 Men i USA har blogger inntatt en svært annerledes karakter.  Det er noen som
1647 bruker denne plassen til å snakke om sitt private liv.  Men det er mange som
1648 bruker denne plassen til å delta i offentlig debatt. Diskuterer saker med
1649 offentlig interesse, kritiserer andre som har feil synspunkt, kritisere
1650 politigere for avgjørelser de tar, tilbyr løsninger på problemer vi alle
1651 ser.  Blogger skaper en følelse av et virtuelt offentlig møte, men et hvor
1652 vi ikke alle håper å være tilstede på samme tid og hvor konversasjonene ikke
1653 nødvendigvis er koblet sammen.  De beste av bloggoppføringene er relativt
1654 korte.  De peker direkte til ord bruk av andre, kritiserer dem eller bidrar
1655 til dem.  Det kan argumenteres for at de er den viktigste form for
1656 ukoreografert offentlig debatt som vi har.
1657 </p><p>
1658
1659 Dette er en sterk uttalelse.  Likevel sier den like mye om vårt demokrati
1660 som den sier om blogger.  Dette er delen av USA som det er mest vanskelig
1661 for oss som elsker USA å akseptere: vårt demokrati har svunnet hen.  Vi har
1662 naturligvis valg, og mesteparten av tiden tillater domstolene at disse
1663 valgene teller.  Et relativt lite antall mennesker stemmer i disse valgene.
1664 Syklusen med disse valgene har blitt totalt profesjonalisert og
1665 rutinepreget.  De fleste av oss tenker på dette som demokrati.
1666 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2792090"></a><p>
1667 Men demokrati har aldri kun handlet om valg.  Demokrati betyr at folket
1668 styrer, og å styre betyr noe mer enn kun valg.  I vår tradisjon betyr det
1669 også kontroll gjennom gjennomtenkt meningsbrytning.  Dette var idéen som
1670 fanget fantasien til Alexis de Tocqueville, den franske
1671 nittenhundretalls-advokaten som skrev den viktigste historien om det tidlige
1672 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">demokratiet i Amerika</span>»</span>.  Det var ikke allmenn stemmerett som
1673 fascinerte han&#8212;det var juryen, en institusjon som ga vanlige folk
1674 retten til å velge liv eller død før andre borgere.  Og det som fascinerte
1675 han mest var at juryen ikke bare stemte over hvilket resultat de ville legge
1676 frem.  De diskuterte.  Medlemmene argumenterte om hva som var
1677 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">riktig</span>»</span> resultat, de forsøkte å overbevise hverandre om
1678 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">riktig</span>»</span>resultat, og i hvert fall i kriminalsaker måtte de bli
1679 enige om et enstemming resultat for at prosessen skulle
1680 avsluttes.<sup>[<a name="id2792137" href="#ftn.id2792137" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
1681 </p><p>
1682 Og likevel fremheves denne institusjonen i USA i dag.  Og i dets sted er det
1683 ingen systematisk innsats for å muliggjøre borger-diskusjon. Noen gjør en
1684 innsats for å lage en slik institusjon.<sup>[<a name="id2792159" href="#ftn.id2792159" class="footnote">41</a>]</sup>
1685 Og i noen landsbyer i New England er det noe i nærheten av diskusjon igjen.
1686 Men for de fleste av oss mesteparten av tiden, er det ingen tid og sted for
1687 å gjennomføre <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">demokratisk diskusjon</span>»</span>.
1688 </p><p>
1689 Mer merkelig er at en generelt sett ikke engang har aksept for at det skal
1690 skje.  Vi, det mektigste demokratiet i verden, har utviklet en sterk norm
1691 mot å diskutere politikk.  Det er greit å diskutere politikk med folk du er
1692 enig med, men det er uhøflig å diskutere politikk med folk du er uenig med.
1693 Politisk debatt blir isolert, og isolert diskusjon blir mer
1694 ekstrem.<sup>[<a name="id2792197" href="#ftn.id2792197" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> Vi sier det våre venner vil
1695 høre, og hører veldig lite utenom hva våre venner sier.
1696 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogs1"></a><p>
1697
1698 Så kommer bloggen.  Selve bloggens arkitektur løser en del av dette
1699 problemet.  Folk publiserer det de ønsker å publisere, og folk leser det de
1700 ønsker å lese.  Det vanskeligste tiden er synkron tid. Teknologier som
1701 muliggjør asynkron kommunasjons, slik som epost, øker muligheten for
1702 kommunikasjon.  Blogger gjør det mulig med offentlig debatt uten at folket
1703 noen gang trenger å samle seg på et enkelt offentlig sted.
1704 </p><p>
1705 Men i tillegg til arkitektur, har blogger også løst problemet med normer.
1706 Det er (ennå) ingen norm i blogg-sfæren om å ikke snakke om politikk.
1707 Sfæren er faktisk fylt med politiske innlegg, både på høyre- og
1708 venstresiden.  Noen av de mest populære stedene er konservative eller
1709 libertarianske, men det er mange av alle politiske farger.  Til og med
1710 blogger som ikke er politiske dekker politiske temaer når anledningen krever
1711 det.
1712 </p><p>
1713 Betydningene av disse bloggene er liten nå, men ikke ubetydelig. Navnet
1714 Howard Dean har i stor grad forsvunnet fra 2004-presidentvalgkampen bortsett
1715 fra hos noen få blogger.  Men selv om antallet lesere er lavt, så har det å
1716 lese dem en effekt. <a class="indexterm" name="id2792266"></a>
1717 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2792273"></a><p>
1718 En direkte effekt er på historier som hadde en annerledes livssyklus i de
1719 store mediene.  Trend Lott-affæren er et eksempel.  Da Logg <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sa
1720 feil</span>»</span> på en fest for senator Storm Thurmond, og essensielt lovpriste
1721 segregeringspolitikken til Thurmond, regnet han ganske riktig med at
1722 historien ville forsvinne fra de store mediene i løpet av førtiåtte timer.
1723 Det skjedde.  Men han regnet ikke med dens livssyklus i bloggsfæren.
1724 Bloggerne fortsatte å undersøke historien.  Etter hvert dukket flere og
1725 flere tilfeller av tilsvarende <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">feiluttalelser</span>»</span> opp. Så dukket
1726 historien opp igjen hos de store mediene.  Lott ble til slutt tvinget til å
1727 trekke seg som leder for senatets flertall.<sup>[<a name="id2792308" href="#ftn.id2792308" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2792319"></a>
1728 </p><p>
1729 Denne annerledes syklusen er mulig på grunn av at et tilsvarende kommersielt
1730 press ikke eksisterer hos blogger slik det gjør hos andre kanaler.
1731 Televisjon og aviser er kommersielle aktører.  De må arbeide for å holde på
1732 oppmerksomheten.  Hvis de mister lesere, så mister de inntekter.  Som haier,
1733 må de bevege seg videre.
1734 </p><p>
1735 Men bloggere har ikke tilsvarende begresninger.  De kan bli opphengt, de kan
1736 fokusere, de kan bli seriøse.  Hvis en bestemt blogger skriver en spesielt
1737 interessant historie, så vil flere og flere folk lenke til den historien.
1738 Og etter hvert som antalet lenker til en bestemt historie øker, så stiger
1739 den i rangeringen for historier.  Folk leser det som er populært, og hva som
1740 er populært har blitt valgt gjennom en svært demokratisk prosess av
1741 likemanns-generert rangering.
1742 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinerdave"></a><p>
1743
1744 Det er også en annen måte, hvor blogger har en annen syklus enn de store
1745 mediene.  Som Dave Winer, en av fedrene til denne bevegelsen og en
1746 programvareutvikler i mange tiår fortalte meg, er en annen forskjell
1747 fraværet av finansiell <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">interessekonflikt</span>»</span>.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg tror du
1748 må ta interessekonflikten</span>»</span> ut av journalismen, fortalte Winer
1749 meg. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">En amatørjournalist har ganske enkelt ikke interessekonflikt,
1750 eller interessekonflikten er så enkelt å avsløre at du liksom vet du kan
1751 rydde den av veien.</span>»</span>
1752 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2792400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2792407"></a><p>
1753 Disse konfliktene blir mer viktig etter hvert som mediene blir mer
1754 konsentert (mer om dette under).  Konsenterte medier kan skjule mer fra
1755 offentligheten enn ikke-konsenterte medier kan&#8212;slik CNN innrømte at de
1756 gjorde etter Iraq-krigen fordi de var rett for konsekvensene for sine egne
1757 ansatte.<sup>[<a name="id2792115" href="#ftn.id2792115" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> De trenger også å opprettholde
1758 en mer konsistent rapportering.  (Midt under Irak-krigen, leste jeg en
1759 melding på Internet fra noen som på det tidspunktet lyttet på
1760 satellitt-forbindelsen til en reporter i Iraq.  New York-hovedkvarteret ba
1761 reporteren gang på gang at hennes rapport om krigen var for trist: Hun måtte
1762 tilby en mer optimistisk historie. Når hun fortalte New York at det ikke var
1763 grunnlag for det, fortalte de henne at det var <span class="emphasis"><em>dem</em></span> som
1764 skrev <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">historien</span>»</span>.)
1765 </p><p> Blogg-sfæren gir amatører en måte å bli med i
1766 debatten&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">amatør</span>»</span> ikke i betydningen uerfaren, men i
1767 betydningen til en Olympisk atlet, det vil si ikke betalt av noen for å
1768 komme med deres rapport.  Det tillater en mye bredere rekke av innspill til
1769 en historie, slik rapporteringen Columbia-katastrofen avdekket, når
1770 hundrevis fra hele sørvest-USA vendte seg til internettet for å gjenfortelle
1771 hva de hadde sett.<sup>[<a name="id2792470" href="#ftn.id2792470" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> Og det får lesere
1772 til å lese på tvers av en rekke fortellinger og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">triangulere</span>»</span>,
1773 som Winer formulerer det, sannheten.  Blogger, sier Winer,
1774 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kommunserer direkte med vår velgermasse, og mellommannen er
1775 fjernet</span>»</span>&#8212; med alle de fordeler og ulemper det kan føre med seg.
1776 </p><p>
1777
1778 Winer er optimistisk når det gjelder en journalistfremtid infisert av
1779 blogger.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det kommer til å bli en nødvendig ferdighet</span>»</span>, spår
1780 Winer, for offentlige aktører og også i større grad for private aktører.
1781 Det er ikke klart at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">journalismen</span>»</span> er glad for
1782 dette&#8212;noen journalister har blitt bedt om å kutte ut sin
1783 blogging.<sup>[<a name="id2792506" href="#ftn.id2792506" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> Men det er klart at vi
1784 fortsatt er i en overgangsfase.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mye av det vi gjør nå er
1785 oppvarmingsøvelser</span>»</span>, fortalte Winer meg.  Det er mye som må modne før
1786 dette området har sin modne effekt.  Og etter som inkludering av innhold i
1787 dette området er det området med minst opphavsrettsbrudd på internettet, sa
1788 Wiener at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vi vil være den siste tingen som blir skutt ned</span>»</span>.
1789 </p><p>
1790 Slik tale påvirker demokratiet.  Winer mener dette skjer fordi <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">du
1791 trenger ikke jobber for noen som kontrollerer, [for] en
1792 portvokter</span>»</span>. Det er sant.  Men det påvirker demokratiet også på en
1793 annen måte. Etter hvert som flere og flere borgere uttrykker hva de mener,
1794 og forsvarer det skriftlig, så vil det endre hvordan folk forstår offentlige
1795 temaer.  Det er enkelt å ha feil og være på villspor i hodet ditt.  Det er
1796 vanskeligere når resultatet fra dine tanker kan bli kritisert av andre.  Det
1797 er selvfølgelig et sjeldent menneske som innrømmer at han ble overtalt til å
1798 innse at han tok feil.  Men det er mer sjeldent for et menneske å ignorere
1799 at noen har bevist at han tok feil.  Å skrive ned idéer, argumenter og
1800 kritikk forbedrer demokratiet.  I dag er det antagelig et par millioner
1801 blogger der det skrives på denne måten.  Når det er ti milloner, så vil det
1802 være noe ekstraordært å rapportere.
1803 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2792650"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2792658"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising1"></a><p>
1804 <span class="strong"><strong>John Seely Brown</strong></span> er sjefsforsker ved
1805 Xerox Corporation.  Hans arbeid, i følge hans eget nettsted, er
1806 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menneskelig læring og &#8230; å skape kunnskapsøkologier for å skape
1807 &#8230; innovasjon</span>»</span>.
1808 </p><p>
1809 Brown ser dermed på disse teknologiene for digital kreativitet litt
1810 annerledes enn fra perspektivene jeg har skissert opp så langt.  Jeg er
1811 sikker på at han blir begeistret for enhver teknologi som kan forbedre
1812 demokratiet.  Men det han virkelig blir begeistret over er hvordan disse
1813 teknologiene påvirker læring.
1814 </p><p>
1815
1816 Brown tror vi lærer med å fikle.  Da <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mange av oss vokste opp</span>»</span>,
1817 forklarer han, ble fiklingen gjort <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pa motorsykkelmotorer,
1818 gressklippermotorer, biler, radioer og så videre</span>»</span>.  Men digitale
1819 teknologier muliggjør en annen type fikling&#8212;med abstrakte idéer i sin
1820 konkrete form.  Ungene i Just Think! tenker ikke bare på hvordan et
1821 reklameinnslag fremstiller en politiker.  Ved å bruke digital teknologi kan
1822 de ta reklameinnslaget fra hverandre og manipulerer det, fikle med det, og
1823 se hvordan det blir gjort.  Digitale teknologier setter igang en slags
1824 *bricolage* eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling</span>»</span>, som
1825 Brown kaller det.  Mange får mulighet til å legge til på eller endre på
1826 fiklingen til mange andre.
1827 </p><p>
1828 Det beste eksemplet i større skala så langt på denne typen fikling er fri
1829 programvare og åpen kildekode (FS/OSS).  FS/OSS er programvare der
1830 kildekoden deles ut.  Alle kan laste ned teknologien som får et
1831 FS/OSS-program til å fungere.  Og enhver som har lyst til å lære hvordan en
1832 bestemt bit av FS/OSS-teknologi fungerer kan fikle med koden.
1833 </p><p>
1834 Denne muligheten gir en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">helt ny type læringsplattform</span>»</span>, i
1835 følge Brown.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Så snart du begynner å gjøre dette, så &#8230; slipper
1836 du løs en fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling til fellesskapet, slik at andre
1837 folk kan begynne å se på koden din, fikle med den, teste den, seom de kan
1838 forbedre den</span>»</span>.  Og hver innsats er et slags læretid.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Åpen
1839 kildekode blir en stor lærlingeplatform.</span>»</span>.
1840 </p><p>
1841 I denne prossesen, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er de konkrete tingene du fikler med abstrakte. De
1842 er kildekode</span>»</span>.  Unger <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">endres til å få evnen til å fikle med
1843 det abstrakte, og denne fiklingen er ikke lenger en isolert aktivitet som du
1844 gjør i garasjen din.  Du fikler med en fellesskapsplatform. &#8230; Du
1845 fikler med andre folks greier.  Og jo mer du fikler, jo mer forbedrer
1846 du.</span>»</span> Jo mer du forbedrer, jo mer lærer du.
1847 </p><p>
1848 Denne sammen tingen skjer også med innhold.  Og det skjer på samme
1849 samarbeidende måte når dette innholdet er del av nettet.  Som Brown
1850 formulerer det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nettet er det første medium som virkelig tar hensyn
1851 til flere former for intelligens</span>»</span>.  Tidligere teknologier, slik som
1852 skrivemaskin eller tekstbehandling, hjelper med å fremme tekst.  Men nettet
1853 fremmer mye mer enn tekst.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Nettet &#8230; si hvis du er musikalsk,
1854 hvis du er kunstnerisk, hvis du er visuell, hvis du er interessert i film
1855 &#8230;da er det en masse du kan gå igang med på dette mediet.  Det kan
1856 fremme og ta hensyn til alle disse formene for intelligens.</span>»</span>
1857 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2792848"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2792855"></a><p>
1858
1859 Brown snakker om hva Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish Og Just Think! lærer
1860 bort: at denne fiklingen med kultur lærer såvel som den skaper. Den utvikler
1861 talenter litt anderledes, og den bygger en annen type gjenkjenning.
1862 </p><p>
1863 Likevel er friheten til å fikle med disse objektene ikke garantert. Faktisk,
1864 som vi vil se i løpet av denne boken, er den friheten i stadig større grad
1865 omstridt.  Mens det ikke er noe tvil om at din far hadde rett til å fikle
1866 med bilmotoren, så er det stor tvil om dine barn vil ha retten til å fikle
1867 med bilder som hun finner over alt. Loven, og teknologi i stadig større
1868 grad, forstyrrer friheten som teknolog, nysgjerrigheten, ellers ville sikre.
1869 </p><p>
1870 Disse begresningene har blitt fokusen for forskere og akademikere. Professor
1871 Ed Felten ved Princeton (som vi vil se mer fra i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>) har utviklet et
1872 kraftfylt argument til fordel for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">retten til å fikle</span>»</span> slik det
1873 gjøres i informatikk og til kunnskap generelt.<sup>[<a name="id2792906" href="#ftn.id2792906" class="footnote">47</a>]</sup> Men bekymringen til Brown er tidligere, og mer fundamentalt.  Det
1874 handler om hva slags læring unger kan få, eller ikke kan få, på grunn av
1875 loven.
1876 </p><p>
1877 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dette er dit utviklingen av utdanning i det tjueførste århundret er
1878 på vei</span>»</span>, forklarer Brown.  Vi må <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">forstå hvordan unger som
1879 vokser opp digitalt tenker og ønsker å lære</span>»</span>.
1880 </p><p>
1881 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Likevel</span>»</span>, fortsatte Brown, og som balansen i denne boken vil
1882 føre bevis for, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bygger vi et juridisk system som fullstendig
1883 undertrykker den naturlige tendensen i dagens digitale unger. &#8230; We
1884 bygger en arkitektur som frigjør 60 prosent av hjernen [og] et juridisk
1885 system som stenger ned den delen av hjernen</span>»</span>.
1886 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2792965"></a><p>
1887 Vi bygger en teknologi som tar magien til Kodak, mikser inn bevegelige
1888 bilder og lyd, og legger inn plass for kommentarer og en mulighet til å spre
1889 denne kreativiteten over alt.  Men vi bygger loven for å stenge ned denne
1890 teknologien.
1891 </p><p>
1892 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke måten å drive en kultur på</span>»</span>, sa Brewster Kahle, som vi
1893 møtte i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="Kapittel ni: Samlere">9</a>, kommenterte til meg i et sjeldent øyeblikk av
1894 nedstemthet.
1895 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2790796" href="#id2790796" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
1896
1897
1898 Reese V. Jenkins, <em class="citetitle">Images and Enterprise</em> (Baltimore:
1899 Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 112.
1900 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2787944" href="#id2787944" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
1901
1902 Brian Coe, <em class="citetitle">The Birth of Photography</em> (New York:
1903 Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2790848"></a>
1904 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2790875" href="#id2790875" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
1905
1906
1907 Jenkins, 177.
1908 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2790884" href="#id2790884" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
1909
1910
1911 Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178.
1912 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2790826" href="#id2790826" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
1913
1914
1915 Coe, 58.
1916 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2790977" href="#id2790977" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
1917
1918
1919 For illustrerende saker, se for eksempel, <em class="citetitle">Pavesich</em>
1920 mot <em class="citetitle">N.E. Life Ins. Co</em>., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905);
1921 <em class="citetitle">Foster-Milburn Co</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Chinn</em>,
1922 123090 S.W. 364, 366 (Ky. 1909); <em class="citetitle">Corliss</em> mot
1923 <em class="citetitle">Walker</em>, 64 F. 280 (Mass.  Dist. Ct. 1894).
1924 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2791047" href="#id2791047" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
1925
1926 Samuel D. Warren og Louis D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy</span>»</span>,
1927 <em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2791059"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2791067"></a>
1928 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2791108" href="#id2791108" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
1929
1930
1931 Se Melville B. Nimmer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right of Publicity</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Law
1932 and Contemporary Problems</em> 19 (1954): 203; William L. Prosser,
1933 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Privacy</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">California Law Review</em> 48
1934 (1960) 398&#8211;407; <em class="citetitle">White</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Samsung
1935 Electronics America, Inc</em>., 971 F.  2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992),
1936 sert. nektet, 508 U.S. 951 (1993).
1937 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2791287" href="#id2791287" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
1938
1939
1940 H. Edward Goldberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and
1941 Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations,</span>»</span>
1942 cadalyst, februar 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #7</a>.
1943 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2791384" href="#id2791384" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
1944
1945
1946 Judith Van Evra, <em class="citetitle">Television and Child Development</em>
1947 (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Findings on
1948 Family and TV Study</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25. mai
1949 1997, B6.
1950 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2791483" href="#id2791483" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
1951
1952 Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002.
1953 <a class="indexterm" name="id2791491"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2791499"></a>
1954 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2791527" href="#id2791527" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
1955
1956
1957 Se Scott Steinberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs</span>»</span>, E!online,
1958 4. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #8</a>;
1959 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Timeline</span>»</span>, 22. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #9</a>.
1960 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2791640" href="#id2791640" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
1961
1962 Intervju med Daley og Barish.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2791646"></a>
1963 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2791662" href="#id2791662" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
1964
1965
1966 ibid.
1967 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2792137" href="#id2792137" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
1968
1969
1970 Se for eksempel Alexis de Tocqueville, <em class="citetitle">Democracy in
1971 America</em>, bk. 1, overs.  Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books,
1972 2000), kap. 16.
1973 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2792159" href="#id2792159" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
1974
1975
1976 Bruce Ackerman og James Fishkin, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Deliberation Day</span>»</span>,
1977 <em class="citetitle">Journal of Political Philosophy</em> 10 (2) (2002): 129.
1978 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2792197" href="#id2792197" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
1979
1980
1981 Cass Sunstein, <em class="citetitle">Republic.com</em> (Princeton: Princeton
1982 University Press, 2001), 65&#8211;80, 175, 182, 183, 192.
1983 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2792308" href="#id2792308" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
1984
1985
1986 Noah Shachtman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the
1987 Pot</span>»</span>, New York Times, 16. januar 2003, G5.
1988 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2792115" href="#id2792115" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
1989
1990
1991 Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003.
1992 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2792470" href="#id2792470" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
1993
1994
1995 John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
1996 Information Online</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 2 februar
1997 2003, A28; Staci D. Kramer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but
1998 Strong Overall</span>»</span>, Online Journalism Review, 2. februar 2003,
1999 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
2000 #10</a>.
2001 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2792506" href="#id2792506" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
2002
2003 <a class="indexterm" name="id2792537"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2792545"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2792552"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2792558"></a>  Se Michael Falcone, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does an Editor's
2004 Pencil Ruin a Web Log?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>,
2005 29. september 2003, C4. (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke alle nyhetsorganisasjoner har hatt like
2006 stor aksept for ansatte som blogger. Kevin Sites, en CNN-korrespondent i
2007 Irak som startet en blogg om sin rapportering av krigen 9. mars, stoppet å
2008 publisere 12 dager senere på forespørsel fra sine sjefer. I fjor fikk Steve
2009 Olafson, en <em class="citetitle">Houston Chronicle</em>-reporter, sparken for å
2010 ha hatt en personlig web-logg, publisert under pseudonym, som handlet om
2011 noen av temaene og folkene som han dekket.</span>»</span>)
2012 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2792906" href="#id2792906" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
2013
2014
2015 Se for eksempel, Edward Felten og Andrew Appel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Technological Access
2016 Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,</span>»</span>
2017 <em class="citetitle">Communications of the Association for Computer
2018 Machinery</em> 43 (2000): 9.
2019 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel tre: Kataloger"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Kapittel tre: Kataloger</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2793015"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><p>
2020 <span class="strong"><strong>Høsten 2001</strong></span>, ble Jesse Jordan fra
2021 Oceanside, New York, innrullert som førsteårsstudent ved Rensselaer
2022 Polytechnic Institute, i Troy, New York.  Hans studieprogram ved RPI var
2023 informasjonsteknologi.  Selv om han ikke var en programmerer, bestemte Jesse
2024 seg i oktober å begynne å fikle med en søkemotorteknologi som var
2025 tilgjengelig på RPI-nettverket.
2026 </p><p>
2027 RPI er en av Amerikas fremste teknologiske forskningsinstitusjoner. De
2028 tilbyr grader innen områder som går fra arkitektur og ingeniørfag til
2029 informasjonsvitenskap.  Mer enn 65 prosent av de fem tusen
2030 laveregradsstudentene fullførte blant de 10 prosent beste i deres klasse på
2031 videregående.  Skolen er dermed en perfekt blanding av talent og erfaring
2032 for å se for seg og deretter bygge, en generasjon tilpasset
2033 nettverksalderen.
2034 </p><p>
2035 RPIs data-nettverk kobler studenter, forelesere og administrasjon sammen.
2036 Det kobler også RPI til internettet.  Ikke alt som er tilgjengelig på
2037 RPI-nettet er tilgjengelig på internettet.  Men nettverket er utformet for å
2038 gi alle studentene mulighet til å bruke internettet, i tillegg til mer
2039 direkte tilgang til andre medlemmer i RPI-fellesskapet.
2040 </p><p>
2041
2042 Søkemotorer er et mål pa hvor nært et nettverk oppleves å være. Google
2043 brakte internettet mye nærmere oss alle ved en utrolig forbedring av
2044 kvaliteten på søk i nettverket.  Spesialiserte søkemotorer kan gjøre dette
2045 enda bedre.  Idéen med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intranett</span>»</span>-søkemotorer, søkemotorer som
2046 kun søker internt i nettverket til en bestemt institusjon, er å tilby
2047 brukerne i denne institusjonen bedre tilgang til materiale fra denne
2048 institusjonen. Bedrifter gjør dette hele tiden, ved å gi ansatte mulighet
2049 til å få tak i materiale som folk på utsiden av bedriften ikke kan få tak
2050 i. Universitetet gjør også dette.
2051 </p><p>
2052 Disse motorene blir muliggjort av netverksteknologien selv.  For eksempel
2053 har Microsoft et nettverksfilsystem som gjør det veldig enkelt for
2054 søkemotorer tilpasset det nettverket å spørre systemet etter informasjon om
2055 det offentlig (innen nettverket) tilgjengelige innholdet.  Søkemotoren til
2056 Jesse var bygget for å dra nytte av denne teknologien.  Den brukte
2057 Microsofts nettverksfilsystem for å bygge en indeks over alle filene
2058 tilgjengelig inne i RPI-nettverket.
2059 </p><p>
2060 Jesse sin var ikke den første søkemotoren bygget for RPI-nettverket. Hans
2061 motor var faktisk en enkel endring av motorer som andre hadde bygget.  Hans
2062 viktigste enkeltforbedring i forhold til disse motorene var å fikse en feil
2063 i Microsofts fildelings-system som fikk en brukers datamaskin til å krasje.
2064 Med motorene som hadde eksistert tidligere, hvis du forsøkte å koble deg ved
2065 hjelp av Windows-utforskeren til en fil som var på en datamaskin som ikke
2066 var på nett, så ville din datamaskin krasje.  Jesse endret systemet litt for
2067 å fikse det problemet, ved å legge til en knapp som en bruker kunne klikke
2068 på for å se om maskinen som hadde filen fortsatt var på nett.
2069 </p><p>
2070 Motoren til Jesse kom pa nett i slutten av oktober.  I løpet av de følgende
2071 seks månedene fortsatte han å justere den for å forbedre dens
2072 funksjonalitet.  I mars fungerte systemet ganske bra.  Jesse hadde mer enn
2073 en million filer i sin katalog, inkludert alle mulige typer innhold som
2074 fantes på brukernes datamaskiner.
2075 </p><p>
2076
2077 Dermed inneholdt indeksen som hans søkemotor produserte bilder, som
2078 studentene kunne bruke til å legge inn på sine egne nettsider, kopier av
2079 notater og forskning, kopier av informasjonshefter, filmklipp som studentene
2080 kanskje hadde laget, universitetsbrosjyrer&#8212;ganske enkelt alt som
2081 brukerne av RPI-nettverket hadde gjort tilgjengelig i en fellesmappe på sine
2082 datamaskiner.
2083 </p><p>
2084 Men indeksen inneholdt også musikkfiler.  Faktisk var en fjerdedel av filene
2085 som Jesses søkemotor inneholdt musikkfiler.  Men det betyr, naturligvis, at
2086 tre fjerdedeler ikke var det, og&#8212;slik at dette poenget er helt
2087 klart&#8212;Jesse gjorde ingenting for å få folk til å plassere musikkfiler
2088 i deres fellesmapper.  Han gjorde ingenting for å sikte søkemotoren mot
2089 disse filene.  Han var en ungdom som fiklet med Google-lignende teknologi
2090 ved et universitet der han studerte informasjonsvitenskap, og dermed var
2091 fiklingen målet.  I motsetning til Google, eller Microsoft for den saks
2092 skyld, tjente han ingen penger på denne fiklingen.  Han var ikke knyttet til
2093 noen bedrift som skulle tjene penger fra dette eksperimentet.  Han var en
2094 ungdom som fiklet med teknologi i en omgivelse hvor fikling med teknologi
2095 var nøyaktig hva han var ment å gjøre.
2096 </p><p>
2097 Den 3. april 2003 ble Jesse kontaktet av lederen for studentkontoret ved
2098 RPI.  Lederen fortalte Jesse at Foreningen for musikkindustri i USA, RIAA,
2099 wille levere inn et søksmål mot han og tre andre studenter som han ikke en
2100 gang kjente, to av dem på andre undersiteter.  Noen få timer senere ble
2101 Jesse forkynt søksmålet og fikk overlevert dokumentene.  Mens han leste
2102 disse dokumentene og så på nyhetsrapportene om den, ble han stadig mer
2103 forbauset.
2104 </p><p>
2105 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det var absurd</span>»</span>, fortalte han meg. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg mener at jeg
2106 ikke gjorde noe galt. &#8230; Jeg mener det ikke er noe galt med
2107 søkemotoren som jeg kjørte eller &#8230; hva jeg hadde gjort med den.  Jeg
2108 mener, jeg hadde ikke endret den på noen måte som fremmet eller forbedret
2109 arbeidet til pirater.  Jeg endret kun søkemotoren slik at den ble enklere å
2110 bruke</span>»</span>&#8212;igjen, en <span class="emphasis"><em>søkemotor</em></span>, som Jesse ikke
2111 hadde bygd selv, som brukte fildelingssystemet til Windows, som Jesse ikke
2112 hadde bygd selv, for å gjøre det mulig for medlemmer av RPI-fellesskapet å
2113 få tilgang til innhold, som Jesse ikke hadde laget eller gjort tilgjengelig,
2114 og der det store flertall av dette ikke hadde noe å gjøre med musikk.
2115 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2793268"></a><p>
2116
2117 Men RIAA kalte Jesse en pirat.  De hevdet at han opererte et nettverk og
2118 dermed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">med vilje</span>»</span> hadde brutt opphavsrettslovene.  De krevde
2119 at han betalte dem skadeerstatning for det han hadde gjort galt.  I saker
2120 med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">krenkelser med vilje</span>»</span>, spesifiserer opphavsrettsloven noe
2121 som advokater kaller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lovbestemte skader</span>»</span>.  Disse skadene
2122 tillater en opphavsrettighetseier å kreve $150 000 per krenkelse.
2123 Etter som RIAA påsto det var mer enn et hundre spesifikke
2124 opphavsrettskrenkelser, krevde de dermed at Jesse betalte dem minst
2125 $15 000 000.
2126 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2793294"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2793304"></a><p>
2127 Lignende søksmål ble gjort mot tre andre studenter: en annen student ved
2128 RPI, en ved Michegan Technical University og en ved Princeton. Deres
2129 situasjoner var lik den til Jesse.  Selv om hver sak hadde forskjellige
2130 detaljer, var hovedpoenget nøyaktig det samme: store krav om
2131 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">erstatning</span>»</span> som RIAA påsto de hadde rett på.  Hvis du summerte
2132 opp disse kravene, ba disse fire søksmålene domstolene i USA å tildele
2133 saksøkerne nesten $100 <span class="emphasis"><em>milliarder</em></span>&#8212;seks ganger det
2134 <span class="emphasis"><em>totale</em></span> overskuddet til filmindustrien i
2135 2001.<sup>[<a name="id2793337" href="#ftn.id2793337" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
2136 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2793354"></a><p>
2137 Jesse kontaktet sine foreldre.  De støttet ham, men var litt skremt. En
2138 onkel var advokat.  Han startet forhandlinger med RIAA.  De krevde å få vite
2139 hvor mye penger Jesse hadde.  Jesse hadde spart opp $12 000 fra
2140 sommerjobber og annet arbeid.  De krevde 12 000 for å trekke saken.
2141 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2793375"></a><p>
2142 RIAA ville at Jesse skulle innrømme at han hadde gjort noe galt.  Han
2143 nektet.  De ville ha han til å godta en kjennelse som i praksis ville gjøre
2144 det umulig for han å arbeide i mange områder innen teknologi for resten av
2145 hans liv.  Han nektet.  De fikk han til å forstå at denne prosessen med å
2146 bli saksøkt ikke kom til å bli hyggelig.  (Som faren til Jesse refererte til
2147 meg, fortalte sjefsadvokaten på saken, Matt Oppenheimer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Du ønsker
2148 ikke et tannlegebesøk hos meg flere ganger</span>»</span>) Og gjennom det hele
2149 insisterte RIAA at de ikke ville inngå forlik før de hadde tatt hver eneste
2150 øre som Jesse hadde spart opp.
2151 </p><p>
2152
2153 Familien til Jessie ble opprørt over disse påstandene.  De ønsket å kjempe.
2154 Men onkelen til Jessie gjorde en innsats for å lære familien om hvordan det
2155 amerikanske juridiske systemet fungerte.  Jesse kunne sloss mot RIAA.  Han
2156 kunne til og med vinne.  Men kostnaden med å loss mot et søksmål som dette,
2157 ble Jesse fortalt, ville være minst $250 000.  Hvis han vant ville han
2158 ikke få tilbake noen av de pengene.  Hvis han vant, så ville han ha en bit
2159 papir som sa at han vant, og en bit papir som sa at han og hans familie var
2160 konkurs.
2161 </p><p>
2162 Så Jesse hadde et mafia-lignende valg: $250 000 og en sjanse til å
2163 vinne, eller $12 000 og et forlik.
2164 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2793416"></a><p>
2165 Musikkindustrien insisterer at dette er et spørsmål om lov og moral.  La oss
2166 legge loven til side for et øyeblikk og tenke på moralen.  Hvor er moralen i
2167 et søksmål som dette?  Hva er dyden i å skape offerlam.  RIAA er en spesielt
2168 mektig lobby.  Presidenten i RIAA tjener i følge rapporter mer enn $1
2169 million i året.  Artister, på den andre siden, får ikke godt betalt.  Den
2170 gjennomsnittelige innspillingsartist tjener $45 900.<sup>[<a name="id2793421" href="#ftn.id2793421" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> Det er utallige måter som RIAA kan bruke for å
2171 påvirke og styre politikken.  Så hva er det moralske i å ta penger fra en
2172 student for å drive en søkemotor?<sup>[<a name="id2793478" href="#ftn.id2793478" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
2173 </p><p>
2174 23. juni overførte Jesse alle sine oppsparte midler til advokaten som jobbet
2175 for RIAA.  Saken mot ham ble trukket.  Og med dette, ble unggutten som hadde
2176 fiklet med en datamaskin og blitt saksøkt for 15 millioner dollar en
2177 aktivist:
2178 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2179 Jeg var definitivt ikke en aktivist [tidligere].  Jeg mente egentlig aldri å
2180 være en aktivist. &#8230; [men] jeg har blitt skjøvet inn i dette.  Jeg
2181 forutså over hodet ikke noe slik som dette, men jeg tror det er bare helt
2182 absurd det RIAA har gjort.
2183 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2184 Foreldrene til Jesse avslører en viss stolthet over deres motvillige
2185 aktivist.  Som hans far fortalte meg, Jesse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">anser seg selv for å være
2186 konservativ, og det samme gjør jeg. &#8230; Han er ingen
2187 treklemmer. &#8230; Jeg synes det er sært at de ville lage bråk med ham.
2188 Men han ønsker å la folk vite at de sender feil budskap.  Og han ønsker å
2189 korrigere rullebladet.</span>»</span>
2190 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2793337" href="#id2793337" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
2191
2192
2193
2194 Tim Goral, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks: Suit
2195 Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Professional Media
2196 Group LCC</em> 6 (2003): 5, tilgjengelig fra 2003 WL 55179443.
2197 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2793421" href="#id2793421" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
2198
2199
2200 Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001)
2201 (27&#8211;2042&#8212;Musikere og Sangere). Se også National Endowment for
2202 the Arts, <em class="citetitle">More Than One in a Blue Moon</em> (2000).
2203 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2793478" href="#id2793478" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
2204
2205
2206 Douglas Lichtman kommer med et relatert poeng i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">KaZaA and
2207 Punishment,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>,
2208 10. september 2003, A24.
2209 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel fire: «Pirater»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirater</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2793553"></a><p>
2210 <span class="strong"><strong>Hvis <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> betyr</strong></span>
2211 å bruke den kreative eiendommen til andre uten deres tillatelse&#8212;hvis
2212 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så rettighet</span>»</span> er sant&#8212;da er historien om
2213 innholdsindustrien en historie om piratvirksomhet.  Hver eneste viktige
2214 sektor av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">store medier</span>»</span> i dag&#8212;film, plater, radio og
2215 kabel-TV&#8212;kom fra en slags piratvirksomhet etter den definisjonen.  Den
2216 konsekvente fortellingen er at forrige generasjon pirater blir del av denne
2217 generasjonens borgerskap&#8212;inntil nå.
2218 </p><div class="section" title="4.1. Film"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="film"></a>4.1. Film</h2></div></div></div><p>
2219
2220 Filmindustrien i Hollywood var bygget av flyktende pirater.<sup>[<a name="id2793605" href="#ftn.id2793605" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> Skapere og regisører migrerte fra østkysten til
2221 California tidlig i det tjuende århundret delvis for å slippe unna
2222 kontrollene som patenter ga oppfinneren av det å lage filmer, Thomas
2223 Edison.  Disse kontrollene be utøvet gjennom et
2224 monopol-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kartell</span>»</span>, The Motion Pictures Patents company, og var
2225 basert på Tomhas Edisons kreative eierrettigheter&#8212;patenter. Edison
2226 stiftet MPPC for å utøve rettighetene som disse kreative eierrettighetene ga
2227 ham, og MPPC var seriøst med kontrollen de krevde.
2228 </p><p>
2229 Som en kommentaror forteller en del av historien,
2230 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2231 En tidsfrist ble satt til januar 1909 for alle selskaper å komme i samsvar
2232 med lisensen.  Når februar kom, protesterte de ulisensierte fredløse, som
2233 refererte til seg selv som uavhengige, mot kartellet og fortsatte sin
2234 forretningsvirksomhet uten å bøye seg for Edisons monopol.  Sommeren 1909
2235 var bevegelsen med uavhenginge i full sving, med produsenter og kinoeiere
2236 som brukte ulovlig utstyr og importerte filmlager for å opprette sitt eget
2237 undergrunnsmarked.
2238 </p><p>
2239 Med et land som så en kolosal økning i antall billige kinoer, såkalte
2240 nickelodeons, reagerte patentselskapet på bevegelsen av uavhengige med å
2241 stifte et hardhendt datterselskap ved navn General Film Company for å
2242 blokkere innføringen av ulisensierte uavhengige.  Med tvangstaktikker som
2243 har blitt legendariske, konfiserte General Film ulisensiert utstyr, stoppet
2244 varelevering til kinoer som viste ulisensiert fil, og effektivt
2245 monopoliserte distribusjon ved å kjøpe opp alle USAs filmsentraler, med
2246 unntak av den ene som var eid av den uavhengige William Fox som motsto
2247 kartellet selv etter at hans lisens var trukket tilbake.<sup>[<a name="id2793686" href="#ftn.id2793686" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2793726"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2793731"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2793738"></a>
2248 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2249 Napsterne i de dager, de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">uavhengige</span>»</span>, var selskaper som Fox.
2250 Og ikke mindre enn i dag ble disse uavhengige intenst motarbeidet.
2251 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Opptak ble avbrutt av stjålet maskineri, og 'uhell' som førte til
2252 tapte negativer, utstyr, bygninger og noen ganger liv og lemmer skjedde
2253 ofte.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2793760" href="#ftn.id2793760" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> Dette fikk de uavhengige
2254 til å flykte til østkysten.  Californa var fjernt nok fra Edisons
2255 innflytelse til at filmskaperne der kunne røve hans nyvinninger uten å
2256 frykte loven.  Og lederne blant Hollywods filmskapere, Fox mest
2257 fremtredende, gjorde akkurat dette.
2258 </p><p>
2259
2260 California vokste naturligvis raskt, og effektiv håndhevelse av føderale
2261 lover spredte seg til slutt vestover.  Men fordi patenter tildeler
2262 patentinnehaveren et i sannhet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">begrenset</span>»</span> monopol (kun sytten
2263 år på den tiden), så patentene var utgått før nok føderale lovmenn dukket
2264 opp. En ny industri var født, delvis fra piratvirksomhet mot Edison's
2265 kreative rettigheter.
2266 </p></div><div class="section" title="4.2. Innspilt musikk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="recordedmusic"></a>4.2. Innspilt musikk</h2></div></div></div><p>
2267 Musikkindustrien ble født av en annen type piratvirksomhet, dog for å forstå
2268 hvordan krever at en setter seg inn i detaljer om hvordan loven regulerer
2269 musikk.
2270 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2793840"></a><p>
2271 På den tiden da Edison og Henri Fourneaux fant opp maskiner for å
2272 reprodusere musikk (Edison fonografen, Fourneaux det automatiske pianoet),
2273 gav loven komponister eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere kopier av
2274 deres musikk og eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere fremføringer av
2275 deres musikk.  Med andre ord, i 1900, hvis jeg ønsket et kopi av Phil
2276 Russels populære låt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>»</span>, sa loven at jeg måtte betale
2277 for rettigheten til å få en kopi av notearkene, og jeg måtte også betale for
2278 å ha rett til å fremføre det offentlig.
2279 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2793869"></a><p>
2280 Men hva hvis jeg ønsket å spille inn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>»</span> ved hjelp av
2281 Edisons fonograf eller Fourneaux automatiske piano?  Her snublet loven.  Det
2282 var klart nok at jeg måtte kjøpe en kopi av notene som jeg fremførte når jeg
2283 gjorde innspillingen.  Og det var klart nok at jeg måtte betale for enhver
2284 offentlig fremførelse av verket jeg spilte inn.  Men det var ikke helt klart
2285 at jeg måtte betale for en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>»</span> hvis jeg
2286 spilte inn sangen i mitt eget hus (selv i dag skylder du ingenting til
2287 Beatles hvis du synger en av deres sanger i dusjen), eller hvis jeg spilte
2288 inn sangen fra hukommelsen (kopier i din hjerne er
2289 ikke&#8212;ennå&#8212;regulert av opphavsrettsloven).  Så hvis jeg ganske
2290 enkelt sang sangen inn i et innspillingsaparat i mitt eget hjem, så var det
2291 ikke klart at jeg skyldte komponisten noe.  Og enda viktigere, det var ikke
2292 klart om jeg skyldte komponisten noe hvis jeg så laget kopier av disse
2293 innspillingene.  På grunn av dette hullet i loven, sa kunne jeg i effekt
2294 røve noen andres sang uten å betale dets komponist noe.
2295 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2793898"></a><p>
2296 Komponistene (og utgiverne) var ikke veldig glade for denne kapasiteten til
2297 å røve.  Som Senator Alfred Kittredge fra Sør-Dakota formulerte
2298 det,<a class="indexterm" name="id2793933"></a>
2299 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2300 Forestill dere denne urettferdigheten.  En komponist skriver en sang eller
2301 en opera.  En utgiver kjøper til et høy sum rettighetene til denne, og
2302 registrerer opphavsretten til den.  Så kommer de fonografiske selskapene og
2303 selskapene som skjærer musikk-ruller og med vitende og vilje stjeler
2304 arbeidet som kommer fra hjernet til komponisten og utgiveren uten å bry seg
2305 om [deres] rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2793960" href="#ftn.id2793960" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
2306 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2793985"></a><p>
2307 Innovatørene som utviklet teknologien for å spille inn andres arbeide
2308 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">snyltet på innsatsen, arbeidet, tallentet og geniet til amerikanske
2309 komponister</span>»</span>,<sup>[<a name="id2794002" href="#ftn.id2794002" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> og
2310 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">musikkpubliseringsindistrien</span>»</span> var dermed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fullstendig i
2311 denne piratens vold</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2794019" href="#ftn.id2794019" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> Som John
2312 Philip Sousa formulerte det, så direkte som det kan sies, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">når de
2313 tjener penger på mine stykker, så vil jeg ha en andel</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2794035" href="#ftn.id2794035" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
2314 </p><p>
2315 Disse argumentene høres omtrent ut som argumentene fra våre dager. Det samme
2316 gjør argumentene fra den andre siden.  Oppfinnerne som utviklet det
2317 auomatiske pianoet argumenterte med at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er fullt mulig å vise at
2318 introduksjonen av automatiske musikkspillere ikke har fratatt noen komponist
2319 noe han hadde før det ble introdusert.</span>»</span> I stedet økte maskinene
2320 salget av noteark.<sup>[<a name="id2794063" href="#ftn.id2794063" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> Uansett,
2321 argumenterte oppfinnerne, jobben til kongressen var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">å først vurdere
2322 interessen til [folket], som de representerte, og som de skal
2323 tjene.</span>»</span>.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alt snakk om 'tyveri',</span>»</span> skrev sjefsjuristen
2324 til American Graphophone Company, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er kun nonsens, for det finnes
2325 ingen eiendom i musikalske ideer, skriftlig eller kunstnerisk, unntatt det
2326 som er definert i loven.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2794087" href="#ftn.id2794087" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
2327 <a class="indexterm" name="id2794099"></a>
2328 </p><p>
2329
2330 Loven løste snart denne kampen i favør av <span class="emphasis"><em>både</em></span>
2331 komponisten og innspillingsartisten.  Kongressen endret loven slik at
2332 komponisten fikk betalt for den <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mekaniske reproduksjonen</span>»</span> av
2333 deres musikk.  Men i stedet for å ganske enkelt gi komponisten full kontroll
2334 over rettigheten til å lage mekaniske reproduksjoner, ga kongressen
2335 innspillingsartister rett en til å spille inn musikk, til en pris satt av
2336 kongressen, så snart komponisten har tillatt at den ble spilt inn en gang.
2337 Det er denne delen av opphavsrettsloven som gjør cover-låter mulig.  Så
2338 snart en komponist tillater en innspilling av hans sang, har andre mulighet
2339 til å spille inn samme sang, så lenge de betaler den originale komponisten
2340 et gebyr fastsatt av loven.
2341 </p><p>
2342 Amerikansk lov kaller dette vanligvis en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tvangslisens</span>»</span>, men
2343 jeg vil referere til dette som en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lovbestemt lisens</span>»</span>.  En
2344 lovbestemt lisens er en lisens hvis nøkkelvilkår er bestemt i lovverket.
2345 Etter kongressens endring av opphavsrettsloven i 1909, sto plateselskapene
2346 fritt til å distribuere kopier av innspillinger så lenge som de betalte
2347 komponisten (eller opphavsrettsinnehaveren) gebyret spesifisert i lovverket.
2348 </p><p>
2349 Dette er et unntak i opphavsrettsloven.  Når John Grisham skriver en roman
2350 så kan en utgiver kun utgi denne romanen hvis Grisham gir utgiveren
2351 tillatelse til det.  Girsham står fritt til å kreve hvilken som helst
2352 betaling for den tillatelsen.  Prisen for å publisere Grisham er dermed
2353 bestemt av Grisham og opphavsrettsloven sier at du ikke har tillatelse til å
2354 bruke Grishams verker med mindre du har tillatelse fra Grisham.
2355 <a class="indexterm" name="id2794169"></a>
2356 </p><p>
2357 Men loven som styrer innspillinger gir innspillingsartisten mindre. Og
2358 dermed er effekten at loven <span class="emphasis"><em>subsidierer</em></span>
2359 musikkindustrien med et slags piratvirksomhet&#8212;ved å gi
2360 innspillingsartister en svakere rettighet enn de gir kreative forfattere.
2361 The Beatles har mindre kontroll over deres kreative verker enn Grisham har.
2362 Og de som nyter godt av at de har mindre kontroll er musikkindustrien og
2363 folket.  Musikkindustrien får noe av verdi for mindre enn de ellers måtte
2364 betalt, og folket får tilgang til en større mengde musikalsk kreativitet.
2365 Kongressen var faktisk svært eksplisitt i sine grunner for å dele ut denne
2366 rettigheten.  Den fryktet monopolmakten til rettighetsinnehaverne, og at
2367 denne makten skulle kvele påvølgende kreativitet.<sup>[<a name="id2793645" href="#ftn.id2793645" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2794212"></a>
2368 </p><p>
2369 Mens musikkindustrien har vært ganske stille om dette i det siste, har de
2370 historisk vært høylytte tilhengere av den lovbestemte lisensen for
2371 innspillinger.  Som det sto i en rapport fra 1967 utgitt av House Committee
2372 on the Judiciary:
2373 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2374 plateprodusentene argumenterte energisk for at tvangslisens-systemet måtte
2375 bevares.  De tok utgangspunkt i at musikkindustrien er et forretningsområde
2376 på en halv milliard dollar som er veldig viktig for økonomien i USA og
2377 resten av verden. Plater er i dag den viktigste måten å spre musikk, og
2378 dette fører til spesielle problemer, siden utøvere trenger uhindret tilgang
2379 til musikalsk materiale på ikke-diskriminerende vilkår.  Plateprodusentene
2380 pekte på at historisk var det ingen innspillingsrettigheter før 1909 og
2381 1909-endringen i lovverket vedtok tvangslisensen som en gjennomtenkt
2382 mekanisme for å unngå monopol da de tildelte disse rettighetene.  De
2383 argumenterer med at resultatet har vært at det har strømmet på med innspillt
2384 musikk, at folket har fått lavere priser, bedre kvalitet og flere
2385 valg.<sup>[<a name="id2794265" href="#ftn.id2794265" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
2386 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2387 Ved å begrense rettighetene musikere hadde, ved å delvis røve deres kreative
2388 verk, fikk innspillingsprodusentene, og folket, fordeler.
2389 </p></div><div class="section" title="4.3. Radio"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="radio"></a>4.3. Radio</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments1"></a><p>
2390 Radio kom også fra piratvirksomhet.
2391 </p><p>
2392 Når en radiostasjon spiller en plate på luften, så utgjør dette en
2393 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>»</span> av komponistens verk.<sup>[<a name="id2794325" href="#ftn.id2794325" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> Som jeg beskrev over, gir loven komponisten (eller
2394 opphavsrettsinnehaveren) en eksklusiv rett til offentlige fremføringer av
2395 hans verk.  Radiostasjonen skylder dermed komponisten penger for denne
2396 fremføringe.
2397 </p><p>
2398
2399 Men når en radiostasjon spiller en plage, så fremfører det ikke bare et
2400 eksemplar av <span class="emphasis"><em>komponistens</em></span> verk. Radiostasjonen
2401 fremfører også et eksemplar av <span class="emphasis"><em>innspillingsartistens</em></span>
2402 verk.  Det er en ting å få <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> sunget på radio av
2403 det lokale barnekoret.  Det er noe ganske annet å få det sunget av Rolling
2404 Stones eller Lyle Lovett.  Innspillingsartisten legger til verdi på
2405 komposisjonen fremført på radiostasjonen.  Og hvis loven var fullstendig
2406 konsistent, så burde radiostasjonen også vært nødt til å betale
2407 innspillingsartisten for hans verk, på samme måten som den betaler
2408 komponisten av musikken for hans verk.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2794417"></a>
2409
2410
2411 </p><p>
2412 Men det gjør den ikke.  I følge loven som styrer radiofremføringer, trenger
2413 ikke radiostasjonen å betale noe til innspillingsartisten. Radiostasjonen
2414 trenger kun å betale komponisten.  Radiostasjonen får dermed noe uten å
2415 betale.  Den får fremføre innspillingsartistens verk gratis, selv om den må
2416 betale komponisten noe for privilegiet det er å spille sangen.
2417 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmadonna"></a><p>
2418 Denne forskjellen kan bli stor.  Forestill deg at du komponerer et stykke
2419 musikk.  Se for deg at det er ditt første stykke.  Du eier de eksklusive
2420 rettighetene til å godkjenne offentlig fremføring av den musikken.  Så hvis
2421 Madonna ønsker å synge din sang offentlig, må hun få din tillatelse.
2422 </p><p>
2423 Tenkt deg videre at hun synger din sang, og at hun liker den veldig
2424 godt. Hun bestemmer seg deretter for å spille inn sangen din, og den blir en
2425 populær hitlåt.  Med vår lov vil du få litt penger hver gang en radiostasjon
2426 spiller din sang.  Men Madonna får ingenting, fortsett fra de indirekte
2427 effektene fra salg av hennes CD-er.  Den offentlige fremføringen av hennes
2428 innspilling er ikke en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">beskyttet</span>»</span> rettighet. Radiostasjonen
2429 får dermed <span class="emphasis"><em>røve</em></span> verdien av Madonnas arbeid uten å
2430 betale henne noen ting.
2431 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2794490"></a><p>
2432 Uten tvil kan en argumentere at, totalt sett, tjener innspillingsartistene
2433 på dette.  I snitt er reklamen de får verdt mer enn enn
2434 fremføringsrettighetene de frasier seg.  Kanskje.  Men selv om det er slik,
2435 så gir loven vanligvis skaperen retten til å gjøre dette valget.  Ved å
2436 gjøre valgen for ham eller henne, gir loven radiostasjonen rett til å ta noe
2437 uten å betale.
2438 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2794514"></a></div><div class="section" title="4.4. Kabel-TV"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>4.4. Kabel-TV</h2></div></div></div><p>
2439
2440 Kabel-TV kom også fra en form for piratvirksomhet.
2441 </p><p>
2442
2443 Da kabel-TV-gründere først begynte å koble opp fellesskap med kabel-TV i
2444 1948, nektet de fleste å betale kringkasterne for innholdet som de sendte
2445 videre til sine kunder.  Selv da kabelselskapene begynte å selge tilgang til
2446 TV-kringkastinger, nektet de å betale for det de solgte.  Kabelselskapene
2447 Napsteriserte dermed kringkasternes innhold, men grovere enn det Napster
2448 noen gang gjorde&#8212;Napster tok aldri betalt for innholdet som det ble
2449 mulig for andre å gi bort.
2450 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2794540"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2794547"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2794571"></a><p>
2451 Kringkastere og opphavsrettsinnehavere var raske til å angripe dette
2452 tyveriet.  Rosel Hyde, styreleder i FCC, så praksisen som en slags
2453 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">urettferdig og potensielt ødeleggende
2454 konkurranse</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2794588" href="#ftn.id2794588" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup> Det kan ha vært en
2455 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig interesse</span>»</span> i å øke spredningen til kabel-TV, men som
2456 Douglas Anello, sjefsjurist hos Nasjonalforeningen for kringkastere spurte
2457 senator Quentin Burdick under sitt vitnemål, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dikterer offentlig
2458 interesse at du kan bruke noen andres eiendom?</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2794624" href="#ftn.id2794624" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> Som en annen kringkaster formulerte det,
2459 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2460 Den uvanlige tingen med kabel-TV-selskapene er at det er de eneste
2461 selskapene jeg vet om hvor produktet som blir solgt ikke er betalt
2462 for.<sup>[<a name="id2794641" href="#ftn.id2794641" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
2463 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2464 Igjen, kravene til opphavsrettsinnehaverne virket rimelige nok:
2465 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2466 Alt vi ber om er en veldig enkel ting, at folk som tar vår eiendom gratis
2467 betaler for den.  Vi forsøker å stoppe piratvirksomhet og jeg kan ikke tenke
2468 på et svakere ord for å beskrive det.  Jeg tror det er sterkere ord som
2469 ville passe.<sup>[<a name="id2794669" href="#ftn.id2794669" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
2470 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2794681"></a><p>
2471 Disse var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratispassasjerer</span>»</span>, sa presidenten Charlton Heston i
2472 Screen Actor's Guild, som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tok lønna fra
2473 skuespillerne</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2794697" href="#ftn.id2794697" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
2474 </p><p>
2475 Men igjen, det er en annen side i debatten.  Som assisterende justisminister
2476 Edwin Zimmerman sa det,
2477 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2478 Vårt poeng her er ikke problemet med om hvorvidt du over hode har
2479 opphavsrettsbeskyttelse.  Problemet her er hvorvidt opphavsrettsinnehavere
2480 som allerede blir kompensert, som allerede har et monopol, skal få lov til å
2481 utvide dette monopolet. &#8230; Spørsmålet er hvor mye kompensasjon de bør
2482 ha, og hvor langt de kan strekke sin rett på kompenasjon.<sup>[<a name="id2793512" href="#ftn.id2793512" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2794753"></a>
2483 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2484 Opphavsrettinnehaverne tok kabelselskapene til retten. Høyesterett fant to
2485 ganger at kabelselskaper ikke skyldte opphavsrettinnehaverne noen ting.
2486 </p><p>
2487 Det tok kongressen nesten tredve år før den fikk løst spørsmålet om hvorvidt
2488 kabel-TV-selskapene måtte betale for innholdet de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røvet</span>»</span>.  Til
2489 slutt løste kongressen dette spørsmålet på samme måte som den hadde løst
2490 spørsmålet om platespillere og automatiske pianoer.  Ja, kabel-TV-selskapene
2491 måtte betale for innholdet som de kringkastet, men prisen de måtte betale
2492 ble ikke satt av opphavsrettsinnehaveren.  Prisen ble fastsatt ved lov, slik
2493 at kringkasterne ikke kunne utøve vetomakt over den nye teknologien
2494 kabel-TV.  Kabel-TV-selskapene bygde dermed deres imperie delvis ved å
2495 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røve</span>»</span> verdien skapt av kringkasternes innhold.
2496 </p><p>
2497 <span class="strong"><strong>Disse separate historiene</strong></span> synger en
2498 felles melodi.  Hvis <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> betyr å bruke verdien
2499 fra noen andres kreative eiendom uten tillatelse fra dets skaper&#8212;slik
2500 det stadig oftere beskrives i dag<sup>[<a name="id2794728" href="#ftn.id2794728" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup>
2501 &#8212;da er <span class="emphasis"><em>enhver</em></span> industri påvirket av opphavsrett i
2502 dag produktet og de som har nytt godt av ulike former for piratvirksomhet.
2503 Film, plater, radio, kabel-TV. &#8230; Listen er lang og kunne vært
2504 lengre.  Hver generasjon ønsker piratene fra den forrige velkommen.  Hver
2505 generasjon&#8212;inntil nå.
2506 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2793605" href="#id2793605" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
2507
2508 Jeg er takknemlig til Peter DiMauro for å ha pekt meg i retning av denne
2509 ekstraordinære historien.  Se også Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights
2510 and Copywrongs</em>, 87&#8211;93, som forteller detaljer om Edisons
2511 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eventyr</span>»</span> med opphavsrett og patent. <a class="indexterm" name="id2793620"></a>
2512 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2793686" href="#id2793686" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
2513
2514 J. A. Aberdeen, <em class="citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent
2515 Motion Picture Producers</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) and
2516 expanded texts posted at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion
2517 Picture Patents Company vs. the Independent Outlaws,</span>»</span> available at
2518 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #11</a>. For a
2519 discussion of the economic motive behind both these limits and the limits
2520 imposed by Victor on phonographs, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison
2521 to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the
2522 Propertization of Copyright</span>»</span> (September 2002), University of Chicago
2523 Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working Paper
2524 No. 159.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2793715"></a>
2525 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2793760" href="#id2793760" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
2526
2527
2528 Marc Wanamaker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First Studios,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">The Silents
2529 Majority</em>, arkivert på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #12</a>.
2530 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2793960" href="#id2793960" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
2531
2532 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright: Hearings on S. 6330
2533 and H.R. 19853 Before the ( Joint) Committees on Patents, 59th Cong. 59, 1st
2534 sess. (1906) (statement of Senator Alfred B. Kittredge, of South Dakota,
2535 chairman), reprinted in <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the Copyright
2536 Act</em>, E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South
2537 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2793974"></a>
2538 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2794002" href="#id2794002" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
2539
2540
2541 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223 (uttalelse fra
2542 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2543 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2794019" href="#id2794019" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
2544
2545
2546 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (uttalelse fra
2547 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2548 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2794035" href="#id2794035" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
2549
2550
2551 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (uttalelse fra
2552 John Philip Sousa, komponist).
2553 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2794063" href="#id2794063" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
2554
2555
2556
2557 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283&#8211;84
2558 (uttalelse fra Albert Walker, representant for the Auto-Music Perforating
2559 Company of New York).
2560 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2794087" href="#id2794087" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
2561
2562
2563 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 376 (forberedt
2564 innlegg fra Philip Mauro, sjefspatentrådgiver for the American Graphophone
2565 Company Association).
2566 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2793645" href="#id2793645" class="para">60</a>] </sup>
2567
2568
2569
2570 Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on S. 2499, S. 2900, H.R. 243, and
2571 H.R. 11794 Before the ( Joint) Committee on Patents, 60th Cong., 1st sess.,
2572 217 (1908) (statement of Senator Reed Smoot, chairman), reprinted in
2573 <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act</em>,
2574 E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman
2575 Reprints, 1976).
2576 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2794265" href="#id2794265" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
2577
2578
2579 Copyright Law Revision: Report to Accompany H.R. 2512, House Committee on
2580 the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 1st sess., House Document no. 83, (8 March
2581 1967). I am grateful to Glenn Brown for drawing my attention to this report.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2794325" href="#id2794325" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
2582
2583 Se 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, seksjon 106 og 110. I
2584 begynnelsen skrev noen plateselskaper <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke lisensiert for
2585 radiokringkasting</span>»</span> og andre meldinger som ga inntrykk av å begrense
2586 muligheten tli å spille en plate på en radiostasjon.  Dommer Learned Hand
2587 avviste argumentet om at en advarsel klistret på en plate kunne begrense
2588 rettighetene til radiostasjonen. Se <em class="citetitle">RCA Manufacturing
2589 Co</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Whiteman</em>, 114 F. 2d 86 (2nd
2590 Cir. 1940).  Se også Randal C.  Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast
2591 Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of
2592 Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em>
2593 70 (2003): 281.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2794362"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2794371"></a>
2594 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2794588" href="#id2794588" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
2595
2596 Endring i opphavsrettsloven&#8212;Kabel-TV: Høring om S. 1006 foran
2597 underkomiteen om patenter, varemerker og opphavsrett av senatets komite om
2598 det juridiske, 89. Kong., 2. sess., 78 (1966) (uttalelse fra Rosel H. Hyde,
2599 styreleder i den føderale kommunikasjonskommisjonen.<a class="indexterm" name="id2794551"></a>
2600 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2794624" href="#id2794624" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
2601
2602
2603 Endring i opphavsretttsloven&#8212;Kabel-TV, 116 (uttalelse fra Douglas
2604 A. Anello, sjefsjuristen i Nasjonalforeningen for kringkastere).
2605 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2794641" href="#id2794641" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
2606
2607
2608 Endring i opphavsrettsloven&#8212;Kabel-TV, 126 (uttalelse fra Ernest
2609 W. Jennes, sjefsjurist ved Association of Maximum Service Telecasters,
2610 Inc.).
2611 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2794669" href="#id2794669" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
2612
2613
2614 Endring i opphavsrettsloven&#8212;Kabel-TV, 169 (felles uttalelse fra Arthur
2615 B.  Krim, president i United Artists Corp. og John Sinn, president i United
2616 Artists Television Inc.).
2617 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2794697" href="#id2794697" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
2618
2619 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 209 (uttalelse fra Charlton Heston,
2620 president i Screen Actors Guild).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2794675"></a>
2621 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2793512" href="#id2793512" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
2622
2623 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 216 (uttalelse fra Edwin M. Zimmerman,
2624 fungerende assisterende justisministeren).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2794700"></a>
2625 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2794728" href="#id2794728" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
2626
2627
2628 Se for eksempel National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The
2629 Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet&#8212;The Myth of Free
2630 Information</em>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #13</a>. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Trusselen fra
2631 piratvirksomhet&#8212;bruken av noen andres kreative verker uten tillatelse
2632 eller kompenasjons&#8212;har vokst med internettet.</span>»</span>
2633 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="piracy"></a>Kapittel fem: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
2634 Det røves opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale.  Massevis.  Og denne
2635 piratvirksomheten antar mange former.  Den mest betydningsfulle er
2636 kommersiell piratvirksomhet, det å ta andres innhold uten lov i en
2637 kommersiell setting.  På tross av de mange forklaringer om hvorfor dette er
2638 greit som fremføres i dets forsvar, så er dette galt.  Ingen bør gå god for
2639 det, og loven bør stoppe det.
2640 </p><p>
2641
2642 Men på samme måte som med piratvirksomheten til kopierings-firma, så
2643 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tas</span>»</span> det på en annen måte som er mer direkte relatert til
2644 internettet.  Denne måten å ta på virker galt for mante, og det er galt mye
2645 av tiden.  Før vi kaller det å ta på denne måten for
2646 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>, bør vi dog forstå dets natur litt mer. For
2647 skaden som denne formen for å ta gjør er betydelig mer tvetydig enn direkte
2648 kopiering, og loven bør ta hensyn til denne tvetydingheten, slik den har
2649 gjort ofte tidligere.
2650
2651 </p><div class="section" title="5.1. Piratvirksomhet I"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-i"></a>5.1. Piratvirksomhet I</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2794912"></a><p>
2652 All across the world, but especially in Asia and Eastern Europe, there are
2653 businesses that do nothing but take others people's copyrighted content,
2654 copy it, and sell it&#8212;all without the permission of a copyright
2655 owner. The recording industry estimates that it loses about $4.6 billion
2656 every year to physical piracy<sup>[<a name="id2794731" href="#ftn.id2794731" class="footnote">70</a>]</sup> (that
2657 works out to one in three CDs sold worldwide). The MPAA estimates that it
2658 loses $3 billion annually worldwide to piracy.
2659 </p><p>
2660 This is piracy plain and simple. Nothing in the argument of this book, nor
2661 in the argument that most people make when talking about the subject of this
2662 book, should draw into doubt this simple point: This piracy is wrong.
2663 </p><p>
2664 Which is not to say that excuses and justifications couldn't be made for
2665 it. We could, for example, remind ourselves that for the first one hundred
2666 years of the American Republic, America did not honor foreign copyrights. We
2667 were born, in this sense, a pirate nation. It might therefore seem
2668 hypocritical for us to insist so strongly that other developing nations
2669 treat as wrong what we, for the first hundred years of our existence,
2670 treated as right.
2671 </p><p>
2672 That excuse isn't terribly strong. Technically, our law did not ban the
2673 taking of foreign works. It explicitly limited itself to American
2674 works. Thus the American publishers who published foreign works without the
2675 permission of foreign authors were not violating any rule.  The copy shops
2676 in Asia, by contrast, are violating Asian law. Asian law does protect
2677 foreign copyrights, and the actions of the copy shops violate that law. So
2678 the wrong of piracy that they engage in is not just a moral wrong, but a
2679 legal wrong, and not just an internationally legal wrong, but a locally
2680 legal wrong as well.
2681 </p><p>
2682 True, these local rules have, in effect, been imposed upon these
2683 countries. No country can be part of the world economy and choose
2684
2685 not to protect copyright internationally. We may have been born a pirate
2686 nation, but we will not allow any other nation to have a similar childhood.
2687 </p><p>
2688 If a country is to be treated as a sovereign, however, then its laws are its
2689 laws regardless of their source. The international law under which these
2690 nations live gives them some opportunities to escape the burden of
2691 intellectual property law.<sup>[<a name="id2795005" href="#ftn.id2795005" class="footnote">71</a>]</sup> In my view,
2692 more developing nations should take advantage of that opportunity, but when
2693 they don't, then their laws should be respected. And under the laws of these
2694 nations, this piracy is wrong.
2695 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2795048"></a><p>
2696 Alternatively, we could try to excuse this piracy by noting that in any
2697 case, it does no harm to the industry. The Chinese who get access to
2698 American CDs at 50 cents a copy are not people who would have bought those
2699 American CDs at $15 a copy. So no one really has any less money than they
2700 otherwise would have had.<sup>[<a name="id2795063" href="#ftn.id2795063" class="footnote">72</a>]</sup>
2701 </p><p>
2702 This is often true (though I have friends who have purchased many thousands
2703 of pirated DVDs who certainly have enough money to pay for the content they
2704 have taken), and it does mitigate to some degree the harm caused by such
2705 taking. Extremists in this debate love to say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You wouldn't go into
2706 Barnes &amp; Noble and take a book off of the shelf without paying; why
2707 should it be any different with on-line music?</span>»</span> The difference is, of
2708 course, that when you take a book from Barnes &amp; Noble, it has one less
2709 book to sell. By contrast, when you take an MP3 from a computer network,
2710 there is not one less CD that can be sold.  The physics of piracy of the
2711 intangible are different from the physics of piracy of the tangible.
2712 </p><p>
2713
2714 This argument is still very weak. However, although copyright is a property
2715 right of a very special sort, it <span class="emphasis"><em>is</em></span> a property
2716 right. Like all property rights, the copyright gives the owner the right to
2717 decide the terms under which content is shared. If the copyright owner
2718 doesn't want to sell, she doesn't have to. There are exceptions: important
2719 statutory licenses that apply to copyrighted content regardless of the wish
2720 of the copyright owner. Those licenses give people the right to
2721 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">take</span>»</span> copyrighted content whether or not the copyright owner
2722 wants to sell. But where the law does not give people the right to take
2723 content, it is wrong to take that content even if the wrong does no harm. If
2724 we have a property system, and that system is properly balanced to the
2725 technology of a time, then it is wrong to take property without the
2726 permission of a property owner. That is exactly what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span>
2727 means.
2728 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2795150"></a><p>
2729 Finally, we could try to excuse this piracy with the argument that the
2730 piracy actually helps the copyright owner. When the Chinese
2731 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">steal</span>»</span> Windows, that makes the Chinese dependent on
2732 Microsoft.  Microsoft loses the value of the software that was taken. But it
2733 gains users who are used to life in the Microsoft world. Over time, as the
2734 nation grows more wealthy, more and more people will buy software rather
2735 than steal it. And hence over time, because that buying will benefit
2736 Microsoft, Microsoft benefits from the piracy. If instead of pirating
2737 Microsoft Windows, the Chinese used the free GNU/Linux operating system,
2738 then these Chinese users would not eventually be buying Microsoft.  Without
2739 piracy, then, Microsoft would lose.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2795174"></a>
2740 <a class="indexterm" name="id2795181"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2795187"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2795198"></a>
2741 </p><p>
2742 This argument, too, is somewhat true. The addiction strategy is a good
2743 one. Many businesses practice it. Some thrive because of it. Law students,
2744 for example, are given free access to the two largest legal databases. The
2745 companies marketing both hope the students will become so used to their
2746 service that they will want to use it and not the other when they become
2747 lawyers (and must pay high subscription fees).
2748 </p><p>
2749 Still, the argument is not terribly persuasive. We don't give the alcoholic
2750 a defense when he steals his first beer, merely because that will make it
2751 more likely that he will buy the next three. Instead, we ordinarily allow
2752 businesses to decide for themselves when it is best to give their product
2753 away. If Microsoft fears the competition of GNU/Linux, then Microsoft can
2754 give its product away, as it did, for example, with Internet Explorer to
2755 fight Netscape. A property right means giving the property owner the right
2756 to say who gets access to what&#8212;at least ordinarily. And if the law
2757 properly balances the rights of the copyright owner with the rights of
2758 access, then violating the law is still wrong.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2794923"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2795223"></a>
2759 <a class="indexterm" name="id2795244"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2795250"></a>
2760 </p><p>
2761
2762
2763 Thus, while I understand the pull of these justifications for piracy, and I
2764 certainly see the motivation, in my view, in the end, these efforts at
2765 justifying commercial piracy simply don't cut it. This kind of piracy is
2766 rampant and just plain wrong. It doesn't transform the content it steals; it
2767 doesn't transform the market it competes in. It merely gives someone access
2768 to something that the law says he should not have.  Nothing has changed to
2769 draw that law into doubt. This form of piracy is flat out wrong.
2770 </p><p>
2771 But as the examples from the four chapters that introduced this part
2772 suggest, even if some piracy is plainly wrong, not all <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span>
2773 is. Or at least, not all <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> is wrong if that term is
2774 understood in the way it is increasingly used today. Many kinds of
2775 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> are useful and productive, to produce either new
2776 content or new ways of doing business.  Neither our tradition nor any
2777 tradition has ever banned all <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> in that sense of the
2778 term.
2779 </p><p>
2780 This doesn't mean that there are no questions raised by the latest piracy
2781 concern, peer-to-peer file sharing. But it does mean that we need to
2782 understand the harm in peer-to-peer sharing a bit more before we condemn it
2783 to the gallows with the charge of piracy.
2784 </p><p>
2785 For (1) like the original Hollywood, p2p sharing escapes an overly
2786 controlling industry; and (2) like the original recording industry, it
2787 simply exploits a new way to distribute content; but (3) unlike cable TV, no
2788 one is selling the content that is shared on p2p services.
2789 </p><p>
2790 These differences distinguish p2p sharing from true piracy. They should push
2791 us to find a way to protect artists while enabling this sharing to survive.
2792 </p></div><div class="section" title="5.2. Piratvirksomhet II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-ii"></a>5.2. Piratvirksomhet II</h2></div></div></div><p>
2793
2794 The key to the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> that the law aims to quash is a use
2795 that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rob[s] the author of [his] profit.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2795335" href="#ftn.id2795335" class="footnote">73</a>]</sup> This means we must determine whether and how much
2796 p2p sharing harms before we know how strongly the law should seek to either
2797 prevent it or find an alternative to assure the author of his profit.
2798 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2795353"></a><p>
2799 Peer-to-peer sharing was made famous by Napster. But the inventors of the
2800 Napster technology had not made any major technological innovations.  Like
2801 every great advance in innovation on the Internet (and, arguably, off the
2802 Internet as well<sup>[<a name="id2795366" href="#ftn.id2795366" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
2803 crew had simply put together components that had been developed
2804 independently.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2795402"></a>
2805 </p><p>
2806 The result was spontaneous combustion. Launched in July 1999, Napster
2807 amassed over 10 million users within nine months. After eighteen months,
2808 there were close to 80 million registered users of the system.<sup>[<a name="id2795415" href="#ftn.id2795415" class="footnote">75</a>]</sup> Courts quickly shut Napster down, but other
2809 services emerged to take its place. (Kazaa is currently the most popular p2p
2810 service. It boasts over 100 million members.) These services' systems are
2811 different architecturally, though not very different in function: Each
2812 enables users to make content available to any number of other users. With a
2813 p2p system, you can share your favorite songs with your best friend&#8212;
2814 or your 20,000 best friends.
2815 </p><p>
2816 According to a number of estimates, a huge proportion of Americans have
2817 tasted file-sharing technology. A study by Ipsos-Insight in September 2002
2818 estimated that 60 million Americans had downloaded music&#8212;28 percent of
2819 Americans older than 12.<sup>[<a name="id2795464" href="#ftn.id2795464" class="footnote">76</a>]</sup> A survey by
2820 the NPD group quoted in <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> estimated
2821 that 43 million citizens used file-sharing networks to exchange content in
2822 May 2003.<sup>[<a name="id2795492" href="#ftn.id2795492" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these
2823 are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a massive quantity of content is
2824 being <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taken</span>»</span> on these networks. The ease and inexpensiveness
2825 of file-sharing networks have inspired millions to enjoy music in a way that
2826 they hadn't before.
2827 </p><p>
2828 Some of this enjoying involves copyright infringement. Some of it does
2829 not. And even among the part that is technically copyright infringement,
2830 calculating the actual harm to copyright owners is more complicated than one
2831 might think. So consider&#8212;a bit more carefully than the polarized
2832 voices around this debate usually do&#8212;the kinds of sharing that file
2833 sharing enables, and the kinds of harm it entails.
2834 </p><p>
2835
2836
2837 Fildelerne deler ulike typer innhold.  Vi kan dele disse ulike typene inn i
2838 fire typer.
2839 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
2840
2841 There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing
2842 content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD,
2843 these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who
2844 takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available
2845 for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who
2846 would.  The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead
2847 of purchasing.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2795552"></a>
2848 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2849
2850
2851 There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing
2852 it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard
2853 of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of
2854 targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed.  If the friend recommending
2855 the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect
2856 that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this
2857 sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.
2858 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2859
2860
2861 There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content
2862 that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the
2863 transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is
2864 among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood
2865 but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the
2866 network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a
2867 solid weekend <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">recalling</span>»</span> old songs. She was astonished at the
2868 range and mix of content that was available.)  For content not sold, this is
2869 still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright
2870 owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is
2871 zero&#8212;the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s
2872 45-rpm records to a local collector.
2873 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878 Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content
2879 that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.
2880 </p></li></ol></div><p>
2881 Hvordan balanserer disse ulike delingstypene?
2882 </p><p>
2883 Let's start with some simple but important points. From the perspective of
2884 the law, only type D sharing is clearly legal. From the perspective of
2885 economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.<sup>[<a name="id2795623" href="#ftn.id2795623" class="footnote">78</a>]</sup> Type B sharing is illegal but plainly
2886 beneficial. Type C sharing is illegal, yet good for society (since more
2887 exposure to music is good)  and harmless to the artist (since the work is
2888 not otherwise available). So how sharing matters on balance is a hard
2889 question to answer&#8212;and certainly much more difficult than the current
2890 rhetoric around the issue suggests.
2891 </p><p>
2892 Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how harmful
2893 type A sharing is. Just as Edison complained about Hollywood, composers
2894 complained about piano rolls, recording artists complained about radio, and
2895 broadcasters complained about cable TV, the music industry complains that
2896 type A sharing is a kind of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theft</span>»</span> that is
2897 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">devastating</span>»</span> the industry.
2898 </p><p>
2899 While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder
2900 to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame
2901 technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a
2902 good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst &amp; Young put it,
2903 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels
2904 fought it.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2795676" href="#ftn.id2795676" class="footnote">79</a>]</sup> The labels claimed
2905 that every album taped was an album unsold, and when record sales fell by
2906 11.4 percent in 1981, the industry claimed that its point was
2907 proved. Technology was the problem, and banning or regulating technology was
2908 the answer.
2909 </p><p>
2910 Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity to enact
2911 regulation, MTV was launched, and the industry had a record
2912 turnaround. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the end,</span>»</span> Cap Gemini concludes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
2913 `crisis' &#8230; was not the fault of the tapers&#8212;who did not [stop
2914 after MTV came into being]&#8212;but had to a large extent resulted from
2915 stagnation in musical innovation at the major labels.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2795074" href="#ftn.id2795074" class="footnote">80</a>]</sup>
2916 </p><p>
2917 But just because the industry was wrong before does not mean it is wrong
2918 today. To evaluate the real threat that p2p sharing presents to the industry
2919 in particular, and society in general&#8212;or at least the society that
2920 inherits the tradition that gave us the film industry, the record industry,
2921 the radio industry, cable TV, and the VCR&#8212;the question is not simply
2922 whether type A sharing is harmful. The question is also
2923 <span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> harmful type A sharing is, and how beneficial the
2924 other types of sharing are.
2925 </p><p>
2926 We start to answer this question by focusing on the net harm, from the
2927 standpoint of the industry as a whole, that sharing networks cause.  The
2928 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">net harm</span>»</span> to the industry as a whole is the amount by which
2929 type A sharing exceeds type B. If the record companies sold more records
2930 through sampling than they lost through substitution, then sharing networks
2931 would actually benefit music companies on balance. They would therefore have
2932 little <span class="emphasis"><em>static</em></span> reason to resist them.
2933
2934 </p><p>
2935 Could that be true? Could the industry as a whole be gaining because of file
2936 sharing? Odd as that might sound, the data about CD sales actually suggest
2937 it might be close.
2938 </p><p>
2939 In 2002, the RIAA reported that CD sales had fallen by 8.9 percent, from 882
2940 million to 803 million units; revenues fell 6.7 percent.<sup>[<a name="id2795781" href="#ftn.id2795781" class="footnote">81</a>]</sup> This confirms a trend over the past few years. The
2941 RIAA blames Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other
2942 causes that could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a
2943 more than 20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since 1999. That no
2944 doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales. Rising prices could
2945 account for at least some of the loss. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From 1999 to 2001, the average
2946 price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2795839" href="#ftn.id2795839" class="footnote">82</a>]</sup> Competition from other forms of media could also
2947 account for some of the decline. As Jane Black of
2948 <em class="citetitle">BusinessWeek</em> notes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The soundtrack to the film
2949 <em class="citetitle">High Fidelity</em> has a list price of $18.98. You could
2950 get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2795876" href="#ftn.id2795876" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
2951 </p><p>
2952
2953
2954
2955 But let's assume the RIAA is right, and all of the decline in CD sales is
2956 because of Internet sharing. Here's the rub: In the same period that the
2957 RIAA estimates that 803 million CDs were sold, the RIAA estimates that 2.1
2958 billion CDs were downloaded for free. Thus, although 2.6 times the total
2959 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, sales revenue fell by just 6.7
2960 percent.
2961 </p><p>
2962 There are too many different things happening at the same time to explain
2963 these numbers definitively, but one conclusion is unavoidable: The recording
2964 industry constantly asks, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What's the difference between downloading a
2965 song and stealing a CD?</span>»</span>&#8212;but their own numbers reveal the
2966 difference. If I steal a CD, then there is one less CD to sell. Every taking
2967 is a lost sale. But on the basis of the numbers the RIAA provides, it is
2968 absolutely clear that the same is not true of downloads. If every download
2969 were a lost sale&#8212;if every use of Kazaa <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rob[bed] the author of
2970 [his] profit</span>»</span>&#8212;then the industry would have suffered a 100
2971 percent drop in sales last year, not a 7 percent drop. If 2.6 times the
2972 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, and yet sales revenue dropped
2973 by just 6.7 percent, then there is a huge difference between
2974 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">downloading a song and stealing a CD.</span>»</span>
2975 </p><p>
2976 These are the harms&#8212;alleged and perhaps exaggerated but, let's assume,
2977 real. What of the benefits? File sharing may impose costs on the recording
2978 industry. What value does it produce in addition to these costs?
2979 </p><p>
2980 One benefit is type C sharing&#8212;making available content that is
2981 technically still under copyright but is no longer commercially available.
2982 This is not a small category of content. There are millions of tracks that
2983 are no longer commercially available.<sup>[<a name="id2795926" href="#ftn.id2795926" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup>
2984 And while it's conceivable that some of this content is not available
2985 because the artist producing the content doesn't want it to be made
2986 available, the vast majority of it is unavailable solely because the
2987 publisher or the distributor has decided it no longer makes economic sense
2988 <span class="emphasis"><em>to the company</em></span> to make it available.
2989 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2795965"></a><p>
2990 In real space&#8212;long before the Internet&#8212;the market had a simple
2991 response to this problem: used book and record stores. There are thousands
2992 of used book and used record stores in America today.<sup>[<a name="id2795978" href="#ftn.id2795978" class="footnote">85</a>]</sup> These stores buy content from owners, then sell the
2993 content they buy. And under American copyright law, when they buy and sell
2994 this content, <span class="emphasis"><em>even if the content is still under
2995 copyright</em></span>, the copyright owner doesn't get a dime. Used book and
2996 record stores are commercial entities; their owners make money from the
2997 content they sell; but as with cable companies before statutory licensing,
2998 they don't have to pay the copyright owner for the content they sell.
2999 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2796039"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2796046"></a><p>
3000 Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used record
3001 stores. It is different, of course, because the person making the content
3002 available isn't making money from making the content available.  It is also
3003 different, of course, because in real space, when I sell a record, I don't
3004 have it anymore, while in cyberspace, when someone shares my 1949 recording
3005 of Bernstein's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Two Love Songs,</span>»</span> I still have it. That
3006 difference would matter economically if the owner of the copyright were
3007 selling the record in competition to my sharing. But we're talking about the
3008 class of content that is not currently commercially available. The Internet
3009 is making it available, through cooperative sharing, without competing with
3010 the market.
3011 </p><p>
3012 It may well be, all things considered, that it would be better if the
3013 copyright owner got something from this trade. But just because it may well
3014 be better, it doesn't follow that it would be good to ban used book
3015 stores. Or put differently, if you think that type C sharing should be
3016 stopped, do you think that libraries and used book stores should be shut as
3017 well?
3018 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline1"></a><p>
3019
3020 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, file-sharing networks enable type D
3021 sharing to occur&#8212;the sharing of content that copyright owners want to
3022 have shared or for which there is no continuing copyright. This sharing
3023 clearly benefits authors and society. Science fiction author Cory Doctorow,
3024 for example, released his first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
3025 Kingdom</em>, both free on-line and in bookstores on the same
3026 day. His (and his publisher's) thinking was that the on-line distribution
3027 would be a great advertisement for the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">real</span>»</span> book. People
3028 would read part on-line, and then decide whether they liked the book or
3029 not. If they liked it, they would be more likely to buy it. Doctorow's
3030 content is type D content. If sharing networks enable his work to be spread,
3031 then both he and society are better off. (Actually, much better off: It is a
3032 great book!)
3033 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2796128"></a><p>
3034 Likewise for work in the public domain: This sharing benefits society with
3035 no legal harm to authors at all. If efforts to solve the problem of type A
3036 sharing destroy the opportunity for type D sharing, then we lose something
3037 important in order to protect type A content.
3038 </p><p>
3039 The point throughout is this: While the recording industry understandably
3040 says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This is how much we've lost,</span>»</span> we must also ask,
3041 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much has society gained from p2p sharing? What are the
3042 efficiencies? What is the content that otherwise would be
3043 unavailable?</span>»</span>
3044 </p><p>
3045 For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this chapter, much
3046 of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> that file sharing enables is plainly legal and
3047 good.  And like the piracy I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Kapittel fire: «Pirater»">4</a>, much of this piracy is motivated by a new
3048 way of spreading content caused by changes in the technology of
3049 distribution. Thus, consistent with the tradition that gave us Hollywood,
3050 radio, the recording industry, and cable TV, the question we should be
3051 asking about file sharing is how best to preserve its benefits while
3052 minimizing (to the extent possible) the wrongful harm it causes artists. The
3053 question is one of balance. The law should seek that balance, and that
3054 balance will be found only with time.
3055 </p><p>
3056 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Men er ikke krigen bare en krig mot ulovlig deling?  Er ikke
3057 angrepsmålet bare det du kaller type-A-deling?</span>»</span>
3058 </p><p>
3059 You would think. And we should hope. But so far, it is not. The effect of
3060 the war purportedly on type A sharing alone has been felt far beyond that
3061 one class of sharing. That much is obvious from the Napster case
3062 itself. When Napster told the district court that it had developed a
3063 technology to block the transfer of 99.4 percent of identified infringing
3064 material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4 percent was not
3065 good enough. Napster had to push the infringements <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">down to
3066 zero.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2796205" href="#ftn.id2796205" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
3067 </p><p>
3068 If 99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing
3069 technologies, not a war on copyright infringement. There is no way to assure
3070 that a p2p system is used 100 percent of the time in compliance with the
3071 law, any more than there is a way to assure that 100 percent of VCRs or 100
3072 percent of Xerox machines or 100 percent of handguns are used in compliance
3073 with the law. Zero tolerance means zero p2p.  The court's ruling means that
3074 we as a society must lose the benefits of p2p, even for the totally legal
3075 and beneficial uses they serve, simply to assure that there are zero
3076 copyright infringements caused by p2p.
3077 </p><p>
3078 Zero tolerance has not been our history. It has not produced the content
3079 industry that we know today. The history of American law has been a process
3080 of balance. As new technologies changed the way content was distributed, the
3081 law adjusted, after some time, to the new technology.  In this adjustment,
3082 the law sought to ensure the legitimate rights of creators while protecting
3083 innovation. Sometimes this has meant more rights for creators. Sometimes
3084 less.
3085 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2796255"></a><p>
3086 So, as we've seen, when <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mechanical reproduction</span>»</span> threatened
3087 the interests of composers, Congress balanced the rights of composers
3088 against the interests of the recording industry. It granted rights to
3089 composers, but also to the recording artists: Composers were to be paid, but
3090 at a price set by Congress. But when radio started broadcasting the
3091 recordings made by these recording artists, and they complained to Congress
3092 that their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> was not being respected (since
3093 the radio station did not have to pay them for the creativity it broadcast),
3094 Congress rejected their claim. An indirect benefit was enough.
3095 </p><p>
3096 Cable TV followed the pattern of record albums. When the courts rejected the
3097 claim that cable broadcasters had to pay for the content they rebroadcast,
3098 Congress responded by giving broadcasters a right to compensation, but at a
3099 level set by the law. It likewise gave cable companies the right to the
3100 content, so long as they paid the statutory price.
3101 </p><p>
3102
3103
3104
3105 This compromise, like the compromise affecting records and player pianos,
3106 served two important goals&#8212;indeed, the two central goals of any
3107 copyright legislation. First, the law assured that new innovators would have
3108 the freedom to develop new ways to deliver content.  Second, the law assured
3109 that copyright holders would be paid for the content that was
3110 distributed. One fear was that if Congress simply required cable TV to pay
3111 copyright holders whatever they demanded for their content, then copyright
3112 holders associated with broadcasters would use their power to stifle this
3113 new technology, cable. But if Congress had permitted cable to use
3114 broadcasters' content for free, then it would have unfairly subsidized
3115 cable. Thus Congress chose a path that would assure
3116 <span class="emphasis"><em>compensation</em></span> without giving the past (broadcasters)
3117 control over the future (cable).
3118 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2796325"></a><p>
3119 In the same year that Congress struck this balance, two major producers and
3120 distributors of film content filed a lawsuit against another technology, the
3121 video tape recorder (VTR, or as we refer to them today, VCRs) that Sony had
3122 produced, the Betamax. Disney's and Universal's claim against Sony was
3123 relatively simple: Sony produced a device, Disney and Universal claimed,
3124 that enabled consumers to engage in copyright infringement. Because the
3125 device that Sony built had a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">record</span>»</span> button, the device could
3126 be used to record copyrighted movies and shows. Sony was therefore
3127 benefiting from the copyright infringement of its customers. It should
3128 therefore, Disney and Universal claimed, be partially liable for that
3129 infringement.
3130 </p><p>
3131
3132 There was something to Disney's and Universal's claim. Sony did decide to
3133 design its machine to make it very simple to record television shows. It
3134 could have built the machine to block or inhibit any direct copying from a
3135 television broadcast. Or possibly, it could have built the machine to copy
3136 only if there were a special <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy me</span>»</span> signal on the line. It
3137 was clear that there were many television shows that did not grant anyone
3138 permission to copy. Indeed, if anyone had asked, no doubt the majority of
3139 shows would not have authorized copying. And in the face of this obvious
3140 preference, Sony could have designed its system to minimize the opportunity
3141 for copyright infringement. It did not, and for that, Disney and Universal
3142 wanted to hold it responsible for the architecture it chose.
3143 </p><p>
3144 MPAA president Jack Valenti became the studios' most vocal champion. Valenti
3145 called VCRs <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tapeworms.</span>»</span> He warned, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">When there are 20,
3146 30, 40 million of these VCRs in the land, we will be invaded by millions of
3147 `tapeworms,' eating away at the very heart and essence of the most precious
3148 asset the copyright owner has, his copyright.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2796385" href="#ftn.id2796385" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">One does not have to be trained in
3149 sophisticated marketing and creative judgment,</span>»</span> he told Congress,
3150 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to understand the devastation on the after-theater marketplace caused
3151 by the hundreds of millions of tapings that will adversely impact on the
3152 future of the creative community in this country. It is simply a question of
3153 basic economics and plain common sense.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2796406" href="#ftn.id2796406" class="footnote">88</a>]</sup> Indeed, as surveys would later show, percent of VCR owners had
3154 movie libraries of ten videos or more<sup>[<a name="id2796416" href="#ftn.id2796416" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup>
3155 &#8212; a use the Court would later hold was not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair.</span>»</span> By
3156 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the means of an exemption from
3157 copyright infringementwithout creating a mechanism to compensate
3158 copyrightowners,</span>»</span> Valenti testified, Congress would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">take from
3159 the owners the very essence of their property: the exclusive right to
3160 control who may use their work, that is, who may copy it and thereby profit
3161 from its reproduction.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2796445" href="#ftn.id2796445" class="footnote">90</a>]</sup>
3162 </p><p>
3163 It took eight years for this case to be resolved by the Supreme Court. In
3164 the interim, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Hollywood in
3165 its jurisdiction&#8212;leading Judge Alex Kozinski, who sits on that court,
3166 refers to it as the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hollywood Circuit</span>»</span>&#8212;held that Sony
3167 would be liable for the copyright infringement made possible by its
3168 machines. Under the Ninth Circuit's rule, this totally familiar
3169 technology&#8212;which Jack Valenti had called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Boston Strangler
3170 of the American film industry</span>»</span> (worse yet, it was a
3171 <span class="emphasis"><em>Japanese</em></span> Boston Strangler of the American film
3172 industry)&#8212;was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id2796468" href="#ftn.id2796468" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2796491"></a>
3173 </p><p>
3174
3175 But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit.  And in
3176 its reversal, the Court clearly articulated its understanding of when and
3177 whether courts should intervene in such disputes. As the Court wrote,
3178 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3179 Sound policy, as well as history, supports our consistent deference to
3180 Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for
3181 copyrighted materials. Congress has the constitutional authority and the
3182 institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of
3183 competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new
3184 technology.<sup>[<a name="id2796517" href="#ftn.id2796517" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
3185 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3186 Congress was asked to respond to the Supreme Court's decision.  But as with
3187 the plea of recording artists about radio broadcasts, Congress ignored the
3188 request. Congress was convinced that American film got enough, this
3189 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span> notwithstanding.  If we put these cases together, a
3190 pattern is clear:
3191 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t1"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char">Tilfelle</th><th align="char">Hvems verdi ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røvet</span>»</span></th><th align="char">Responsen til domstolene</th><th align="char">Responsen til Kongressen</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Innspillinger</td><td align="char">Komponister</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Radio</td><td align="char">Innspillingsartister</td><td align="char">N/A</td><td align="char">Ingenting</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Kabel-TV</td><td align="char">Kringkastere</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="char">VCR</td><td align="char">Filmskapere</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Ingenting</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
3192 In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the way
3193 content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id2796649" href="#ftn.id2796649" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
3194 throughout our history, that change meant that someone got a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free
3195 ride</span>»</span> on someone else's work.
3196 </p><p>
3197
3198 In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these cases did either the courts or
3199 Congress eliminate all free riding. In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these
3200 cases did the courts or Congress insist that the law should assure that the
3201 copyright holder get all the value that his copyright created. In every
3202 case, the copyright owners complained of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy.</span>»</span> In every
3203 case, Congress acted to recognize some of the legitimacy in the behavior of
3204 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates.</span>»</span> In each case, Congress allowed some new
3205 technology to benefit from content made before. It balanced the interests at
3206 stake.
3207
3208 </p><p>
3209 When you think across these examples, and the other examples that make up
3210 the first four chapters of this section, this balance makes sense. Was Walt
3211 Disney a pirate? Would doujinshi be better if creators had to ask
3212 permission? Should tools that enable others to capture and spread images as
3213 a way to cultivate or criticize our culture be better regulated? Is it
3214 really right that building a search engine should expose you to $15 million
3215 in damages? Would it have been better if Edison had controlled film? Should
3216 every cover band have to hire a lawyer to get permission to record a song?
3217 </p><p>
3218 We could answer yes to each of these questions, but our tradition has
3219 answered no. In our tradition, as the Supreme Court has stated, copyright
3220 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all
3221 possible uses of his work.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2796750" href="#ftn.id2796750" class="footnote">94</a>]</sup>
3222 Instead, the particular uses that the law regulates have been defined by
3223 balancing the good that comes from granting an exclusive right against the
3224 burdens such an exclusive right creates. And this balancing has historically
3225 been done <span class="emphasis"><em>after</em></span> a technology has matured, or settled
3226 into the mix of technologies that facilitate the distribution of content.
3227 </p><p>
3228 We should be doing the same thing today. The technology of the Internet is
3229 changing quickly. The way people connect to the Internet (wires
3230 vs. wireless) is changing very quickly. No doubt the network should not
3231 become a tool for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stealing</span>»</span> from artists. But neither should
3232 the law become a tool to entrench one particular way in which artists (or
3233 more accurately, distributors) get paid. As I describe in some detail in the
3234 last chapter of this book, we should be securing income to artists while we
3235 allow the market to secure the most efficient way to promote and distribute
3236 content. This will require changes in the law, at least in the
3237 interim. These changes should be designed to balance the protection of the
3238 law against the strong public interest that innovation continue.
3239 </p><p>
3240
3241
3242 This is especially true when a new technology enables a vastly superior mode
3243 of distribution. And this p2p has done. P2p technologies can be ideally
3244 efficient in moving content across a widely diverse network.  Left to
3245 develop, they could make the network vastly more efficient.  Yet these
3246 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">potential public benefits,</span>»</span> as John Schwartz writes in
3247 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">could be delayed in the
3248 P2P fight.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2796818" href="#ftn.id2796818" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup>
3249 </p><p>
3250 <span class="strong"><strong>Yet when anyone</strong></span> begins to talk about
3251 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balance,</span>»</span> the copyright warriors raise a different
3252 argument. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All this hand waving about balance and incentives,</span>»</span>
3253 they say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">misses a fundamental point. Our content,</span>»</span> the
3254 warriors insist, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">is our <span class="emphasis"><em>property</em></span>. Why should we
3255 wait for Congress to `rebalance' our property rights? Do you have to wait
3256 before calling the police when your car has been stolen? And why should
3257 Congress deliberate at all about the merits of this theft? Do we ask whether
3258 the car thief had a good use for the car before we arrest him?</span>»</span>
3259 </p><p>
3260 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det er <span class="emphasis"><em>vår eiendom</em></span>,</span>»</span> insisterer
3261 krigerne. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">og den bør være beskyttet på samme måte som all annen
3262 eiendom er beskyttet.</span>»</span>
3263 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2794731" href="#id2794731" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
3264
3265
3266 See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry),
3267 <em class="citetitle">The Recording Industry Commercial Piracy Report 2003</em>,
3268 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
3269 #14</a>. See also Ben Hunt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Companies Warned on Music Piracy
3270 Risk,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Financial Times</em>, 14 February 2003, 11.
3271 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795005" href="#id2795005" class="para">71</a>] </sup>
3272
3273 See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism:
3274 <em class="citetitle">Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New
3275 Press, 2003), 10&#8211;13, 209.  The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
3276 Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement obligates member nations to create
3277 administrative and enforcement mechanisms for intellectual property rights,
3278 a costly proposition for developing countries. Additionally, patent rights
3279 may lead to higher prices for staple industries such as agriculture. Critics
3280 of TRIPS question the disparity between burdens imposed upon developing
3281 countries and benefits conferred to industrialized nations. TRIPS does
3282 permit governments to use patents for public, noncommercial uses without
3283 first obtaining the patent holder's permission. Developing nations may be
3284 able to use this to gain the benefits of foreign patents at lower
3285 prices. This is a promising strategy for developing nations within the TRIPS
3286 framework.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2794070"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2795036"></a>
3287 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795063" href="#id2795063" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
3288
3289 For an analysis of the economic impact of copying technology, see Stan
3290 Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em> (New York:
3291 Amacom, 2002), 144&#8211;90. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In some instances &#8230; the impact of
3292 piracy on the copyright holder's ability to appropriate the value of the
3293 work will be negligible. One obvious instance is the case where the
3294 individual engaging in pirating would not have purchased an original even if
3295 pirating were not an option.</span>»</span> Ibid., 149.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2795080"></a>
3296 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795335" href="#id2795335" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
3297
3298
3299 <em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
3300 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777).
3301 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795366" href="#id2795366" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
3302
3303 <a class="indexterm" name="id2795369"></a> See Clayton M. Christensen,
3304 <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary National Bestseller
3305 That Changed the Way We Do Business</em> (New York: HarperBusiness,
3306 2000). Professor Christensen examines why companies that give rise to and
3307 dominate a product area are frequently unable to come up with the most
3308 creative, paradigm-shifting uses for their own products.  This job usually
3309 falls to outside innovators, who reassemble existing technology in inventive
3310 ways. For a discussion of Christensen's ideas, see Lawrence Lessig,
3311 <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 89&#8211;92, 139.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2795072"></a>
3312 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795415" href="#id2795415" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
3313
3314
3315 See Carolyn Lochhead, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood
3316 Nightmare,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24
3317 September 2002, A1; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rock 'n' Roll Suicide,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
3318 Scientist</em>, 6 July 2002, 42; Benny Evangelista, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Napster
3319 Names CEO, Secures New Financing,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
3320 Chronicle</em>, 23 May 2003, C1; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Napster's Wake-Up
3321 Call,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24 June 2000, 23; John
3322 Naughton, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hollywood at War with the Internet</span>»</span> (London)
3323 <em class="citetitle">Times</em>, 26 July 2002, 18.
3324 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795464" href="#id2795464" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
3325
3326
3327
3328 See Ipsos-Insight, <em class="citetitle">TEMPO: Keeping Pace with Online Music
3329 Distribution</em> (September 2002), reporting that 28 percent of
3330 Americans aged twelve and older have downloaded music off of the Internet
3331 and 30 percent have listened to digital music files stored on their
3332 computers.
3333 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795492" href="#id2795492" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
3334
3335
3336 Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,</span>»</span>
3337 <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 6 June 2003, A1.
3338 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795623" href="#id2795623" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
3339
3340 Se Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
3341 148&#8211;49.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2795393"></a>
3342 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795676" href="#id2795676" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
3343
3344
3345 See Cap Gemini Ernst &amp; Young, <em class="citetitle">Technology Evolution and the
3346 Music Industry's Business Model Crisis</em> (2003), 3. This report
3347 describes the music industry's effort to stigmatize the budding practice of
3348 cassette taping in the 1970s, including an advertising campaign featuring a
3349 cassette-shape skull and the caption <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Home taping is killing
3350 music.</span>»</span> At the time digital audio tape became a threat, the Office of
3351 Technical Assessment conducted a survey of consumer behavior. In 1988, 40
3352 percent of consumers older than ten had taped music to a cassette
3353 format. U.S.  Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,
3354 <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the
3355 Law</em>, OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.  Government Printing
3356 Office, October 1989), 145&#8211;56.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795074" href="#id2795074" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
3357
3358
3359 U.S. Congress, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying</em>, 4.
3360 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795781" href="#id2795781" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
3361
3362
3363 See Recording Industry Association of America, <em class="citetitle">2002 Yearend
3364 Statistics</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #15</a>. A later report
3365 indicates even greater losses. See Recording Industry Association of
3366 America, <em class="citetitle">Some Facts About Music Piracy</em>, 25 June 2003,
3367 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #16</a>:
3368 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the past four years, unit shipments of recorded music have fallen
3369 by 26 percent from 1.16 billion units in to 860 million units in 2002 in the
3370 United States (based on units shipped).  In terms of sales, revenues are
3371 down 14 percent, from $14.6 billion in to $12.6 billion last year (based on
3372 U.S. dollar value of shipments). The music industry worldwide has gone from
3373 a $39 billion industry in 2000 down to a $32 billion industry in 2002 (based
3374 on U.S. dollar value of shipments).</span>»</span>
3375 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795839" href="#id2795839" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
3376 Jane Black, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Big Music's Broken Record</span>»</span>, BusinessWeek online,
3377 13. februar 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2795856"></a>
3378 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795876" href="#id2795876" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
3379
3380
3381 ibid.
3382 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795926" href="#id2795926" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
3383
3384
3385 By one estimate, 75 percent of the music released by the major labels is no
3386 longer in print. See Online Entertainment and Copyright Law&#8212;Coming
3387 Soon to a Digital Device Near You: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on
3388 the Judiciary, 107th Cong., 1st sess. (3 April 2001) (prepared statement of
3389 the Future of Music Coalition), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #18</a>.
3390 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795978" href="#id2795978" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
3391
3392 <a class="indexterm" name="id2795987"></a> While there are not good estimates of
3393 the number of used record stores in existence, in 2002, there were 7,198
3394 used book dealers in the United States, an increase of 20 percent since
3395 1993. See Book Hunter Press, <em class="citetitle">The Quiet Revolution: The Expansion
3396 of the Used Book Market</em> (2002), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #19</a>. Used records accounted
3397 for $260 million in sales in 2002. See National Association of Recording
3398 Merchandisers, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">2002 Annual Survey Results,</span>»</span> available at
3399 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #20</a>.
3400 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2796205" href="#id2796205" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
3401
3402
3403 See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34- 35
3404 (N.D. Cal., 11 July 2001), nos. MDL-00-1369 MHP, C 99-5183 MHP, available at
3405 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #21</a>. For an account
3406 of the litigation and its toll on Napster, see Joseph Menn, <em class="citetitle">All
3407 the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster</em> (New
3408 York: Crown Business, 2003), 269&#8211;82.
3409 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2796385" href="#id2796385" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
3410
3411
3412 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders): Hearing on S. 1758
3413 Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess.,
3414 459 (1982) (testimony of Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association
3415 of America, Inc.).
3416 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2796406" href="#id2796406" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
3417
3418
3419 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
3420 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2796416" href="#id2796416" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
3421
3422
3423 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Sony
3424 Corp. of America</em>, 480 F. Supp. 429, (C.D. Cal., 1979).
3425 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2796445" href="#id2796445" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
3426
3427
3428 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (testimony of Jack
3429 Valenti).
3430 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2796468" href="#id2796468" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
3431
3432
3433 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Sony
3434 Corp. of America</em>, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th Cir.  1981).
3435 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2796517" href="#id2796517" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
3436
3437
3438 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3439 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984).
3440 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2796649" href="#id2796649" class="para">93</a>] </sup>
3441
3442 These are the most important instances in our history, but there are other
3443 cases as well. The technology of digital audio tape (DAT), for example, was
3444 regulated by Congress to minimize the risk of piracy. The remedy Congress
3445 imposed did burden DAT producers, by taxing tape sales and controlling the
3446 technology of DAT. See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (Title 17 of the
3447 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>), Pub. L. No. 102-563, 106 Stat.
3448 4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. §1001. Again, however, this regulation did not
3449 eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
3450 Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. See also Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From
3451 Edison to the Broadcast Flag,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law
3452 Review</em> 70 (2003): 293&#8211;96.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2796227"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2796688"></a>
3453 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2796750" href="#id2796750" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
3454
3455
3456 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3457 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, (1984).
3458 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2796818" href="#id2796818" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
3459
3460
3461 John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software
3462 Echoes Past Efforts,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>,
3463 22. september 2003, C3.
3464 </p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Del II. «Eiendom»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-property"></a>Del II. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="«Eiendom»"><div></div><p>
3465
3466
3467
3468 <span class="strong"><strong>Opphavsretts-krigerne</strong></span> har rett:
3469 Opphavsretten er en type eiendom. Den kan eies og selges, og loven beskytter
3470 mot at den blir stjålet. Vanligvis, kan opphavsrettseieren be om hvilken som
3471 helst pris som han ønsker.  Markeder bestemmer tilbud og etterspørsel som i
3472 hvert tilfelle bestemmer prisen hun kan få.
3473 </p><p>
3474 Men i vanlig språk er det å kalle opphavsrett for en
3475 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendoms</span>»</span>-rett litt misvisende, for eindommen i opphavsretten
3476 er en merkelig type eiendom.  Selve Idéen om eienrettigheter til en idé
3477 eller et uttrykk er nemlig veldig merkelig.  Jeg forstår hva jeg tar når jeg
3478 tar en piknik-bord som du plasserte i din bakhage.  Jeg tar en ting,
3479 piknik-bokrdet, og etter at jeg tar det har ikke du det.  Men hva tar jeg
3480 når jeg tar den gode <span class="emphasis"><em>idéen</em></span> som du hadde om å plassere
3481 piknik-bordet i bakhagen&#8212;ved å for eksempel dra til butikken Sears,
3482 kjøpe et bord, og plassere det i min egen bakhage? Hva er tingen jeg tar da?
3483 </p><p>
3484 Poenget er ikke bare om hvorvidt piknik-bord og ideer er ting, selv om det
3485 er en viktig forskjell.  Poenget er istedet at i det vanlige
3486 tilfelle&#8212;faktisk i praktisk talt ethvert tilfelle unntatt en begrenset
3487 rekke med unntak&#8212;er ideer sluppet ut i verden frie. Jeg tar ingenting
3488 fra deg når jeg kopierer måten du kler deg&#8212;selv om det ville se sært
3489 ut hvis jeg gjorde det hver dag, og spesielt sært hvis du er en kvinne.
3490 Istedet, som Thomas Jefferson sa (og det er spesielt sant når jeg kopierer
3491 hvordan noen andre kler seg), <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Den som mottar en idé fra meg, får selv
3492 information uten å ta noe fra me, på samme måte som den som tenner sitt lys
3493 från min veike får lys utan å forlate meg i mørket</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2796981" href="#ftn.id2796981" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
3494 </p><p>
3495 Unntakene til fri bruk er ideer og uttrykk innenfor dekningsområdet til
3496 loven om patent og opphavsrett, og noen få andre områder som jeg ikke vil
3497 diskutere her.  Her sier loven at du ikke kan ta min idé eller uttrykk uten
3498 min tilatelse: Loven gjør det immaterielle til eiendom.
3499 </p><p>
3500 Men hvordan, og i hvilken utstrekning, og i hvilken form&#8212;detaljene,
3501 med andre ord&#8212;betyr noe.  For å få en god forståelse om hvordan denne
3502 praksis om å gjøre det immaterielle om til eiendom vokste frem, trenger vi å
3503 plassere denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> i sin rette sammenheng.<sup>[<a name="id2797023" href="#ftn.id2797023" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
3504 </p><p>
3505 Min strategi for å gjøre detet er den samme som min strategi i den
3506 foregående del.  Jeg tilbyr fire historier som bidrar til å plassere
3507 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettsmateriale er eiendom</span>»</span> i sammenheng.  Hvor kom
3508 idéen fra?  Hva er dens begresninger?  Hvordan fungerer dette i praksis.
3509 Etter disse historiene vil betydningen til dette sanne
3510 utsagnet&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettsmateriale er eiendom</span>»</span>&#8212; bli
3511 litt mer klart, og dets implikasjoner vil bli avslørt som ganske forskjellig
3512 fra implikasjonene som opphavsrettskrigerne vil at vi skal forstå.
3513 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2796981" href="#id2796981" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
3514
3515
3516 Brev fra Thomas Jefferson til Isaac McPherson (13. august 1813) i
3517 <em class="citetitle">The Writings of Thomas Jefferson</em>, vol. 6 (Andrew
3518 A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, eds., 1903), 330, 333&#8211;34.
3519 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2797023" href="#id2797023" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
3520
3521
3522 Slik de juridiske realistene lærte bort amerikansk lov, var alle
3523 eiendomsretter immaterielle.  En eiendomsrett er ganske enkelt den retten
3524 som et idivid har mot verden til å gjøre eller ikke gjøre visse ting som er
3525 eller ikke er knyttet til et fysisk objekt.  Retten i seg selv er
3526 immateriell, selv om objektet som det er (metafysisk) knyttet til er
3527 materielt.  Se Adam Mossoff, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What Is Property? Putting the Pieces
3528 Back Together,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Arizona Law Review</em> 45 (2003):
3529 373, 429 n. 241.
3530 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2797087"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2797093"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksenglishlaw"></a><p>
3531 <span class="strong"><strong>William Shakespeare</strong></span> skrev
3532 <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> i 1595. Skuespillet ble først utgitt i
3533 1597. Det var det ellevte store skuespillet Shakespeare hadde skrevet. Han
3534 fortsatte å skrive skuespill helt til 1613, og stykkene han skrevhar
3535 fortsatt å definere angloamerikansk kultur siden. Så dypt har verkene av en
3536 1500-talls forfatter sunket inn i vår kultur at vi ofte ikke engang kjenner
3537 kilden. Jeg overhørte en gang noen som kommentere Kenneth Branaghs utgave av
3538 Henry V: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg likte det, men Shakespeare er så full av
3539 klisjeer.</span>»</span>
3540 </p><p>
3541
3542 I 1774, nesten 180 år etter at <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> ble
3543 skrevet, mente mange at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsretten</span>»</span> kun tilhørte én eneste
3544 utgiver i London, John Tonson. <sup>[<a name="id2797158" href="#ftn.id2797158" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson
3545 var den mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
3546 Conger</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2797206" href="#ftn.id2797206" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup>, som kontrollerte
3547 boksalget i England gjennom hele 1700-tallet. The Conger hevdet at de hadde
3548 en evigvarende rett over <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopier</span>»</span> av bøker de hadde fått av
3549 forfatterne. Denne evigvarende retten innebar at ingen andre kunne publisere
3550 kopier av disse bøkene. Slik ble prisen på klassiske bøker holdt oppe; alle
3551 konkurrenter som lagde bedre eller billigere utgaver, ble fjernet.
3552 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament"></a><p>
3553 Men altså, det er noe spennende med året 1774 for alle som vet litt om
3554 opphavsretts-lovgivning. Det mest kjente året for opphavsrett er 1710, da
3555 det britiske parlamentet vedtok den første loven. Denne loven er kjent som
3556 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> og sa at alle publiserte verk skulle være
3557 beskyttet i fjorten år, en periode som kunne fornyes én gang dersom
3558 forfatteren ennå levde, og at alle verk publisert i eller før 1710 skulle ha
3559 en ekstraperiode på 22 tillegsår.<sup>[<a name="id2797266" href="#ftn.id2797266" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> På
3560 grunn av denne loven, så skulle <em class="citetitle">Rome og Julie</em> ha falt
3561 i det fri i 1731. Hvordan kunne da Tonson fortsatt ha kontroll over verket i
3562 1774?
3563 </p><p>
3564 Årsaken var ganske enkelt at engelskmennene ennå ikke hadde bestemt hva
3565 opphavsrett innebar -- faktisk hadde ingen i verden det. På den tiden da
3566 engelskmennene vedtok <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, var det ingen annen
3567 lovgivning om opphavsrett. Den siste loven som regulerte utgivere var
3568 lisensieringsloven av 1662, utløpt i 1695. At loven ga utgiverne monopol
3569 over publiseringen, noe som gjorde det enklere for kronen å kontrollere hva
3570 ble publisert. Men etter at det har utløpt, var det ingen positiv lov som sa
3571 at utgiverne hadde en eksklusiv rett til å trykke bøker.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2797319"></a>
3572 </p><p>
3573 At det ikke fantes noen <span class="emphasis"><em>positiv</em></span> lov, betydde ikke at
3574 det ikke fantes noen lov. Den anglo-amerikanske juridiske tradisjon ser både
3575 til lover skapt av politikere (det lovgivende statsorgen)og til lover
3576 (prejudikater) skapt av domstolene for å bestemme hvordan folket skal
3577 leve. Vi kaller politikernes lover for positiv lov og vi kaller lovene fra
3578 dommerne sedvanerett.<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Common law</span>»</span> angir bakgrunnen for de
3579 lovgivendes lovgivning; retten til lovgiving, vanligvis kan trumfe at
3580 bakgrunnen bare hvis det går gjennom en lov til å forskyve den. Og så var
3581 det virkelige spørsmålet etter lisensiering lover hadde utløpt om felles lov
3582 beskyttet opphavsretten, uavhengig av lovverket positiv.
3583 </p><p>
3584
3585 Dette spørsmålet var viktig for utgiverne eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bokselgere</span>»</span>,
3586 som de ble kalt, fordi det var økende konkurranse fra utenlandske utgivere,
3587 Særlig fra Skottland hvor publiseringen og eksporten av bøker til England
3588 hadde økt veldig. Denne konkurransen reduserte fortjenesten til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The
3589 Conger</span>»</span>, som derfor krevde at parlamentet igjen skulle vedta en lov
3590 for å gi dem eksklusiv kontroll over publisering. Dette kravet resulterte i
3591 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>.
3592 </p><p>
3593 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> ga forfatteren eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eieren</span>»</span> av
3594 en bok en eksklusiv rett til å publisere denne boken. Men det var, til
3595 bokhandernes forferdelse en viktig begrensning, nemlig hvor lenge denne
3596 retten skulle vare. Etter dette gikk trykkeretten bort og verket falt i det
3597 fri og kunne trykkes av hvem som helst. Det var ihvertfall det lovgiverne
3598 hadde tenkt.
3599 </p><p>
3600 Men nå det mest interessante med dette: Hvorfor ville parlamentet begrense
3601 trykkeretten? Sprøsmålet er ikke hvorfor de bestemte seg for denne perioden,
3602 men hvorfor ville de begrense retten <span class="emphasis"><em>i det hele tatt?</em></span>
3603 </p><p>
3604 Bokhandlerne, og forfatterne som de representerte, hadde et veldig sterkt
3605 krav. Ta <em class="citetitle">romeo og Julie</em> som et eksempel: Skuespillet
3606 ble skrevet av Shakespeare. Det var hans kreativitet som brakte det til
3607 verden. Han krenket ikke noens rett da han skrev dette verket (det er en
3608 kontroversiell påstanden, men det er urelevant), og med sin egen rett skapte
3609 han verket, han gjorde det ikke noe vanskeligere for andre til å lage
3610 skuespill. Så hvorfor skulle loven tillate at noen annen kunne komme og ta
3611 Shakespeares verkuten hans, eller hans arvingers, tillatelse? Hvilke grunner
3612 finnes for å tillate at noen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeler</span>»</span> Shakespeares verk?
3613 </p><p>
3614 Svaret er todel. Først må vi se på noe spesielt med oppfatningen av
3615 opphavsrett som fantes på tidspunktet da <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> ble
3616 vedtatt. Deretter må vi se på noe spesielt med bokhandlerne.
3617 </p><p>
3618
3619 Først om opphavsretten. I de siste tre hundre år har vi kommet til å bruke
3620 begrepet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> i stadig videre forstand. Men i 1710 var
3621 det ikke så mye et konsept som det var en bestemt rett. Opphavsretten ble
3622 født som et svært spesifikt sett med begrensninger: den forbød andre å
3623 reprodusere en bok. I 1710 var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopi-rett</span>»</span> en rett til å bruke
3624 en bestemt maskin til å replikere en bestemt arbeid. Den gikk ikke utover
3625 dette svært smale formålet. Den kontrollerte ikke mer generelt hvordan et
3626 verk kunne <span class="emphasis"><em>brukes</em></span>. Idag inkluderer retten en stor
3627 samling av restriksjoner på andres frihet: den gir forfatteren eksklusiv
3628 rett til å kopiere, eksklusiv rett til å distribuere, eksklusiv rett til å
3629 fremføre, og så videre.
3630 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2797500"></a><p>
3631 Så selv om f. eks. opphavsretten til Shakespeares verker var evigvarende,
3632 betydde det under den opprinnelige betydningen av begrepet at ingen kunne
3633 trykke Shakespeares arbeid uten tillatelse fra Shakespeares arvinger. Den
3634 ville ikke ha kontrollert noe mer, for eksempel om hvordan verket kunne
3635 fremføres, om verket kunne oversettes eller om Kenneth Branagh ville hatt
3636 lov til å lage filmer. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kopi-retten</span>»</span> var bare en eksklusiv rett
3637 til å trykke--ikke noe mindre, selvfølgelig, men heller ikke mer.
3638 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2797526"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2797533"></a><p>
3639 Selv dnne begrensede retten ble møtt med skepsis av britene. De hadde hatt
3640 en lang og stygg erfaring med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eksklusive rettigheter</span>»</span>,
3641 spesielt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">enerett</span>»</span> gitt av kronen. Engelskmennene hadde
3642 utkjempet en borgerkrig delvis mot kronens praksis med å dele ut
3643 monopoler--spesielt monopoler for verk som allerede eksisterte. Kong Henrik
3644 VIII hadde gitt patent til å trykke Bibelen og monopol til Darcy for å lage
3645 spillkort. Det engelske parlamentet begynte å kjempe tilbake mot denne
3646 makten hos kronen. I 1656 ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Monopolis</span>»</span> vedtatt
3647 for å begrense monopolene på patenter for nye oppfinnelser. Og i 1710 var
3648 parlamentet ivrig etter å håndtere det voksende monopolet på publisering.
3649 </p><p>
3650 Dermed ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopi-retten</span>»</span>, når den sees på som en monopolrett,
3651 en rettighet som bør være begrenset. (Uansett hvor overbevisende påstanden
3652 om at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er min eiendom, og jeg skal ha for alltid,</span>»</span> prøv
3653 hvor overbevisende det er når men sier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er mitt monopol, og jeg
3654 skal ha det for alltid.</span>»</span>) Staten ville beskytte eneretten, men bare
3655 så lenge det gavnet samfunnet. Britene så skadene særinteresserte kunne
3656 skape; de vedtok en lov for å stoppe dem.
3657 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksellers"></a><p>
3658 Dernest, om bokhandlerne. Det var ikke bare at kopiretten var et
3659 monopol. Det var også et monopol holdt av bokhandlerne. En bokhandler høres
3660 greie og ufarlige ut for oss, men slik var det ikke i syttenhundretallets
3661 England. Medlemmene i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span> ble av en voksende mengde
3662 sett på som monopolister av verste sort - et verktøy for kronens
3663 undertrykkelse, de solgte Englands frihet mot å være garantert en
3664 monopolskinntekt. Men monopolistene ble kvast kritisert: Milton beskrev dem
3665 som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gamle patentholdere og monopolister i bokhandlerkunsten</span>»</span>;
3666 de var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menn som derfor ikke hadde  et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er
3667 nødvendig.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2797643" href="#ftn.id2797643" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
3668 </p><p>
3669 Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap,
3670 var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste
3671 Opplysningen viktigheten av utdannelse og kunnskap for alle. idéen om at
3672 kunnskap burde være gratis er et kjennetegn for tiden, og disse kraftige
3673 kommersielle interesser forstyrret denne idéen.
3674 </p><p>
3675 For å balansere denne makten, besluttet Parlamentet å øke konkurransen blant
3676 bokhandlerne, og den enkleste måten å gjøre det på, var å spre mengden av
3677 verdifulle bøker. Parlamentet begrenset derfor begrepet om opphavsrett, og
3678 garantert slik at verdifulle bøker ville bli frie for alle utgiver å
3679 publisere etter en begrenset periode. Slik ble det å gi eksisterende verk en
3680 periode på tjueen år et kompromiss for å bekjempe bokhandlernes
3681 makt. Begrensninger med dato var en indirekte måte å skape konkurranse
3682 mellom utgivere, og slik en skapelse og spredning av kultur.
3683 </p><p>
3684 Når 1731 (1710+21) kom, ble bokhandlerne engstelige. De så konsekvensene av
3685 mer konkurranse, og som alle konkurrenter, likte de det ikke. Først
3686 ignorerte bokhandlere ganske enkelt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, og
3687 fortsatte å kreve en evigvarende rett til å kontrollere publiseringen. Men i
3688 1735 og 1737 de prøvde å tvinge Parlamentet til å utvide periodene. Tjueen
3689 år var ikke nok, sa de; de trengte mer tid.
3690 </p><p>
3691 Parlamentet avslo kravene, Som en pamflett sa, i en vending som levere ennå
3692 idag,
3693 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3694 Jeg ser ingen grunn til å gi en utvidet perioden nå som ikke ville kunne gi
3695 utvidelser om igjen og om igjen, så fort de gamle utgår; så dersom dette
3696 lovforslaget blir vedtatt, vil effekten være: at et evig monopol blir skapt,
3697 et stort nederlag for handelen, et angrep mot kunnskapen, ingen fordel for
3698 forfatterne, men en stor avgift for folket; og alt dette kun for å øke
3699 bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<sup>[<a name="id2797727" href="#ftn.id2797727" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
3700 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3701 Etter å ha mislyktes i Parlamentet gikk utgiverne til rettssalen i en rekke
3702 saker. Deres argument var enkelt og direkte: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>
3703 ga forfatterne en viss beskyttelse gjennom positiv loven, men denne
3704 beskyttelsenvar ikke ment som en erstatning for felles lov. Istedet var de
3705 ment å supplere felles lov. Ifølge sedvanerett var det galt å ta en annen
3706 persons kreative eiendom og bruke den uten hans tillatelse. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute
3707 of Anne</span>»</span>, hevdet bokhandlere, endret ikke dette faktum. Derfor
3708 betydde ikke det at beskyttelsen gitt av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>
3709 utløp, at beskyttelsen fra sedvaneretten utløp: Ifølge sedvaneretten hadde
3710 de rett til å fordømme publiseringen av en bok, selv følgelig om
3711 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> sa at de var falt i det fri. Dette, mente de,
3712 var den eneste måten å beskytte forfatterne.
3713 </p><p>
3714 Dette var et godt argument, og hadde støtte fra flere av den tidens ledende
3715 jurister. Det viste også en ekstraordinær chutzpah. Inntail da, som
3716 jusprofessor Raymond Pattetson har sagt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var utgiverne &#8230; like
3717 bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2795722" href="#ftn.id2795722" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om
3718 forfatternes rettigheter. Deres bekymring var den monopolske inntekten
3719 forfatterens verk ga.
3720 </p><p>
3721 Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne
3722 kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id2797834" href="#ftn.id2797834" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
3723 </p><p>
3724 Donaldson var en fremmed for Londons <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span>. Han startet
3725 in karriere i Edinburgh i 1750. Hans forretningsidé var billige kopier av
3726 standardverk falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
3727 Anne</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2797861" href="#ftn.id2797861" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldsons forlag vokste
3728 og ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">et sentrum for litterære skotter.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Blant
3729 dem,</span>»</span> skriver professor Mark Rose, var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">den unge James Boswell
3730 som, sammen med sin venn Andrew Erskine, publiserte en hel antologi av
3731 skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2797891" href="#ftn.id2797891" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2797900"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2797906"></a>
3732 </p><p>
3733 Da Londons bokselgere prøvde å få stengt Donaldsons butikk i Skottland, så
3734 flyttet han butikken til London. Her solgte han billige utgaver av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">de
3735 mest populære, engelske bøker, i kamp mot sedvanerettens rett til litterær
3736 eiendom.</span>»</span> <sup>[<a name="id2797927" href="#ftn.id2797927" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> Bøkene hans var
3737 mellom 30% og 50% billigere enn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span>s, og han baserte
3738 sin rett til denne konkurransen på at bøkene, takket være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
3739 Anne</span>»</span>, var falt i det fri.
3740 </p><p>
3741 Londons bokselgere begynte straks å slå ned mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span> som
3742 Donaldson. Flere tiltak var vellykkede, den viktigste var den tidlig seieren
3743 i kampen mellom <em class="citetitle">Millar</em> og
3744 <em class="citetitle">Taylor</em>.
3745 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2797965"></a><p>
3746 Millar var en bokhandler som i 1729 hadde kjøpt opp rettighetene til James
3747 Thomsons dikt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Seasons</span>»</span>. Millar hadde da full beskyttelse
3748 gjennom <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, men etter at denne beskyttelsen var
3749 uløpt, begynte Robert Taylor å trykke et konkurrerende bind. Millar gikk til
3750 sak, og hevdet han hadde en evig rett gjennom sedvaneretten, uansett hva
3751 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> sa.<sup>[<a name="id2797994" href="#ftn.id2797994" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
3752 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield2"></a><p>
3753 Til moderne juristers forbløffelse, var en av, ikke bare datidens, men en av
3754 de største dommere i engelsk historie, Lord Mansfield, enig med
3755 bokhandlerne. Uansett hvilken beskyttelse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> gav
3756 bokhandlerne, så sa han at den ikke fortrengte noe fra
3757 sedvaneretten. Spørsmålet var hvorvidt sedvaneretten beskyttet forfatterne
3758 mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span>. Mansfield svar var ja: Sedvaneretten nektet
3759 Taylor å reprodusere Thomsons dikt uten Millars tillatelse. Slik gav
3760 sedvaneretten bokselgerne en evig publiseringsrett til bøker solgt til dem.
3761 </p><p>
3762
3763 Ser man på det som et spørsmål innen abstrakt jus - dersom man resonnere som
3764 om rettferdighet bare var logisk deduksjon fra de første bud - kunne
3765 Mansfields konklusjon gitt mening. Men den overså det Parlamentet hadde
3766 kjempet for i 1710: Hvordan man på best mulig vis kunne innskrenke
3767 utgivernes monopolmakt. Parlamentets strategi hadde vært å kjøpe fred
3768 gjennom å tilby en beskyttelsesperiode også for eksisterende verk, men
3769 perioden måtte være så kort at kulturen ble utsatt for konkurranse innen
3770 rimelig tid. Storbritannia skulle vokse fra den kontrollerte kulturen under
3771 kronen, inn i en fri og åpen kultur.
3772 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2798077"></a><p>
3773 Kampen for å forsvare <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>s begrensninger sluttet
3774 uansett ikke der, for nå kommer Donaldson.
3775 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2798095"></a><p>
3776 Millar døde kort tid etter sin seier. Boet hans solgte rettighetene over
3777 Thomsons dikt til et syndikat av utgivere, deriblant Thomas
3778 Beckett.<sup>[<a name="id2798108" href="#ftn.id2798108" class="footnote">109</a>]</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
3779 uautorisert utgave av Thomsons verk. Etter avgjørelsen i
3780 <em class="citetitle">Millar</em>-saken, gikk Beckett til sak mot
3781 Donaldson. Donaldson tok saken inn for Overhuset, som da fungerte som en
3782 slags høyesterett. I februar 1774 hadde dette organet muligheten til å tolke
3783 Parlamentets mening med utøpsdatoen fra seksti år før.
3784 </p><p>
3785 Rettssaken <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot
3786 <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> fikk en enorm oppmerksomhet i hele
3787 Storbritannia. Donaldsons advokater mente at selv om det før fantes en del
3788 rettigheter i sedvaneretten, så var disse fortrengt av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
3789 Anne</span>»</span>. Etter at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> var blitt vedtatt,
3790 skulle den eneste lovlige beskyttelse for trykkerett kom derfra. Og derfor,
3791 mente de, i tråd med vilkårene i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, falle i det
3792 fri så fort beskyttelsesperioden var over.
3793 </p><p>
3794 Overhuset var en merkelig institusjon. Juridiske spørsmål ble presentert for
3795 huset, og ble først stemt over av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">juslorder</span>»</span>, medlemmer av
3796 enspesiell rettslig gruppe som fungerte nesten slik som justiariusene i vår
3797 Høyesterett. Deretter, etter at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">juslordene</span>»</span> hadde stemt,
3798 stemte resten av Overhuset.
3799 </p><p>
3800
3801 Rapportene om juslordene stemmer er uenige. På enkelte punkter ser det ut
3802 som om evigvarende beskyttelse fikk flertall. Men det er ingen tvil om
3803 hvordan resten av Overhuset stemte. Med en majoritet på to mot en (22 mot
3804 11) stemte de ned forslaget om en evig beskyttelse. Uansett hvordan man
3805 hadde tolket sedvaneretten, var nå kopiretten begrenset til en periode, og
3806 etter denne ville verket falle i det fri.
3807 </p><p>
3808 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Å falle i det fri</span>»</span>. Før rettssaken
3809 <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> var det
3810 ingen klar oppfatning om hva å falle i det fri innebar. Før 1774 var det jo
3811 en allmenn oppfatning om at kopiretten var evigvarende. Men etter 1774 ble
3812 Public Domain født.For første gang i angloamerikansk historie var den
3813 lovlige beskyttelsen av et verk utgått, og de største verk i engelsk
3814 historie - inkludert Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Johnson og Bunyan - var
3815 frie.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2798221"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2798227"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2798234"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2798240"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2798246"></a>
3816 </p><p>
3817 Vi kan knapt forestille oss det, men denne avgjørelsen fra Overhuset fyrte
3818 opp under en svært populær og politisk reaksjon. I Skottland, hvor de fleste
3819 piratugiverne hadde holdt til, ble avgjørelsen feiret i gatene. Som
3820 <em class="citetitle">Edinburgh Advertiser</em> skrev <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ingen privatsak har
3821 noen gang fått slik oppmerksomhet fra folket, og ingen sak som har blitt
3822 prøvet i Overhuset har interessert så mange enkeltmennesker.</span>»</span>
3823 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Stor glede i Edinburgh etter seieren over litterær eiendom: bål og
3824 *illuminations*.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2798280" href="#ftn.id2798280" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
3825 </p><p>
3826 I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i
3827 motsatt retning. <em class="citetitle">Morning Chronicle</em> skrev:
3828 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3829 Gjennom denne avgjørelsen &#8230; er verdier til nesten 200 000 pund, som
3830 er blitt ærlig kjøpt gjennom allment salg, og som i går var eiendom, er nå
3831 redusert til ingenting. Bokselgerne i London og Westminster, mange av dem
3832 har solgt hus og eiendom for å kjøpe kopirettigheter, er med ett ruinerte,
3833 og mange som gjennom mange år har opparbeidet kompetanse for å brødfø
3834 familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="id2797803" href="#ftn.id2797803" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
3835 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3836
3837
3838 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ruinert</span>»</span> er en overdrivelse. Men det er ingen overdrivelse å
3839 si at endringen var stor. Vedtaket fra Overhuset betydde at bokhandlerne
3840 ikke lenger kunnen kontrollere hvordan kulturen i England ville vokse og
3841 utvikle seg. Kulturen i England var etter dette
3842 <span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span>. Ikke i den betydning at kopiretten ble ignorert,
3843 for utgiverne hadde i en begrenset periode rett over trykkingen. Og heller
3844 ikke i den betydningen at bøker kunne stjeles, for selv etter at boken var
3845 falt i det fri, så måtte den kjøpes. Men <span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span> i
3846 betydningen at kulturen og dens vekst ikke lenger var kontrollert av en
3847 liten gruppe utgivere. Som alle frie markeder, ville dette markedet vokse og
3848 utvikle seg etter tilbud og etterspørsel. Den engelske kulturen ble nå
3849 formet slik flertallet Englands lesere ville at det skulle formes - gjennom
3850 valget av hva de kjøpte og skrev, gjennom valget av *memes* de gjentok og
3851 beundret. Valg i en <span class="emphasis"><em>konkurrerende sammenheng</em></span>, ikke der
3852 hvor valgene var om hvilken kultur som skulle være tilgjengelig for folket
3853 og hvor deres tilgang til den ble styrt av noen få, på tros av flertallets
3854 ønsker.
3855 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2798376"></a><p>
3856 Til sist, dette var en verden hvor Parlamentet var antimonopolistisk, og
3857 holdt stand mot utgivernes krav. I en verden hvor parlamentet er lett å
3858 påvirke, vil den frie kultur være mindre beskyttet.
3859 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2798394"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2798403"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2797158" href="#id2797158" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
3860
3861 <a class="indexterm" name="id2797161"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2797169"></a> Jacob Tonson er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med 1700-tallets
3862 litterære storheter, spesielt John Dryden, og for hans kjekke<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ferdige
3863 versjoner</span>»</span> av klassiske verk. I tillegg til <em class="citetitle">Romeo og
3864 Julie</em>, utga han en utrolig rekke liste av verk som ennå er
3865 hjertet av den engelske kanon, inkludert de samlede verk av Shakespeare, Ben
3866 Jonson, John Milton, og John Dryden. Se Keith Walker: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jacob Tonson,
3867 Bookseller</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992):
3868 424-31.
3869 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2797206" href="#id2797206" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
3870
3871
3872 Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3873 Perspective</em> (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968),
3874 151&#8211;52.
3875 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2797266" href="#id2797266" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
3876
3877 Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette
3878 en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettslov</span>»</span>. Se Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights
3879 and Copywrongs</em>, 40.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2797278"></a>
3880 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2797643" href="#id2797643" class="para">101</a>] </sup>
3881
3882
3883
3884 Philip Wittenberg, <em class="citetitle">The Protection and Marketing of Literary
3885 Property</em> (New York: J. Messner, Inc., 1937), 31.
3886 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2797727" href="#id2797727" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
3887
3888
3889 A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending in the
3890 House of Commons, for making more effectual an Act in the Eighth Year of the
3891 Reign of Queen Anne, entitled, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by
3892 Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such
3893 Copies, during the Times therein mentioned (London, 1735), in Brief Amici
3894 Curiae of Tyler T. Ochoa et al., 8, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
3895 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618).
3896 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2795722" href="#id2795722" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
3897
3898 Lyman Ray Patterson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use</span>»</span>,
3899 <em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt Law Review</em> 40 (1987): 28. For en
3900 fantastisk overbevisende fortelling, se Vaidhyanathan, 37&#8211;48.
3901 <a class="indexterm" name="id2797217"></a>
3902 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2797834" href="#id2797834" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
3903
3904
3905 For a compelling account, see David Saunders, <em class="citetitle">Authorship and
3906 Copyright</em> (London: Routledge, 1992), 62&#8211;69.
3907 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2797861" href="#id2797861" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
3908
3909 Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
3910 University Press, 1993), 92.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2797869"></a>
3911 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2797891" href="#id2797891" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
3912
3913
3914 Ibid., 93.
3915 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2797927" href="#id2797927" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
3916
3917
3918 Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3919 Perspective</em>, 167 (quoting Borwell).
3920 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2797994" href="#id2797994" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
3921
3922
3923 Howard B. Abrams, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
3924 Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law
3925 Review</em> 29 (1983): 1152.
3926 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2798108" href="#id2798108" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
3927
3928
3929 Ibid., 1156.
3930 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2798280" href="#id2798280" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
3931
3932
3933 Rose, 97.
3934 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2797803" href="#id2797803" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
3935
3936
3937 ibid.
3938 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel sju: Innspillerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="recorders"></a>Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</h2></div></div></div><p>
3939 <span class="strong"><strong>Jon Else</strong></span> er en filmskaper. Han er mest
3940 kjent for sine dokumentarer og har på ypperlig vis klart å spre sin
3941 kunst. Han er også en lærer, som meg selv, og jeg misunner den lojaliteten
3942 og beundringen hans studenter har for ham. (Ved et uhell møtte jeg to av
3943 hans studenter i et middagsselskap og han var deres Gud.)
3944 </p><p>
3945 Else arbeidet med en dokumentarfilm hvor også jeg var involvert. I en pause
3946 så fortalte han meg om hvordan det kunne være å skape film i dagens Amerika.
3947 </p><p>
3948 I 1990 arbeidet Else med en dokumentar om Wagners Ring Cycle. Fokuset var på
3949 *stagehands* på San Francisco Opera. Stagehands er spesielt morsomt og
3950 fargerikt innslag i en opera. I løpet av forestillingen oppholder de seg
3951 blant publikum og på lysloftet. De er en perfekt kontrast til kunsten på
3952 scenen.<a class="indexterm" name="id2798463"></a>
3953 </p><p>
3954
3955 Under en forestilling, filmet Else noen stagehands som spilte *checkers*. I
3956 et hjørne av rommet stod det et fjernsynsapparat. På fjernsynet, mens
3957 forestillingen pågikk og operakompaniet spilte Wagner, gikk <em class="citetitle">The
3958 Simpsons</em>. Slik Else så det, så hjalp dette tegnefilm-innslaget
3959 med å fange det spesielle med scenen.
3960 </p><p>
3961 Så noen år senere, da han endelig hadde fått ordnet den siste
3962 finansieringen, ville Else skaffe rettigheter til å bruke disse få sekundene
3963 med <em class="citetitle">The Simpson</em>. For disse få sekundene var selvsagt
3964 beskyttet av opphavsretten, og for å bruke beskyttet materiale må man ha
3965 tillatelse fra eieren, dersom det ikke er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> eller
3966 det foreligger spesielle avtaler.
3967 </p><p>
3968 Else kontaktet <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-skaper Matt Groenings kontor
3969 for å få tillatelse. Og Groening gav ham det. Det var tross alt kun snakk om
3970 fire og et halvt sekund på et lite fjernsyn, bakerst i et hjørne av
3971 rommet. Hvordan kunne det skade? Groening var glad for å få ha det med i
3972 filmen, men han ba Else om å kontakte Gracie Films, firmaet som produserer
3973 programmet.<a class="indexterm" name="id2798527"></a>
3974 </p><p>
3975 Gracie Films sa også at det var greit, men de, slik som Groening, ønsket å
3976 være forsiktige, og ba Else om å kontakte Fox, konsernet som eide Gracie. Og
3977 Else kontaktet Fox og forklarte situasjonen; at det var snakk om et klipp i
3978 hjørnet i bakgrunnen i ett rom i filmen. Matt Groening hadde allerede gitt
3979 sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox.<a class="indexterm" name="id2798548"></a>
3980 </p><p>
3981 Deretter, fortalte Else: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">skjedde to ting. Først oppdaget vi &#8230;
3982 at Matt Groening ikke eide sitt eget verk &#8212; ihvertfall at noen [hos
3983 Fox] trodde at han ikke eide sitt eget verk.</span>»</span> Som det andre krevde
3984 Fox <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ti tusen dollar i lisensavgift for disse fire og et halvt
3985 sekundene med &#8230; fullstendig tilfeldig <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>
3986 som var i et hjørne i ett opptak.</span>»</span>
3987 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2798575"></a><p>
3988 Ellers var sikker på at det var en feil. Han fikk tak i noen som han trodde
3989 var nestleder for lisensiering, Rebecca Herrera. Han forklarte for henne at
3990 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det må være en feil her &#8230; Vi ber deg om en utdanningssats på
3991 dette.</span>»</span> Og de hadde fått utdanningssats, fortalte Herrera. Kort tid
3992 etter ringte Else igjen for å få dette bekreftet.
3993 </p><p>
3994
3995 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg måtte være sikker på at jeg hadde riktige opplysninger foran
3996 meg</span>»</span>, sa han. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ja, du har riktige opplysninger</span>»</span>, sa
3997 hun. Det ville koste $10 000 å bruke dette lille klippet av <em class="citetitle">The
3998 Simpson</em>, plassert bakerst i et hjørne i en scene i en dokumentar
3999 om Wagners Ring Cycle. Som om det ikke var nok, forbløffet Herrera Else med
4000 å si <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Og om du siterer meg, vil du høre fra våre advokater.</span>»</span> En
4001 av Herreras assistenter fortalte Else at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">De bryr seg ikke i det
4002 heletatt. Alt de vil ha er pengene.</span>»</span>
4003 </p><p>
4004 Men Else hadde ikke penger til å kjøpe lisens for klippet. Så å gjenskape
4005 denne delen av virkeligheten, lå langt utenfor hans budsjett. Like før
4006 dokumentaren skulle slippes, redigerte Else inn et annet klipp på
4007 fjernsynet, et klipp fra en av hans andre filmer <em class="citetitle">The Day After
4008 Trinity</em> fra ti år tidligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id2798651"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2798657"></a>
4009 </p><p>
4010 Det er ingen tvil om at noen, enten det er er Matt Groening eller Fox, eier
4011 rettighetene til <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Rettighetene er deres
4012 eiendom. For å bruke beskyttet mteriale, kreves det ofte at men får
4013 tillatelse fra eieren eller eierne. Dersom Else ønsket å bruke
4014 <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em> til noe hvor loven gir verket
4015 beskyttelse, så må han innhente tillatelse fra eieren før han kan bruke
4016 det. Og i et fritt markes er det eieren som bestemmer hvor mye han/hun vil
4017 ta for hvilken som helst bruk (hvor loven krever tillatelse fra eier).
4018 </p><p>
4019 For eksempel <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremvisning</span>»</span>* av <em class="citetitle">The
4020 Simpson</em> er en form for bruk hvor loven gir eieren
4021 kontroll. Dersom du velger ut dine favorittepisoder, leier en kinosal og
4022 selger billetter til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mine
4023 <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-favoritter</span>»</span>, så må du ha tillatelse
4024 fra rettighetsinnhaveren (eieren). Og eieren kan (med rette, slik jeg ser
4025 det) kreve hvor mye han vil; $10ellr $1 000 000. Det er hans rett ifølge
4026 loven.
4027 </p><p>
4028 Men når jurister hører denne historien om Jon Else og Fox, så er deres
4029 første tanke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2798723" href="#ftn.id2798723" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Elses bruk av 4,5 sekunder med et indirekte klipp av en
4030 <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>-episode er et klart eksempel på
4031 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>&#8212; og
4032 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> krever ingen tillatelse fra noen.
4033 </p><p>
4034
4035
4036 Så jeg spurte Else om hvorfor han ikke bare stolte på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
4037 use</span>»</span>. Og her er hans svar:
4038 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4039 <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>-fiaskoen lærte meg om hvor stor avstand det
4040 var mellom det jurister finner urelevant på en abstrakt måte, og hva som er
4041 knusende relevant på en konkret måte for oss som prøver å lage og kringkaste
4042 dokumentarer. Jeg tvilte aldri på at dette helt klart var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
4043 bruk</span>»</span>, men jeg kunne ikke stole på konseptet på noen konkret måte. Og
4044 dette er grunnen:
4045 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
4046
4047
4048 Før våre filmer kan kringkastes, krever nettverket at vi kjøper en
4049 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Errors and Omissions</span>»</span>-forsikring. Den krever en detailjert
4050 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">visual cue sheet</span>»</span> med alle kilder og lisens-status på alle
4051 scener i filmen. De har et smalt syn på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>, og å påstå
4052 at noe er nettopp det kan forsinke, og i verste fall stoppe, prosessen.
4053 </p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="id2798832"></a><p>
4054
4055 Jeg skulle nok aldri ha bedt om Matt Groenings tillatelse. Men jeg visste
4056 (ihvertfall fra rykter) at Fox tidligere hadde brukt å jakte på og stoppe
4057 ulisensiert bruk av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>, på samme måte som
4058 George Lucas var veldig ivrig på å forfølge bruken av <em class="citetitle">Star
4059 Wars</em>. Så jeg bestemte meg for å følge boka, og trodde at vi
4060 kulle få til en gratis, i alle fall rimelig, avtale for fire sekunders bruk
4061 av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Som en dokumentarskaper, arbeidende
4062 på randen av utryddelse, var det siste jeg ønsket en juridisk strid, selv
4063 for å forsvare et prinsipp.
4064 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4065
4066
4067
4068 Jeg snakket faktisk med en av dine kolleger på Stanford Law School &#8230;
4069 som bekreftet at dette var rimelig bruk. Han bekreftet også at Fox ville
4070 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">depose and litigate you to within an inch of your life</span>»</span>,
4071 uavhengig av sannheten i mine krav. Han gjorde det klart at alt ville koke
4072 ned til hvem som hadde flest jurister og dypest lommer, jeg eller dem.
4073
4074 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4075
4076
4077 Spørsmålet om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> dukker om regel opp helt mot slutten
4078 av prosjektet, når vi nærmer oss siste frist og er tomme for penger.
4079 </p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><p>
4080 I teorien betyr <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> at du ikke trenger
4081 tillatelse. Teorien støtter derfor den frie kultur og arbeider mot
4082 tillatelseskulturen. Men i praksis fungerer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> helt
4083 annerledes. Men de uklare linjene i lovverket, samt de fryktelige
4084 konsekvensene dersom man tar feil, gjør at mange kunstnere ikke stoler på
4085 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>. Loven har en svært god hensikt, men praksisen har
4086 ikke fulgt opp.
4087 </p><p>
4088 Dette eksempelet viser hvor langt denne loven har kommet fra sine
4089 syttenhundretalls røtter. Loven som skulle beskytte utgiverne mot
4090 urettferdig piratkonkurranse, hadde utviklet seg til et sverd som slo ned på
4091 _all_ bruk, transformativ* eller ikke.
4092 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2798723" href="#id2798723" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
4093
4094
4095 Ønsker du å lese en flott redegjørelse om hvordan dette er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
4096 use</span>»</span>, og hvordan advokatene ikke anerkjenner det, så les Richard
4097 A. Posner og William F. Patry, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the
4098 Wake of <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> </span>»</span> (utkast arkivert hos
4099 forfatteren), University of Chicago Law School, 5. august 2003.
4100 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel åtte: Omformere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Kapittel åtte: Omformere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2798958"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2798977"></a><p>
4101 <span class="strong"><strong>In 1993</strong></span>, Alex Alben was a lawyer working
4102 at Starwave, Inc.  Starwave was an innovative company founded by Microsoft
4103 cofounder Paul Allen to develop digital entertainment. Long before the
4104 Internet became popular, Starwave began investing in new technology for
4105 delivering entertainment in anticipation of the power of networks.
4106 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsretrospective"></a><p>
4107 Alben had a special interest in new technology. He was intrigued by the
4108 emerging market for CD-ROM technology&#8212;not to distribute film, but to
4109 do things with film that otherwise would be very difficult.  In 1993, he
4110 launched an initiative to develop a product to build retrospectives on the
4111 work of particular actors. The first actor chosen was Clint Eastwood. The
4112 idea was to showcase all of the work of Eastwood, with clips from his films
4113 and interviews with figures important to his career.
4114 </p><p>
4115 At that time, Eastwood had made more than fifty films, as an actor and as a
4116 director. Alben began with a series of interviews with Eastwood, asking him
4117 about his career. Because Starwave produced those interviews, it was free to
4118 include them on the CD.
4119 </p><p>
4120
4121
4122 That alone would not have made a very interesting product, so Starwave
4123 wanted to add content from the movies in Eastwood's career: posters,
4124 scripts, and other material relating to the films Eastwood made. Most of his
4125 career was spent at Warner Brothers, and so it was relatively easy to get
4126 permission for that content.
4127 </p><p>
4128 Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Our
4129 goal was that we were going to have a clip from every one of Eastwood's
4130 films,</span>»</span> Alben told me. It was here that the problem arose. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No
4131 one had ever really done this before,</span>»</span> Alben explained. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No one
4132 had ever tried to do this in the context of an artistic look at an actor's
4133 career.</span>»</span>
4134 </p><p>
4135 Alben brought the idea to Michael Slade, the CEO of Starwave.  Slade asked,
4136 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, what will it take?</span>»</span>
4137 </p><p>
4138 Alben replied, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, we're going to have to clear rights from
4139 everyone who appears in these films, and the music and everything else that
4140 we want to use in these film clips.</span>»</span> Slade said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Great! Go for
4141 it.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2799080" href="#ftn.id2799080" class="footnote">113</a>]</sup>
4142 </p><p>
4143 The problem was that neither Alben nor Slade had any idea what clearing
4144 those rights would mean. Every actor in each of the films could have a claim
4145 to royalties for the reuse of that film. But CD- ROMs had not been specified
4146 in the contracts for the actors, so there was no clear way to know just what
4147 Starwave was to do.
4148 </p><p>
4149 I asked Alben how he dealt with the problem. With an obvious pride in his
4150 resourcefulness that obscured the obvious bizarreness of his tale, Alben
4151 recounted just what they did:
4152 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4153 So we very mechanically went about looking up the film clips.  We made some
4154 artistic decisions about what film clips to include&#8212;of course we were
4155 going to use the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Make my day</span>»</span> clip from <em class="citetitle">Dirty
4156 Harry</em>. But you then need to get the guy on the ground who's
4157 wiggling under the gun and you need to get his permission.  And then you
4158 have to decide what you are going to pay him.
4159 </p><p>
4160
4161
4162 We decided that it would be fair if we offered them the dayplayer rate for
4163 the right to reuse that performance. We're talking about a clip of less than
4164 a minute, but to reuse that performance in the CD-ROM the rate at the time
4165 was about $600.  So we had to identify the people&#8212;some of them were
4166 hard to identify because in Eastwood movies you can't tell who's the guy
4167 crashing through the glass&#8212;is it the actor or is it the stuntman? And
4168 then we just, we put together a team, my assistant and some others, and we
4169 just started calling people.
4170 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2799153"></a><p>
4171 Some actors were glad to help&#8212;Donald Sutherland, for example, followed
4172 up himself to be sure that the rights had been cleared.  Others were
4173 dumbfounded at their good fortune. Alben would ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hey, can I pay
4174 you $600 or maybe if you were in two films, you know, $1,200?</span>»</span> And
4175 they would say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Are you for real? Hey, I'd love to get
4176 $1,200.</span>»</span> And some of course were a bit difficult (estranged ex-wives,
4177 in particular). But eventually, Alben and his team had cleared the rights to
4178 this retrospective CD-ROM on Clint Eastwood's career.
4179 </p><p>
4180 It was one <span class="emphasis"><em>year</em></span> later&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">and even then we
4181 weren't sure whether we were totally in the clear.</span>»</span>
4182 </p><p>
4183 Alben is proud of his work. The project was the first of its kind and the
4184 only time he knew of that a team had undertaken such a massive project for
4185 the purpose of releasing a retrospective.
4186 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4187 Everyone thought it would be too hard. Everyone just threw up their hands
4188 and said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh, my gosh, a film, it's so many copyrights, there's the
4189 music, there's the screenplay, there's the director, there's the
4190 actors.</span>»</span> But we just broke it down. We just put it into its
4191 constituent parts and said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Okay, there's this many actors, this many
4192 directors, &#8230; this many musicians,</span>»</span> and we just went at it very
4193 systematically and cleared the rights.
4194 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4195
4196
4197
4198 And no doubt, the product itself was exceptionally good. Eastwood loved it,
4199 and it sold very well.
4200 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2799235"></a><p>
4201 But I pressed Alben about how weird it seems that it would have to take a
4202 year's work simply to clear rights. No doubt Alben had done this
4203 efficiently, but as Peter Drucker has famously quipped, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">There is
4204 nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at
4205 all.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2799250" href="#ftn.id2799250" class="footnote">114</a>]</sup> Did it make sense, I asked
4206 Alben, that this is the way a new work has to be made?
4207 </p><p>
4208 For, as he acknowledged, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">very few &#8230; have the time and
4209 resources, and the will to do this,</span>»</span> and thus, very few such works
4210 would ever be made. Does it make sense, I asked him, from the standpoint of
4211 what anybody really thought they were ever giving rights for originally,
4212 that you would have to go clear rights for these kinds of clips?
4213 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4214 I don't think so. When an actor renders a performance in a movie, he or she
4215 gets paid very well. &#8230; And then when 30 seconds of that performance
4216 is used in a new product that is a retrospective of somebody's career, I
4217 don't think that that person &#8230; should be compensated for that.
4218 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4219 Or at least, is this <span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> the artist should be
4220 compensated? Would it make sense, I asked, for there to be some kind of
4221 statutory license that someone could pay and be free to make derivative use
4222 of clips like this? Did it really make sense that a follow-on creator would
4223 have to track down every artist, actor, director, musician, and get explicit
4224 permission from each? Wouldn't a lot more be created if the legal part of
4225 the creative process could be made to be more clean?
4226 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4227
4228 Absolutely. I think that if there were some fair-licensing
4229 mechanism&#8212;where you weren't subject to hold-ups and you weren't
4230 subject to estranged former spouses&#8212;you'd see a lot more of this work,
4231 because it wouldn't be so daunting to try to put together a retrospective of
4232 someone's career and meaningfully illustrate it with lots of media from that
4233 person's career. You'd build in a cost as the producer of one of these
4234 things. You'd build in a cost of paying X dollars to the talent that
4235 performed. But it would be a known cost. That's the thing that trips
4236 everybody up and makes this kind of product hard to get off the ground. If
4237 you knew I have a hundred minutes of film in this product and it's going to
4238 cost me X, then you build your budget around it, and you can get investments
4239 and everything else that you need to produce it. But if you say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh,
4240 I want a hundred minutes of something and I have no idea what it's going to
4241 cost me, and a certain number of people are going to hold me up for
4242 money,</span>»</span> then it becomes difficult to put one of these things
4243 together.
4244 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4245 Alben worked for a big company. His company was backed by some of the
4246 richest investors in the world. He therefore had authority and access that
4247 the average Web designer would not have. So if it took him a year, how long
4248 would it take someone else? And how much creativity is never made just
4249 because the costs of clearing the rights are so high?
4250 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2799347"></a><p>
4251 These costs are the burdens of a kind of regulation. Put on a Republican hat
4252 for a moment, and get angry for a bit. The government defines the scope of
4253 these rights, and the scope defined determines how much it's going to cost
4254 to negotiate them. (Remember the idea that land runs to the heavens, and
4255 imagine the pilot purchasing flythrough rights as he negotiates to fly from
4256 Los Angeles to San Francisco.)  These rights might well have once made
4257 sense; but as circumstances change, they make no sense at all. Or at least,
4258 a well-trained, regulationminimizing Republican should look at the rights
4259 and ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does this still make sense?</span>»</span>
4260 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2799372"></a><p>
4261
4262 I've seen the flash of recognition when people get this point, but only a
4263 few times. The first was at a conference of federal judges in California.
4264 The judges were gathered to discuss the emerging topic of cyber-law. I was
4265 asked to be on the panel. Harvey Saferstein, a well-respected lawyer from an
4266 L.A. firm, introduced the panel with a video that he and a friend, Robert
4267 Fairbank, had produced.
4268 </p><p>
4269 Videoen var en glimrende sammenstilling av filmer fra hver periode i det
4270 tjuende århundret, rammet inn rundt idéen om en episode i TV-serien
4271 <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em>. Utførelsen var perfekt, ned til seksti
4272 minutter stoppeklokken. Dommerne elsket enhver minutt av den.
4273 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2799407"></a><p>
4274 Da lysene kom på, kikket jeg over til min medpaneldeltager, David Nimmer,
4275 kanskje den ledende opphavsrettakademiker og utøver i nasjonen. Han hadde en
4276 forbauset uttrykk i ansiktet sitt, mens han tittet ut over rommet med over
4277 250 godt underholdte dommere. Med en en illevarslende tone, begynte han sin
4278 tale med et spørsmål: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vet dere hvor mange føderale lover som nettopp
4279 brutt i dette rommet?</span>»</span>
4280 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2799433"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2799439"></a><p>
4281 For of course, the two brilliantly talented creators who made this film
4282 hadn't done what Alben did. They hadn't spent a year clearing the rights to
4283 these clips; technically, what they had done violated the law.  Of course,
4284 it wasn't as if they or anyone were going to be prosecuted for this
4285 violation (the presence of 250 judges and a gaggle of federal marshals
4286 notwithstanding). But Nimmer was making an important point: A year before
4287 anyone would have heard of the word Napster, and two years before another
4288 member of our panel, David Boies, would defend Napster before the Ninth
4289 Circuit Court of Appeals, Nimmer was trying to get the judges to see that
4290 the law would not be friendly to the capacities that this technology would
4291 enable. Technology means you can now do amazing things easily; but you
4292 couldn't easily do them legally.
4293 </p><p>
4294 We live in a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>»</span> culture enabled by
4295 technology. Anyone building a presentation knows the extraordinary freedom
4296 that the cut and paste architecture of the Internet created&#8212;in a
4297 second you can find just about any image you want; in another second, you
4298 can have it planted in your presentation.
4299 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2799468"></a><p>
4300
4301 But presentations are just a tiny beginning. Using the Internet and its
4302 archives, musicians are able to string together mixes of sound never before
4303 imagined; filmmakers are able to build movies out of clips on computers
4304 around the world. An extraordinary site in Sweden takes images of
4305 politicians and blends them with music to create biting political
4306 commentary. A site called Camp Chaos has produced some of the most biting
4307 criticism of the record industry that there is through the mixing of Flash!
4308 and music.
4309 </p><p>
4310 All of these creations are technically illegal. Even if the creators wanted
4311 to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">legal,</span>»</span> the cost of complying with the law is impossibly
4312 high. Therefore, for the law-abiding sorts, a wealth of creativity is never
4313 made. And for that part that is made, if it doesn't follow the clearance
4314 rules, it doesn't get released.
4315 </p><p>
4316 To some, these stories suggest a solution: Let's alter the mix of rights so
4317 that people are free to build upon our culture. Free to add or mix as they
4318 see fit. We could even make this change without necessarily requiring that
4319 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> use be free as in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free beer.</span>»</span> Instead,
4320 the system could simply make it easy for follow-on creators to compensate
4321 artists without requiring an army of lawyers to come along: a rule, for
4322 example, that says <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the royalty owed the copyright owner of an
4323 unregistered work for the derivative reuse of his work will be a flat 1
4324 percent of net revenues, to be held in escrow for the copyright
4325 owner.</span>»</span> Under this rule, the copyright owner could benefit from some
4326 royalty, but he would not have the benefit of a full property right (meaning
4327 the right to name his own price) unless he registers the work.
4328 </p><p>
4329 Who could possibly object to this? And what reason would there be for
4330 objecting? We're talking about work that is not now being made; which if
4331 made, under this plan, would produce new income for artists.  What reason
4332 would anyone have to oppose it?
4333 </p><p>
4334
4335 <span class="strong"><strong>In February 2003</strong></span>, DreamWorks studios
4336 announced an agreement with Mike Myers, the comic genius of
4337 <em class="citetitle">Saturday Night Live</em> and Austin Powers. According to
4338 the announcement, Myers and Dream-Works would work together to form a
4339 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">unique filmmaking pact.</span>»</span> Under the agreement, DreamWorks
4340 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">will acquire the rights to existing motion picture hits and classics,
4341 write new storylines and&#8212;with the use of stateof-the-art digital
4342 technology&#8212;insert Myers and other actors into the film, thereby
4343 creating an entirely new piece of entertainment.</span>»</span>
4344 </p><p>
4345 The announcement called this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">film sampling.</span>»</span> As Myers
4346 explained, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Film Sampling is an exciting way to put an original spin
4347 on existing films and allow audiences to see old movies in a new light. Rap
4348 artists have been doing this for years with music and now we are able to
4349 take that same concept and apply it to film.</span>»</span> Steven Spielberg is
4350 quoted as saying, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If anyone can create a way to bring old films to
4351 new audiences, it is Mike.</span>»</span>
4352 </p><p>
4353 Spielberg is right. Film sampling by Myers will be brilliant. But if you
4354 don't think about it, you might miss the truly astonishing point about this
4355 announcement. As the vast majority of our film heritage remains under
4356 copyright, the real meaning of the DreamWorks announcement is just this: It
4357 is Mike Myers and only Mike Myers who is free to sample. Any general freedom
4358 to build upon the film archive of our culture, a freedom in other contexts
4359 presumed for us all, is now a privilege reserved for the funny and
4360 famous&#8212;and presumably rich.
4361 </p><p>
4362 This privilege becomes reserved for two sorts of reasons. The first
4363 continues the story of the last chapter: the vagueness of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
4364 use.</span>»</span> Much of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sampling</span>»</span> should be considered
4365 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use.</span>»</span> But few would rely upon so weak a doctrine to
4366 create. That leads to the second reason that the privilege is reserved for
4367 the few: The costs of negotiating the legal rights for the creative reuse of
4368 content are astronomically high.  These costs mirror the costs with fair
4369 use: You either pay a lawyer to defend your fair use rights or pay a lawyer
4370 to track down permissions so you don't have to rely upon fair use
4371 rights. Either way, the creative process is a process of paying
4372 lawyers&#8212;again a privilege, or perhaps a curse, reserved for the few.
4373 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2799080" href="#id2799080" class="para">113</a>] </sup>
4374
4375 Technically, the rights that Alben had to clear were mainly those of
4376 publicity&#8212;rights an artist has to control the commercial exploitation
4377 of his image.  But these rights, too, burden <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rip, Mix, Burn</span>»</span>
4378 creativity, as this chapter evinces.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2799092"></a>
4379 <a class="indexterm" name="id2799107"></a>
4380 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2799250" href="#id2799250" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
4381
4382
4383 U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management,
4384 <em class="citetitle">Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services
4385 Acquisition</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #22</a>.
4386 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel ni: Samlere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Kapittel ni: Samlere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2799652"></a><p>
4387 <span class="strong"><strong>In April 1996</strong></span>, millions of
4388 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bots</span>»</span>&#8212;computer codes designed to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">spider,</span>»</span>
4389 or automatically search the Internet and copy content&#8212;began running
4390 across the Net. Page by page, these bots copied Internet-based information
4391 onto a small set of computers located in a basement in San Francisco's
4392 Presidio. Once the bots finished the whole of the Internet, they started
4393 again. Over and over again, once every two months, these bits of code took
4394 copies of the Internet and stored them.
4395 </p><p>
4396 By October 2001, the bots had collected more than five years of copies. And
4397 at a small announcement in Berkeley, California, the archive that these
4398 copies created, the Internet Archive, was opened to the world. Using a
4399 technology called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Way Back Machine,</span>»</span> you could enter a Web
4400 page, and see all of its copies going back to 1996, as well as when those
4401 pages changed.
4402 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxorwellgeorge"></a><p>
4403 This is the thing about the Internet that Orwell would have appreciated.  In
4404 the dystopia described in <em class="citetitle">1984</em>, old newspapers were
4405 constantly updated to assure that the current view of the world, approved of
4406 by the government, was not contradicted by previous news reports.
4407 </p><p>
4408
4409
4410 Thousands of workers constantly reedited the past, meaning there was no way
4411 ever to know whether the story you were reading today was the story that was
4412 printed on the date published on the paper.
4413 </p><p>
4414 It's the same with the Internet. If you go to a Web page today, there's no
4415 way for you to know whether the content you are reading is the same as the
4416 content you read before. The page may seem the same, but the content could
4417 easily be different. The Internet is Orwell's library&#8212;constantly
4418 updated, without any reliable memory.
4419 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2799727"></a><p>
4420 Until the Way Back Machine, at least. With the Way Back Machine, and the
4421 Internet Archive underlying it, you can see what the Internet was. You have
4422 the power to see what you remember. More importantly, perhaps, you also have
4423 the power to find what you don't remember and what others might prefer you
4424 forget.<sup>[<a name="id2799751" href="#ftn.id2799751" class="footnote">115</a>]</sup>
4425 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2799784"></a><p>
4426 <span class="strong"><strong>We take it</strong></span> for granted that we can go
4427 back to see what we remember reading. Think about newspapers. If you wanted
4428 to study the reaction of your hometown newspaper to the race riots in Watts
4429 in 1965, or to Bull Connor's water cannon in 1963, you could go to your
4430 public library and look at the newspapers. Those papers probably exist on
4431 microfiche. If you're lucky, they exist in paper, too. Either way, you are
4432 free, using a library, to go back and remember&#8212;not just what it is
4433 convenient to remember, but remember something close to the truth.
4434 </p><p>
4435 It is said that those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat
4436 it. That's not quite correct. We <span class="emphasis"><em>all</em></span> forget
4437 history. The key is whether we have a way to go back to rediscover what we
4438 forget. More directly, the key is whether an objective past can keep us
4439 honest. Libraries help do that, by collecting content and keeping it, for
4440 schoolchildren, for researchers, for grandma. A free society presumes this
4441 knowedge.
4442 </p><p>
4443
4444 The Internet was an exception to this presumption. Until the Internet
4445 Archive, there was no way to go back. The Internet was the quintessentially
4446 transitory medium. And yet, as it becomes more important in forming and
4447 reforming society, it becomes more and more important to maintain in some
4448 historical form. It's just bizarre to think that we have scads of archives
4449 of newspapers from tiny towns around the world, yet there is but one copy of
4450 the Internet&#8212;the one kept by the Internet Archive.
4451 </p><p>
4452 Brewster Kahle is the founder of the Internet Archive. He was a very
4453 successful Internet entrepreneur after he was a successful computer
4454 researcher.  In the 1990s, Kahle decided he had had enough business
4455 success.  It was time to become a different kind of success. So he launched
4456 a series of projects designed to archive human knowledge. The Internet
4457 Archive was just the first of the projects of this Andrew Carnegie of the
4458 Internet. By December of 2002, the archive had over 10 billion pages, and it
4459 was growing at about a billion pages a month.
4460 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2799829"></a><p>
4461 The Way Back Machine is the largest archive of human knowledge in human
4462 history. At the end of 2002, it held <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">two hundred and thirty terabytes
4463 of material</span>»</span>&#8212;and was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ten times larger than the Library
4464 of Congress.</span>»</span> And this was just the first of the archives that Kahle
4465 set out to build. In addition to the Internet Archive, Kahle has been
4466 constructing the Television Archive. Television, it turns out, is even more
4467 ephemeral than the Internet. While much of twentieth-century culture was
4468 constructed through television, only a tiny proportion of that culture is
4469 available for anyone to see today. Three hours of news are recorded each
4470 evening by Vanderbilt University&#8212;thanks to a specific exemption in the
4471 copyright law. That content is indexed, and is available to scholars for a
4472 very low fee. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But other than that, [television] is almost
4473 unavailable,</span>»</span> Kahle told me. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If you were Barbara Walters you
4474 could get access to [the archives], but if you are just a graduate
4475 student?</span>»</span> As Kahle put it,
4476 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2799890"></a><p>
4477
4478 Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown? Remember
4479 that back and forth surreal experience of a politician interacting with a
4480 fictional television character? If you were a graduate student wanting to
4481 study that, and you wanted to get those original back and forth exchanges
4482 between the two, the <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em> episode that came out
4483 after it &#8230; it would be almost impossible. &#8230; Those materials
4484 are almost unfindable. &#8230;
4485 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4486 Why is that? Why is it that the part of our culture that is recorded in
4487 newspapers remains perpetually accessible, while the part that is recorded
4488 on videotape is not? How is it that we've created a world where researchers
4489 trying to understand the effect of media on nineteenthcentury America will
4490 have an easier time than researchers trying to understand the effect of
4491 media on twentieth-century America?
4492 </p><p>
4493 In part, this is because of the law. Early in American copyright law,
4494 copyright owners were required to deposit copies of their work in
4495 libraries.  These copies were intended both to facilitate the spread of
4496 knowledge and to assure that a copy of the work would be around once the
4497 copyright expired, so that others might access and copy the work.
4498 </p><p>
4499 These rules applied to film as well. But in 1915, the Library of Congress
4500 made an exception for film. Film could be copyrighted so long as such
4501 deposits were made. But the filmmaker was then allowed to borrow back the
4502 deposits&#8212;for an unlimited time at no cost. In 1915 alone, there were
4503 more than 5,475 films deposited and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">borrowed back.</span>»</span> Thus, when
4504 the copyrights to films expire, there is no copy held by any library. The
4505 copy exists&#8212;if it exists at all&#8212;in the library archive of the
4506 film company.<sup>[<a name="id2799937" href="#ftn.id2799937" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
4507 </p><p>
4508 The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts were
4509 originally not copyrighted&#8212;there was no way to capture the broadcasts,
4510 so there was no fear of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theft.</span>»</span> But as technology enabled
4511 capturing, broadcasters relied increasingly upon the law. The law required
4512 they make a copy of each broadcast for the work to be
4513 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrighted.</span>»</span> But those copies were simply kept by the
4514 broadcasters. No library had any right to them; the government didn't demand
4515 them.  The content of this part of American culture is practically invisible
4516 to anyone who would look.
4517 </p><p>
4518
4519 Kahle was eager to correct this. Before September 11, 2001, he and his
4520 allies had started capturing television. They selected twenty stations from
4521 around the world and hit the Record button. After September 11, Kahle,
4522 working with dozens of others, selected twenty stations from around the
4523 world and, beginning October 11, 2001, made their coverage during the week
4524 of September 11 available free on-line.  Anyone could see how news reports
4525 from around the world covered the events of that day.
4526 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2800003"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2800009"></a><p>
4527 Kahle had the same idea with film. Working with Rick Prelinger, whose
4528 archive of film includes close to 45,000 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ephemeral films</span>»</span>
4529 (meaning films other than Hollywood movies, films that were never
4530 copyrighted), Kahle established the Movie Archive. Prelinger let Kahle
4531 digitize 1,300 films in this archive and post those films on the Internet to
4532 be downloaded for free. Prelinger's is a for-profit company. It sells copies
4533 of these films as stock footage. What he has discovered is that after he
4534 made a significant chunk available for free, his stock footage sales went up
4535 dramatically. People could easily find the material they wanted to use. Some
4536 downloaded that material and made films on their own. Others purchased
4537 copies to enable other films to be made.  Either way, the archive enabled
4538 access to this important part of our culture.  Want to see a copy of the
4539 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Duck and Cover</span>»</span> film that instructed children how to save
4540 themselves in the middle of nuclear attack? Go to archive.org, and you can
4541 download the film in a few minutes&#8212;for free.
4542 </p><p>
4543 Here again, Kahle is providing access to a part of our culture that we
4544 otherwise could not get easily, if at all. It is yet another part of what
4545 defines the twentieth century that we have lost to history. The law doesn't
4546 require these copies to be kept by anyone, or to be deposited in an archive
4547 by anyone. Therefore, there is no simple way to find them.
4548 </p><p>
4549 The key here is access, not price. Kahle wants to enable free access to this
4550 content, but he also wants to enable others to sell access to it. His aim is
4551 to ensure competition in access to this important part of our culture.  Not
4552 during the commercial life of a bit of creative property, but during a
4553 second life that all creative property has&#8212;a noncommercial life.
4554 </p><p>
4555
4556 For here is an idea that we should more clearly recognize. Every bit of
4557 creative property goes through different <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lives.</span>»</span> In its first
4558 life, if the creator is lucky, the content is sold. In such cases the
4559 commercial market is successful for the creator. The vast majority of
4560 creative property doesn't enjoy such success, but some clearly does. For
4561 that content, commercial life is extremely important. Without this
4562 commercial market, there would be, many argue, much less creativity.
4563 </p><p>
4564 After the commercial life of creative property has ended, our tradition has
4565 always supported a second life as well. A newspaper delivers the news every
4566 day to the doorsteps of America. The very next day, it is used to wrap fish
4567 or to fill boxes with fragile gifts or to build an archive of knowledge
4568 about our history. In this second life, the content can continue to inform
4569 even if that information is no longer sold.
4570 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2800095"></a><p>
4571 The same has always been true about books. A book goes out of print very
4572 quickly (the average today is after about a year<sup>[<a name="id2800111" href="#ftn.id2800111" class="footnote">117</a>]</sup>). After it is out of print, it can be sold in used book stores
4573 without the copyright owner getting anything and stored in libraries, where
4574 many get to read the book, also for free. Used book stores and libraries are
4575 thus the second life of a book. That second life is extremely important to
4576 the spread and stability of culture.
4577 </p><p>
4578 Yet increasingly, any assumption about a stable second life for creative
4579 property does not hold true with the most important components of popular
4580 culture in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. For
4581 these&#8212;television, movies, music, radio, the Internet&#8212;there is no
4582 guarantee of a second life. For these sorts of culture, it is as if we've
4583 replaced libraries with Barnes &amp; Noble superstores. With this culture,
4584 what's accessible is nothing but what a certain limited market demands.
4585 Beyond that, culture disappears.
4586 </p><p>
4587
4588 <span class="strong"><strong>For most of</strong></span> the twentieth century, it was
4589 economics that made this so. It would have been insanely expensive to
4590 collect and make accessible all television and film and music: The cost of
4591 analog copies is extraordinarily high. So even though the law in principle
4592 would have restricted the ability of a Brewster Kahle to copy culture
4593 generally, the real restriction was economics. The market made it impossibly
4594 difficult to do anything about this ephemeral culture; the law had little
4595 practical effect.
4596 </p><p>
4597 Perhaps the single most important feature of the digital revolution is that
4598 for the first time since the Library of Alexandria, it is feasible to
4599 imagine constructing archives that hold all culture produced or distributed
4600 publicly. Technology makes it possible to imagine an archive of all books
4601 published, and increasingly makes it possible to imagine an archive of all
4602 moving images and sound.
4603 </p><p>
4604 The scale of this potential archive is something we've never imagined
4605 before. The Brewster Kahles of our history have dreamed about it; but we are
4606 for the first time at a point where that dream is possible. As Kahle
4607 describes,
4608 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2800209"></a><p>
4609 It looks like there's about two to three million recordings of music.
4610 Ever. There are about a hundred thousand theatrical releases of movies,
4611 &#8230; and about one to two million movies [distributed] during the
4612 twentieth century. There are about twenty-six million different titles of
4613 books. All of these would fit on computers that would fit in this room and
4614 be able to be afforded by a small company.  So we're at a turning point in
4615 our history. Universal access is the goal. And the opportunity of leading a
4616 different life, based on this, is &#8230; thrilling. It could be one of the
4617 things humankind would be most proud of. Up there with the Library of
4618 Alexandria, putting a man on the moon, and the invention of the printing
4619 press.
4620 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4621
4622 Kahle is not the only librarian. The Internet Archive is not the only
4623 archive. But Kahle and the Internet Archive suggest what the future of
4624 libraries or archives could be. <span class="emphasis"><em>When</em></span> the commercial
4625 life of creative property ends, I don't know. But it does. And whenever it
4626 does, Kahle and his archive hint at a world where this knowledge, and
4627 culture, remains perpetually available. Some will draw upon it to understand
4628 it; some to criticize it. Some will use it, as Walt Disney did, to re-create
4629 the past for the future. These technologies promise something that had
4630 become unimaginable for much of our past&#8212;a future
4631 <span class="emphasis"><em>for</em></span> our past. The technology of digital arts could make
4632 the dream of the Library of Alexandria real again.
4633 </p><p>
4634 Technologists have thus removed the economic costs of building such an
4635 archive. But lawyers' costs remain. For as much as we might like to call
4636 these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">archives,</span>»</span> as warm as the idea of a
4637 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">library</span>»</span> might seem, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">content</span>»</span> that is
4638 collected in these digital spaces is also someone's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span>
4639 And the law of property restricts the freedoms that Kahle and others would
4640 exercise.
4641 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2800283"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2799751" href="#id2799751" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
4642
4643 <a class="indexterm" name="id2799754"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2799763"></a> The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the
4644 White House changes its own press releases without notice. A May 13, 2003,
4645 press release stated, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.</span>»</span>
4646 That was later changed, without notice, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Major Combat Operations in
4647 Iraq Have Ended.</span>»</span> E-mail from Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
4648 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2799937" href="#id2799937" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
4649
4650
4651 Doug Herrick, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
4652 the Library of Congress,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Film Library
4653 Quarterly</em> 13 nos. 2&#8211;3 (1980): 5; Anthony Slide,
4654 <em class="citetitle">Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film Preservation in the United
4655 States</em> ( Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland &amp; Co., 1992), 36.
4656 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2800111" href="#id2800111" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
4657
4658 <a class="indexterm" name="id2800114"></a> Dave Barns, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fledgling Career
4659 in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord, Bar Owner Starts a New Chapter by
4660 Adopting Business,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 5
4661 September 1997, at Metro Lake 1L. Of books published between 1927 and 1946,
4662 only 2.2 percent were in print in 2002. R. Anthony Reese, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First
4663 Sale Doctrine in the Era of Digital Networks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston
4664 College Law Review</em> 44 (2003): 593 n. 51.
4665 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2800306"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2800312"></a><p>
4666 <span class="strong"><strong>Jack Valenti</strong></span> has been the president of
4667 the Motion Picture Association of America since 1966. He first came to
4668 Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's administration&#8212;literally. The
4669 famous picture of Johnson's swearing-in on Air Force One after the
4670 assassination of President Kennedy has Valenti in the background. In his
4671 almost forty years of running the MPAA, Valenti has established himself as
4672 perhaps the most prominent and effective lobbyist in Washington.
4673 </p><p>
4674 The MPAA is the American branch of the international Motion Picture
4675 Association. It was formed in 1922 as a trade association whose goal was to
4676 defend American movies against increasing domestic criticism.  The
4677 organization now represents not only filmmakers but producers and
4678 distributors of entertainment for television, video, and cable. Its board is
4679 made up of the chairmen and presidents of the seven major producers and
4680 distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States:
4681 Walt Disney, Sony Pictures Entertainment, MGM, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth
4682 Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2800347"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2800354"></a>
4683 <a class="indexterm" name="id2800360"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2800366"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2800372"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2800379"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2800385"></a>
4684 </p><p>
4685
4686
4687 Valenti is only the third president of the MPAA. No president before him has
4688 had as much influence over that organization, or over Washington. As a
4689 Texan, Valenti has mastered the single most important political skill of a
4690 Southerner&#8212;the ability to appear simple and slow while hiding a
4691 lightning-fast intellect. To this day, Valenti plays the simple, humble
4692 man. But this Harvard MBA, and author of four books, who finished high
4693 school at the age of fifteen and flew more than fifty combat missions in
4694 World War II, is no Mr. Smith. When Valenti went to Washington, he mastered
4695 the city in a quintessentially Washingtonian way.
4696 </p><p>
4697 In defending artistic liberty and the freedom of speech that our culture
4698 depends upon, the MPAA has done important good. In crafting the MPAA rating
4699 system, it has probably avoided a great deal of speech-regulating harm. But
4700 there is an aspect to the organization's mission that is both the most
4701 radical and the most important. This is the organization's effort,
4702 epitomized in Valenti's every act, to redefine the meaning of
4703 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span>
4704 </p><p>
4705 In 1982, Valenti's testimony to Congress captured the strategy perfectly:
4706 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4707 No matter the lengthy arguments made, no matter the charges and the
4708 counter-charges, no matter the tumult and the shouting, reasonable men and
4709 women will keep returning to the fundamental issue, the central theme which
4710 animates this entire debate: <span class="emphasis"><em>Creative property owners must be
4711 accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other property
4712 owners in the nation</em></span>. That is the issue.  That is the
4713 question. And that is the rostrum on which this entire hearing and the
4714 debates to follow must rest.<sup>[<a name="id2800444" href="#ftn.id2800444" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
4715 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4716
4717 The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's
4718 rhetoric, is brilliant and simple and brilliant because simple. The
4719 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">central theme</span>»</span> to which <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">reasonable men and
4720 women</span>»</span> will return is this: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative property owners must be
4721 accorded the same rights and protections resident in all other property
4722 owners in the nation.</span>»</span> There are no second-class citizens, Valenti
4723 might have continued. There should be no second-class property owners.
4724 </p><p>
4725 This claim has an obvious and powerful intuitive pull. It is stated with
4726 such clarity as to make the idea as obvious as the notion that we use
4727 elections to pick presidents. But in fact, there is no more extreme a claim
4728 made by <span class="emphasis"><em>anyone</em></span> who is serious in this debate than this
4729 claim of Valenti's. Jack Valenti, however sweet and however brilliant, is
4730 perhaps the nation's foremost extremist when it comes to the nature and
4731 scope of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span> His views have
4732 <span class="emphasis"><em>no</em></span> reasonable connection to our actual legal tradition,
4733 even if the subtle pull of his Texan charm has slowly redefined that
4734 tradition, at least in Washington.
4735 </p><p>
4736 While <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> is certainly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span>
4737 in a nerdy and precise sense that lawyers are trained to
4738 understand,<sup>[<a name="id2800513" href="#ftn.id2800513" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case,
4739 nor should it be, that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property owners</span>»</span> have been
4740 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other
4741 property owners.</span>»</span> Indeed, if creative property owners were given the
4742 same rights as all other property owners, that would effect a radical, and
4743 radically undesirable, change in our tradition.
4744 </p><p>
4745 Valenti knows this. But he speaks for an industry that cares squat for our
4746 tradition and the values it represents. He speaks for an industry that is
4747 instead fighting to restore the tradition that the British overturned in
4748 1710. In the world that Valenti's changes would create, a powerful few would
4749 exercise powerful control over how our creative culture would develop.
4750 </p><p>
4751
4752 I have two purposes in this chapter. The first is to convince you that,
4753 historically, Valenti's claim is absolutely wrong. The second is to convince
4754 you that it would be terribly wrong for us to reject our history.  We have
4755 always treated rights in creative property differently from the rights
4756 resident in all other property owners. They have never been the same. And
4757 they should never be the same, because, however counterintuitive this may
4758 seem, to make them the same would be to fundamentally weaken the opportunity
4759 for new creators to create.  Creativity depends upon the owners of
4760 creativity having less than perfect control.
4761 </p><p>
4762 Organizations such as the MPAA, whose board includes the most powerful of
4763 the old guard, have little interest, their rhetoric notwithstanding, in
4764 assuring that the new can displace them. No organization does. No person
4765 does. (Ask me about tenure, for example.)  But what's good for the MPAA is
4766 not necessarily good for America. A society that defends the ideals of free
4767 culture must preserve precisely the opportunity for new creativity to
4768 threaten the old.
4769 </p><p>
4770 <span class="strong"><strong>To get</strong></span> just a hint that there is
4771 something fundamentally wrong in Valenti's argument, we need look no further
4772 than the United States Constitution itself.
4773 </p><p>
4774 The framers of our Constitution loved <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> Indeed, so
4775 strongly did they love property that they built into the Constitution an
4776 important requirement. If the government takes your property&#8212;if it
4777 condemns your house, or acquires a slice of land from your farm&#8212;it is
4778 required, under the Fifth Amendment's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Takings Clause,</span>»</span> to pay
4779 you <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">just compensation</span>»</span> for that taking. The Constitution thus
4780 guarantees that property is, in a certain sense, sacred. It cannot
4781 <span class="emphasis"><em>ever</em></span> be taken from the property owner unless the
4782 government pays for the privilege.
4783 </p><p>
4784
4785 Yet the very same Constitution speaks very differently about what Valenti
4786 calls <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span> In the clause granting Congress the
4787 power to create <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property,</span>»</span> the Constitution
4788 <span class="emphasis"><em>requires</em></span> that after a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited time,</span>»</span>
4789 Congress take back the rights that it has granted and set the
4790 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> free to the public domain. Yet when
4791 Congress does this, when the expiration of a copyright term
4792 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">takes</span>»</span> your copyright and turns it over to the public domain,
4793 Congress does not have any obligation to pay <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">just
4794 compensation</span>»</span> for this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking.</span>»</span> Instead, the same
4795 Constitution that requires compensation for your land requires that you lose
4796 your <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> right without any compensation at all.
4797 </p><p>
4798 The Constitution thus on its face states that these two forms of property
4799 are not to be accorded the same rights. They are plainly to be treated
4800 differently. Valenti is therefore not just asking for a change in our
4801 tradition when he argues that creative-property owners should be accorded
4802 the same rights as every other property-right owner. He is effectively
4803 arguing for a change in our Constitution itself.
4804 </p><p>
4805 Arguing for a change in our Constitution is not necessarily wrong.  There
4806 was much in our original Constitution that was plainly wrong.  The
4807 Constitution of 1789 entrenched slavery; it left senators to be appointed
4808 rather than elected; it made it possible for the electoral college to
4809 produce a tie between the president and his own vice president (as it did in
4810 1800). The framers were no doubt extraordinary, but I would be the first to
4811 admit that they made big mistakes. We have since rejected some of those
4812 mistakes; no doubt there could be others that we should reject as well. So
4813 my argument is not simply that because Jefferson did it, we should, too.
4814 </p><p>
4815 Instead, my argument is that because Jefferson did it, we should at least
4816 try to understand <span class="emphasis"><em>why</em></span>. Why did the framers, fanatical
4817 property types that they were, reject the claim that creative property be
4818 given the same rights as all other property? Why did they require that for
4819 creative property there must be a public domain?
4820 </p><p>
4821 To answer this question, we need to get some perspective on the history of
4822 these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> rights, and the control that they
4823 enabled.  Once we see clearly how differently these rights have been
4824 defined, we will be in a better position to ask the question that should be
4825 at the core of this war: Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> creative property
4826 should be protected, but how. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> we will
4827 enforce the rights the law gives to creative-property owners, but what the
4828 particular mix of rights ought to be. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span>
4829 artists should be paid, but whether institutions designed to assure that
4830 artists get paid need also control how culture develops.
4831 </p><p>
4832
4833
4834
4835 To answer these questions, we need a more general way to talk about how
4836 property is protected. More precisely, we need a more general way than the
4837 narrow language of the law allows. In <em class="citetitle">Code and Other Laws of
4838 Cyberspace</em>, I used a simple model to capture this more general
4839 perspective. For any particular right or regulation, this model asks how
4840 four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the
4841 right or regulation. I represented it with this diagram:
4842 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1331"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.1. How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken
4843 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>
4844 At the center of this picture is a regulated dot: the individual or group
4845 that is the target of regulation, or the holder of a right. (In each case
4846 throughout, we can describe this either as regulation or as a right.  For
4847 simplicity's sake, I will speak only of regulations.)  The ovals represent
4848 four ways in which the individual or group might be regulated&#8212; either
4849 constrained or, alternatively, enabled. Law is the most obvious constraint
4850 (to lawyers, at least). It constrains by threatening punishments after the
4851 fact if the rules set in advance are violated. So if, for example, you
4852 willfully infringe Madonna's copyright by copying a song from her latest CD
4853 and posting it on the Web, you can be punished with a $150,000 fine. The
4854 fine is an ex post punishment for violating an ex ante rule. It is imposed
4855 by the state.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2800401"></a>
4856 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2800801"></a><p>
4857 Norms are a different kind of constraint. They, too, punish an individual
4858 for violating a rule. But the punishment of a norm is imposed by a
4859 community, not (or not only) by the state. There may be no law against
4860 spitting, but that doesn't mean you won't be punished if you spit on the
4861 ground while standing in line at a movie. The punishment might not be harsh,
4862 though depending upon the community, it could easily be more harsh than many
4863 of the punishments imposed by the state. The mark of the difference is not
4864 the severity of the rule, but the source of the enforcement.
4865 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2800822"></a><p>
4866 The market is a third type of constraint. Its constraint is effected through
4867 conditions: You can do X if you pay Y; you'll be paid M if you do N. These
4868 constraints are obviously not independent of law or norms&#8212;it is
4869 property law that defines what must be bought if it is to be taken legally;
4870 it is norms that say what is appropriately sold. But given a set of norms,
4871 and a background of property and contract law, the market imposes a
4872 simultaneous constraint upon how an individual or group might behave.
4873 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2800830"></a><p>
4874 Finally, and for the moment, perhaps, most mysteriously,
4875 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture</span>»</span>&#8212;the physical world as one finds
4876 it&#8212;is a constraint on behavior.  A fallen bridge might constrain your
4877 ability to get across a river. Railroad tracks might constrain the ability
4878 of a community to integrate its social life. As with the market,
4879 architecture does not effect its constraint through ex post
4880 punishments. Instead, also as with the market, architecture effects its
4881 constraint through simultaneous conditions. These conditions are imposed not
4882 by courts enforcing contracts, or by police punishing theft, but by nature,
4883 by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture.</span>»</span> If a 500-pound boulder blocks your way, it
4884 is the law of gravity that enforces this constraint. If a $500 airplane
4885 ticket stands between you and a flight to New York, it is the market that
4886 enforces this constraint.
4887 </p><p>
4888
4889
4890
4891 So the first point about these four modalities of regulation is obvious:
4892 They interact. Restrictions imposed by one might be reinforced by
4893 another. Or restrictions imposed by one might be undermined by another.
4894 </p><p>
4895 The second point follows directly: If we want to understand the effective
4896 freedom that anyone has at a given moment to do any particular thing, we
4897 have to consider how these four modalities interact.  Whether or not there
4898 are other constraints (there may well be; my claim is not about
4899 comprehensiveness), these four are among the most significant, and any
4900 regulator (whether controlling or freeing)  must consider how these four in
4901 particular interact.
4902 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivespeed"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2800915"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2800921"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2800927"></a><p>
4903 So, for example, consider the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> to drive a car at a
4904 high speed. That freedom is in part restricted by laws: speed limits that
4905 say how fast you can drive in particular places at particular times. It is
4906 in part restricted by architecture: speed bumps, for example, slow most
4907 rational drivers; governors in buses, as another example, set the maximum
4908 rate at which the driver can drive. The freedom is in part restricted by the
4909 market: Fuel efficiency drops as speed increases, thus the price of gasoline
4910 indirectly constrains speed. And finally, the norms of a community may or
4911 may not constrain the freedom to speed. Drive at 50 mph by a school in your
4912 own neighborhood and you're likely to be punished by the neighbors. The same
4913 norm wouldn't be as effective in a different town, or at night.
4914 </p><p>
4915
4916 The final point about this simple model should also be fairly clear: While
4917 these four modalities are analytically independent, law has a special role
4918 in affecting the three.<sup>[<a name="id2800961" href="#ftn.id2800961" class="footnote">120</a>]</sup> The law, in
4919 other words, sometimes operates to increase or decrease the constraint of a
4920 particular modality.  Thus, the law might be used to increase taxes on
4921 gasoline, so as to increase the incentives to drive more slowly. The law
4922 might be used to mandate more speed bumps, so as to increase the difficulty
4923 of driving rapidly. The law might be used to fund ads that stigmatize
4924 reckless driving. Or the law might be used to require that other laws be
4925 more strict&#8212;a federal requirement that states decrease the speed
4926 limit, for example&#8212;so as to decrease the attractiveness of fast
4927 driving.
4928 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2800985"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.2. Law has a special role in affecting the three.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1361.png" alt="Law has a special role in affecting the three."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="id2801022"></a><p>
4929 These constraints can thus change, and they can be changed. To understand
4930 the effective protection of liberty or protection of property at any
4931 particular moment, we must track these changes over time. A restriction
4932 imposed by one modality might be erased by another. A freedom enabled by one
4933 modality might be displaced by another.<sup>[<a name="id2801037" href="#ftn.id2801037" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
4934 </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>
4935 The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just how,
4936 Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress and the
4937 courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that rallying makes
4938 sense.
4939 </p><p>
4940 Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the Internet:
4941 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1371"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.3. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="Copyright's regulation before the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="id2801155"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2801161"></a><p>
4942
4943
4944 There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
4945 limits the ability to copy and share content, by imposing penalties on those
4946 who copy and share content. Those penalties are reinforced by technologies
4947 that make it hard to copy and share content (architecture) and expensive to
4948 copy and share content (market). Finally, those penalties are mitigated by
4949 norms we all recognize&#8212;kids, for example, taping other kids'
4950 records. These uses of copyrighted material may well be infringement, but
4951 the norms of our society (before the Internet, at least) had no problem with
4952 this form of infringement.
4953 </p><p>
4954 Enter the Internet, or, more precisely, technologies such as MP3s and p2p
4955 sharing. Now the constraint of architecture changes dramatically, as does
4956 the constraint of the market. And as both the market and architecture relax
4957 the regulation of copyright, norms pile on. The happy balance (for the
4958 warriors, at least) of life before the Internet becomes an effective state
4959 of anarchy after the Internet.
4960 </p><p>
4961
4962 Thus the sense of, and justification for, the warriors' response.
4963 Technology has changed, the warriors say, and the effect of this change,
4964 when ramified through the market and norms, is that a balance of protection
4965 for the copyright owners' rights has been lost. This is Iraq after the fall
4966 of Saddam, but this time no government is justifying the looting that
4967 results.
4968 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1381"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.4. effective state of anarchy after the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1381.png" alt="effective state of anarchy after the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
4969 Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the
4970 warriors. Indeed, in a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">White Paper</span>»</span> prepared by the Commerce
4971 Department (one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in 1995, this
4972 mix of regulatory modalities had already been identified and the strategy to
4973 respond already mapped. In response to the changes the Internet had
4974 effected, the White Paper argued (1) Congress should strengthen intellectual
4975 property law, (2) businesses should adopt innovative marketing techniques,
4976 (3) technologists should push to develop code to protect copyrighted
4977 material, and (4) educators should educate kids to better protect copyright.
4978 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2801238"></a><p>
4979
4980 This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed&#8212;if it was to
4981 preserve the particular balance that existed before the change induced by
4982 the Internet. And it's just what we should expect the content industry to
4983 push for. It is as American as apple pie to consider the happy life you have
4984 as an entitlement, and to look to the law to protect it if something comes
4985 along to change that happy life. Homeowners living in a flood plain have no
4986 hesitation appealing to the government to rebuild (and rebuild again) when a
4987 flood (architecture) wipes away their property (law). Farmers have no
4988 hesitation appealing to the government to bail them out when a virus
4989 (architecture) devastates their crop. Unions have no hesitation appealing to
4990 the government to bail them out when imports (market) wipe out the
4991 U.S. steel industry.
4992 </p><p>
4993 Thus, there's nothing wrong or surprising in the content industry's campaign
4994 to protect itself from the harmful consequences of a technological
4995 innovation. And I would be the last person to argue that the changing
4996 technology of the Internet has not had a profound effect on the content
4997 industry's way of doing business, or as John Seely Brown describes it, its
4998 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture of revenue.</span>»</span>
4999 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2801277"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2801283"></a><p>
5000 But just because a particular interest asks for government support, it
5001 doesn't follow that support should be granted. And just because technology
5002 has weakened a particular way of doing business, it doesn't follow that the
5003 government should intervene to support that old way of doing
5004 business. Kodak, for example, has lost perhaps as much as 20 percent of
5005 their traditional film market to the emerging technologies of digital
5006 cameras.<sup>[<a name="id2801298" href="#ftn.id2801298" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
5007 government should ban digital cameras just to support Kodak? Highways have
5008 weakened the freight business for railroads. Does anyone think we should ban
5009 trucks from roads <span class="emphasis"><em>for the purpose of</em></span> protecting the
5010 railroads? Closer to the subject of this book, remote channel changers have
5011 weakened the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stickiness</span>»</span> of television advertising (if a
5012 boring commercial comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf ), and
5013 it may well be that this change has weakened the television advertising
5014 market. But does anyone believe we should regulate remotes to reinforce
5015 commercial television? (Maybe by limiting them to function only once a
5016 second, or to switch to only ten channels within an hour?)
5017 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2801347"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2801353"></a><p>
5018 The obvious answer to these obviously rhetorical questions is no.  In a free
5019 society, with a free market, supported by free enterprise and free trade,
5020 the government's role is not to support one way of doing business against
5021 others. Its role is not to pick winners and protect them against loss. If
5022 the government did this generally, then we would never have any progress. As
5023 Microsoft chairman Bill Gates wrote in 1991, in a memo criticizing software
5024 patents, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">established companies have an interest in excluding future
5025 competitors.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2801373" href="#ftn.id2801373" class="footnote">123</a>]</sup> And relative to a
5026 startup, established companies also have the means. (Think RCA and FM
5027 radio.) A world in which competitors with new ideas must fight not only the
5028 market but also the government is a world in which competitors with new
5029 ideas will not succeed. It is a world of stasis and increasingly
5030 concentrated stagnation. It is the Soviet Union under Brezhnev.
5031 </p><p>
5032 Thus, while it is understandable for industries threatened with new
5033 technologies that change the way they do business to look to the government
5034 for protection, it is the special duty of policy makers to guarantee that
5035 that protection not become a deterrent to progress. It is the duty of policy
5036 makers, in other words, to assure that the changes they create, in response
5037 to the request of those hurt by changing technology, are changes that
5038 preserve the incentives and opportunities for innovation and change.
5039 </p><p>
5040 In the context of laws regulating speech&#8212;which include, obviously,
5041 copyright law&#8212;that duty is even stronger. When the industry
5042 complaining about changing technologies is asking Congress to respond in a
5043 way that burdens speech and creativity, policy makers should be especially
5044 wary of the request. It is always a bad deal for the government to get into
5045 the business of regulating speech markets. The risks and dangers of that
5046 game are precisely why our framers created the First Amendment to our
5047 Constitution: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Congress shall make no law &#8230; abridging the
5048 freedom of speech.</span>»</span> So when Congress is being asked to pass laws that
5049 would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">abridge</span>»</span> the freedom of speech, it should ask&#8212;
5050 carefully&#8212;whether such regulation is justified.
5051 </p><p>
5052
5053 My argument just now, however, has nothing to do with whether the changes
5054 that are being pushed by the copyright warriors are
5055 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">justified.</span>»</span> My argument is about their effect. For before we
5056 get to the question of justification, a hard question that depends a great
5057 deal upon your values, we should first ask whether we understand the effect
5058 of the changes the content industry wants.
5059 </p><p>
5060 Her kommer metaforen som vil forklare argumentet.
5061 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxddt"></a><p>
5062 In 1873, the chemical DDT was first synthesized. In 1948, Swiss chemist Paul
5063 Hermann Müller won the Nobel Prize for his work demonstrating the
5064 insecticidal properties of DDT. By the 1950s, the insecticide was widely
5065 used around the world to kill disease-carrying pests. It was also used to
5066 increase farm production.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2801473"></a>
5067 </p><p>
5068 No one doubts that killing disease-carrying pests or increasing crop
5069 production is a good thing. No one doubts that the work of Müller was
5070 important and valuable and probably saved lives, possibly millions.
5071 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2801490"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2801497"></a><p>
5072 But in 1962, Rachel Carson published <em class="citetitle">Silent Spring</em>,
5073 which argued that DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having
5074 unintended environmental consequences. Birds were losing the ability to
5075 reproduce.  Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed.
5076 </p><p>
5077 No one set out to destroy the environment. Paul Müller certainly did not aim
5078 to harm any birds. But the effort to solve one set of problems produced
5079 another set which, in the view of some, was far worse than the problems that
5080 were originally attacked. Or more accurately, the problems DDT caused were
5081 worse than the problems it solved, at least when considering the other, more
5082 environmentally friendly ways to solve the problems that DDT was meant to
5083 solve.
5084 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2801529"></a><p>
5085
5086 It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James Boyle
5087 appeals when he argues that we need an <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">environmentalism</span>»</span> for
5088 culture.<sup>[<a name="id2801545" href="#ftn.id2801545" class="footnote">124</a>]</sup> His point, and the point I
5089 want to develop in the balance of this chapter, is not that the aims of
5090 copyright are flawed. Or that authors should not be paid for their work. Or
5091 that music should be given away <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for free.</span>»</span> The point is that
5092 some of the ways in which we might protect authors will have unintended
5093 consequences for the cultural environment, much like DDT had for the natural
5094 environment. And just as criticism of DDT is not an endorsement of malaria
5095 or an attack on farmers, so, too, is criticism of one particular set of
5096 regulations protecting copyright not an endorsement of anarchy or an attack
5097 on authors.  It is an environment of creativity that we seek, and we should
5098 be aware of our actions' effects on the environment.
5099 </p><p>
5100 My argument, in the balance of this chapter, tries to map exactly this
5101 effect. No doubt the technology of the Internet has had a dramatic effect on
5102 the ability of copyright owners to protect their content. But there should
5103 also be little doubt that when you add together the changes in copyright law
5104 over time, plus the change in technology that the Internet is undergoing
5105 just now, the net effect of these changes will not be only that copyrighted
5106 work is effectively protected. Also, and generally missed, the net effect of
5107 this massive increase in protection will be devastating to the environment
5108 for creativity.
5109 </p><p>
5110 In a line: To kill a gnat, we are spraying DDT with consequences for free
5111 culture that will be far more devastating than that this gnat will be lost.
5112 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2801595"></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>
5113 America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
5114 English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative
5115 property</span>»</span> rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English
5116 aim to avoid overly powerful publishers.
5117 </p><p>
5118 The power to establish <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> rights is granted to
5119 Congress in a way that, for our Constitution, at least, is very odd. Article
5120 I, section 8, clause 8 of our Constitution states that:
5121 </p><p>
5122
5123 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
5124 by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
5125 to their respective Writings and Discoveries.  We can call this the
5126 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Progress Clause,</span>»</span> for notice what this clause does not say. It
5127 does not say Congress has the power to grant <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property
5128 rights.</span>»</span> It says that Congress has the power <span class="emphasis"><em>to promote
5129 progress</em></span>. The grant of power is its purpose, and its purpose is a
5130 public one, not the purpose of enriching publishers, nor even primarily the
5131 purpose of rewarding authors.
5132 </p><p>
5133 The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw in
5134 chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">6</a>, the
5135 English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a few would not
5136 exercise disproportionate control over culture by exercising
5137 disproportionate control over publishing. We can assume the framers followed
5138 the English for a similar purpose. Indeed, unlike the English, the framers
5139 reinforced that objective, by requiring that copyrights extend <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to
5140 Authors</span>»</span> only.
5141 </p><p>
5142 The design of the Progress Clause reflects something about the
5143 Constitution's design in general. To avoid a problem, the framers built
5144 structure. To prevent the concentrated power of publishers, they built a
5145 structure that kept copyrights away from publishers and kept them short. To
5146 prevent the concentrated power of a church, they banned the federal
5147 government from establishing a church. To prevent concentrating power in the
5148 federal government, they built structures to reinforce the power of the
5149 states&#8212;including the Senate, whose members were at the time selected
5150 by the states, and an electoral college, also selected by the states, to
5151 select the president. In each case, a <span class="emphasis"><em>structure</em></span> built
5152 checks and balances into the constitutional frame, structured to prevent
5153 otherwise inevitable concentrations of power.
5154 </p><p>
5155 I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call
5156 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond
5157 anything they ever considered. To begin to understand what they did, we need
5158 to put our <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> in context: We need to see how it has
5159 changed in the 210 years since they first struck its design.
5160 </p><p>
5161
5162 Some of these changes come from the law: some in light of changes in
5163 technology, and some in light of changes in technology given a particular
5164 concentration of market power. In terms of our model, we started here:
5165 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1441"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.5. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="Copyright's regulation before the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5166 Vi kommer til å ende opp her:
5167 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1442"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.6. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Opphavsrett</span>»</span> i dag.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1442.png" alt="Opphavsrett i dag."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5168
5169 La meg forklare hvordan.
5170
5171 </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>
5172 When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it faced
5173 the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that the English
5174 had confronted in 1774. Many states had passed laws protecting creative
5175 property, and some believed that these laws simply supplemented common law
5176 rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="id2801776" href="#ftn.id2801776" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
5177 domain in the United States in 1790. If copyrights were protected by the
5178 common law, then there was no simple way to know whether a work published in
5179 the United States was controlled or free. Just as in England, this lingering
5180 uncertainty would make it hard for publishers to rely upon a public domain
5181 to reprint and distribute works.
5182 </p><p>
5183 That uncertainty ended after Congress passed legislation granting
5184 copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law, federal
5185 protections for copyrighted works displaced any state law protections.  Just
5186 as in England the Statute of Anne eventually meant that the copyrights for
5187 all English works expired, a federal statute meant that any state copyrights
5188 expired as well.
5189 </p><p>
5190 In 1790, Congress enacted the first copyright law. It created a federal
5191 copyright and secured that copyright for fourteen years. If the author was
5192 alive at the end of that fourteen years, then he could opt to renew the
5193 copyright for another fourteen years. If he did not renew the copyright, his
5194 work passed into the public domain.
5195 </p><p>
5196 Selv om det ble skapt mange verker i USA i de første 10 årene til
5197 republikken, så ble kun 5 prosent av verkene registrert under det føderale
5198 opphavsrettsregimet.  Av alle verker skapt i USA både før 1790 og fra 1790
5199 fram til 1800, så ble 95 prosent øyeblikkelig allemannseie (public
5200 domain). Resten ble allemannseie etter maksimalt 20 år, og som oftest etter
5201 14 år.<sup>[<a name="id2801844" href="#ftn.id2801844" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
5202 </p><p>
5203
5204 Dette fornyelsessystemet var en avgjørende del av det amerikanske systemet
5205 for opphavsrett.  Det sikret at maksimal vernetid i opphavsretten bare ble
5206 gitt til verker der det var ønsket. Etter den første perioden på fjorten år,
5207 hvis forfatteren ikke så verdien av å fornye sin opphavsrett, var det heller
5208 ikke verdt det for samfunnet å håndheve opphavsretten.
5209 </p><p>
5210 Fourteen years may not seem long to us, but for the vast majority of
5211 copyright owners at that time, it was long enough: Only a small minority of
5212 them renewed their copyright after fourteen years; the balance allowed their
5213 work to pass into the public domain.<sup>[<a name="id2801911" href="#ftn.id2801911" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
5214 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2801941"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2801952"></a><p>
5215 Even today, this structure would make sense. Most creative work has an
5216 actual commercial life of just a couple of years. Most books fall out of
5217 print after one year.<sup>[<a name="id2801969" href="#ftn.id2801969" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
5218 happens, the used books are traded free of copyright regulation. Thus the
5219 books are no longer <span class="emphasis"><em>effectively</em></span> controlled by
5220 copyright. The only practical commercial use of the books at that time is to
5221 sell the books as used books; that use&#8212;because it does not involve
5222 publication&#8212;is effectively free.
5223 </p><p>
5224 In the first hundred years of the Republic, the term of copyright was
5225 changed once. In 1831, the term was increased from a maximum of 28 years to
5226 a maximum of 42 by increasing the initial term of copyright from 14 years to
5227 28 years. In the next fifty years of the Republic, the term increased once
5228 again. In 1909, Congress extended the renewal term of 14 years to 28 years,
5229 setting a maximum term of 56 years.
5230 </p><p>
5231 Then, beginning in 1962, Congress started a practice that has defined
5232 copyright law since. Eleven times in the last forty years, Congress has
5233 extended the terms of existing copyrights; twice in those forty years,
5234 Congress extended the term of future copyrights. Initially, the extensions
5235 of existing copyrights were short, a mere one to two years.  In 1976,
5236 Congress extended all existing copyrights by nineteen years.  And in 1998,
5237 in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Congress extended the term
5238 of existing and future copyrights by twenty years.
5239 </p><p>
5240
5241 The effect of these extensions is simply to toll, or delay, the passing of
5242 works into the public domain. This latest extension means that the public
5243 domain will have been tolled for thirty-nine out of fifty-five years, or 70
5244 percent of the time since 1962. Thus, in the twenty years after the Sonny
5245 Bono Act, while one million patents will pass into the public domain, zero
5246 copyrights will pass into the public domain by virtue of the expiration of a
5247 copyright term.
5248 </p><p>
5249 The effect of these extensions has been exacerbated by another,
5250 little-noticed change in the copyright law. Remember I said that the framers
5251 established a two-part copyright regime, requiring a copyright owner to
5252 renew his copyright after an initial term. The requirement of renewal meant
5253 that works that no longer needed copyright protection would pass more
5254 quickly into the public domain. The works remaining under protection would
5255 be those that had some continuing commercial value.
5256 </p><p>
5257 The United States abandoned this sensible system in 1976. For all works
5258 created after 1978, there was only one copyright term&#8212;the maximum
5259 term. For <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natural</span>»</span> authors, that term was life plus fifty
5260 years. For corporations, the term was seventy-five years. Then, in 1992,
5261 Congress abandoned the renewal requirement for all works created before
5262 1978. All works still under copyright would be accorded the maximum term
5263 then available. After the Sonny Bono Act, that term was ninety-five years.
5264 </p><p>
5265 This change meant that American law no longer had an automatic way to assure
5266 that works that were no longer exploited passed into the public domain. And
5267 indeed, after these changes, it is unclear whether it is even possible to
5268 put works into the public domain. The public domain is orphaned by these
5269 changes in copyright law. Despite the requirement that terms be
5270 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited,</span>»</span> we have no evidence that anything will limit them.
5271 </p><p>
5272 The effect of these changes on the average duration of copyright is
5273 dramatic. In 1973, more than 85 percent of copyright owners failed to renew
5274 their copyright. That meant that the average term of copyright in 1973 was
5275 just 32.2 years. Because of the elimination of the renewal requirement, the
5276 average term of copyright is now the maximum term.  In thirty years, then,
5277 the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.<sup>[<a name="id2802078" href="#ftn.id2802078" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
5278 </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>
5279 The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">scope</span>»</span> of a copyright is the range of rights granted by
5280 the law.  The scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those
5281 changes are not necessarily bad. But we should understand the extent of the
5282 changes if we're to keep this debate in context.
5283 </p><p>
5284 In 1790, that scope was very narrow. Copyright covered only <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">maps,
5285 charts, and books.</span>»</span> That means it didn't cover, for example, music or
5286 architecture. More significantly, the right granted by a copyright gave the
5287 author the exclusive right to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">publish</span>»</span> copyrighted works. That
5288 means someone else violated the copyright only if he republished the work
5289 without the copyright owner's permission. Finally, the right granted by a
5290 copyright was an exclusive right to that particular book. The right did not
5291 extend to what lawyers call <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative works.</span>»</span> It would not,
5292 therefore, interfere with the right of someone other than the author to
5293 translate a copyrighted book, or to adapt the story to a different form
5294 (such as a drama based on a published book).
5295 </p><p>
5296 This, too, has changed dramatically. While the contours of copyright today
5297 are extremely hard to describe simply, in general terms, the right covers
5298 practically any creative work that is reduced to a tangible form. It covers
5299 music as well as architecture, drama as well as computer programs. It gives
5300 the copyright owner of that creative work not only the exclusive right to
5301 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">publish</span>»</span> the work, but also the exclusive right of control
5302 over any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span> of that work. And most significant for our
5303 purposes here, the right gives the copyright owner control over not only his
5304 or her particular work, but also any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative work</span>»</span> that
5305 might grow out of the original work. In this way, the right covers more
5306 creative work, protects the creative work more broadly, and protects works
5307 that are based in a significant way on the initial creative work.
5308 </p><p>
5309
5310 At the same time that the scope of copyright has expanded, procedural
5311 limitations on the right have been relaxed. I've already described the
5312 complete removal of the renewal requirement in 1992. In addition to the
5313 renewal requirement, for most of the history of American copyright law,
5314 there was a requirement that a work be registered before it could receive
5315 the protection of a copyright. There was also a requirement that any
5316 copyrighted work be marked either with that famous © or the word
5317 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>. And for most of the history of American
5318 copyright law, there was a requirement that works be deposited with the
5319 government before a copyright could be secured.
5320 </p><p>
5321 The reason for the registration requirement was the sensible understanding
5322 that for most works, no copyright was required. Again, in the first ten
5323 years of the Republic, 95 percent of works eligible for copyright were never
5324 copyrighted. Thus, the rule reflected the norm: Most works apparently didn't
5325 need copyright, so registration narrowed the regulation of the law to the
5326 few that did. The same reasoning justified the requirement that a work be
5327 marked as copyrighted&#8212;that way it was easy to know whether a copyright
5328 was being claimed. The requirement that works be deposited was to assure
5329 that after the copyright expired, there would be a copy of the work
5330 somewhere so that it could be copied by others without locating the original
5331 author.
5332 </p><p>
5333 All of these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">formalities</span>»</span> were abolished in the American
5334 system when we decided to follow European copyright law. There is no
5335 requirement that you register a work to get a copyright; the copyright now
5336 is automatic; the copyright exists whether or not you mark your work with a
5337 ©; and the copyright exists whether or not you actually make a copy
5338 available for others to copy.
5339 </p><p>
5340 Vurder et praktisk eksempel for å forstå omfanget av disse forskjellene.
5341 </p><p>
5342 If, in 1790, you wrote a book and you were one of the 5 percent who actually
5343 copyrighted that book, then the copyright law protected you against another
5344 publisher's taking your book and republishing it without your
5345 permission. The aim of the act was to regulate publishers so as to prevent
5346 that kind of unfair competition. In 1790, there were 174 publishers in the
5347 United States.<sup>[<a name="id2802230" href="#ftn.id2802230" class="footnote">130</a>]</sup> The Copyright Act was
5348 thus a tiny regulation of a tiny proportion of a tiny part of the creative
5349 market in the United States&#8212;publishers.
5350 </p><p>
5351
5352
5353 The act left other creators totally unregulated. If I copied your poem by
5354 hand, over and over again, as a way to learn it by heart, my act was totally
5355 unregulated by the 1790 act. If I took your novel and made a play based upon
5356 it, or if I translated it or abridged it, none of those activities were
5357 regulated by the original copyright act. These creative activities remained
5358 free, while the activities of publishers were restrained.
5359 </p><p>
5360 Today the story is very different: If you write a book, your book is
5361 automatically protected. Indeed, not just your book. Every e-mail, every
5362 note to your spouse, every doodle, <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> creative act
5363 that's reduced to a tangible form&#8212;all of this is automatically
5364 copyrighted.  There is no need to register or mark your work. The protection
5365 follows the creation, not the steps you take to protect it.
5366 </p><p>
5367 That protection gives you the right (subject to a narrow range of fair use
5368 exceptions) to control how others copy the work, whether they copy it to
5369 republish it or to share an excerpt.
5370 </p><p>
5371 That much is the obvious part. Any system of copyright would control
5372 competing publishing. But there's a second part to the copyright of today
5373 that is not at all obvious. This is the protection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative
5374 rights.</span>»</span> If you write a book, no one can make a movie out of your
5375 book without permission. No one can translate it without permission.
5376 CliffsNotes can't make an abridgment unless permission is granted. All of
5377 these derivative uses of your original work are controlled by the copyright
5378 holder. The copyright, in other words, is now not just an exclusive right to
5379 your writings, but an exclusive right to your writings and a large
5380 proportion of the writings inspired by them.
5381 </p><p>
5382 It is this derivative right that would seem most bizarre to our framers,
5383 though it has become second nature to us. Initially, this expansion was
5384 created to deal with obvious evasions of a narrower copyright.  If I write a
5385 book, can you change one word and then claim a copyright in a new and
5386 different book? Obviously that would make a joke of the copyright, so the
5387 law was properly expanded to include those slight modifications as well as
5388 the verbatim original work.
5389 </p><p>
5390
5391 In preventing that joke, the law created an astonishing power within a free
5392 culture&#8212;at least, it's astonishing when you understand that the law
5393 applies not just to the commercial publisher but to anyone with a
5394 computer. I understand the wrong in duplicating and selling someone else's
5395 work. But whatever <span class="emphasis"><em>that</em></span> wrong is, transforming someone
5396 else's work is a different wrong. Some view transformation as no wrong at
5397 all&#8212;they believe that our law, as the framers penned it, should not
5398 protect derivative rights at all.<sup>[<a name="id2802318" href="#ftn.id2802318" class="footnote">131</a>]</sup>
5399 Whether or not you go that far, it seems plain that whatever wrong is
5400 involved is fundamentally different from the wrong of direct piracy.
5401 </p><p>
5402 Yet copyright law treats these two different wrongs in the same way. I can
5403 go to court and get an injunction against your pirating my book. I can go to
5404 court and get an injunction against your transformative use of my
5405 book.<sup>[<a name="id2802366" href="#ftn.id2802366" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
5406 creative work are treated the same.
5407 </p><p>
5408 This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should you be
5409 able to write a movie that takes my story and makes money from it without
5410 paying me or crediting me? Or if Disney creates a creature called
5411 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mickey Mouse,</span>»</span> why should you be able to make Mickey Mouse
5412 toys and be the one to trade on the value that Disney originally created?
5413 </p><p>
5414 These are good arguments, and, in general, my point is not that the
5415 derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower: simply to
5416 make clear that this expansion is a significant change from the rights
5417 originally granted.
5418 </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>
5419 Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
5420 copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users, and
5421 authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making copies,
5422 and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id2802433" href="#ftn.id2802433" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
5423 </p><p>
5424
5425
5426 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copies.</span>»</span> That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for
5427 <span class="emphasis"><em>copy</em></span>right law to regulate. But as with Jack Valenti's
5428 argument at the start of this chapter, that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span>
5429 deserves the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">same rights</span>»</span> as all other property, it is the
5430 <span class="emphasis"><em>obvious</em></span> that we need to be most careful about. For
5431 while it may be obvious that in the world before the Internet, copies were
5432 the obvious trigger for copyright law, upon reflection, it should be obvious
5433 that in the world with the Internet, copies should <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span>
5434 be the trigger for copyright law. More precisely, they should not
5435 <span class="emphasis"><em>always</em></span> be the trigger for copyright law.
5436 </p><p>
5437 This is perhaps the central claim of this book, so let me take this very
5438 slowly so that the point is not easily missed. My claim is that the Internet
5439 should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which the law of
5440 copyright automatically applies,<sup>[<a name="id2802511" href="#ftn.id2802511" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
5441 because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never
5442 contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright
5443 law.
5444 </p><p>
5445 We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely empty
5446 circle.
5447 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1521"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.7. Alle potensielle bruk av en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1521.png" alt="Alle potensielle bruk av en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksusetypes"></a><p>
5448
5449
5450 Think about a book in real space, and imagine this circle to represent all
5451 its potential <span class="emphasis"><em>uses</em></span>. Most of these uses are unregulated
5452 by copyright law, because the uses don't create a copy. If you read a book,
5453 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you give someone the book,
5454 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you resell a book, that act
5455 is not regulated (copyright law expressly states that after the first sale
5456 of a book, the copyright owner can impose no further conditions on the
5457 disposition of the book). If you sleep on the book or use it to hold up a
5458 lamp or let your puppy chew it up, those acts are not regulated by copyright
5459 law, because those acts do not make a copy.
5460 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1531"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.8. Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1531.png" alt="Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5461 Obviously, however, some uses of a copyrighted book are regulated by
5462 copyright law. Republishing the book, for example, makes a copy. It is
5463 therefore regulated by copyright law. Indeed, this particular use stands at
5464 the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work. It is the
5465 paradigmatic use properly regulated by copyright regulation (see first
5466 diagram on next page).
5467 </p><p>
5468 Til slutt er det en tynn skive av ellers regulert kopierings-bruk som
5469 forblir uregluert på grunn av at loven anser dette som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
5470 bruk</span>»</span>.
5471 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1541"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.9. Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a
5472 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>
5473 These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law treats as
5474 unregulated because public policy demands that they remain unregulated.  You
5475 are free to quote from this book, even in a review that is quite negative,
5476 without my permission, even though that quoting makes a copy. That copy
5477 would ordinarily give the copyright owner the exclusive right to say whether
5478 the copy is allowed or not, but the law denies the owner any exclusive right
5479 over such <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair uses</span>»</span> for public policy (and possibly First
5480 Amendment) reasons.
5481 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1542"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.10. Uregulert kopiering anses som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1542.png" alt="Uregulert kopiering anses som rimelig bruk."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p> </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1551"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.11. Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
5482 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>
5483
5484
5485 In real space, then, the possible uses of a book are divided into three
5486 sorts: (1) unregulated uses, (2) regulated uses, and (3) regulated uses that
5487 are nonetheless deemed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair</span>»</span> regardless of the copyright
5488 owner's views.
5489 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2802696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2802704"></a><p>
5490 Enter the Internet&#8212;a distributed, digital network where every use of a
5491 copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id2802442" href="#ftn.id2802442" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
5492 because of this single, arbitrary feature of the design of a digital
5493 network, the scope of category 1 changes dramatically. Uses that before were
5494 presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated. No longer is
5495 there a set of presumptively unregulated uses that define a freedom
5496 associated with a copyrighted work. Instead, each use is now subject to the
5497 copyright, because each use also makes a copy&#8212;category 1 gets sucked
5498 into category 2. And those who would defend the unregulated uses of
5499 copyrighted work must look exclusively to category 3, fair uses, to bear the
5500 burden of this shift.
5501 </p><p>
5502
5503 So let's be very specific to make this general point clear. Before the
5504 Internet, if you purchased a book and read it ten times, there would be no
5505 plausible <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>-related argument that the copyright
5506 owner could make to control that use of her book. Copyright law would have
5507 nothing to say about whether you read the book once, ten times, or every
5508 night before you went to bed. None of those instances of
5509 use&#8212;reading&#8212; could be regulated by copyright law because none of
5510 those uses produced a copy.
5511 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2802758"></a><p>
5512 But the same book as an e-book is effectively governed by a different set of
5513 rules. Now if the copyright owner says you may read the book only once or
5514 only once a month, then <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright law</em></span> would aid the
5515 copyright owner in exercising this degree of control, because of the
5516 accidental feature of copyright law that triggers its application upon there
5517 being a copy. Now if you read the book ten times and the license says you
5518 may read it only five times, then whenever you read the book (or any portion
5519 of it) beyond the fifth time, you are making a copy of the book contrary to
5520 the copyright owner's wish.
5521 </p><p>
5522 There are some people who think this makes perfect sense. My aim just now is
5523 not to argue about whether it makes sense or not. My aim is only to make
5524 clear the change. Once you see this point, a few other points also become
5525 clear:
5526 </p><p>
5527 First, making category 1 disappear is not anything any policy maker ever
5528 intended. Congress did not think through the collapse of the presumptively
5529 unregulated uses of copyrighted works. There is no evidence at all that
5530 policy makers had this idea in mind when they allowed our policy here to
5531 shift. Unregulated uses were an important part of free culture before the
5532 Internet.
5533 </p><p>
5534 Second, this shift is especially troubling in the context of transformative
5535 uses of creative content. Again, we can all understand the wrong in
5536 commercial piracy. But the law now purports to regulate
5537 <span class="emphasis"><em>any</em></span> transformation you make of creative work using a
5538 machine. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copy and paste</span>»</span> and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>»</span>
5539 become crimes. Tinkering with a story and releasing it to others exposes the
5540 tinkerer to at least a requirement of justification.  However troubling the
5541 expansion with respect to copying a particular work, it is extraordinarily
5542 troubling with respect to transformative uses of creative work.
5543 </p><p>
5544
5545 Third, this shift from category 1 to category 2 puts an extraordinary burden
5546 on category 3 (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>) that fair use never before had to
5547 bear.  If a copyright owner now tried to control how many times I could read
5548 a book on-line, the natural response would be to argue that this is a
5549 violation of my fair use rights. But there has never been any litigation
5550 about whether I have a fair use right to read, because before the Internet,
5551 reading did not trigger the application of copyright law and hence the need
5552 for a fair use defense. The right to read was effectively protected before
5553 because reading was not regulated.
5554 </p><p>
5555 This point about fair use is totally ignored, even by advocates for free
5556 culture. We have been cornered into arguing that our rights depend upon fair
5557 use&#8212;never even addressing the earlier question about the expansion in
5558 effective regulation. A thin protection grounded in fair use makes sense
5559 when the vast majority of uses are <span class="emphasis"><em>unregulated</em></span>. But
5560 when everything becomes presumptively regulated, then the protections of
5561 fair use are not enough.
5562 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising2"></a><p>
5563 The case of Video Pipeline is a good example. Video Pipeline was in the
5564 business of making <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trailer</span>»</span> advertisements for movies
5565 available to video stores. The video stores displayed the trailers as a way
5566 to sell videos. Video Pipeline got the trailers from the film distributors,
5567 put the trailers on tape, and sold the tapes to the retail stores.
5568 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2802890"></a><p>
5569 The company did this for about fifteen years. Then, in 1997, it began to
5570 think about the Internet as another way to distribute these previews.  The
5571 idea was to expand their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">selling by sampling</span>»</span> technique by
5572 giving on-line stores the same ability to enable <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">browsing.</span>»</span>
5573 Just as in a bookstore you can read a few pages of a book before you buy the
5574 book, so, too, you would be able to sample a bit from the movie on-line
5575 before you bought it.
5576 </p><p>
5577
5578 In 1998, Video Pipeline informed Disney and other film distributors that it
5579 intended to distribute the trailers through the Internet (rather than
5580 sending the tapes) to distributors of their videos. Two years later, Disney
5581 told Video Pipeline to stop. The owner of Video Pipeline asked Disney to
5582 talk about the matter&#8212;he had built a business on distributing this
5583 content as a way to help sell Disney films; he had customers who depended
5584 upon his delivering this content. Disney would agree to talk only if Video
5585 Pipeline stopped the distribution immediately.  Video Pipeline thought it
5586 was within their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> rights to distribute the clips as
5587 they had. So they filed a lawsuit to ask the court to declare that these
5588 rights were in fact their rights.
5589 </p><p>
5590 Disney countersued&#8212;for $100 million in damages. Those damages were
5591 predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">willfully
5592 infringed</span>»</span> on Disney's copyright. When a court makes a finding of
5593 willful infringement, it can award damages not on the basis of the actual
5594 harm to the copyright owner, but on the basis of an amount set in the
5595 statute. Because Video Pipeline had distributed seven hundred clips of
5596 Disney movies to enable video stores to sell copies of those movies, Disney
5597 was now suing Video Pipeline for $100 million.
5598 </p><p>
5599 Disney has the right to control its property, of course. But the video
5600 stores that were selling Disney's films also had some sort of right to be
5601 able to sell the films that they had bought from Disney. Disney's claim in
5602 court was that the stores were allowed to sell the films and they were
5603 permitted to list the titles of the films they were selling, but they were
5604 not allowed to show clips of the films as a way of selling them without
5605 Disney's permission.
5606 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2802962"></a><p>
5607 Now, you might think this is a close case, and I think the courts would
5608 consider it a close case. My point here is to map the change that gives
5609 Disney this power. Before the Internet, Disney couldn't really control how
5610 people got access to their content. Once a video was in the marketplace, the
5611 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">first-sale doctrine</span>»</span> would free the seller to use the video as
5612 he wished, including showing portions of it in order to engender sales of
5613 the entire movie video. But with the Internet, it becomes possible for
5614 Disney to centralize control over access to this content. Because each use
5615 of the Internet produces a copy, use on the Internet becomes subject to the
5616 copyright owner's control. The technology expands the scope of effective
5617 control, because the technology builds a copy into every transaction.
5618 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2802989"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2802996"></a><p>
5619
5620
5621 No doubt, a potential is not yet an abuse, and so the potential for control
5622 is not yet the abuse of control. Barnes &amp; Noble has the right to say you
5623 can't touch a book in their store; property law gives them that right.  But
5624 the market effectively protects against that abuse. If Barnes &amp; Noble
5625 banned browsing, then consumers would choose other bookstores.  Competition
5626 protects against the extremes. And it may well be (my argument so far does
5627 not even question this) that competition would prevent any similar danger
5628 when it comes to copyright. Sure, publishers exercising the rights that
5629 authors have assigned to them might try to regulate how many times you read
5630 a book, or try to stop you from sharing the book with anyone. But in a
5631 competitive market such as the book market, the dangers of this happening
5632 are quite slight.
5633 </p><p>
5634 Again, my aim so far is simply to map the changes that this changed
5635 architecture enables. Enabling technology to enforce the control of
5636 copyright means that the control of copyright is no longer defined by
5637 balanced policy. The control of copyright is simply what private owners
5638 choose. In some contexts, at least, that fact is harmless. But in some
5639 contexts it is a recipe for disaster.
5640 </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>
5641 The disappearance of unregulated uses would be change enough, but a second
5642 important change brought about by the Internet magnifies its
5643 significance. This second change does not affect the reach of copyright
5644 regulation; it affects how such regulation is enforced.
5645 </p><p>
5646 In the world before digital technology, it was generally the law that
5647 controlled whether and how someone was regulated by copyright law.  The law,
5648 meaning a court, meaning a judge: In the end, it was a human, trained in the
5649 tradition of the law and cognizant of the balances that tradition embraced,
5650 who said whether and how the law would restrict your freedom.
5651 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2803088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
5652 Det er en berømt historie om en kamp mellom Marx-brødrene (the Marx
5653 Brothers) og Warner Brothers.  Marx-brødrene planla å lage en parodi av
5654 <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>. Warner Brothers protesterte.  De skrev et
5655 ufint brev til Marx-brødrene og advarte dem om at det ville få seriøse
5656 juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.<sup>[<a name="id2803135" href="#ftn.id2803135" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
5657 </p><p>
5658 Dette fikk Marx-brødrene til å svare tilbake med samme mynt.  De advarte
5659 Warner Brothers om at Marx-brødrene <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var brødre lenge før dere var
5660 det</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2803162" href="#ftn.id2803162" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> Marx-brødrene eide derfor
5661 ordet <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>, og hvis Warner Brothers insisterte på
5662 å forsøke å kontrollere <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>, så ville
5663 Marx-brødrene insistere på kontroll over <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>.
5664 </p><p>
5665 Det var en absurd og hul trussel, selvfølgelig, fordi Warner Brothers, på
5666 samme måte som Marx-brødrene, visste at ingen domstol noensinne ville
5667 håndheve et slikt dumt krav. Denne ekstremismen var irrelevant for de ekte
5668 friheter som alle (inkludert Warner Brothers) nøt godt av.
5669 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksoninternet"></a><p>
5670 On the Internet, however, there is no check on silly rules, because on the
5671 Internet, increasingly, rules are enforced not by a human but by a machine:
5672 Increasingly, the rules of copyright law, as interpreted by the copyright
5673 owner, get built into the technology that delivers copyrighted content. It
5674 is code, rather than law, that rules. And the problem with code regulations
5675 is that, unlike law, code has no shame. Code would not get the humor of the
5676 Marx Brothers. The consequence of that is not at all funny.
5677 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2803236"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2803244"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
5678 La oss se på livet til min Adobe eBook Reader.
5679 </p><p>
5680 En ebok er en bok levert i elektronisk form.  En Adobe eBook er ikke en bok
5681 som Adobe har publisert.  Adobe produserer kun programvaren som utgivere
5682 bruker å levere e-bøker.  Den bidrar med teknologien, og utgiveren leverer
5683 innholdet ved hjelp av teknologien.
5684 </p><p>
5685 On the next page is a picture of an old version of my Adobe eBook Reader.
5686 </p><p>
5687
5688 As you can see, I have a small collection of e-books within this e-book
5689 library. Some of these books reproduce content that is in the public domain:
5690 <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, for example, is in the public domain.
5691 Some of them reproduce content that is not in the public domain: My own book
5692 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> is not yet within the public
5693 domain.  Consider <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> first. If you click on
5694 my e-book copy of <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, you'll see a fancy
5695 cover, and then a button at the bottom called Permissions.
5696 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1611"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.12. Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1611.png" alt="Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5697 If you click on the Permissions button, you'll see a list of the permissions
5698 that the publisher purports to grant with this book.
5699 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1612"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.13. List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1612.png" alt="List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5700
5701
5702 According to my eBook Reader, I have the permission to copy to the clipboard
5703 of the computer ten text selections every ten days. (So far, I've copied no
5704 text to the clipboard.)  I also have the permission to print ten pages from
5705 the book every ten days. Lastly, I have the permission to use the Read Aloud
5706 button to hear <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> read aloud through the
5707 computer.
5708 </p><p>
5709 Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen):
5710 Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em>  <a class="indexterm" name="id2803369"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2803375"></a>
5711 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.14. E-bok av Aristoteles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Politikk</span>»</span></b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1621.png" alt="E-bok av Aristoteles Politikk"></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5712 According to its permissions, no printing or copying is permitted at
5713 all. But fortunately, you can use the Read Aloud button to hear the book.
5714 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1622"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.15. Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1622.png" alt='Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".'></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5715 Finally (and most embarrassingly), here are the permissions for the original
5716 e-book version of my last book, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>:
5717 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1631"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.16. Liste med tillatelser for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Future of Ideas</span>»</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1631.png" alt="Liste med tillatelser for The Future of Ideas."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5718 Ingen kopiering, ingen utskrift, og våg ikke å prøve å lytte til denne
5719 boken!
5720 </p><p>
5721 Now, the Adobe eBook Reader calls these controls
5722 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span>&#8212; as if the publisher has the power to
5723 control how you use these works.  For works under copyright, the copyright
5724 owner certainly does have the power&#8212;up to the limits of the copyright
5725 law. But for work not under copyright, there is no such copyright
5726 power.<sup>[<a name="id2803459" href="#ftn.id2803459" class="footnote">138</a>]</sup> When my e-book of
5727 <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> says I have the permission to copy only
5728 ten text selections into the memory every ten days, what that really means
5729 is that the eBook Reader has enabled the publisher to control how I use the
5730 book on my computer, far beyond the control that the law would enable.
5731 </p><p>
5732 The control comes instead from the code&#8212;from the technology within
5733 which the e-book <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lives.</span>»</span> Though the e-book says that these are
5734 permissions, they are not the sort of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span> that most
5735 of us deal with. When a teenager gets <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permission</span>»</span> to stay out
5736 till midnight, she knows (unless she's Cinderella) that she can stay out
5737 till 2 A.M., but will suffer a punishment if she's caught. But when the
5738 Adobe eBook Reader says I have the permission to make ten copies of the text
5739 into the computer's memory, that means that after I've made ten copies, the
5740 computer will not make any more. The same with the printing restrictions:
5741 After ten pages, the eBook Reader will not print any more pages.  It's the
5742 same with the silly restriction that says that you can't use the Read Aloud
5743 button to read my book aloud&#8212;it's not that the company will sue you if
5744 you do; instead, if you push the Read Aloud button with my book, the machine
5745 simply won't read aloud.
5746 </p><p>
5747
5748 These are <span class="emphasis"><em>controls</em></span>, not permissions. Imagine a world
5749 where the Marx Brothers sold word processing software that, when you tried
5750 to type <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Warner Brothers,</span>»</span> erased <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Brothers</span>»</span> from
5751 the sentence.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2803533"></a>
5752 </p><p>
5753 This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright
5754 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> as copyright <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span>. The
5755 controls over access to content will not be controls that are ratified by
5756 courts; the controls over access to content will be controls that are coded
5757 by programmers. And whereas the controls that are built into the law are
5758 always to be checked by a judge, the controls that are built into the
5759 technology have no similar built-in check.
5760 </p><p>
5761 How significant is this? Isn't it always possible to get around the controls
5762 built into the technology? Software used to be sold with technologies that
5763 limited the ability of users to copy the software, but those were trivial
5764 protections to defeat. Why won't it be trivial to defeat these protections
5765 as well?
5766 </p><p>
5767 We've only scratched the surface of this story. Return to the Adobe eBook
5768 Reader.
5769 </p><p>
5770 Early in the life of the Adobe eBook Reader, Adobe suffered a public
5771 relations nightmare. Among the books that you could download for free on the
5772 Adobe site was a copy of <em class="citetitle">Alice's Adventures in
5773 Wonderland</em>.  This wonderful book is in the public domain. Yet
5774 when you clicked on Permissions for that book, you got the following report:
5775 <a class="indexterm" name="id2803583"></a>
5776 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1641"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.17. Liste med tillatelser for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alice i Eventyrland</span>»</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1641.png" alt="Liste med tillatelser for Alice i Eventyrland."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5777 Here was a public domain children's book that you were not allowed to copy,
5778 not allowed to lend, not allowed to give, and, as the
5779 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span> indicated, not allowed to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">read
5780 aloud</span>»</span>!
5781 </p><p>
5782 The public relations nightmare attached to that final permission.  For the
5783 text did not say that you were not permitted to use the Read Aloud button;
5784 it said you did not have the permission to read the book aloud. That led
5785 some people to think that Adobe was restricting the right of parents, for
5786 example, to read the book to their children, which seemed, to say the least,
5787 absurd.
5788 </p><p>
5789 Adobe responded quickly that it was absurd to think that it was trying to
5790 restrict the right to read a book aloud. Obviously it was only restricting
5791 the ability to use the Read Aloud button to have the book read aloud. But
5792 the question Adobe never did answer is this: Would Adobe thus agree that a
5793 consumer was free to use software to hack around the restrictions built into
5794 the eBook Reader? If some company (call it Elcomsoft) developed a program to
5795 disable the technological protection built into an Adobe eBook so that a
5796 blind person, say, could use a computer to read the book aloud, would Adobe
5797 agree that such a use of an eBook Reader was fair? Adobe didn't answer
5798 because the answer, however absurd it might seem, is no.
5799 </p><p>
5800 The point is not to blame Adobe. Indeed, Adobe is among the most innovative
5801 companies developing strategies to balance open access to content with
5802 incentives for companies to innovate. But Adobe's technology enables
5803 control, and Adobe has an incentive to defend this control.  That incentive
5804 is understandable, yet what it creates is often crazy.
5805 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2803657"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2803665"></a><p>
5806 To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite story
5807 of mine that makes the same point.
5808 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo1"></a><p>
5809 Consider the robotic dog made by Sony named <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Aibo.</span>»</span> The Aibo
5810 learns tricks, cuddles, and follows you around. It eats only electricity and
5811 that doesn't leave that much of a mess (at least in your house).
5812 </p><p>
5813 The Aibo is expensive and popular. Fans from around the world have set up
5814 clubs to trade stories. One fan in particular set up a Web site to enable
5815 information about the Aibo dog to be shared. This fan set
5816
5817 up aibopet.com (and aibohack.com, but that resolves to the same site), and
5818 on that site he provided information about how to teach an Aibo to do tricks
5819 in addition to the ones Sony had taught it.
5820 </p><p>
5821 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Teach</span>»</span> here has a special meaning. Aibos are just cute
5822 computers.  You teach a computer how to do something by programming it
5823 differently.  So to say that aibopet.com was giving information about how to
5824 teach the dog to do new tricks is just to say that aibopet.com was giving
5825 information to users of the Aibo pet about how to hack their computer
5826 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">dog</span>»</span> to make it do new tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
5827 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2803760"></a><p>
5828 If you're not a programmer or don't know many programmers, the word
5829 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> has a particularly unfriendly
5830 connotation. Nonprogrammers hack bushes or weeds. Nonprogrammers in horror
5831 movies do even worse. But to programmers, or coders, as I call them,
5832 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> is a much more positive
5833 term. <em class="citetitle">Hack</em> just means code that enables the program
5834 to do something it wasn't originally intended or enabled to do. If you buy a
5835 new printer for an old computer, you might find the old computer doesn't
5836 run, or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">drive,</span>»</span> the printer. If you discovered that, you'd
5837 later be happy to discover a hack on the Net by someone who has written a
5838 driver to enable the computer to drive the printer you just bought.
5839 </p><p>
5840 Some hacks are easy. Some are unbelievably hard. Hackers as a community like
5841 to challenge themselves and others with increasingly difficult
5842 tasks. There's a certain respect that goes with the talent to hack
5843 well. There's a well-deserved respect that goes with the talent to hack
5844 ethically.
5845 </p><p>
5846 The Aibo fan was displaying a bit of both when he hacked the program and
5847 offered to the world a bit of code that would enable the Aibo to dance
5848 jazz. The dog wasn't programmed to dance jazz. It was a clever bit of
5849 tinkering that turned the dog into a more talented creature than Sony had
5850 built.
5851 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2803810"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2803818"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2803826"></a><p>
5852
5853 I've told this story in many contexts, both inside and outside the United
5854 States. Once I was asked by a puzzled member of the audience, is it
5855 permissible for a dog to dance jazz in the United States? We forget that
5856 stories about the backcountry still flow across much of the world. So let's
5857 just be clear before we continue: It's not a crime anywhere (anymore) to
5858 dance jazz. Nor is it a crime to teach your dog to dance jazz. Nor should it
5859 be a crime (though we don't have a lot to go on here) to teach your robot
5860 dog to dance jazz. Dancing jazz is a completely legal activity. One imagines
5861 that the owner of aibopet.com thought, <span class="emphasis"><em>What possible problem could
5862 there be with teaching a robot dog to dance?</em></span>
5863 </p><p>
5864 Let's put the dog to sleep for a minute, and turn to a pony show&#8212; not
5865 literally a pony show, but rather a paper that a Princeton academic named Ed
5866 Felten prepared for a conference. This Princeton academic is well known and
5867 respected. He was hired by the government in the Microsoft case to test
5868 Microsoft's claims about what could and could not be done with its own
5869 code. In that trial, he demonstrated both his brilliance and his
5870 coolness. Under heavy badgering by Microsoft lawyers, Ed Felten stood his
5871 ground. He was not about to be bullied into being silent about something he
5872 knew very well.
5873 </p><p>
5874 But Felten's bravery was really tested in April 2001.<sup>[<a name="id2803872" href="#ftn.id2803872" class="footnote">139</a>]</sup> He and a group of colleagues were working on a
5875 paper to be submitted at conference.  The paper was intended to describe the
5876 weakness in an encryption system being developed by the Secure Digital Music
5877 Initiative as a technique to control the distribution of music.
5878 </p><p>
5879 The SDMI coalition had as its goal a technology to enable content owners to
5880 exercise much better control over their content than the Internet, as it
5881 originally stood, granted them. Using encryption, SDMI hoped to develop a
5882 standard that would allow the content owner to say <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">this music cannot
5883 be copied,</span>»</span> and have a computer respect that command.  The technology
5884 was to be part of a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trusted system</span>»</span> of control that would get
5885 content owners to trust the system of the Internet much more.
5886 </p><p>
5887 When SDMI thought it was close to a standard, it set up a competition.  In
5888 exchange for providing contestants with the code to an SDMI-encrypted bit of
5889 content, contestants were to try to crack it and, if they did, report the
5890 problems to the consortium.
5891 </p><p>
5892
5893
5894 Felten and his team figured out the encryption system quickly. He and the
5895 team saw the weakness of this system as a type: Many encryption systems
5896 would suffer the same weakness, and Felten and his team thought it
5897 worthwhile to point this out to those who study encryption.
5898 </p><p>
5899 Let's review just what Felten was doing. Again, this is the United
5900 States. We have a principle of free speech. We have this principle not just
5901 because it is the law, but also because it is a really great idea. A
5902 strongly protected tradition of free speech is likely to encourage a wide
5903 range of criticism. That criticism is likely, in turn, to improve the
5904 systems or people or ideas criticized.
5905 </p><p>
5906 What Felten and his colleagues were doing was publishing a paper describing
5907 the weakness in a technology. They were not spreading free music, or
5908 building and deploying this technology. The paper was an academic essay,
5909 unintelligible to most people. But it clearly showed the weakness in the
5910 SDMI system, and why SDMI would not, as presently constituted, succeed.
5911 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo2"></a><p>
5912 What links these two, aibopet.com and Felten, is the letters they then
5913 received. Aibopet.com received a letter from Sony about the aibopet.com
5914 hack. Though a jazz-dancing dog is perfectly legal, Sony wrote:
5915 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5916 Your site contains information providing the means to circumvent AIBO-ware's
5917 copy protection protocol constituting a violation of the anti-circumvention
5918 provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
5919 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2804055"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2804063"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2804072"></a><p>
5920 And though an academic paper describing the weakness in a system of
5921 encryption should also be perfectly legal, Felten received a letter from an
5922 RIAA lawyer that read:
5923 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5924
5925 Any disclosure of information gained from participating in the Public
5926 Challenge would be outside the scope of activities permitted by the
5927 Agreement and could subject you and your research team to actions under the
5928 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">DMCA</span>»</span>).
5929 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5930 In both cases, this weirdly Orwellian law was invoked to control the spread
5931 of information. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act made spreading such
5932 information an offense.
5933 </p><p>
5934 The DMCA was enacted as a response to copyright owners' first fear about
5935 cyberspace. The fear was that copyright control was effectively dead; the
5936 response was to find technologies that might compensate.  These new
5937 technologies would be copyright protection technologies&#8212; technologies
5938 to control the replication and distribution of copyrighted material. They
5939 were designed as <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> to modify the original
5940 <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> of the Internet, to reestablish some protection
5941 for copyright owners.
5942 </p><p>
5943 The DMCA was a bit of law intended to back up the protection of this code
5944 designed to protect copyrighted material. It was, we could say,
5945 <span class="emphasis"><em>legal code</em></span> intended to buttress <span class="emphasis"><em>software
5946 code</em></span> which itself was intended to support the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal
5947 code of copyright</em></span>.
5948 </p><p>
5949 But the DMCA was not designed merely to protect copyrighted works to the
5950 extent copyright law protected them. Its protection, that is, did not end at
5951 the line that copyright law drew. The DMCA regulated devices that were
5952 designed to circumvent copyright protection measures. It was designed to ban
5953 those devices, whether or not the use of the copyrighted material made
5954 possible by that circumvention would have been a copyright violation.
5955 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2804152"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2804159"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2804165"></a><p>
5956
5957 Aibopet.com and Felten make the point. The Aibo hack circumvented a
5958 copyright protection system for the purpose of enabling the dog to dance
5959 jazz. That enablement no doubt involved the use of copyrighted material. But
5960 as aibopet.com's site was noncommercial, and the use did not enable
5961 subsequent copyright infringements, there's no doubt that aibopet.com's hack
5962 was fair use of Sony's copyrighted material. Yet fair use is not a defense
5963 to the DMCA. The question is not whether the use of the copyrighted material
5964 was a copyright violation. The question is whether a copyright protection
5965 system was circumvented.
5966 </p><p>
5967 The threat against Felten was more attenuated, but it followed the same line
5968 of reasoning. By publishing a paper describing how a copyright protection
5969 system could be circumvented, the RIAA lawyer suggested, Felten himself was
5970 distributing a circumvention technology.  Thus, even though he was not
5971 himself infringing anyone's copyright, his academic paper was enabling
5972 others to infringe others' copyright.
5973 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2804202"></a><p>
5974 The bizarreness of these arguments is captured in a cartoon drawn in 1981 by
5975 Paul Conrad. At that time, a court in California had held that the VCR could
5976 be banned because it was a copyright-infringing technology: It enabled
5977 consumers to copy films without the permission of the copyright owner. No
5978 doubt there were uses of the technology that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka
5979 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>,</span>»</span> for example, had testified
5980 in that case that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers'
5981 Neighborhood.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2804225"></a>
5982 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5983 Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
5984 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> at hours when some children cannot use it. I
5985 think that it's a real service to families to be able to record such
5986 programs and show them at appropriate times. I have always felt that with
5987 the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the
5988 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> off-the-air, and I'm speaking for the
5989 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> because that's what I produce, that they then
5990 become much more active in the programming of their family's television
5991 life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My
5992 whole approach in broadcasting has always been <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You are an important
5993 person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.</span>»</span> Maybe
5994 I'm going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to
5995 be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is
5996 important.<sup>[<a name="id2804264" href="#ftn.id2804264" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
5997 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5998
5999
6000 Even though there were uses that were legal, because there were some uses
6001 that were illegal, the court held the companies producing the VCR
6002 responsible.
6003 </p><p>
6004 This led Conrad to draw the cartoon below, which we can adopt to the DMCA.
6005 <a class="indexterm" name="id2804305"></a>
6006 </p><p>
6007 No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
6008 </p><p>
6009 The anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA target copyright circumvention
6010 technologies. Circumvention technologies can be used for different
6011 ends. They can be used, for example, to enable massive pirating of
6012 copyrighted material&#8212;a bad end. Or they can be used to enable the use
6013 of particular copyrighted materials in ways that would be considered fair
6014 use&#8212;a good end.
6015 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxhandguns"></a><p>
6016
6017 A handgun can be used to shoot a police officer or a child. Most would agree
6018 such a use is bad. Or a handgun can be used for target practice or to
6019 protect against an intruder. At least some would say that such a use would
6020 be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good and bad uses.
6021 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1711"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1711.png" alt="VCR/handgun cartoon."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="id2804363"></a><p>
6022 The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world where guns
6023 are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and circumvention
6024 technologies) are illegal. Flash: <span class="emphasis"><em>No one ever died from copyright
6025 circumvention</em></span>. Yet the law bans circumvention technologies
6026 absolutely, despite the potential that they might do some good, but permits
6027 guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do.
6028 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2804383"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2804391"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2804398"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2804404"></a><p>
6029 The Aibo and RIAA examples demonstrate how copyright owners are changing the
6030 balance that copyright law grants. Using code, copyright owners restrict
6031 fair use; using the DMCA, they punish those who would attempt to evade the
6032 restrictions on fair use that they impose through code. Technology becomes a
6033 means by which fair use can be erased; the law of the DMCA backs up that
6034 erasing.
6035 </p><p>
6036 This is how <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> becomes <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span>. The
6037 controls built into the technology of copy and access protection become
6038 rules the violation of which is also a violation of the law. In this way,
6039 the code extends the law&#8212;increasing its regulation, even if the
6040 subject it regulates (activities that would otherwise plainly constitute
6041 fair use) is beyond the reach of the law. Code becomes law; code extends the
6042 law; code thus extends the control that copyright owners effect&#8212;at
6043 least for those copyright holders with the lawyers who can write the nasty
6044 letters that Felten and aibopet.com received.
6045 </p><p>
6046 There is one final aspect of the interaction between architecture and law
6047 that contributes to the force of copyright's regulation. This is the ease
6048 with which infringements of the law can be detected. For contrary to the
6049 rhetoric common at the birth of cyberspace that on the Internet, no one
6050 knows you're a dog, increasingly, given changing technologies deployed on
6051 the Internet, it is easy to find the dog who committed a legal wrong. The
6052 technologies of the Internet are open to snoops as well as sharers, and the
6053 snoops are increasingly good at tracking down the identity of those who
6054 violate the rules.
6055 </p><p>
6056
6057
6058 For example, imagine you were part of a <em class="citetitle">Star Trek</em> fan
6059 club. You gathered every month to share trivia, and maybe to enact a kind of
6060 fan fiction about the show. One person would play Spock, another, Captain
6061 Kirk. The characters would begin with a plot from a real story, then simply
6062 continue it.<sup>[<a name="id2804468" href="#ftn.id2804468" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
6063 </p><p>
6064 Before the Internet, this was, in effect, a totally unregulated activity.
6065 No matter what happened inside your club room, you would never be interfered
6066 with by the copyright police. You were free in that space to do as you
6067 wished with this part of our culture. You were allowed to build on it as you
6068 wished without fear of legal control.
6069 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2804496"></a><p>
6070 But if you moved your club onto the Internet, and made it generally
6071 available for others to join, the story would be very different. Bots
6072 scouring the Net for trademark and copyright infringement would quickly find
6073 your site. Your posting of fan fiction, depending upon the ownership of the
6074 series that you're depicting, could well inspire a lawyer's threat. And
6075 ignoring the lawyer's threat would be extremely costly indeed.  The law of
6076 copyright is extremely efficient. The penalties are severe, and the process
6077 is quick.
6078 </p><p>
6079 This change in the effective force of the law is caused by a change in the
6080 ease with which the law can be enforced. That change too shifts the law's
6081 balance radically. It is as if your car transmitted the speed at which you
6082 traveled at every moment that you drove; that would be just one step before
6083 the state started issuing tickets based upon the data you transmitted. That
6084 is, in effect, what is happening here.
6085 </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>
6086
6087 So copyright's duration has increased dramatically&#8212;tripled in the past
6088 thirty years. And copyright's scope has increased as well&#8212;from
6089 regulating only publishers to now regulating just about everyone. And
6090 copyright's reach has changed, as every action becomes a copy and hence
6091 presumptively regulated. And as technologists find better ways to control
6092 the use of content, and as copyright is increasingly enforced through
6093 technology, copyright's force changes, too. Misuse is easier to find and
6094 easier to control. This regulation of the creative process, which began as a
6095 tiny regulation governing a tiny part of the market for creative work, has
6096 become the single most important regulator of creativity there is. It is a
6097 massive expansion in the scope of the government's control over innovation
6098 and creativity; it would be totally unrecognizable to those who gave birth
6099 to copyright's control.
6100 </p><p>
6101 Still, in my view, all of these changes would not matter much if it weren't
6102 for one more change that we must also consider. This is a change that is in
6103 some sense the most familiar, though its significance and scope are not well
6104 understood. It is the one that creates precisely the reason to be concerned
6105 about all the other changes I have described.
6106 </p><p>
6107 This is the change in the concentration and integration of the media.  In
6108 the past twenty years, the nature of media ownership has undergone a radical
6109 alteration, caused by changes in legal rules governing the media.  Before
6110 this change happened, the different forms of media were owned by separate
6111 media companies. Now, the media is increasingly owned by only a few
6112 companies. Indeed, after the changes that the FCC announced in June 2003,
6113 most expect that within a few years, we will live in a world where just
6114 three companies control more than percent of the media.
6115 </p><p>
6116 Det er her to sorter endringer: omfanget av konsentrasjon, og dens natur.
6117 </p><p>
6118 Changes in scope are the easier ones to describe. As Senator John McCain
6119 summarized the data produced in the FCC's review of media ownership,
6120 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five companies control 85 percent of our media
6121 sources.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2804588" href="#ftn.id2804588" class="footnote">142</a>]</sup> The five recording
6122 labels of Universal Music Group, BMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music
6123 Group, and EMI control 84.8 percent of the U.S. music market.<sup>[<a name="id2804600" href="#ftn.id2804600" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five largest cable companies pipe
6124 programming to 74 percent of the cable subscribers
6125 nationwide.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2804618" href="#ftn.id2804618" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2804631"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2804637"></a>
6126 <a class="indexterm" name="id2804644"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2804650"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2804656"></a>
6127 </p><p>
6128
6129 The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation, the
6130 nation's largest radio broadcasting conglomerate owned fewer than
6131 seventy-five stations. Today <span class="emphasis"><em>one</em></span> company owns more than
6132 1,200 stations.  During that period of consolidation, the total number of
6133 radio owners dropped by 34 percent. Today, in most markets, the two largest
6134 broadcasters control 74 percent of that market's revenues. Overall, just
6135 four companies control 90 percent of the nation's radio advertising
6136 revenues.
6137 </p><p>
6138 Newspaper ownership is becoming more concentrated as well.  Today, there are
6139 six hundred fewer daily newspapers in the United States than there were
6140 eighty years ago, and ten companies control half of the nation's
6141 circulation. There are twenty major newspaper publishers in the United
6142 States. The top ten film studios receive 99 percent of all film revenue. The
6143 ten largest cable companies account for 85 percent of all cable
6144 revenue. This is a market far from the free press the framers sought to
6145 protect. Indeed, it is a market that is quite well protected&#8212; by the
6146 market.
6147 </p><p>
6148 Concentration in size alone is one thing. The more invidious change is in
6149 the nature of that concentration. As author James Fallows put it in a recent
6150 article about Rupert Murdoch, <a class="indexterm" name="id2804688"></a>
6151 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6152 Murdoch's companies now constitute a production system unmatched in its
6153 integration. They supply content&#8212;Fox movies &#8230; Fox TV shows
6154 &#8230; Fox-controlled sports broadcasts, plus newspapers and books. They
6155 sell the content to the public and to advertisers&#8212;in newspapers, on
6156 the broadcast network, on the cable channels. And they operate the physical
6157 distribution system through which the content reaches the
6158 customers. Murdoch's satellite systems now distribute News Corp. content in
6159 Europe and Asia; if Murdoch becomes DirecTV's largest single owner, that
6160 system will serve the same function in the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2804712" href="#ftn.id2804712" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
6161 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6162 The pattern with Murdoch is the pattern of modern media. Not just large
6163 companies owning many radio stations, but a few companies owning as many
6164 outlets of media as possible. A picture describes this pattern better than a
6165 thousand words could do:
6166 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1761"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1761.png" alt="Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
6167
6168
6169 Betyr denne konsentrasjonen noe?  Påvirker det hva som blir laget, eller hva
6170 som blir distribuert?  Eller er det bare en mer effektiv måte å produsere og
6171 distribuere innhold?
6172 </p><p>
6173 Mitt syn var at konsentrasjonen ikke betød noe.  Jeg tenkte det ikke var noe
6174 mer enn en mer effektiv finansiell struktur.  Men nå, etter å ha lest og
6175 hørt på en haug av skapere prøve å overbevise meg om det motsatte, har jeg
6176 begynt å endre mening.
6177 </p><p>
6178 Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen
6179 er viktig.
6180 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2804795"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2804801"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2804807"></a><p>
6181 I 1969 laget Norman Lear en polit for <em class="citetitle">All in the
6182 Family</em>.  Han tok piloten til ABC, og nettverket likte det ikke.
6183 Da sa til Lear at det var for på kanten.  Gjør det om igjen. Lear lagde
6184 piloten på nytt, mer på kanten enn den første.  ABC ble fra seg.  Du får
6185 ikke med deg poenget, fortalte de Lear.  Vi vil ha det mindre på kanten,
6186 ikke mer.
6187 </p><p>
6188 I stedet for å føye seg, to Lear ganske enkelt serien sin til noen andre.
6189 CBS var glad for å ha seriene, og ABC kunne ikke stoppe Lear fra å gå til
6190 andre.  Opphavsretten som Lear hadde sikret uavhengighet fra
6191 nettverk-kontroll.<sup>[<a name="id2804840" href="#ftn.id2804840" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
6192 </p><p>
6193
6194
6195
6196 The network did not control those copyrights because the law forbade the
6197 networks from controlling the content they syndicated. The law required a
6198 separation between the networks and the content producers; that separation
6199 would guarantee Lear freedom. And as late as 1992, because of these rules,
6200 the vast majority of prime time television&#8212;75 percent of it&#8212;was
6201 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">independent</span>»</span> of the networks.
6202 </p><p>
6203 In 1994, the FCC abandoned the rules that required this independence.  After
6204 that change, the networks quickly changed the balance.  In 1985, there were
6205 twenty-five independent television production studios; in 2002, only five
6206 independent television studios remained. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In 1992, only 15 percent of
6207 new series were produced for a network by a company it controlled. Last
6208 year, the percentage of shows produced by controlled companies more than
6209 quintupled to 77 percent.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In 1992, 16 new series were
6210 produced independently of conglomerate control, last year there was
6211 one.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2804903" href="#ftn.id2804903" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of
6212 prime time television was owned by the networks that ran it. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the
6213 ten-year period between 1992 and 2002, the number of prime time television
6214 hours per week produced by network studios increased over 200%, whereas the
6215 number of prime time television hours per week produced by independent
6216 studios decreased 63%.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2804930" href="#ftn.id2804930" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
6217 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2804938"></a><p>
6218 Today, another Norman Lear with another <em class="citetitle">All in the
6219 Family</em> would find that he had the choice either to make the show
6220 less edgy or to be fired: The content of any show developed for a network is
6221 increasingly owned by the network.
6222 </p><p>
6223 Mens antall kanaler har økt dramatisk, har eierskapet til disse kanalene
6224 snevret inn fra få til stadig færre.  Som Barry Diller sa til Bill Moyers,
6225 <a class="indexterm" name="id2804961"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2804968"></a>
6226 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6227 Well, if you have companies that produce, that finance, that air on their
6228 channel and then distribute worldwide everything that goes through their
6229 controlled distribution system, then what you get is fewer and fewer actual
6230 voices participating in the process. [We u]sed to have dozens and dozens of
6231 thriving independent production companies producing television programs. Now
6232 you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="id2804986" href="#ftn.id2804986" class="footnote">149</a>]</sup>
6233 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6234 This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of such large
6235 and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous.  Increasingly
6236 safe. Increasingly sterile. The product of news shows from networks like
6237 this is increasingly tailored to the message the network wants to
6238 convey. This is not the communist party, though from the inside, it must
6239 feel a bit like the communist party. No one can question without risk of
6240 consequence&#8212;not necessarily banishment to Siberia, but punishment
6241 nonetheless. Independent, critical, different views are quashed. This is not
6242 the environment for a democracy.
6243 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2805013"></a><p>
6244 Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
6245 affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the
6246 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Innovator's Dilemma</span>»</span>: the fact that large traditional firms
6247 find it rational to ignore new, breakthrough technologies that compete with
6248 their core business.  The same analysis could help explain why large,
6249 traditional media companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural
6250 trends.<sup>[<a name="id2805044" href="#ftn.id2805044" class="footnote">150</a>]</sup> Lumbering giants not only
6251 don't, but should not, sprint. Yet if the field is only open to the giants,
6252 there will be far too little sprinting.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2805076"></a>
6253 </p><p>
6254 I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media market to say
6255 with certainty what concentration and integration will do. The efficiencies
6256 are important, and the effect on culture is hard to measure.
6257 </p><p>
6258 But there is a quintessentially obvious example that does strongly suggest
6259 the concern.
6260 </p><p>
6261 In addition to the copyright wars, we're in the middle of the drug
6262 wars. Government policy is strongly directed against the drug cartels;
6263 criminal and civil courts are filled with the consequences of this battle.
6264 </p><p>
6265
6266 Let me hereby disqualify myself from any possible appointment to any
6267 position in government by saying I believe this war is a profound mistake. I
6268 am not pro drugs. Indeed, I come from a family once wrecked by
6269 drugs&#8212;though the drugs that wrecked my family were all quite legal. I
6270 believe this war is a profound mistake because the collateral damage from it
6271 is so great as to make waging the war insane.  When you add together the
6272 burdens on the criminal justice system, the desperation of generations of
6273 kids whose only real economic opportunities are as drug warriors, the
6274 queering of constitutional protections because of the constant surveillance
6275 this war requires, and, most profoundly, the total destruction of the legal
6276 systems of many South American nations because of the power of the local
6277 drug cartels, I find it impossible to believe that the marginal benefit in
6278 reduced drug consumption by Americans could possibly outweigh these costs.
6279 </p><p>
6280 You may not be convinced. That's fine. We live in a democracy, and it is
6281 through votes that we are to choose policy. But to do that, we depend
6282 fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about these issues.
6283 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising3"></a><p>
6284 Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched a
6285 media campaign as part of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">war on drugs.</span>»</span> The campaign
6286 produced scores of short film clips about issues related to illegal
6287 drugs. In one series (the Nick and Norm series) two men are in a bar,
6288 discussing the idea of legalizing drugs as a way to avoid some of the
6289 collateral damage from the war. One advances an argument in favor of drug
6290 legalization. The other responds in a powerful and effective way against the
6291 argument of the first. In the end, the first guy changes his mind (hey, it's
6292 television). The plug at the end is a damning attack on the pro-legalization
6293 campaign.
6294 </p><p>
6295 Fair enough. It's a good ad. Not terribly misleading. It delivers its
6296 message well. It's a fair and reasonable message.
6297 </p><p>
6298 But let's say you think it is a wrong message, and you'd like to run a
6299 countercommercial. Say you want to run a series of ads that try to
6300 demonstrate the extraordinary collateral harm that comes from the drug
6301 war. Can you do it?
6302 </p><p>
6303
6304 Well, obviously, these ads cost lots of money. Assume you raise the
6305 money. Assume a group of concerned citizens donates all the money in the
6306 world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your message will be
6307 heard then?
6308 </p><p>
6309 No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
6310 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">controversial</span>»</span> ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
6311 uncontroversial; ads disagreeing with the government are controversial.
6312 This selectivity might be thought inconsistent with the First Amendment, but
6313 the Supreme Court has held that stations have the right to choose what they
6314 run. Thus, the major channels of commercial media will refuse one side of a
6315 crucial debate the opportunity to present its case.  And the courts will
6316 defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.<sup>[<a name="id2805198" href="#ftn.id2805198" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
6317 </p><p>
6318 I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well&#8212;if we lived in a
6319 media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the media throws
6320 that condition into doubt. If a handful of companies control access to the
6321 media, and that handful of companies gets to decide which political
6322 positions it will allow to be promoted on its channels, then in an obvious
6323 and important way, concentration matters. You might like the positions the
6324 handful of companies selects. But you should not like a world in which a
6325 mere few get to decide which issues the rest of us get to know about.
6326 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2805109"></a></div><div class="section" title="10.8. Sammen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="together"></a>10.8. Sammen</h2></div></div></div><p>
6327 There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the copyright
6328 warriors that the government should <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protect my property.</span>»</span> In
6329 the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No
6330 sane sort who is not an anarchist could disagree.
6331 </p><p>
6332
6333 But when we see how dramatically this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> has
6334 changed&#8212; when we recognize how it might now interact with both
6335 technology and markets to mean that the effective constraint on the liberty
6336 to cultivate our culture is dramatically different&#8212;the claim begins to
6337 seem less innocent and obvious. Given (1) the power of technology to
6338 supplement the law's control, and (2) the power of concentrated markets to
6339 weaken the opportunity for dissent, if strictly enforcing the massively
6340 expanded <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> rights granted by copyright fundamentally
6341 changes the freedom within this culture to cultivate and build upon our
6342 past, then we have to ask whether this property should be redefined.
6343 </p><p>
6344 Not starkly. Or absolutely. My point is not that we should abolish copyright
6345 or go back to the eighteenth century. That would be a total mistake,
6346 disastrous for the most important creative enterprises within our culture
6347 today.
6348 </p><p>
6349 But there is a space between zero and one, Internet culture
6350 notwithstanding.  And these massive shifts in the effective power of
6351 copyright regulation, tied to increased concentration of the content
6352 industry and resting in the hands of technology that will increasingly
6353 enable control over the use of culture, should drive us to consider whether
6354 another adjustment is called for. Not an adjustment that increases
6355 copyright's power. Not an adjustment that increases its term. Rather, an
6356 adjustment to restore the balance that has traditionally defined copyright's
6357 regulation&#8212;a weakening of that regulation, to strengthen creativity.
6358 </p><p>
6359 Copyright law has not been a rock of Gibraltar. It's not a set of constant
6360 commitments that, for some mysterious reason, teenagers and geeks now
6361 flout. Instead, copyright power has grown dramatically in a short period of
6362 time, as the technologies of distribution and creation have changed and as
6363 lobbyists have pushed for more control by copyright holders. Changes in the
6364 past in response to changes in technology suggest that we may well need
6365 similar changes in the future. And these changes have to be
6366 <span class="emphasis"><em>reductions</em></span> in the scope of copyright, in response to
6367 the extraordinary increase in control that technology and the market enable.
6368 </p><p>
6369
6370 For the single point that is lost in this war on pirates is a point that we
6371 see only after surveying the range of these changes. When you add together
6372 the effect of changing law, concentrated markets, and changing technology,
6373 together they produce an astonishing conclusion: <span class="emphasis"><em>Never in our
6374 history have fewer had a legal right to control more of the development of
6375 our culture than now</em></span>.
6376 </p><p>
6377 Not when copyrights were perpetual, for when copyrights were perpetual, they
6378 affected only that precise creative work. Not when only publishers had the
6379 tools to publish, for the market then was much more diverse. Not when there
6380 were only three television networks, for even then, newspapers, film
6381 studios, radio stations, and publishers were independent of the
6382 networks. <span class="emphasis"><em>Never</em></span> has copyright protected such a wide
6383 range of rights, against as broad a range of actors, for a term that was
6384 remotely as long. This form of regulation&#8212;a tiny regulation of a tiny
6385 part of the creative energy of a nation at the founding&#8212;is now a
6386 massive regulation of the overall creative process. Law plus technology plus
6387 the market now interact to turn this historically benign regulation into the
6388 most significant regulation of culture that our free society has
6389 known.<sup>[<a name="id2805442" href="#ftn.id2805442" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
6390 </p><p>
6391 <span class="strong"><strong>This has been</strong></span> a long chapter. Its point
6392 can now be briefly stated.
6393 </p><p>
6394 At the start of this book, I distinguished between commercial and
6395 noncommercial culture. In the course of this chapter, I have distinguished
6396 between copying a work and transforming it. We can now combine these two
6397 distinctions and draw a clear map of the changes that copyright law has
6398 undergone.  In 1790, the law looked like this:
6399 </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>
6400
6401 The act of publishing a map, chart, and book was regulated by copyright
6402 law. Nothing else was. Transformations were free. And as copyright attached
6403 only with registration, and only those who intended to benefit commercially
6404 would register, copying through publishing of noncommercial work was also
6405 free.
6406 </p><p>
6407 På slutten av det nittende århundre hadde loven blitt endret til dette:
6408 </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>
6409 Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law&#8212;if published,
6410 which again, given the economics of publishing at the time, means if offered
6411 commercially. But noncommercial publishing and transformation were still
6412 essentially free.
6413 </p><p>
6414 In 1909 the law changed to regulate copies, not publishing, and after this
6415 change, the scope of the law was tied to technology. As the technology of
6416 copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law expanded.  Thus by 1975,
6417 as photocopying machines became more common, we could say the law began to
6418 look like this:
6419 </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>
6420 The law was interpreted to reach noncommercial copying through, say, copy
6421 machines, but still much of copying outside of the commercial market
6422 remained free. But the consequence of the emergence of digital technologies,
6423 especially in the context of a digital network, means that the law now looks
6424 like this:
6425 </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>
6426
6427 Every realm is governed by copyright law, whereas before most creativity was
6428 not. The law now regulates the full range of creativity&#8212; commercial or
6429 not, transformative or not&#8212;with the same rules designed to regulate
6430 commercial publishers.
6431 </p><p>
6432 Obviously, copyright law is not the enemy. The enemy is regulation that does
6433 no good. So the question that we should be asking just now is whether
6434 extending the regulations of copyright law into each of these domains
6435 actually does any good.
6436 </p><p>
6437 I have no doubt that it does good in regulating commercial copying.  But I
6438 also have no doubt that it does more harm than good when regulating (as it
6439 regulates just now) noncommercial copying and, especially, noncommercial
6440 transformation. And increasingly, for the reasons sketched especially in
6441 chapters <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a> and
6442 <a class="xref" href="#transformers" title="Kapittel åtte: Omformere">8</a>, one might
6443 well wonder whether it does more harm than good for commercial
6444 transformation.  More commercial transformative work would be created if
6445 derivative rights were more sharply restricted.
6446 </p><p>
6447 The issue is therefore not simply whether copyright is property. Of course
6448 copyright is a kind of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property,</span>»</span> and of course, as with any
6449 property, the state ought to protect it. But first impressions
6450 notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all property
6451 rights<sup>[<a name="id2805802" href="#ftn.id2805802" class="footnote">153</a>]</sup>)  has been crafted to balance
6452 the important need to give authors and artists incentives with the equally
6453 important need to assure access to creative work. This balance has always
6454 been struck in light of new technologies.  And for almost half of our
6455 tradition, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> did not control <span class="emphasis"><em>at
6456 all</em></span> the freedom of others to build upon or transform a creative
6457 work. American culture was born free, and for almost 180 years our country
6458 consistently protected a vibrant and rich free culture.
6459 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2805843"></a><p>
6460
6461 We achieved that free culture because our law respected important limits on
6462 the scope of the interests protected by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> The very
6463 birth of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> as a statutory right recognized those
6464 limits, by granting copyright owners protection for a limited time only (the
6465 story of chapter 6). The tradition of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> is animated by
6466 a similar concern that is increasingly under strain as the costs of
6467 exercising any fair use right become unavoidably high (the story of chapter
6468 7). Adding statutory rights where markets might stifle innovation is another
6469 familiar limit on the property right that copyright is (chapter 8). And
6470 granting archives and libraries a broad freedom to collect, claims of
6471 property notwithstanding, is a crucial part of guaranteeing the soul of a
6472 culture (chapter 9). Free cultures, like free markets, are built with
6473 property. But the nature of the property that builds a free culture is very
6474 different from the extremist vision that dominates the debate today.
6475 </p><p>
6476 Free culture is increasingly the casualty in this war on piracy. In response
6477 to a real, if not yet quantified, threat that the technologies of the
6478 Internet present to twentieth-century business models for producing and
6479 distributing culture, the law and technology are being transformed in a way
6480 that will undermine our tradition of free culture. The property right that
6481 is copyright is no longer the balanced right that it was, or was intended to
6482 be. The property right that is copyright has become unbalanced, tilted
6483 toward an extreme. The opportunity to create and transform becomes weakened
6484 in a world in which creation requires permission and creativity must check
6485 with a lawyer.
6486 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2800444" href="#id2800444" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
6487
6488
6489 Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearings on H.R. 4783, H.R.  4794,
6490 H.R. 4808, H.R. 5250, H.R. 5488, and H.R. 5705 Before the Subcommittee on
6491 Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the Committee
6492 on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, 97th Cong., 2nd
6493 sess. (1982): 65 (testimony of Jack Valenti).
6494 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2800513" href="#id2800513" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
6495
6496
6497 Lawyers speak of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> not as an absolute thing, but as a
6498 bundle of rights that are sometimes associated with a particular
6499 object. Thus, my <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property right</span>»</span> to my car gives me the right
6500 to exclusive use, but not the right to drive at 150 miles an hour. For the
6501 best effort to connect the ordinary meaning of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> to
6502 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawyer talk,</span>»</span> see Bruce Ackerman, <em class="citetitle">Private Property
6503 and the Constitution</em> (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977),
6504 26&#8211;27.
6505 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2800961" href="#id2800961" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
6506
6507
6508 By describing the way law affects the other three modalities, I don't mean
6509 to suggest that the other three don't affect law. Obviously, they do. Law's
6510 only distinction is that it alone speaks as if it has a right
6511 self-consciously to change the other three. The right of the other three is
6512 more timidly expressed.  See Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other
6513 Laws of Cyberspace</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90&#8211;95;
6514 Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The New Chicago School,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal
6515 of Legal Studies</em>, June 1998.
6516 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2801037" href="#id2801037" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
6517
6518 Some people object to this way of talking about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">liberty.</span>»</span> They
6519 object because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at
6520 any particular moment are constraints imposed exclusively by the
6521 government. For instance, if a storm destroys a bridge, these people think
6522 it is meaningless to say that one's liberty has been restrained. A bridge
6523 has washed out, and it's harder to get from one place to another. To talk
6524 about this as a loss of freedom, they say, is to confuse the stuff of
6525 politics with the vagaries of ordinary life.  I don't mean to deny the value
6526 in this narrower view, which depends upon the context of the inquiry. I do,
6527 however, mean to argue against any insistence that this narrower view is the
6528 only proper view of liberty. As I argued in <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, we
6529 come from a long tradition of political thought with a broader focus than
6530 the narrow question of what the government did when.  John Stuart Mill
6531 defended freedom of speech, for example, from the tyranny of narrow minds,
6532 not from the fear of government prosecution; John Stuart Mill, <em class="citetitle">On
6533 Liberty</em> (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co., 1978), 19.  John
6534 R. Commons famously defended the economic freedom of labor from constraints
6535 imposed by the market; John R. Commons, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to Work,</span>»</span> in
6536 Malcom Rutherford and Warren J. Samuels, eds., <em class="citetitle">John R. Commons:
6537 Selected Essays</em> (London: Routledge: 1997), 62. The Americans
6538 with Disabilities Act increases the liberty of people with physical
6539 disabilities by changing the architecture of certain public places, thereby
6540 making access to those places easier; 42 <em class="citetitle">United States
6541 Code</em>, section 12101 (2000).  Each of these interventions to
6542 change existing conditions changes the liberty of a particular group. The
6543 effect of those interventions should be accounted for in order to understand
6544 the effective liberty that each of these groups might face.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2801091"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2801100"></a>
6545 <a class="indexterm" name="id2801106"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2801113"></a>
6546 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2801298" href="#id2801298" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
6547
6548
6549 See Geoffrey Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a
6550 Bridge?</span>»</span> BusinessWeek online, 2 August 1999, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #23</a>. For a more recent
6551 analysis of Kodak's place in the market, see Chana R. Schoenberger,
6552 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Can Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?</span>»</span> Forbes.com, 6 October
6553 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6554 #24</a>.
6555 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2801373" href="#id2801373" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
6556
6557
6558 Fred Warshofsky, <em class="citetitle">The Patent Wars</em> (New York: Wiley,
6559 1994), 170&#8211;71.
6560 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2801545" href="#id2801545" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
6561
6562
6563 Se for eksempel James Boyle, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Politics of Intellectual Property:
6564 Environmentalism for the Net?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Duke Law
6565 Journal</em> 47 (1997): 87.
6566 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2801776" href="#id2801776" class="para">125</a>] </sup>
6567
6568 William W. Crosskey, <em class="citetitle">Politics and the Constitution in the History
6569 of the United States</em> (London: Cambridge University Press, 1953),
6570 vol. 1, 485&#8211;86: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the
6571 supreme Law of the Land,' <span class="emphasis"><em>the perpetual rights which authors had,
6572 or were supposed by some to have, under the Common Law</em></span></span>»</span>
6573 (emphasis added).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2801794"></a>
6574 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2801844" href="#id2801844" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
6575
6576
6577 Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790 to
6578 1799, only 556 copyright registrations were filed; John Tebbel, <em class="citetitle">A
6579 History of Book Publishing in the United States</em>, vol. 1,
6580 <em class="citetitle">The Creation of an Industry, 1630&#8211;1865</em> (New
6581 York: Bowker, 1972), 141. Of the 21,000 imprints recorded before 1790, only
6582 twelve were copyrighted under the 1790 act; William J. Maher,
6583 <em class="citetitle">Copyright Term, Retrospective Extension and the Copyright Law of
6584 1790 in Historical Context</em>, 7&#8211;10 (2002), available at
6585 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #25</a>.  Thus, the
6586 overwhelming majority of works fell immediately into the public domain. Even
6587 those works that were copyrighted fell into the public domain quickly,
6588 because the term of copyright was short. The initial term of copyright was
6589 fourteen years, with the option of renewal for an additional fourteen
6590 years. Copyright Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2801911" href="#id2801911" class="para">127</a>] </sup>
6591
6592
6593 Few copyright holders ever chose to renew their copyrights. For instance, of
6594 the 25,006 copyrights registered in 1883, only 894 were renewed in 1910. For
6595 a year-by-year analysis of copyright renewal rates, see Barbara A. Ringer,
6596 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Studies on
6597 Copyright</em>, vol. 1 (New York: Practicing Law Institute, 1963),
6598 618. For a more recent and comprehensive analysis, see William M. Landes and
6599 Richard A.  Posner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span>
6600 <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 471,
6601 498&#8211;501, and accompanying figures.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2801969" href="#id2801969" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
6602
6603
6604 Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2802078" href="#id2802078" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
6605
6606
6607 These statistics are understated. Between the years 1910 and 1962 (the first
6608 year the renewal term was extended), the average term was never more than
6609 thirty-two years, and averaged thirty years. See Landes and Posner,
6610 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span> loc. cit.
6611 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2802230" href="#id2802230" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
6612
6613
6614 See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Poets, Pirates, and the
6615 Creation of American Literature,</span>»</span> 29 <em class="citetitle">New York University
6616 Journal of International Law and Politics</em> 255 (1997), and James
6617 Gilraeth, ed., Federal Copyright Records, 1790&#8211;1800 (U.S. G.P.O.,
6618 1987).
6619
6620 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2802318" href="#id2802318" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
6621
6622 Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Copyright Cage</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Legal
6623 Affairs</em>, julu/august 2003,tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #26</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2802347"></a>
6624 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2802366" href="#id2802366" class="para">132</a>] </sup>
6625
6626 Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument about
6627 the difference that copyright law should draw (from the perspective of the
6628 First Amendment) between mere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span> and derivative
6629 works. See Jed Rubenfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's
6630 Constitutionality,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 112
6631 (2002): 1&#8211;60 (see especially pp. 53&#8211;59).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2802384"></a>
6632 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2802433" href="#id2802433" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
6633
6634
6635 This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly
6636 regulates more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span>&#8212;a public performance of a
6637 copyrighted song, for example, is regulated even though performance per se
6638 doesn't make a copy; 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section
6639 106(4). And it certainly sometimes doesn't regulate a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy</span>»</span>;
6640 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 112(a). But the
6641 presumption under the existing law (which regulates <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies;</span>»</span>
6642 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 102) is that if there
6643 is a copy, there is a right.
6644 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2802511" href="#id2802511" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
6645
6646
6647 Thus, my argument is not that in each place that copyright law extends, we
6648 should repeal it. It is instead that we should have a good argument for its
6649 extending where it does, and should not determine its reach on the basis of
6650 arbitrary and automatic changes caused by technology.
6651 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2802442" href="#id2802442" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
6652
6653
6654 I don't mean <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nature</span>»</span> in the sense that it couldn't be
6655 different, but rather that its present instantiation entails a copy. Optical
6656 networks need not make copies of content they transmit, and a digital
6657 network could be designed to delete anything it copies so that the same
6658 number of copies remain.
6659 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2803135" href="#id2803135" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
6660
6661
6662 Se David Lange, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recognizing the Public Domain</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Law
6663 and Contemporary Problems</em> 44 (1981): 172&#8211;73.
6664 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2803162" href="#id2803162" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
6665
6666 Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
6667 Copywrongs</em>, 1&#8211;3.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2803150"></a>
6668 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2803459" href="#id2803459" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
6669
6670
6671 In principle, a contract might impose a requirement on me. I might, for
6672 example, buy a book from you that includes a contract that says I will read
6673 it only three times, or that I promise to read it three times. But that
6674 obligation (and the limits for creating that obligation) would come from the
6675 contract, not from copyright law, and the obligations of contract would not
6676 necessarily pass to anyone who subsequently acquired the book.
6677 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2803872" href="#id2803872" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
6678
6679 See Pamela Samuelson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to
6680 Science,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan
6681 I. Koerner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Play Dead: Sony Muzzles the Techies Who Teach a Robot Dog
6682 New Tricks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Prospect</em>, January 2002;
6683 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Court Dismisses Computer Scientists' Challenge to DMCA,</span>»</span>
6684 <em class="citetitle">Intellectual Property Litigation Reporter</em>, 11
6685 December 2001; Bill Holland, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright Act Raising Free-Speech
6686 Concerns,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Billboard</em>, May 2001; Janelle Brown,
6687 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is the RIAA Running Scared?</span>»</span> Salon.com, April 2001; Electronic
6688 Frontier Foundation, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Frequently Asked Questions about
6689 <em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
6690 Legal Case,</span>»</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #27</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2803927"></a>
6691 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2804264" href="#id2804264" class="para">140</a>] </sup>
6692
6693 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corporation of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal
6694 City Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers
6695 never changed his view about the VCR. See James Lardner, <em class="citetitle">Fast
6696 Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR</em>
6697 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 270&#8211;71.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2803170"></a>
6698 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2804468" href="#id2804468" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
6699
6700
6701 For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Legal
6702 Fictions, Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,</span>»</span>
6703 <em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17
6704 (1997): 651.
6705 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2804588" href="#id2804588" class="para">142</a>] </sup>
6706
6707
6708 FCC Oversight: Hearing Before the Senate Commerce, Science and
6709 Transportation Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (22 May 2003)  (statement
6710 of Senator John McCain).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2804600" href="#id2804600" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
6711
6712
6713 Lynette Holloway, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to
6714 Slide,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
6715 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2804618" href="#id2804618" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
6716
6717
6718 Molly Ivins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,</span>»</span>
6719 <em class="citetitle">Charleston Gazette</em>, 31 May 2003.
6720 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2804712" href="#id2804712" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
6721
6722 James Fallows, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Age of Murdoch</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Atlantic
6723 Monthly</em> (September 2003): 89.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2804731"></a>
6724 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2804840" href="#id2804840" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
6725
6726
6727 Leonard Hill, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Axis of Access,</span>»</span> remarks before Weidenbaum
6728 Center Forum, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry,</span>»</span>
6729 St. Louis, Missouri, 3 April 2003 (transcript of prepared remarks available
6730 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #28</a>; for the Lear
6731 story, not included in the prepared remarks, see <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #29</a>).
6732 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2804903" href="#id2804903" class="para">147</a>] </sup>
6733
6734
6735 NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media
6736 Ownership Before the Senate Commerce Committee, 108th Cong., 1st
6737 sess. (2003) (testimony of Gene Kimmelman on behalf of Consumers Union and
6738 the Consumer Federation of America), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #30</a>. Kimmelman quotes
6739 Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West, in her Remarks
6740 at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia, 27 February 2003.
6741 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2804930" href="#id2804930" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
6742
6743
6744 ibid.
6745 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2804986" href="#id2804986" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
6746
6747
6748 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Now with
6749 Bill Moyers</em>, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, redigert avskrift
6750 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6751 #31</a>.
6752 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2805044" href="#id2805044" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
6753
6754
6755 Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
6756 Revolutionary National Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do
6757 Business</em> (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press,
6758 1997). Christensen acknowledges that the idea was first suggested by Dean
6759 Kim Clark. See Kim B. Clark, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Interaction of Design Hierarchies
6760 and Market Concepts in Technological Evolution,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Research
6761 Policy</em> 14 (1985): 235&#8211;51. For a more recent study, see
6762 Richard Foster and Sarah Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">Creative Destruction: Why
6763 Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market&#8212;and How to
6764 Successfully Transform Them</em> (New York: Currency/Doubleday,
6765 2001).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2805198" href="#id2805198" class="para">151</a>] </sup>
6766
6767 The Marijuana Policy Project, in February 2003, sought to place ads that
6768 directly responded to the Nick and Norm series on stations within the
6769 Washington, D.C., area. Comcast rejected the ads as <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">against [their]
6770 policy.</span>»</span> The local NBC affiliate, WRC, rejected the ads without
6771 reviewing them. The local ABC affiliate, WJOA, originally agreed to run the
6772 ads and accepted payment to do so, but later decided not to run the ads and
6773 returned the collected fees. Interview with Neal Levine, 15 October 2003.
6774 These restrictions are, of course, not limited to drug policy. See, for
6775 example, Nat Ives, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">On the Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet
6776 with Rejection from TV Networks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
6777 Times</em>, 13 March 2003, C4.  Outside of election-related air time
6778 there is very little that the FCC or the courts are willing to do to even
6779 the playing field. For a general overview, see Rhonda Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ad Hoc
6780 Access: The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
6781 Radio,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law and Policy Review</em> 6 (1988):
6782 449&#8211;79, and for a more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the
6783 courts, see <em class="citetitle">Radio-Television News Directors
6784 Association</em> v. <em class="citetitle">FCC</em>, 184 F. 3d 872
6785 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as the
6786 networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San Francisco transit
6787 authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni diesel buses. Phillip
6788 Matier and Andrew Ross, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni Rejects
6789 Ad,</span>»</span> SFGate.com, 16 June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #32</a>. The ground was that
6790 the criticism was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">too controversial.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2805261"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2805270"></a>
6791 <a class="indexterm" name="id2805276"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2805282"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2805288"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2805295"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2805301"></a>
6792 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2805442" href="#id2805442" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
6793
6794 Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende poeng i hans <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fire
6795 kapitulasjoner</span>»</span> for opphavsrettsloven i den digitale tidsalder. Se
6796 Vaidhyanathan, 159&#8211;60.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2805233"></a>
6797 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2805802" href="#id2805802" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
6798
6799 It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist movement
6800 to demonstrate that all property rights are always crafted to balance public
6801 and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Disintegration of
6802 Property,</span>»</span> in <em class="citetitle">Nomos XXII: Property</em>, J. Roland
6803 Pennock and John W.  Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press,
6804 1980).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2805818"></a>
6805 </p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Del III. Nøtter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-puzzles"></a>Del III. Nøtter</h1></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxchimera"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwells"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtcotb"></a><p>
6806 <span class="strong"><strong>In a well-known</strong></span> short story by
6807 H. G. Wells, a mountain climber named Nunez trips (literally, down an ice
6808 slope) into an unknown and isolated valley in the Peruvian
6809 Andes.<sup>[<a name="id2805969" href="#ftn.id2805969" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is extraordinarily
6810 beautiful, with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sweet water, pasture, an even climate, slopes of rich
6811 brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an excellent fruit.</span>»</span> But
6812 the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this as an opportunity. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In
6813 the Country of the Blind,</span>»</span> he tells himself, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the One-Eyed Man
6814 is King.</span>»</span> So he resolves to live with the villagers to explore life
6815 as a king.
6816 </p><p>
6817 Things don't go quite as he planned. He tries to explain the idea of sight
6818 to the villagers. They don't understand. He tells them they are
6819 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">blind.</span>»</span> They don't have the word
6820 <em class="citetitle">blind</em>. They think he's just thick.  Indeed, as they
6821 increasingly notice the things he can't do (hear the sound of grass being
6822 stepped on, for example), they increasingly try to control him. He, in turn,
6823 becomes increasingly frustrated. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">`You don't understand,' he cried, in
6824 a voice that was meant to be great and resolute, and which broke. `You are
6825 blind and I can see. Leave me alone!'</span>»</span>
6826 </p><p>
6827
6828
6829 The villagers don't leave him alone. Nor do they see (so to speak) the
6830 virtue of his special power. Not even the ultimate target of his affection,
6831 a young woman who to him seems <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the most beautiful thing in the whole
6832 of creation,</span>»</span> understands the beauty of sight. Nunez's description of
6833 what he sees <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">seemed to her the most poetical of fancies, and she
6834 listened to his description of the stars and the mountains and her own sweet
6835 white-lit beauty as though it was a guilty indulgence.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">She
6836 did not believe,</span>»</span> Wells tells us, and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">she could only half
6837 understand, but she was mysteriously delighted.</span>»</span>
6838 </p><p>
6839 When Nunez announces his desire to marry his <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mysteriously
6840 delighted</span>»</span> love, the father and the village object. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You see,
6841 my dear,</span>»</span> her father instructs, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">he's an idiot. He has
6842 delusions. He can't do anything right.</span>»</span> They take Nunez to the
6843 village doctor.
6844 </p><p>
6845 After a careful examination, the doctor gives his opinion. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">His brain
6846 is affected,</span>»</span> he reports.
6847 </p><p>
6848 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What affects it?</span>»</span> the father asks.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Those queer things
6849 that are called the eyes &#8230; are diseased &#8230; in such a way as to
6850 affect his brain.</span>»</span>
6851 </p><p>
6852 The doctor continues: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I think I may say with reasonable certainty
6853 that in order to cure him completely, all that we need to do is a simple and
6854 easy surgical operation&#8212;namely, to remove these irritant bodies [the
6855 eyes].</span>»</span>
6856 </p><p>
6857 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Thank Heaven for science!</span>»</span> says the father to the doctor. They
6858 inform Nunez of this condition necessary for him to be allowed his bride.
6859 (You'll have to read the original to learn what happens in the end. I
6860 believe in free culture, but never in giving away the end of a story.)
6861 </p><p>
6862
6863 <span class="strong"><strong>It sometimes</strong></span> happens that the eggs of
6864 twins fuse in the mother's womb. That fusion produces a
6865 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">chimera.</span>»</span> A chimera is a single creature with two sets of
6866 DNA. The DNA in the blood, for example, might be different from the DNA of
6867 the skin. This possibility is an underused plot for murder
6868 mysteries. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But the DNA shows with 100 percent certainty that she was
6869 not the person whose blood was at the scene. &#8230;</span>»</span>
6870 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2806132"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2806140"></a><p>
6871 Before I had read about chimeras, I would have said they were impossible.  A
6872 single person can't have two sets of DNA. The very idea of DNA is that it is
6873 the code of an individual. Yet in fact, not only can two individuals have
6874 the same set of DNA (identical twins), but one person can have two different
6875 sets of DNA (a chimera). Our understanding of a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">person</span>»</span> should
6876 reflect this reality.
6877 </p><p>
6878 The more I work to understand the current struggle over copyright and
6879 culture, which I've sometimes called unfairly, and sometimes not unfairly
6880 enough, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the copyright wars,</span>»</span> the more I think we're dealing
6881 with a chimera. For example, in the battle over the question <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What is
6882 p2p file sharing?</span>»</span> both sides have it right, and both sides have it
6883 wrong.  One side says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">File sharing is just like two kids taping each
6884 others' records&#8212;the sort of thing we've been doing for the last thirty
6885 years without any question at all.</span>»</span> That's true, at least in
6886 part. When I tell my best friend to try out a new CD that I've bought, but
6887 rather than just send the CD, I point him to my p2p server, that is, in all
6888 relevant respects, just like what every executive in every recording company
6889 no doubt did as a kid: sharing music.
6890 </p><p>
6891 But the description is also false in part. For when my p2p server is on a
6892 p2p network through which anyone can get access to my music, then sure, my
6893 friends can get access, but it stretches the meaning of
6894 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friends</span>»</span> beyond recognition to say <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">my ten thousand best
6895 friends</span>»</span> can get access. Whether or not sharing my music with my best
6896 friend is what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">we have always been allowed to do,</span>»</span> we have not
6897 always been allowed to share music with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">our ten thousand best
6898 friends.</span>»</span>
6899 </p><p>
6900 Likewise, when the other side says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">File sharing is just like walking
6901 into a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out with
6902 it,</span>»</span> that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett (finally)
6903 releases a new album, rather than buying it, I go to Kazaa and find a free
6904 copy to take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower.
6905 <a class="indexterm" name="id2806223"></a>
6906 </p><p>
6907
6908
6909
6910 But it is not quite stealing from Tower. After all, when I take a CD from
6911 Tower Records, Tower has one less CD to sell. And when I take a CD from
6912 Tower Records, I get a bit of plastic and a cover, and something to show on
6913 my shelves. (And, while we're at it, we could also note that when I take a
6914 CD from Tower Records, the maximum fine that might be imposed on me, under
6915 California law, at least, is $1,000.  According to the RIAA, by contrast, if
6916 I download a ten-song CD, I'm liable for $1,500,000 in damages.)
6917 </p><p>
6918 The point is not that it is as neither side describes. The point is that it
6919 is both&#8212;both as the RIAA describes it and as Kazaa describes it. It is
6920 a chimera. And rather than simply denying what the other side asserts, we
6921 need to begin to think about how we should respond to this chimera. What
6922 rules should govern it?
6923 </p><p>
6924 We could respond by simply pretending that it is not a chimera. We could,
6925 with the RIAA, decide that every act of file sharing should be a felony. We
6926 could prosecute families for millions of dollars in damages just because
6927 file sharing occurred on a family computer. And we can get universities to
6928 monitor all computer traffic to make sure that no computer is used to commit
6929 this crime. These responses might be extreme, but each of them has either
6930 been proposed or actually implemented.<sup>[<a name="id2806264" href="#ftn.id2806264" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
6931
6932 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2806371"></a><p>
6933 Alternatively, we could respond to file sharing the way many kids act as
6934 though we've responded. We could totally legalize it. Let there be no
6935 copyright liability, either civil or criminal, for making copyrighted
6936 content available on the Net. Make file sharing like gossip: regulated, if
6937 at all, by social norms but not by law.
6938 </p><p>
6939 Either response is possible. I think either would be a mistake.  Rather than
6940 embrace one of these two extremes, we should embrace something that
6941 recognizes the truth in both. And while I end this book with a sketch of a
6942 system that does just that, my aim in the next chapter is to show just how
6943 awful it would be for us to adopt the zero-tolerance extreme. I believe
6944 <span class="emphasis"><em>either</em></span> extreme would be worse than a reasonable
6945 alternative.  But I believe the zero-tolerance solution would be the worse
6946 of the two extremes.
6947 </p><p>
6948
6949
6950
6951 Yet zero tolerance is increasingly our government's policy. In the middle of
6952 the chaos that the Internet has created, an extraordinary land grab is
6953 occurring. The law and technology are being shifted to give content holders
6954 a kind of control over our culture that they have never had before. And in
6955 this extremism, many an opportunity for new innovation and new creativity
6956 will be lost.
6957 </p><p>
6958 I'm not talking about the opportunities for kids to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">steal</span>»</span>
6959 music. My focus instead is the commercial and cultural innovation that this
6960 war will also kill. We have never seen the power to innovate spread so
6961 broadly among our citizens, and we have just begun to see the innovation
6962 that this power will unleash. Yet the Internet has already seen the passing
6963 of one cycle of innovation around technologies to distribute content. The
6964 law is responsible for this passing. As the vice president for global public
6965 policy at one of these new innovators, eMusic.com, put it when criticizing
6966 the DMCA's added protection for copyrighted material,
6967 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6968 eMusic opposes music piracy. We are a distributor of copyrighted material,
6969 and we want to protect those rights.
6970 </p><p>
6971 But building a technology fortress that locks in the clout of the major
6972 labels is by no means the only way to protect copyright interests, nor is it
6973 necessarily the best. It is simply too early to answer that question. Market
6974 forces operating naturally may very well produce a totally different
6975 industry model.
6976 </p><p>
6977 This is a critical point. The choices that industry sectors make with
6978 respect to these systems will in many ways directly shape the market for
6979 digital media and the manner in which digital media are distributed. This in
6980 turn will directly influence the options that are available to consumers,
6981 both in terms of the ease with which they will be able to access digital
6982 media and the equipment that they will require to do so. Poor choices made
6983 this early in the game will retard the growth of this market, hurting
6984 everyone's interests.<sup>[<a name="id2806459" href="#ftn.id2806459" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
6985 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6986 In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of
6987 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the major labels.</span>»</span> Its position on these matters has now
6988 changed.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2806485"></a>
6989 </p><p>
6990 Reversing our tradition of tolerance now will not merely quash piracy. It
6991 will sacrifice values that are important to this culture, and will kill
6992 opportunities that could be extraordinarily valuable.
6993 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2805969" href="#id2805969" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
6994
6995
6996 H. G. Wells, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Country of the Blind</span>»</span> (1904, 1911). Se
6997 H. G. Wells, <em class="citetitle">The Country of the Blind and Other
6998 Stories</em>, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New York: Oxford University
6999 Press, 1996).
7000 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2806264" href="#id2806264" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
7001
7002 <a class="indexterm" name="id2806268"></a> For an excellent summary, see the
7003 report prepared by GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society
7004 at Harvard Law School, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster
7005 World,</span>»</span> 27 June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #33</a>. Reps. John Conyers
7006 Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) have introduced a bill that
7007 would treat unauthorized on-line copying as a felony offense with
7008 punishments ranging as high as five years imprisonment; see Jon Healey,
7009 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">House Bill Aims to Up Stakes on Piracy,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los
7010 Angeles Times</em>, 17 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #34</a>. Civil penalties are
7011 currently set at $150,000 per copied song. For a recent (and unsuccessful)
7012 legal challenge to the RIAA's demand that an ISP reveal the identity of a
7013 user accused of sharing more than 600 songs through a family computer, see
7014 <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Verizon Internet Services (In
7015 re. Verizon Internet Services)</em>, 240 F.  Supp. 2d 24
7016 (D.D.C. 2003). Such a user could face liability ranging as high as $90
7017 million. Such astronomical figures furnish the RIAA with a powerful arsenal
7018 in its prosecution of file sharers. Settlements ranging from $12,000 to
7019 $17,500 for four students accused of heavy file sharing on university
7020 networks must have seemed a mere pittance next to the $98 billion the RIAA
7021 could seek should the matter proceed to court. See Elizabeth Young,
7022 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Downloading Could Lead to Fines,</span>»</span> redandblack.com, August
7023 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7024 #35</a>. For an example of the RIAA's targeting of student file sharing,
7025 and of the subpoenas issued to universities to reveal student file-sharer
7026 identities, see James Collins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to
7027 Name Students,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 8 August 2003,
7028 D3, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7029 #36</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2806356"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2806362"></a>
7030 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2806459" href="#id2806459" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
7031
7032
7033 WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
7034 Entertainment on the Internet and Other Media: Hearing Before the
7035 Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, House
7036 Committee on Commerce, 106th Cong. 29 (1999) (statement of Peter Harter,
7037 vice president, Global Public Policy and Standards, EMusic.com), available
7038 in LEXIS, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony File.  </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel tolv: Skader"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="harms"></a>Kapittel tolv: Skader</h2></div></div></div><p>
7039 <span class="strong"><strong>To fight</strong></span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> to
7040 protect <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property,</span>»</span> the content industry has launched a
7041 war. Lobbying and lots of campaign contributions have now brought the
7042 government into this war. As with any war, this one will have both direct
7043 and collateral damage. As with any war of prohibition, these damages will be
7044 suffered most by our own people.
7045 </p><p>
7046 My aim so far has been to describe the consequences of this war, in
7047 particular, the consequences for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free culture.</span>»</span> But my aim now
7048 is to extend this description of consequences into an argument. Is this war
7049 justified?
7050 </p><p>
7051 In my view, it is not. There is no good reason why this time, for the first
7052 time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the power of
7053 the property called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>»</span> is at its greatest
7054 in our history.
7055 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2806551"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2806558"></a><p>
7056 Yet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">common sense</span>»</span> does not see it this way. Common sense is
7057 still on the side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme
7058 claims of control in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical
7059 rejection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> still has play.
7060 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2806577"></a><p>
7061
7062
7063 There will be many consequences of continuing this war. I want to describe
7064 just three. All three might be said to be unintended. I am quite confident
7065 the third is unintended. I'm less sure about the first two. The first two
7066 protect modern RCAs, but there is no Howard Armstrong in the wings to fight
7067 today's monopolists of culture.
7068 </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>
7069 In the next ten years we will see an explosion of digital technologies.
7070 These technologies will enable almost anyone to capture and share
7071 content. Capturing and sharing content, of course, is what humans have done
7072 since the dawn of man. It is how we learn and communicate. But capturing and
7073 sharing through digital technology is different. The fidelity and power are
7074 different. You could send an e-mail telling someone about a joke you saw on
7075 Comedy Central, or you could send the clip. You could write an essay about
7076 the inconsistencies in the arguments of the politician you most love to
7077 hate, or you could make a short film that puts statement against
7078 statement. You could write a poem to express your love, or you could weave
7079 together a string&#8212;a mash-up&#8212; of songs from your favorite artists
7080 in a collage and make it available on the Net.
7081 </p><p>
7082 This digital <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>»</span> is in part an extension of
7083 the capturing and sharing that has always been integral to our culture, and
7084 in part it is something new. It is continuous with the Kodak, but it
7085 explodes the boundaries of Kodak-like technologies. The technology of
7086 digital <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>»</span> promises a world of
7087 extraordinarily diverse creativity that can be easily and broadly
7088 shared. And as that creativity is applied to democracy, it will enable a
7089 broad range of citizens to use technology to express and criticize and
7090 contribute to the culture all around.
7091 </p><p>
7092
7093 Teknologien har dermed gitt oss en mulighet til å gjøre noe med kultur som
7094 bare har vært mulig for enkeltpersoner i små grupper, isolert fra andre
7095 grupper. Forestill deg en gammel mann som forteller en historie til en
7096 samling med naboer i en liten landsby.  Forestill deg så den samme
7097 historiefortellingen utvidet til å nå over hele verden.
7098 </p><p>
7099 Yet all this is possible only if the activity is presumptively legal. In the
7100 current regime of legal regulation, it is not. Forget file sharing for a
7101 moment. Think about your favorite amazing sites on the Net. Web sites that
7102 offer plot summaries from forgotten television shows; sites that catalog
7103 cartoons from the 1960s; sites that mix images and sound to criticize
7104 politicians or businesses; sites that gather newspaper articles on remote
7105 topics of science or culture. There is a vast amount of creative work spread
7106 across the Internet. But as the law is currently crafted, this work is
7107 presumptively illegal.
7108 </p><p>
7109 That presumption will increasingly chill creativity, as the examples of
7110 extreme penalties for vague infringements continue to proliferate. It is
7111 impossible to get a clear sense of what's allowed and what's not, and at the
7112 same time, the penalties for crossing the line are astonishingly harsh.  The
7113 four students who were threatened by the RIAA ( Jesse Jordan of chapter 3
7114 was just one) were threatened with a $98 billion lawsuit for building search
7115 engines that permitted songs to be copied. Yet World-Com&#8212;which
7116 defrauded investors of $11 billion, resulting in a loss to investors in
7117 market capitalization of over $200 billion&#8212;received a fine of a mere
7118 $750 million.<sup>[<a name="id2806680" href="#ftn.id2806680" class="footnote">157</a>]</sup> And under legislation
7119 being pushed in Congress right now, a doctor who negligently removes the
7120 wrong leg in an operation would be liable for no more than $250,000 in
7121 damages for pain and suffering.<sup>[<a name="id2806719" href="#ftn.id2806719" class="footnote">158</a>]</sup> Can
7122 common sense recognize the absurdity in a world where the maximum fine for
7123 downloading two songs off the Internet is more than the fine for a doctor's
7124 negligently butchering a patient? <a class="indexterm" name="id2806762"></a>
7125 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2806769"></a><p>
7126 The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high
7127 penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never
7128 be exercised, or never be exercised in the open. We drive this creative
7129 process underground by branding the modern-day Walt Disneys
7130 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates.</span>»</span> We make it impossible for businesses to rely upon a
7131 public domain, because the boundaries of the public domain are designed to
7132 be unclear. It never pays to do anything except pay for the right to create,
7133 and hence only those who can pay are allowed to create. As was the case in
7134 the Soviet Union, though for very different reasons, we will begin to see a
7135 world of underground art&#8212;not because the message is necessarily
7136 political, or because the subject is controversial, but because the very act
7137 of creating the art is legally fraught. Already, exhibits of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegal
7138 art</span>»</span> tour the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2806788" href="#ftn.id2806788" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In
7139 what does their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegality</span>»</span> consist? In the act of mixing the
7140 culture around us with an expression that is critical or reflective.
7141 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2806834"></a><p>
7142 Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the changing
7143 law. I described that change in detail in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>. But an even bigger part has to do with
7144 the increasing ease with which infractions can be tracked. As users of
7145 file-sharing systems discovered in 2002, it is a trivial matter for
7146 copyright owners to get courts to order Internet service providers to reveal
7147 who has what content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a
7148 list of the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that
7149 anyone could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
7150 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2806862"></a><p>
7151 Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether his painting
7152 infringed on someone else's work; but the modern-day painter, using the
7153 tools of Photoshop, sharing content on the Web, must worry all the
7154 time. Images are all around, but the only safe images to use in the act of
7155 creation are those purchased from Corbis or another image farm. And in
7156 purchasing, censoring happens. There is a free market in pencils; we needn't
7157 worry about its effect on creativity. But there is a highly regulated,
7158 monopolized market in cultural icons; the right to cultivate and transform
7159 them is not similarly free.
7160 </p><p>
7161 Lawyers rarely see this because lawyers are rarely empirical. As I described
7162 in chapter <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, in
7163 response to the story about documentary filmmaker Jon Else, I have been
7164 lectured again and again by lawyers who insist Else's use was fair use, and
7165 hence I am wrong to say that the law regulates such a use.
7166 </p><p>
7167
7168
7169
7170 But fair use in America simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend
7171 your right to create. And as lawyers love to forget, our system for
7172 defending rights such as fair use is astonishingly bad&#8212;in practically
7173 every context, but especially here. It costs too much, it delivers too
7174 slowly, and what it delivers often has little connection to the justice
7175 underlying the claim. The legal system may be tolerable for the very rich.
7176 For everyone else, it is an embarrassment to a tradition that prides itself
7177 on the rule of law.
7178 </p><p>
7179 Judges and lawyers can tell themselves that fair use provides adequate
7180 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">breathing room</span>»</span> between regulation by the law and the access
7181 the law should allow. But it is a measure of how out of touch our legal
7182 system has become that anyone actually believes this. The rules that
7183 publishers impose upon writers, the rules that film distributors impose upon
7184 filmmakers, the rules that newspapers impose upon journalists&#8212; these
7185 are the real laws governing creativity. And these rules have little
7186 relationship to the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">law</span>»</span> with which judges comfort themselves.
7187 </p><p>
7188 For in a world that threatens $150,000 for a single willful infringement of
7189 a copyright, and which demands tens of thousands of dollars to even defend
7190 against a copyright infringement claim, and which would never return to the
7191 wrongfully accused defendant anything of the costs she suffered to defend
7192 her right to speak&#8212;in that world, the astonishingly broad regulations
7193 that pass under the name <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> silence speech and
7194 creativity. And in that world, it takes a studied blindness for people to
7195 continue to believe they live in a culture that is free.
7196 </p><p>
7197 As Jed Horovitz, the businessman behind Video Pipeline, said to me,
7198 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7199
7200 We're losing [creative] opportunities right and left. Creative people are
7201 being forced not to express themselves. Thoughts are not being
7202 expressed. And while a lot of stuff may [still] be created, it still won't
7203 get distributed. Even if the stuff gets made &#8230; you're not going to
7204 get it distributed in the mainstream media unless you've got a little note
7205 from a lawyer saying, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This has been cleared.</span>»</span> You're not even
7206 going to get it on PBS without that kind of permission. That's the point at
7207 which they control it.
7208 </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>
7209 The story of the last section was a crunchy-lefty story&#8212;creativity
7210 quashed, artists who can't speak, yada yada yada. Maybe that doesn't get you
7211 going. Maybe you think there's enough weird art out there, and enough
7212 expression that is critical of what seems to be just about everything.  And
7213 if you think that, you might think there's little in this story to worry
7214 you.
7215 </p><p>
7216 But there's an aspect of this story that is not lefty in any sense.  Indeed,
7217 it is an aspect that could be written by the most extreme promarket
7218 ideologue. And if you're one of these sorts (and a special one at that, 188
7219 pages into a book like this), then you can see this other aspect by
7220 substituting <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free market</span>»</span> every place I've spoken of
7221 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free culture.</span>»</span> The point is the same, even if the interests
7222 affecting culture are more fundamental.
7223 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2807006"></a><p>
7224 The charge I've been making about the regulation of culture is the same
7225 charge free marketers make about regulating markets. Everyone, of course,
7226 concedes that some regulation of markets is necessary&#8212;at a minimum, we
7227 need rules of property and contract, and courts to enforce both. Likewise,
7228 in this culture debate, everyone concedes that at least some framework of
7229 copyright is also required. But both perspectives vehemently insist that
7230 just because some regulation is good, it doesn't follow that more regulation
7231 is better. And both perspectives are constantly attuned to the ways in which
7232 regulation simply enables the powerful industries of today to protect
7233 themselves against the competitors of tomorrow.
7234 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2807014"></a><p>
7235
7236 This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy
7237 that I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>. The consequence of this massive threat of liability
7238 tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is that innovators who want to
7239 innovate in this space can safely innovate only if they have the sign-off
7240 from last generation's dominant industries.  That lesson has been taught
7241 through a series of cases that were designed and executed to teach venture
7242 capitalists a lesson. That lesson&#8212;what former Napster CEO Hank Barry
7243 calls a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nuclear pall</span>»</span> that has fallen over the
7244 Valley&#8212;has been learned.
7245 </p><p>
7246 Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in
7247 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> and which has progressed in a way
7248 that even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
7249 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2807070"></a><p>
7250 In 1997, Michael Roberts launched a company called MP3.com.  MP3.com was
7251 keen to remake the music business. Their goal was not just to facilitate new
7252 ways to get access to content. Their goal was also to facilitate new ways to
7253 create content. Unlike the major labels, MP3.com offered creators a venue to
7254 distribute their creativity, without demanding an exclusive engagement from
7255 the creators.
7256 </p><p>
7257 To make this system work, however, MP3.com needed a reliable way to
7258 recommend music to its users. The idea behind this alternative was to
7259 leverage the revealed preferences of music listeners to recommend new
7260 artists. If you like Lyle Lovett, you're likely to enjoy Bonnie Raitt. And
7261 so on.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2807093"></a>
7262 </p><p>
7263 This idea required a simple way to gather data about user preferences.
7264 MP3.com came up with an extraordinarily clever way to gather this preference
7265 data. In January 2000, the company launched a service called
7266 my.mp3.com. Using software provided by MP3.com, a user would sign into an
7267 account and then insert into her computer a CD. The software would identify
7268 the CD, and then give the user access to that content.  So, for example, if
7269 you inserted a CD by Jill Sobule, then wherever you were&#8212;at work or at
7270 home&#8212;you could get access to that music once you signed into your
7271 account. The system was therefore a kind of music-lockbox.
7272 </p><p>
7273
7274 No doubt some could use this system to illegally copy content. But that
7275 opportunity existed with or without MP3.com. The aim of the my.mp3.com
7276 service was to give users access to their own content, and as a by-product,
7277 by seeing the content they already owned, to discover the kind of content
7278 the users liked.
7279 </p><p>
7280 To make this system function, however, MP3.com needed to copy 50,000 CDs to
7281 a server. (In principle, it could have been the user who uploaded the music,
7282 but that would have taken a great deal of time, and would have produced a
7283 product of questionable quality.) It therefore purchased 50,000 CDs from a
7284 store, and started the process of making copies of those CDs. Again, it
7285 would not serve the content from those copies to anyone except those who
7286 authenticated that they had a copy of the CD they wanted to access. So while
7287 this was 50,000 copies, it was 50,000 copies directed at giving customers
7288 something they had already bought.
7289 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxvivendiuniversal"></a><p>
7290 Nine days after MP3.com launched its service, the five major labels, headed
7291 by the RIAA, brought a lawsuit against MP3.com. MP3.com settled with four of
7292 the five. Nine months later, a federal judge found MP3.com to have been
7293 guilty of willful infringement with respect to the fifth. Applying the law
7294 as it is, the judge imposed a fine against MP3.com of $118 million. MP3.com
7295 then settled with the remaining plaintiff, Vivendi Universal, paying over
7296 $54 million. Vivendi purchased MP3.com just about a year later.
7297 </p><p>
7298 Den delen av historien har jeg fortalt før.  Nå kommer konklusjonen.
7299 </p><p>
7300 After Vivendi purchased MP3.com, Vivendi turned around and filed a
7301 malpractice lawsuit against the lawyers who had advised it that they had a
7302 good faith claim that the service they wanted to offer would be considered
7303 legal under copyright law. This lawsuit alleged that it should have been
7304 obvious that the courts would find this behavior illegal; therefore, this
7305 lawsuit sought to punish any lawyer who had dared to suggest that the law
7306 was less restrictive than the labels demanded.
7307 </p><p>
7308
7309 Den åpenbare hensikten med dette søksmålet (som ble avsluttet med et forlik
7310 for et uspesifisert beløp like etter at saken ikke lenger fikk
7311 pressedekning), var å sende en melding som ikke kan misforstås til advokater
7312 som gir råd til klienter på dette området: Det er ikke bare dine klienter
7313 som får lide hvis innholdsindustrien retter sine våpen mot dem.  Det får
7314 også du.  Så de av dere som tror loven burde være mindre restriktiv bør
7315 innse at et slikt syn på loven vil koste deg og ditt firma dyrt.
7316 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2807197"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2807205"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2807211"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2807218"></a><p>
7317 This strategy is not just limited to the lawyers. In April 2003, Universal
7318 and EMI brought a lawsuit against Hummer Winblad, the venture capital firm
7319 (VC) that had funded Napster at a certain stage of its development, its
7320 cofounder ( John Hummer), and general partner (Hank Barry).<sup>[<a name="id2807231" href="#ftn.id2807231" class="footnote">160</a>]</sup> The claim here, as well, was that the VC should
7321 have recognized the right of the content industry to control how the
7322 industry should develop. They should be held personally liable for funding a
7323 company whose business turned out to be beyond the law. Here again, the aim
7324 of the lawsuit is transparent: Any VC now recognizes that if you fund a
7325 company whose business is not approved of by the dinosaurs, you are at risk
7326 not just in the marketplace, but in the courtroom as well.  Your investment
7327 buys you not only a company, it also buys you a lawsuit.  So extreme has the
7328 environment become that even car manufacturers are afraid of technologies
7329 that touch content. In an article in <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>,
7330 Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW: <a class="indexterm" name="id2807278"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2807285"></a>
7331 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2807294"></a><p>
7332 I asked why, with all the storage capacity and computer power in the car,
7333 there was no way to play MP3 files. I was told that BMW engineers in Germany
7334 had rigged a new vehicle to play MP3s via the car's built-in sound system,
7335 but that the company's marketing and legal departments weren't comfortable
7336 with pushing this forward for release stateside. Even today, no new cars are
7337 sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. &#8230; <sup>[<a name="id2806962" href="#ftn.id2806962" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
7338 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7339 Dette er verden til mafiaen&#8212;fylt med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">penger eller
7340 livet</span>»</span>-trusler, som ikke er regulert av domstolene men av trusler som
7341 loven gir rettighetsinnehaver mulighet til å komme med. Det er et system som
7342 åpenbart og nødvendigvis vil kvele ny innovasjon. Det er vanskelig nok å
7343 starte et selskap. Det blir helt umulig hvis selskapet er stadig truet av
7344 søksmål.
7345 </p><p>
7346
7347
7348
7349 The point is not that businesses should have a right to start illegal
7350 enterprises. The point is the definition of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegal.</span>»</span> The law
7351 is a mess of uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply to
7352 new technologies. Yet by reversing our tradition of judicial deference, and
7353 by embracing the astonishingly high penalties that copyright law imposes,
7354 that uncertainty now yields a reality which is far more conservative than is
7355 right. If the law imposed the death penalty for parking tickets, we'd not
7356 only have fewer parking tickets, we'd also have much less driving. The same
7357 principle applies to innovation. If innovation is constantly checked by this
7358 uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation
7359 and much less creativity.
7360 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2807381"></a><p>
7361 The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
7362 use. Whatever the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">real</span>»</span> law is, realism about the effect of
7363 law in both contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation
7364 will systematically stifle creativity and innovation. It will protect some
7365 industries and some creators, but it will harm industry and creativity
7366 generally. Free market and free culture depend upon vibrant competition.
7367 Yet the effect of the law today is to stifle just this kind of competition.
7368 The effect is to produce an overregulated culture, just as the effect of too
7369 much control in the market is to produce an overregulatedregulated market.
7370 </p><p>
7371
7372 The building of a permission culture, rather than a free culture, is the
7373 first important way in which the changes I have described will burden
7374 innovation. A permission culture means a lawyer's culture&#8212;a culture in
7375 which the ability to create requires a call to your lawyer. Again, I am not
7376 antilawyer, at least when they're kept in their proper place. I am certainly
7377 not antilaw. But our profession has lost the sense of its limits. And
7378 leaders in our profession have lost an appreciation of the high costs that
7379 our profession imposes upon others. The inefficiency of the law is an
7380 embarrassment to our tradition. And while I believe our profession should
7381 therefore do everything it can to make the law more efficient, it should at
7382 least do everything it can to limit the reach of the law where the law is
7383 not doing any good. The transaction costs buried within a permission culture
7384 are enough to bury a wide range of creativity.  Someone needs to do a lot of
7385 justifying to justify that result.
7386 </p><p>
7387 <span class="strong"><strong>The uncertainty</strong></span> of the law is one burden
7388 on innovation. There is a second burden that operates more directly. This is
7389 the effort by many in the content industry to use the law to directly
7390 regulate the technology of the Internet so that it better protects their
7391 content.
7392 </p><p>
7393 The motivation for this response is obvious. The Internet enables the
7394 efficient spread of content. That efficiency is a feature of the Internet's
7395 design. But from the perspective of the content industry, this feature is a
7396 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bug.</span>»</span> The efficient spread of content means that content
7397 distributors have a harder time controlling the distribution of content.
7398 One obvious response to this efficiency is thus to make the Internet less
7399 efficient. If the Internet enables <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> then, this
7400 response says, we should break the kneecaps of the Internet.
7401 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2807458"></a><p>
7402 The examples of this form of legislation are many. At the urging of the
7403 content industry, some in Congress have threatened legislation that would
7404 require computers to determine whether the content they access is protected
7405 or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<sup>[<a name="id2807472" href="#ftn.id2807472" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
7406 explore a mandatory <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>»</span> that would be required on
7407 any device capable of transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and
7408 that would disable the copying of any content that is marked with a
7409 broadcast flag. Other members of Congress have proposed immunizing content
7410 providers from liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt
7411 down copyright violators and disable their machines.<sup>[<a name="id2807501" href="#ftn.id2807501" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
7412 </p><p>
7413
7414 In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the code, why
7415 not regulate the code to remove the problem. But any regulation of technical
7416 infrastructure will always be tuned to the particular technology of the
7417 day. It will impose significant burdens and costs on the technology, but
7418 will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly those requirements.
7419 </p><p>
7420 In March 2002, a broad coalition of technology companies, led by Intel,
7421 tried to get Congress to see the harm that such legislation would
7422 impose.<sup>[<a name="id2807524" href="#ftn.id2807524" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
7423 not that copyright should not be protected. Instead, they argued, any
7424 protection should not do more harm than good.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2807537"></a>
7425 </p><p>
7426 <span class="strong"><strong>There is one</strong></span> more obvious way in which
7427 this war has harmed innovation&#8212;again, a story that will be quite
7428 familiar to the free market crowd.
7429 </p><p>
7430 Copyright may be property, but like all property, it is also a form of
7431 regulation. It is a regulation that benefits some and harms others.  When
7432 done right, it benefits creators and harms leeches. When done wrong, it is
7433 regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
7434 </p><p>
7435 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, despite this feature of copyright as regulation, and
7436 subject to important qualifications outlined by Jessica Litman in her book
7437 <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em>,<sup>[<a name="id2807577" href="#ftn.id2807577" class="footnote">165</a>]</sup> overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10
7438 details, when new technologies have come along, Congress has struck a
7439 balance to assure that the new is protected from the old. Compulsory, or
7440 statutory, licenses have been one part of that strategy. Free use (as in the
7441 case of the VCR) has been another.
7442 </p><p>
7443 But that pattern of deference to new technologies has now changed with the
7444 rise of the Internet. Rather than striking a balance between the claims of a
7445 new technology and the legitimate rights of content creators, both the
7446 courts and Congress have imposed legal restrictions that will have the
7447 effect of smothering the new to benefit the old.
7448 </p><p>
7449 The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<sup>[<a name="id2807612" href="#ftn.id2807612" class="footnote">166</a>]</sup> It has been mirrored in the responses threatened
7450 and actually implemented by Congress. I won't catalog all of those responses
7451 here.<sup>[<a name="id2807654" href="#ftn.id2807654" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
7452 captures the flavor of them all. This is the story of the demise of Internet
7453 radio.
7454 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2807715"></a><p>
7455
7456
7457 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Kapittel fire: «Pirater»">4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording artist
7458 doesn't get paid for that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radio performance</span>»</span> unless he or she
7459 is also the composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had recorded a
7460 version of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span>&#8212;to memorialize her famous
7461 performance before President Kennedy at Madison Square Garden&#8212; then
7462 whenever that recording was played on the radio, the current copyright
7463 owners of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> would get some money, whereas
7464 Marilyn Monroe would not.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2807754"></a>
7465 </p><p>
7466 The reasoning behind this balance struck by Congress makes some sense. The
7467 justification was that radio was a kind of advertising. The recording artist
7468 thus benefited because by playing her music, the radio station was making it
7469 more likely that her records would be purchased.  Thus, the recording artist
7470 got something, even if only indirectly.  Probably this reasoning had less to
7471 do with the result than with the power of radio stations: Their lobbyists
7472 were quite good at stopping any efforts to get Congress to require
7473 compensation to the recording artists.
7474 </p><p>
7475 Enter Internet radio. Like regular radio, Internet radio is a technology to
7476 stream content from a broadcaster to a listener. The broadcast travels
7477 across the Internet, not across the ether of radio spectrum.  Thus, I can
7478 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tune in</span>»</span> to an Internet radio station in Berlin while sitting
7479 in San Francisco, even though there's no way for me to tune in to a regular
7480 radio station much beyond the San Francisco metropolitan area.
7481 </p><p>
7482 This feature of the architecture of Internet radio means that there are
7483 potentially an unlimited number of radio stations that a user could tune in
7484 to using her computer, whereas under the existing architecture for broadcast
7485 radio, there is an obvious limit to the number of broadcasters and clear
7486 broadcast frequencies. Internet radio could therefore be more competitive
7487 than regular radio; it could provide a wider range of selections. And
7488 because the potential audience for Internet radio is the whole world, niche
7489 stations could easily develop and market their content to a relatively large
7490 number of users worldwide. According to some estimates, more than eighty
7491 million users worldwide have tuned in to this new form of radio.
7492 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2807818"></a><p>
7493
7494
7495
7496 Internet radio is thus to radio what FM was to AM. It is an improvement
7497 potentially vastly more significant than the FM improvement over AM, since
7498 not only is the technology better, so, too, is the competition. Indeed,
7499 there is a direct parallel between the fight to establish FM radio and the
7500 fight to protect Internet radio. As one author describes Howard Armstrong's
7501 struggle to enable FM radio,
7502 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7503 An almost unlimited number of FM stations was possible in the shortwaves,
7504 thus ending the unnatural restrictions imposed on radio in the crowded
7505 longwaves. If FM were freely developed, the number of stations would be
7506 limited only by economics and competition rather than by technical
7507 restrictions. &#8230; Armstrong likened the situation that had grown up in
7508 radio to that following the invention of the printing press, when
7509 governments and ruling interests attempted to control this new instrument of
7510 mass communications by imposing restrictive licenses on it. This tyranny was
7511 broken only when it became possible for men freely to acquire printing
7512 presses and freely to run them. FM in this sense was as great an invention
7513 as the printing presses, for it gave radio the opportunity to strike off its
7514 shackles.<sup>[<a name="id2807310" href="#ftn.id2807310" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
7515 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7516 This potential for FM radio was never realized&#8212;not because Armstrong
7517 was wrong about the technology, but because he underestimated the power of
7518 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vested interests, habits, customs and legislation</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2807871" href="#ftn.id2807871" class="footnote">169</a>]</sup> to retard the growth of this competing technology.
7519 </p><p>
7520 Now the very same claim could be made about Internet radio. For again, there
7521 is no technical limitation that could restrict the number of Internet radio
7522 stations. The only restrictions on Internet radio are those imposed by the
7523 law. Copyright law is one such law. So the first question we should ask is,
7524 what copyright rules would govern Internet radio?
7525 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments2"></a><p>
7526
7527 But here the power of the lobbyists is reversed. Internet radio is a new
7528 industry. The recording artists, on the other hand, have a very powerful
7529 lobby, the RIAA. Thus when Congress considered the phenomenon of Internet
7530 radio in 1995, the lobbyists had primed Congress to adopt a different rule
7531 for Internet radio than the rule that applies to terrestrial radio. While
7532 terrestrial radio does not have to pay our hypothetical Marilyn Monroe when
7533 it plays her hypothetical recording of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> on the
7534 air, <span class="emphasis"><em>Internet radio does</em></span>. Not only is the law not
7535 neutral toward Internet radio&#8212;the law actually burdens Internet radio
7536 more than it burdens terrestrial radio.
7537 </p><p>
7538 This financial burden is not slight. As Harvard law professor William Fisher
7539 estimates, if an Internet radio station distributed adfree popular music to
7540 (on average) ten thousand listeners, twenty-four hours a day, the total
7541 artist fees that radio station would owe would be over $1 million a
7542 year.<sup>[<a name="id2807935" href="#ftn.id2807935" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
7543 broadcasting the same content would pay no equivalent fee.
7544 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2807990"></a><p>
7545 The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were
7546 proposed, an Internet radio station (but not a terrestrial radio station)
7547 would have to collect the following data from <span class="emphasis"><em>every listening
7548 transaction</em></span>:
7549 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
7550 navn på tjenesten,
7551 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7552 kanalen til programmet (AM/FM-stasjoner bruker stasjons-ID);
7553 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7554 type program (fra arkivet/i løkke/direkte);
7555 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7556 dato for sending;
7557 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7558 tidspunkt for sending;
7559 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7560 tidssone til opprinnelsen for sending;
7561 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7562 numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program;
7563 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7564 varigheten av sending (til nærmeste sekund):
7565 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7566 lydinnspilling-tittel;
7567 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7568 ISRC-kode for opptaket;
7569 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7570 release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of
7571 compilation albums, the release year of the album and copy- right date of
7572 the track;
7573 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7574 spillende plateartist;
7575 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7576 tittel på album i butikker;
7577 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7578 plateselskap;
7579 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7580 UPC-koden for albumet i butikker;
7581 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7582 katalognummer;
7583 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7584 informasjon om opphavsrettsinnehaver;
7585 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7586 musikksjanger for kanal eller programmet (stasjonsformat);
7587 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7588 navn på tjenesten eller selskap;
7589 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7590 kanal eller program;
7591 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7592 date and time that the user logged in (in the user's time zone);
7593 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7594 date and time that the user logged out (in the user's time zone);
7595 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7596 time zone where the signal was received (user);
7597 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7598 unik bruker-identifikator;
7599 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7600 landet til brukeren som mottok sendingene.
7601 </p></li></ol></div><p>
7602 The Librarian of Congress eventually suspended these reporting requirements,
7603 pending further study. And he also changed the original rates set by the
7604 arbitration panel charged with setting rates. But the basic difference
7605 between Internet radio and terrestrial radio remains: Internet radio has to
7606 pay a <span class="emphasis"><em>type of copyright fee</em></span> that terrestrial radio does
7607 not.
7608 </p><p>
7609 Why? What justifies this difference? Was there any study of the economic
7610 consequences from Internet radio that would justify these differences? Was
7611 the motive to protect artists against piracy?
7612 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2808166"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex2"></a><p>
7613 In a rare bit of candor, one RIAA expert admitted what seemed obvious to
7614 everyone at the time. As Alex Alben, vice president for Public Policy at
7615 Real Networks, told me,
7616 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7617
7618 The RIAA, which was representing the record labels, presented some testimony
7619 about what they thought a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, and
7620 it was much higher. It was ten times higher than what radio stations pay to
7621 perform the same songs for the same period of time. And so the attorneys
7622 representing the webcasters asked the RIAA, &#8230; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How do you come
7623 up with a rate that's so much higher? Why is it worth more than radio?
7624 Because here we have hundreds of thousands of webcasters who want to pay,
7625 and that should establish the market rate, and if you set the rate so high,
7626 you're going to drive the small webcasters out of business. &#8230;</span>»</span>
7627 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2808200"></a><p>
7628 And the RIAA experts said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, we don't really model this as an
7629 industry with thousands of webcasters, <span class="emphasis"><em>we think it should be an
7630 industry with, you know, five or seven big players who can pay a high rate
7631 and it's a stable, predictable market</em></span>.</span>»</span> (Emphasis added.)
7632 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2808240"></a><p>
7633 Translation: The aim is to use the law to eliminate competition, so that
7634 this platform of potentially immense competition, which would cause the
7635 diversity and range of content available to explode, would not cause pain to
7636 the dinosaurs of old. There is no one, on either the right or the left, who
7637 should endorse this use of the law. And yet there is practically no one, on
7638 either the right or the left, who is doing anything effective to prevent it.
7639 </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>
7640 Overregulation stifles creativity. It smothers innovation. It gives
7641 dinosaurs a veto over the future. It wastes the extraordinary opportunity
7642 for a democratic creativity that digital technology enables.
7643 </p><p>
7644 In addition to these important harms, there is one more that was important
7645 to our forebears, but seems forgotten today. Overregulation corrupts
7646 citizens and weakens the rule of law.
7647 </p><p>
7648
7649 The war that is being waged today is a war of prohibition. As with every war
7650 of prohibition, it is targeted against the behavior of a very large number
7651 of citizens. According to <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, 43
7652 million Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<sup>[<a name="id2808292" href="#ftn.id2808292" class="footnote">171</a>]</sup> According to the RIAA, the behavior of those 43 million Americans
7653 is a felony. We thus have a set of rules that transform 20 percent of
7654 America into criminals. As the RIAA launches lawsuits against not only the
7655 Napsters and Kazaas of the world, but against students building search
7656 engines, and increasingly against ordinary users downloading content, the
7657 technologies for sharing will advance to further protect and hide illegal
7658 use. It is an arms race or a civil war, with the extremes of one side
7659 inviting a more extreme response by the other.
7660 </p><p>
7661 The content industry's tactics exploit the failings of the American legal
7662 system. When the RIAA brought suit against Jesse Jordan, it knew that in
7663 Jordan it had found a scapegoat, not a defendant. The threat of having to
7664 pay either all the money in the world in damages ($15,000,000) or almost all
7665 the money in the world to defend against paying all the money in the world
7666 in damages ($250,000 in legal fees)  led Jordan to choose to pay all the
7667 money he had in the world ($12,000) to make the suit go away. The same
7668 strategy animates the RIAA's suits against individual users. In September
7669 2003, the RIAA sued 261 individuals&#8212;including a twelve-year-old girl
7670 living in public housing and a seventy-year-old man who had no idea what
7671 file sharing was.<sup>[<a name="id2807925" href="#ftn.id2807925" class="footnote">172</a>]</sup> As these scapegoats
7672 discovered, it will always cost more to defend against these suits than it
7673 would cost to simply settle. (The twelve year old, for example, like Jesse
7674 Jordan, paid her life savings of $2,000 to settle the case.) Our law is an
7675 awful system for defending rights. It is an embarrassment to our
7676 tradition. And the consequence of our law as it is, is that those with the
7677 power can use the law to quash any rights they oppose.
7678 </p><p>
7679 Wars of prohibition are nothing new in America. This one is just something
7680 more extreme than anything we've seen before. We experimented with alcohol
7681 prohibition, at a time when the per capita consumption of alcohol was 1.5
7682 gallons per capita per year. The war against drinking initially reduced that
7683 consumption to just 30 percent of its preprohibition levels, but by the end
7684 of prohibition, consumption was up to 70 percent of the preprohibition
7685 level. Americans were drinking just about as much, but now, a vast number
7686 were criminals.<sup>[<a name="id2808373" href="#ftn.id2808373" class="footnote">173</a>]</sup> We have launched a war
7687 on drugs aimed at reducing the consumption of regulated narcotics that 7
7688 percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.<sup>[<a name="id2808390" href="#ftn.id2808390" class="footnote">174</a>]</sup> That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in 1979 of 14 percent of
7689 the population. We regulate automobiles to the point where the vast majority
7690 of Americans violate the law every day. We run such a complex tax system
7691 that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.<sup>[<a name="id2808407" href="#ftn.id2808407" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free
7692 society,</span>»</span> but an endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated
7693 within our society. And as a result, a huge proportion of Americans
7694 regularly violate at least some law.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2808428"></a>
7695 </p><p>
7696 This state of affairs is not without consequence. It is a particularly
7697 salient issue for teachers like me, whose job it is to teach law students
7698 about the importance of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ethics.</span>»</span> As my colleague Charlie
7699 Nesson told a class at Stanford, each year law schools admit thousands of
7700 students who have illegally downloaded music, illegally consumed alcohol and
7701 sometimes drugs, illegally worked without paying taxes, illegally driven
7702 cars. These are kids for whom behaving illegally is increasingly the
7703 norm. And then we, as law professors, are supposed to teach them how to
7704 behave ethically&#8212;how to say no to bribes, or keep client funds
7705 separate, or honor a demand to disclose a document that will mean that your
7706 case is over. Generations of Americans&#8212;more significantly in some
7707 parts of America than in others, but still, everywhere in America
7708 today&#8212;can't live their lives both normally and legally, since
7709 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">normally</span>»</span> entails a certain degree of illegality.
7710 <a class="indexterm" name="id2808447"></a>
7711 </p><p>
7712 The response to this general illegality is either to enforce the law more
7713 severely or to change the law. We, as a society, have to learn how to make
7714 that choice more rationally. Whether a law makes sense depends, in part, at
7715 least, upon whether the costs of the law, both intended and collateral,
7716 outweigh the benefits. If the costs, intended and collateral, do outweigh
7717 the benefits, then the law ought to be changed.  Alternatively, if the costs
7718 of the existing system are much greater than the costs of an alternative,
7719 then we have a good reason to consider the alternative.
7720 </p><p>
7721
7722
7723
7724 My point is not the idiotic one: Just because people violate a law, we
7725 should therefore repeal it. Obviously, we could reduce murder statistics
7726 dramatically by legalizing murder on Wednesdays and Fridays. But that
7727 wouldn't make any sense, since murder is wrong every day of the week. A
7728 society is right to ban murder always and everywhere.
7729 </p><p>
7730 My point is instead one that democracies understood for generations, but
7731 that we recently have learned to forget. The rule of law depends upon people
7732 obeying the law. The more often, and more repeatedly, we as citizens
7733 experience violating the law, the less we respect the law. Obviously, in
7734 most cases, the important issue is the law, not respect for the law. I don't
7735 care whether the rapist respects the law or not; I want to catch and
7736 incarcerate the rapist. But I do care whether my students respect the
7737 law. And I do care if the rules of law sow increasing disrespect because of
7738 the extreme of regulation they impose.  Twenty million Americans have come
7739 of age since the Internet introduced this different idea of
7740 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sharing.</span>»</span> We need to be able to call these twenty million
7741 Americans <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">citizens,</span>»</span> not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">felons.</span>»</span>
7742 </p><p>
7743 When at least forty-three million citizens download content from the
7744 Internet, and when they use tools to combine that content in ways
7745 unauthorized by copyright holders, the first question we should be asking is
7746 not how best to involve the FBI. The first question should be whether this
7747 particular prohibition is really necessary in order to achieve the proper
7748 ends that copyright law serves. Is there another way to assure that artists
7749 get paid without transforming forty-three million Americans into felons?
7750 Does it make sense if there are other ways to assure that artists get paid
7751 without transforming America into a nation of felons?
7752 </p><p>
7753 This abstract point can be made more clear with a particular example.
7754 </p><p>
7755
7756 We all own CDs. Many of us still own phonograph records. These pieces of
7757 plastic encode music that in a certain sense we have bought.  The law
7758 protects our right to buy and sell that plastic: It is not a copyright
7759 infringement for me to sell all my classical records at a used record store
7760 and buy jazz records to replace them. That <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> of the
7761 recordings is free.
7762 </p><p>
7763 But as the MP3 craze has demonstrated, there is another use of phonograph
7764 records that is effectively free. Because these recordings were made without
7765 copy-protection technologies, I am <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> to copy, or
7766 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rip,</span>»</span> music from my records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed,
7767 Apple Corporation went so far as to suggest that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> was
7768 a right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rip, Mix,
7769 Burn</span>»</span> capacities of digital technologies.
7770 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2808574"></a><p>
7771 This <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a
7772 large process at home of ripping all of my and my wife's CDs, and storing
7773 them in one archive. Then, using Apple's iTunes, or a wonderful program
7774 called Andromeda, we can build different play lists of our music: Bach,
7775 Baroque, Love Songs, Love Songs of Significant Others&#8212;the potential is
7776 endless. And by reducing the costs of mixing play lists, these technologies
7777 help build a creativity with play lists that is itself independently
7778 valuable. Compilations of songs are creative and meaningful in their own
7779 right.
7780 </p><p>
7781 This use is enabled by unprotected media&#8212;either CDs or records.  But
7782 unprotected media also enable file sharing. File sharing threatens (or so
7783 the content industry believes) the ability of creators to earn a fair return
7784 from their creativity. And thus, many are beginning to experiment with
7785 technologies to eliminate unprotected media. These technologies, for
7786 example, would enable CDs that could not be ripped. Or they might enable spy
7787 programs to identify ripped content on people's machines.
7788 </p><p>
7789
7790 If these technologies took off, then the building of large archives of your
7791 own music would become quite difficult. You might hang in hacker circles,
7792 and get technology to disable the technologies that protect the
7793 content. Trading in those technologies is illegal, but maybe that doesn't
7794 bother you much. In any case, for the vast majority of people, these
7795 protection technologies would effectively destroy the archiving use of
7796 CDs. The technology, in other words, would force us all back to the world
7797 where we either listened to music by manipulating pieces of plastic or were
7798 part of a massively complex <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">digital rights management</span>»</span> system.
7799 </p><p>
7800 If the only way to assure that artists get paid were the elimination of the
7801 ability to freely move content, then these technologies to interfere with
7802 the freedom to move content would be justifiable. But what if there were
7803 another way to assure that artists are paid, without locking down any
7804 content? What if, in other words, a different system could assure
7805 compensation to artists while also preserving the freedom to move content
7806 easily?
7807 </p><p>
7808 My point just now is not to prove that there is such a system. I offer a
7809 version of such a system in the last chapter of this book. For now, the only
7810 point is the relatively uncontroversial one: If a different system achieved
7811 the same legitimate objectives that the existing copyright system achieved,
7812 but left consumers and creators much more free, then we'd have a very good
7813 reason to pursue this alternative&#8212;namely, freedom.  The choice, in
7814 other words, would not be between property and piracy; the choice would be
7815 between different property systems and the freedoms each allowed.
7816 </p><p>
7817 I believe there is a way to assure that artists are paid without turning
7818 forty-three million Americans into felons. But the salient feature of this
7819 alternative is that it would lead to a very different market for producing
7820 and distributing creativity. The dominant few, who today control the vast
7821 majority of the distribution of content in the world, would no longer
7822 exercise this extreme of control. Rather, they would go the way of the
7823 horse-drawn buggy.
7824 </p><p>
7825 Except that this generation's buggy manufacturers have already saddled
7826 Congress, and are riding the law to protect themselves against this new form
7827 of competition. For them the choice is between fortythree million Americans
7828 as criminals and their own survival.
7829 </p><p>
7830
7831 It is understandable why they choose as they do. It is not understandable
7832 why we as a democracy continue to choose as we do. Jack Valenti is charming;
7833 but not so charming as to justify giving up a tradition as deep and
7834 important as our tradition of free culture.
7835 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2808681"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxisps"></a><p>
7836 <span class="strong"><strong>There's one more</strong></span> aspect to this
7837 corruption that is particularly important to civil liberties, and follows
7838 directly from any war of prohibition.  As Electronic Frontier Foundation
7839 attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">collateral
7840 damage</span>»</span> that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">arises whenever you turn a very large percentage
7841 of the population into criminals.</span>»</span> This is the collateral damage to
7842 civil liberties generally.
7843 </p><p>
7844 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis du kan behandle noen som en antatt lovbryter</span>»</span>, forklarer
7845 von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id2808729"></a>
7846 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7847 then all of a sudden a lot of basic civil liberty protections evaporate to
7848 one degree or another. &#8230; If you're a copyright infringer, how can you
7849 hope to have any privacy rights? If you're a copyright infringer, how can
7850 you hope to be secure against seizures of your computer? How can you hope to
7851 continue to receive Internet access? &#8230; Our sensibilities change as
7852 soon as we think, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh, well, but that person's a criminal, a
7853 lawbreaker.</span>»</span> Well, what this campaign against file sharing has done
7854 is turn a remarkable percentage of the American Internet-using population
7855 into <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawbreakers.</span>»</span>
7856 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7857 And the consequence of this transformation of the American public into
7858 criminals is that it becomes trivial, as a matter of due process, to
7859 effectively erase much of the privacy most would presume.
7860 </p><p>
7861 Users of the Internet began to see this generally in 2003 as the RIAA
7862 launched its campaign to force Internet service providers to turn over the
7863 names of customers who the RIAA believed were violating copyright
7864 law. Verizon fought that demand and lost. With a simple request to a judge,
7865 and without any notice to the customer at all, the identity of an Internet
7866 user is revealed.
7867 </p><p>
7868
7869 The RIAA then expanded this campaign, by announcing a general strategy to
7870 sue individual users of the Internet who are alleged to have downloaded
7871 copyrighted music from file-sharing systems. But as we've seen, the
7872 potential damages from these suits are astronomical: If a family's computer
7873 is used to download a single CD's worth of music, the family could be liable
7874 for $2 million in damages. That didn't stop the RIAA from suing a number of
7875 these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.<sup>[<a name="id2808787" href="#ftn.id2808787" class="footnote">176</a>]</sup>
7876
7877 </p><p>
7878 Even this understates the espionage that is being waged by the RIAA. A
7879 report from CNN late last summer described a strategy the RIAA had adopted
7880 to track Napster users.<sup>[<a name="id2808843" href="#ftn.id2808843" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> Using a
7881 sophisticated hashing algorithm, the RIAA took what is in effect a
7882 fingerprint of every song in the Napster catalog. Any copy of one of those
7883 MP3s will have the same <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fingerprint.</span>»</span>
7884 </p><p>
7885 So imagine the following not-implausible scenario: Imagine a friend gives a
7886 CD to your daughter&#8212;a collection of songs just like the cassettes you
7887 used to make as a kid. You don't know, and neither does your daughter, where
7888 these songs came from. But she copies these songs onto her computer. She
7889 then takes her computer to college and connects it to a college network, and
7890 if the college network is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cooperating</span>»</span> with the RIAA's
7891 espionage, and she hasn't properly protected her content from the network
7892 (do you know how to do that yourself ?), then the RIAA will be able to
7893 identify your daughter as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminal.</span>»</span> And under the rules
7894 that universities are beginning to deploy,<sup>[<a name="id2808894" href="#ftn.id2808894" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer
7895 network.  She can, in some cases, be expelled.
7896 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2808966"></a><p>
7897 Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire a
7898 lawyer for her (at $300 per hour, if you're lucky), and she can plead that
7899 she didn't know anything about the source of the songs or that they came
7900 from Napster. And it may well be that the university believes her. But the
7901 university might not believe her. It might treat this
7902 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">contraband</span>»</span> as presumptive of guilt. And as any number of
7903 college students have already learned, our presumptions about innocence
7904 disappear in the middle of wars of prohibition. This war is no different.
7905 Says von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id2808989"></a>
7906 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7907 So when we're talking about numbers like forty to sixty million Americans
7908 that are essentially copyright infringers, you create a situation where the
7909 civil liberties of those people are very much in peril in a general
7910 matter. [I don't] think [there is any] analog where you could randomly
7911 choose any person off the street and be confident that they were committing
7912 an unlawful act that could put them on the hook for potential felony
7913 liability or hundreds of millions of dollars of civil liability. Certainly
7914 we all speed, but speeding isn't the kind of an act for which we routinely
7915 forfeit civil liberties. Some people use drugs, and I think that's the
7916 closest analog, [but] many have noted that the war against drugs has eroded
7917 all of our civil liberties because it's treated so many Americans as
7918 criminals. Well, I think it's fair to say that file sharing is an order of
7919 magnitude larger number of Americans than drug use. &#8230; If forty to
7920 sixty million Americans have become lawbreakers, then we're really on a
7921 slippery slope to lose a lot of civil liberties for all forty to sixty
7922 million of them.
7923 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7924 When forty to sixty million Americans are considered
7925 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminals</span>»</span> under the law, and when the law could achieve the
7926 same objective&#8212; securing rights to authors&#8212;without these
7927 millions being considered <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminals,</span>»</span> who is the villain?
7928 Americans or the law? Which is American, a constant war on our own people or
7929 a concerted effort through our democracy to change our law?
7930 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2806680" href="#id2806680" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
7931
7932 Se Lynne W. Jeter, <em class="citetitle">Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at
7933 WorldCom</em> (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley &amp; Sons, 2003), 176, 204;
7934 for detaljer om dette forliket, se pressemelding fra MCI, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">MCI Wins
7935 U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement</span>»</span> (7. juli 2003),
7936 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7937 #37</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2806706"></a>
7938 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2806719" href="#id2806719" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
7939  The bill, modeled after California's tort reform model, was passed in the
7940 House of Representatives but defeated in a Senate vote in July 2003. For an
7941 overview, see Tanya Albert, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be
7942 Back,' Say Tort Reformers,</span>»</span> amednews.com, 28 July 2003, available at
7943 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #38</a>, and
7944 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Senate Turns Back Malpractice Caps,</span>»</span> CBSNews.com, 9 July 2003,
7945 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7946 #39</a>. President Bush has continued to urge tort reform in recent
7947 months.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2806749"></a>
7948 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2806788" href="#id2806788" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
7949
7950
7951
7952 Se Danit Lidor, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Artists Just Wanna Be Free</span>»</span>,
7953 <em class="citetitle">Wired</em>, 7. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #40</a>. For en oversikt over
7954 utstillingen, se <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7955 #41</a>.
7956 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2807231" href="#id2807231" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
7957
7958
7959 See Joseph Menn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,</span>»</span>
7960 <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 23 April 2003. For a parallel
7961 argument about the effects on innovation in the distribution of music, see
7962 Janelle Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Music Revolution Will Not Be Digitized,</span>»</span>
7963 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,
7964 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Online Music Services Besieged,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
7965 Times</em>, 28 May 2001.
7966 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2806962" href="#id2806962" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
7967
7968 Rafe Needleman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Driving in Cars with MP3s</span>»</span>,
7969 <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>, 16. juni 2003, tilgjengelig via <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #43</a>. Jeg er Dr. Mohammad
7970 Al-Ubaydli takknemlig mot for dette eksemplet.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2807330"></a>
7971 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2807472" href="#id2807472" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
7972
7973 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span>
7974 GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law
7975 School (2003), 33&#8211;35, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.
7976 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2807501" href="#id2807501" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
7977
7978
7979 GartnerG2, 26&#8211;27.
7980 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2807524" href="#id2807524" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
7981
7982
7983 See David McGuire, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy,</span>»</span>
7984 Newsbytes, February 2002 (Entertainment).
7985 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2807577" href="#id2807577" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
7986
7987 Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
7988 Prometheus Books, 2001).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2807584"></a>
7989 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2807612" href="#id2807612" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
7990
7991 <a class="indexterm" name="id2807616"></a> The only circuit court exception is
7992 found in <em class="citetitle">Recording Industry Association of America
7993 (RIAA)</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Diamond Multimedia Systems</em>, 180
7994 F. 3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999). There the court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit
7995 reasoned that makers of a portable MP3 player were not liable for
7996 contributory copyright infringement for a device that is unable to record or
7997 redistribute music (a device whose only copying function is to render
7998 portable a music file already stored on a user's hard drive).  At the
7999 district court level, the only exception is found in
8000 <em class="citetitle">Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,
8001 Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Grokster, Ltd</em>., 259 F. Supp. 2d
8002 1029 (C.D.  Cal., 2003), where the court found the link between the
8003 distributor and any given user's conduct too attenuated to make the
8004 distributor liable for contributory or vicarious infringement liability.
8005 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2807654" href="#id2807654" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
8006
8007 <a class="indexterm" name="id2807657"></a> For example, in July 2002,
8008 Representative Howard Berman introduced the Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention
8009 Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize copyright holders from liability for
8010 damage done to computers when the copyright holders use technology to stop
8011 copyright infringement. In August 2002, Representative Billy Tauzin
8012 introduced a bill to mandate that technologies capable of rebroadcasting
8013 digital copies of films broadcast on TV (i.e., computers) respect a
8014 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>»</span> that would disable copying of that
8015 content. And in March of the same year, Senator Fritz Hollings introduced
8016 the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, which mandated
8017 copyright protection technology in all digital media devices. See GartnerG2,
8018 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span> 27 June
8019 2003, 33&#8211;34, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2807692"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2807698"></a>
8020 <a class="indexterm" name="id2807705"></a>
8021 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2807310" href="#id2807310" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
8022
8023
8024 Lessing, 239.
8025 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2807871" href="#id2807871" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
8026
8027
8028 Ibid., 229.
8029 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2807935" href="#id2807935" class="para">170</a>] </sup>
8030
8031 This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright Arbitration
8032 Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an example offered by
8033 Professor William Fisher. Conference Proceedings, iLaw (Stanford), 3 July
8034 2003, on file with author. Professors Fisher and Zittrain submitted
8035 testimony in the CARP proceeding that was ultimately rejected.  See Jonathan
8036 Zittrain, Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral
8037 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
8038 analysis making a similar point, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright as
8039 Entry Policy: The Case of Digital Distribution,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Antitrust
8040 Bulletin</em> (Summer/Fall 2002): 461: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This was not confusion,
8041 these are just old-fashioned entry barriers. Analog radio stations are
8042 protected from digital entrants, reducing entry in radio and diversity. Yes,
8043 this is done in the name of getting royalties to copyright holders, but,
8044 absent the play of powerful interests, that could have been done in a
8045 media-neutral way.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2807971"></a>
8046 <a class="indexterm" name="id2807980"></a>
8047 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2808292" href="#id2808292" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
8048
8049 Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Music Downloading Deluge,</span>»</span>
8050 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
8051 American Life Project reported that 37 million Americans had downloaded
8052 music files from the Internet by early 2001.
8053 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2807925" href="#id2807925" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
8054
8055
8056 Alex Pham, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA
8057 Case,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 10 September 2003,
8058 Business.
8059 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2808373" href="#id2808373" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
8060
8061
8062 Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alcohol Consumption During
8063 Prohibition,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81,
8064 no. 2 (1991): 242.
8065 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2808390" href="#id2808390" class="para">174</a>] </sup>
8066
8067
8068 National Drug Control Policy: Hearing Before the House Government Reform
8069 Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (5 March 2003) (statement of John
8070 P. Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy).
8071 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2808407" href="#id2808407" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
8072
8073
8074 See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tax
8075 Compliance,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature</em> 36
8076 (1998): 818 (survey of compliance literature).
8077 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2808787" href="#id2808787" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
8078
8079
8080 See Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single
8081 Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>»</span>
8082 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10 September 2003, E1; Chris Cobbs,
8083 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Worried Parents Pull Plug on File `Stealing'; With the Music Industry
8084 Cracking Down on File Swapping, Parents are Yanking Software from Home PCs
8085 to Avoid Being Sued,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel
8086 Tribune</em>, 30 August 2003, C1; Jefferson Graham, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recording
8087 Industry Sues Parents,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 15
8088 September 2003, 4D; John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">She Says She's No Music Pirate. No
8089 Snoop Fan, Either,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 25
8090 September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is Brianna a Criminal?</span>»</span>
8091 <em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
8092 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2808843" href="#id2808843" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
8093
8094
8095 Se Nick Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
8096 Age</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #49</a>.
8097 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2808894" href="#id2808894" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
8098
8099
8100 See Jeff Adler, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not
8101 Penitent,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 18 May 2003, City
8102 Weekly, 1; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Four Students Sued over Music Sites;
8103 Industry Group Targets File Sharing at Colleges,</span>»</span>
8104 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 4 April 2003, E1; Elizabeth
8105 Armstrong, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Students `Rip, Mix, Burn' at Their Own Risk,</span>»</span>
8106 <em class="citetitle">Christian Science Monitor</em>, 2 September 2003, 20;
8107 Robert Becker and Angela Rozas, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Pirate Hunt Turns to Loyola;
8108 Two Students Names Are Handed Over; Lawsuit Possible,</span>»</span>
8109 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 16 July 2003, 1C; Beth Cox,
8110 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Trains Antipiracy Guns on Universities,</span>»</span>
8111 <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,
8112 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Download Warning 101: Freshman Orientation This Fall to Include
8113 Record Industry Warnings Against File Sharing,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San
8114 Francisco Chronicle</em>, 11 August 2003, E11; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Raid, Letters
8115 Are Weapons at Universities,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 26
8116 September 2000, 3D.
8117 </p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Del IV. Maktfordeling"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-balances"></a>Del IV. Maktfordeling</h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="Maktfordeling"><div></div><p>
8118 <span class="strong"><strong>Så her</strong></span> er bildet: Du står på siden av
8119 veien. Bilen din er på brann. Du er sint og opprørt fordi du delvis bidro
8120 til å starte brannen. Nå vet du ikke hvordan du slokker den.  Ved siden av
8121 deg er en bøtte, fylt med bensin. Bensin vil åpenbart ikke slukke brannen.
8122 </p><p>
8123 Mens du tenker over situasjonen, kommer noen andre forbi.  I panikk griper
8124 hun bøtta, og før du har hatt sjansen til å be henne stoppe&#8212;eller før
8125 hun forstår hvorfor hun bør stoppe&#8212;er bøtten i svevet.  Bensinen er på
8126 tur mot den brennende bilen.  Og brannen som bensinen kommer til å fyre opp
8127 vil straks sette fyr på alt i omgivelsene.
8128 </p><p>
8129 <span class="strong"><strong>En krig</strong></span> om opphavsrett pågår over
8130 alt&#8212; og vi fokuserer alle på feil ting.  Det er ingen tvil om at
8131 dagens teknologier truer eksisterende virksomheter.  Uten tvil kan de true
8132 artister.  Men teknologier endrer seg.  Industrien og teknologer har en
8133 rekke måter å bruke teknologi til å beskytte dem selv mot dagens trusler på
8134 Internet.  Dette er en brann som overlatt til seg selv vil brenne ut.
8135 </p><p>
8136
8137
8138 Likevel er ikke besluttningstagere villig til å la denne brannen i fred.
8139 Ladet med masse penger fra lobbyister er de lystne på å gå i mellom for å
8140 fjerne problemet slik de oppfatter det.  Men problemet slik de oppfatter det
8141 er ikke den reelle trusselen som denne kulturen står med ansiktet mot.  For
8142 mens vi ser på denne lille brannen i hjørnet er det en massiv endring i
8143 hvordan kultur blir skapt som pågår over alt.
8144 </p><p>
8145 På en eller annen måte må vi klare å snu oppmerksomheten mot dette mer
8146 viktige og fundametale problemet.  Vi må finne en måte å unngå å helle
8147 bensin på denne brannen.
8148 </p><p>
8149 Vi har ikke funne denne måten ennå.  Istedet synes vi å være fanget i en
8150 enklere og sort-hvit tenkning.  Uansett hvor mange folk som presser på for å
8151 gjøre rammen for debatten litt bredere, er det dette enkle sort-hvit-synet
8152 som består.  Vi kjører sakte forbi og stirrer på brannen når vi i stedet
8153 burde holde øynene på veien.
8154 </p><p>
8155 Denne utfordringen har vært livet mitt de siste årene.  Det har også vært
8156 min falitt.  I de to neste kapittlene, beskriver jeg en liten innsats, så
8157 langt uten suksess, på å finne en måte å endre fokus på denne debatten.  Vi
8158 må forstå disse mislyktede forsøkene hvis vi skal forstå hva som kreves for
8159 å lykkes.
8160 </p></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel tretten: Eldred"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred"></a>Kapittel tretten: Eldred</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxhawthornenathaniel"></a><p>
8161 <span class="strong"><strong>In 1995</strong></span>, a father was frustrated that his
8162 daughters didn't seem to like Hawthorne. No doubt there was more than one
8163 such father, but at least one did something about it. Eric Eldred, a retired
8164 computer programmer living in New Hampshire, decided to put Hawthorne on the
8165 Web. An electronic version, Eldred thought, with links to pictures and
8166 explanatory text, would make this nineteenth-century author's work come
8167 alive.
8168 </p><p>
8169 It didn't work&#8212;at least for his daughters. They didn't find Hawthorne
8170 any more interesting than before. But Eldred's experiment gave birth to a
8171 hobby, and his hobby begat a cause: Eldred would build a library of public
8172 domain works by scanning these works and making them available for free.
8173 </p><p>
8174
8175 Eldred's library was not simply a copy of certain public domain works,
8176 though even a copy would have been of great value to people across the world
8177 who can't get access to printed versions of these works. Instead, Eldred was
8178 producing derivative works from these public domain works. Just as Disney
8179 turned Grimm into stories more accessible to the twentieth century, Eldred
8180 transformed Hawthorne, and many others, into a form more
8181 accessible&#8212;technically accessible&#8212;today.
8182 </p><p>
8183 Eldred's freedom to do this with Hawthorne's work grew from the same source
8184 as Disney's. Hawthorne's <em class="citetitle">Scarlet Letter</em> had passed
8185 into the public domain in 1907. It was free for anyone to take without the
8186 permission of the Hawthorne estate or anyone else. Some, such as Dover Press
8187 and Penguin Classics, take works from the public domain and produce printed
8188 editions, which they sell in bookstores across the country. Others, such as
8189 Disney, take these stories and turn them into animated cartoons, sometimes
8190 successfully (<em class="citetitle">Cinderella</em>), sometimes not
8191 (<em class="citetitle">The Hunchback of Notre Dame</em>, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
8192 Planet</em>). These are all commercial publications of public domain
8193 works.
8194 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2809255"></a><p>
8195 The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of public
8196 domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally thousands of
8197 others. Hundreds of thousands from across the world have discovered this
8198 platform of expression and now use it to share works that are, by law, free
8199 for the taking. This has produced what we might call the
8200 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">noncommercial publishing industry,</span>»</span> which before the Internet
8201 was limited to people with large egos or with political or social
8202 causes. But with the Internet, it includes a wide range of individuals and
8203 groups dedicated to spreading culture generally.<sup>[<a name="id2809279" href="#ftn.id2809279" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
8204 </p><p>
8205 As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In 1998, Robert Frost's collection
8206 of poems <em class="citetitle">New Hampshire</em> was slated to pass into the
8207 public domain. Eldred wanted to post that collection in his free public
8208 library.  But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, in 1998, for the
8209 eleventh time in forty years, Congress extended the terms of existing
8210 copyrights&#8212;this time by twenty years. Eldred would not be free to add
8211 any works more recent than 1923 to his collection until 2019.  Indeed, no
8212 copyrighted work would pass into the public domain until that year (and not
8213 even then, if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, in the same
8214 period, more than 1 million patents will pass into the public domain.
8215 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2809318"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2809334"></a><p>
8216
8217
8218 This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), enacted in
8219 memory of the congressman and former musician Sonny Bono, who, his widow,
8220 Mary Bono, says, believed that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrights should be
8221 forever.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2809348" href="#ftn.id2809348" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
8222
8223 </p><p>
8224 Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
8225 civil disobedience. In a series of interviews, Eldred announced that he
8226 would publish as planned, CTEA notwithstanding. But because of a second law
8227 passed in 1998, the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act, his act of publishing
8228 would make Eldred a felon&#8212;whether or not anyone complained. This was a
8229 dangerous strategy for a disabled programmer to undertake.
8230 </p><p>
8231 It was here that I became involved in Eldred's battle. I was a
8232 constitutional scholar whose first passion was constitutional
8233 interpretation.  And though constitutional law courses never focus upon the
8234 Progress Clause of the Constitution, it had always struck me as importantly
8235 different. As you know, the Constitution says,
8236 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
8237 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science &#8230; by
8238 securing for limited Times to Authors &#8230; exclusive Right to their
8239 &#8230; Writings. &#8230;
8240 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8241 As I've described, this clause is unique within the power-granting clause of
8242 Article I, section 8 of our Constitution. Every other clause granting power
8243 to Congress simply says Congress has the power to do something&#8212;for
8244 example, to regulate <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>»</span> or
8245 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">declare War.</span>»</span> But here, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">something</span>»</span> is
8246 something quite specific&#8212;to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">promote &#8230;
8247 Progress</span>»</span>&#8212;through means that are also specific&#8212; by
8248 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">securing</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive Rights</span>»</span> (i.e., copyrights)
8249 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for limited Times.</span>»</span>
8250 </p><p>
8251 In the past forty years, Congress has gotten into the practice of extending
8252 existing terms of copyright protection. What puzzled me about this was, if
8253 Congress has the power to extend existing terms, then the Constitution's
8254 requirement that terms be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited</span>»</span> will have no practical
8255 effect. If every time a copyright is about to expire, Congress has the power
8256 to extend its term, then Congress can achieve what the Constitution plainly
8257 forbids&#8212;perpetual terms <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">on the installment plan,</span>»</span> as
8258 Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2809458"></a>
8259 </p><p>
8260 As an academic, my first response was to hit the books. I remember sitting
8261 late at the office, scouring on-line databases for any serious consideration
8262 of the question. No one had ever challenged Congress's practice of extending
8263 existing terms. That failure may in part be why Congress seemed so
8264 untroubled in its habit. That, and the fact that the practice had become so
8265 lucrative for Congress. Congress knows that copyright owners will be willing
8266 to pay a great deal of money to see their copyright terms extended. And so
8267 Congress is quite happy to keep this gravy train going.
8268 </p><p>
8269 For this is the core of the corruption in our present system of
8270 government. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Corruption</span>»</span> not in the sense that representatives
8271 are bribed.  Rather, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">corruption</span>»</span> in the sense that the system
8272 induces the beneficiaries of Congress's acts to raise and give money to
8273 Congress to induce it to act. There's only so much time; there's only so
8274 much Congress can do. Why not limit its actions to those things it must
8275 do&#8212;and those things that pay? Extending copyright terms pays.
8276 </p><p>
8277 If that's not obvious to you, consider the following: Say you're one of the
8278 very few lucky copyright owners whose copyright continues to make money one
8279 hundred years after it was created. The Estate of Robert Frost is a good
8280 example. Frost died in 1963. His poetry continues to be extraordinarily
8281 valuable. Thus the Robert Frost estate benefits greatly from any extension
8282 of copyright, since no publisher would pay the estate any money if the poems
8283 Frost wrote could be published by anyone for free.
8284 </p><p>
8285 So imagine the Robert Frost estate is earning $100,000 a year from three of
8286 Frost's poems. And imagine the copyright for those poems is about to
8287 expire. You sit on the board of the Robert Frost estate.  Your financial
8288 adviser comes to your board meeting with a very grim report:
8289 </p><p>
8290
8291 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Next year,</span>»</span> the adviser announces, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">our copyrights in
8292 works A, B, and C will expire. That means that after next year, we will no
8293 longer be receiving the annual royalty check of $100,000 from the publishers
8294 of those works.</span>»</span>
8295 </p><p>
8296 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">There's a proposal in Congress, however,</span>»</span> she continues,
8297 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">that could change this. A few congressmen are floating a bill to
8298 extend the terms of copyright by twenty years. That bill would be
8299 extraordinarily valuable to us. So we should hope this bill passes.</span>»</span>
8300 </p><p>
8301 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hope?</span>»</span> a fellow board member says. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Can't we be doing
8302 something about it?</span>»</span>
8303 </p><p>
8304 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, obviously, yes,</span>»</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We could
8305 contribute to the campaigns of a number of representatives to try to assure
8306 that they support the bill.</span>»</span>
8307 </p><p>
8308 You hate politics. You hate contributing to campaigns. So you want to know
8309 whether this disgusting practice is worth it. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much would we get
8310 if this extension were passed?</span>»</span> you ask the adviser. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much
8311 is it worth?</span>»</span>
8312 </p><p>
8313 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well,</span>»</span> the adviser says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">if you're confident that you
8314 will continue to get at least $100,000 a year from these copyrights, and you
8315 use the `discount rate' that we use to evaluate estate investments (6
8316 percent), then this law would be worth $1,146,000 to the estate.</span>»</span>
8317 </p><p>
8318 You're a bit shocked by the number, but you quickly come to the correct
8319 conclusion:
8320 </p><p>
8321 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">So you're saying it would be worth it for us to pay more than
8322 $1,000,000 in campaign contributions if we were confident those
8323 contributions would assure that the bill was passed?</span>»</span>
8324 </p><p>
8325 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Absolutely,</span>»</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">It is worth it to
8326 you to contribute up to the `present value' of the income you expect from
8327 these copyrights. Which for us means over $1,000,000.</span>»</span>
8328 </p><p>
8329
8330 You quickly get the point&#8212;you as the member of the board and, I trust,
8331 you the reader. Each time copyrights are about to expire, every beneficiary
8332 in the position of the Robert Frost estate faces the same choice: If they
8333 can contribute to get a law passed to extend copyrights, they will benefit
8334 greatly from that extension. And so each time copyrights are about to
8335 expire, there is a massive amount of lobbying to get the copyright term
8336 extended.
8337 </p><p>
8338 Thus a congressional perpetual motion machine: So long as legislation can be
8339 bought (albeit indirectly), there will be all the incentive in the world to
8340 buy further extensions of copyright.
8341 </p><p>
8342 In the lobbying that led to the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term
8343 Extension Act, this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theory</span>»</span> about incentives was proved
8344 real. Ten of the thirteen original sponsors of the act in the House received
8345 the maximum contribution from Disney's political action committee; in the
8346 Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2809653" href="#ftn.id2809653" class="footnote">181</a>]</sup> The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent
8347 over $1.5 million lobbying in the 1998 election cycle. They paid out more
8348 than $200,000 in campaign contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2809670" href="#ftn.id2809670" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to
8349 reelection campaigns in the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id2809688" href="#ftn.id2809688" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
8350
8351 </p><p>
8352 <span class="strong"><strong>Constitutional law</strong></span> is not oblivious to
8353 the obvious. Or at least, it need not be. So when I was considering Eldred's
8354 complaint, this reality about the never-ending incentives to increase the
8355 copyright term was central to my thinking. In my view, a pragmatic court
8356 committed to interpreting and applying the Constitution of our framers would
8357 see that if Congress has the power to extend existing terms, then there
8358 would be no effective constitutional requirement that terms be
8359 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> If they could extend it once, they would extend it
8360 again and again and again.
8361 </p><p>
8362
8363 It was also my judgment that <span class="emphasis"><em>this</em></span> Supreme Court would
8364 not allow Congress to extend existing terms. As anyone close to the Supreme
8365 Court's work knows, this Court has increasingly restricted the power of
8366 Congress when it has viewed Congress's actions as exceeding the power
8367 granted to it by the Constitution. Among constitutional scholars, the most
8368 famous example of this trend was the Supreme Court's decision in 1995 to
8369 strike down a law that banned the possession of guns near schools.
8370 </p><p>
8371 Since 1937, the Supreme Court had interpreted Congress's granted powers very
8372 broadly; so, while the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate
8373 only <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>»</span> (aka <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">interstate
8374 commerce</span>»</span>), the Supreme Court had interpreted that power to include
8375 the power to regulate any activity that merely affected interstate commerce.
8376 </p><p>
8377 As the economy grew, this standard increasingly meant that there was no
8378 limit to Congress's power to regulate, since just about every activity, when
8379 considered on a national scale, affects interstate commerce.  A Constitution
8380 designed to limit Congress's power was instead interpreted to impose no
8381 limit.
8382 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2809772"></a><p>
8383 The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed that in
8384 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The
8385 government had argued that possessing guns near schools affected interstate
8386 commerce. Guns near schools increase crime, crime lowers property values,
8387 and so on. In the oral argument, the Chief Justice asked the government
8388 whether there was any activity that would not affect interstate commerce
8389 under the reasoning the government advanced. The government said there was
8390 not; if Congress says an activity affects interstate commerce, then that
8391 activity affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court, the government
8392 said, was not in the position to second-guess Congress.
8393 </p><p>
8394 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We pause to consider the implications of the government's
8395 arguments,</span>»</span> the Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id2809806" href="#ftn.id2809806" class="footnote">184</a>]</sup> If anything Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be
8396 considered interstate commerce, then there would be no limit to Congress's
8397 power. The decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> was reaffirmed five
8398 years later in <em class="citetitle">United States</em>
8399 v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<sup>[<a name="id2809832" href="#ftn.id2809832" class="footnote">185</a>]</sup>
8400 </p><p>
8401
8402 If a principle were at work here, then it should apply to the Progress
8403 Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<sup>[<a name="id2809853" href="#ftn.id2809853" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
8404 And if it is applied to the Progress Clause, the principle should yield the
8405 conclusion that Congress can't extend an existing term. If Congress could
8406 extend an existing term, then there would be no <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stopping
8407 point</span>»</span> to Congress's power over terms, though the Constitution
8408 expressly states that there is such a limit. Thus, the same principle
8409 applied to the power to grant copyrights should entail that Congress is not
8410 allowed to extend the term of existing copyrights.
8411 </p><p>
8412 <span class="emphasis"><em>If</em></span>, that is, the principle announced in
8413 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for a principle.  Many believed the
8414 decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for politics&#8212;a
8415 conservative Supreme Court, which believed in states' rights, using its
8416 power over Congress to advance its own personal political preferences. But I
8417 rejected that view of the Supreme Court's decision. Indeed, shortly after
8418 the decision, I wrote an article demonstrating the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fidelity</span>»</span>
8419 in such an interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that the Supreme
8420 Court decides cases based upon its politics struck me as extraordinarily
8421 boring.  I was not going to devote my life to teaching constitutional law if
8422 these nine Justices were going to be petty politicians.
8423 </p><p>
8424 <span class="strong"><strong>Now let's pause</strong></span> for a moment to make sure
8425 we understand what the argument in <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was not
8426 about. By insisting on the Constitution's limits to copyright, obviously
8427 Eldred was not endorsing piracy.  Indeed, in an obvious sense, he was
8428 fighting a kind of piracy&#8212;piracy of the public domain. When Robert
8429 Frost wrote his work and when Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse, the maximum
8430 copyright term was just fifty-six years. Because of interim changes, Frost
8431 and Disney had already enjoyed a seventy-five-year monopoly for their
8432 work. They had gotten the benefit of the bargain that the Constitution
8433 envisions: In exchange for a monopoly protected for fifty-six years, they
8434 created new work. But now these entities were using their
8435 power&#8212;expressed through the power of lobbyists' money&#8212;to get
8436 another twenty-year dollop of monopoly. That twenty-year dollop would be
8437 taken from the public domain. Eric Eldred was fighting a piracy that affects
8438 us all.
8439 </p><p>
8440 Some people view the public domain with contempt. In their brief before the
8441 Supreme Court, the Nashville Songwriters Association wrote that the public
8442 domain is nothing more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2809948" href="#ftn.id2809948" class="footnote">187</a>]</sup> But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in
8443 our constitutional system, our law requires it. Some may not like the
8444 Constitution's requirements, but that doesn't make the Constitution a
8445 pirate's charter.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2809974"></a>
8446 </p><p>
8447 As we've seen, our constitutional system requires limits on copyright as a
8448 way to assure that copyright holders do not too heavily influence the
8449 development and distribution of our culture. Yet, as Eric Eldred discovered,
8450 we have set up a system that assures that copyright terms will be repeatedly
8451 extended, and extended, and extended. We have created the perfect storm for
8452 the public domain. Copyrights have not expired, and will not expire, so long
8453 as Congress is free to be bought to extend them again.
8454 </p><p>
8455 <span class="strong"><strong>It is valuable</strong></span> copyrights that are
8456 responsible for terms being extended.  Mickey Mouse and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rhapsody in
8457 Blue.</span>»</span> These works are too valuable for copyright owners to
8458 ignore. But the real harm to our society from copyright extensions is not
8459 that Mickey Mouse remains Disney's.  Forget Mickey Mouse. Forget Robert
8460 Frost. Forget all the works from the 1920s and 1930s that have continuing
8461 commercial value. The real harm of term extension comes not from these
8462 famous works. The real harm is to the works that are not famous, not
8463 commercially exploited, and no longer available as a result.
8464 </p><p>
8465 If you look at the work created in the first twenty years (1923 to 1942)
8466 affected by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 2 percent of that
8467 work has any continuing commercial value. It was the copyright holders for
8468 that 2 percent who pushed the CTEA through.  But the law and its effect were
8469 not limited to that 2 percent. The law extended the terms of copyright
8470 generally.<sup>[<a name="id2810023" href="#ftn.id2810023" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
8471
8472 </p><p>
8473
8474 Think practically about the consequence of this extension&#8212;practically,
8475 as a businessperson, and not as a lawyer eager for more legal work. In 1930,
8476 10,047 books were published. In 2000, 174 of those books were still in
8477 print. Let's say you were Brewster Kahle, and you wanted to make available
8478 to the world in your iArchive project the remaining 9,873. What would you
8479 have to do?
8480 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2810050"></a><p>
8481 Well, first, you'd have to determine which of the 9,873 books were still
8482 under copyright. That requires going to a library (these data are not
8483 on-line) and paging through tomes of books, cross-checking the titles and
8484 authors of the 9,873 books with the copyright registration and renewal
8485 records for works published in 1930. That will produce a list of books still
8486 under copyright.
8487 </p><p>
8488 Then for the books still under copyright, you would need to locate the
8489 current copyright owners. How would you do that?
8490 </p><p>
8491 Most people think that there must be a list of these copyright owners
8492 somewhere. Practical people think this way. How could there be thousands and
8493 thousands of government monopolies without there being at least a list?
8494 </p><p>
8495 But there is no list. There may be a name from 1930, and then in 1959, of
8496 the person who registered the copyright. But just think practically about
8497 how impossibly difficult it would be to track down thousands of such
8498 records&#8212;especially since the person who registered is not necessarily
8499 the current owner. And we're just talking about 1930!
8500 </p><p>
8501 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But there isn't a list of who owns property generally,</span>»</span> the
8502 apologists for the system respond. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Why should there be a list of
8503 copyright owners?</span>»</span>
8504 </p><p>
8505 Well, actually, if you think about it, there <span class="emphasis"><em>are</em></span> plenty
8506 of lists of who owns what property. Think about deeds on houses, or titles
8507 to cars.  And where there isn't a list, the code of real space is pretty
8508 good at suggesting who the owner of a bit of property is. (A swing set in
8509 your backyard is probably yours.) So formally or informally, we have a
8510 pretty good way to know who owns what tangible property.
8511 </p><p>
8512
8513 So: You walk down a street and see a house. You can know who owns the house
8514 by looking it up in the courthouse registry. If you see a car, there is
8515 ordinarily a license plate that will link the owner to the car. If you see a
8516 bunch of children's toys sitting on the front lawn of a house, it's fairly
8517 easy to determine who owns the toys. And if you happen to see a baseball
8518 lying in a gutter on the side of the road, look around for a second for some
8519 kids playing ball. If you don't see any kids, then okay: Here's a bit of
8520 property whose owner we can't easily determine. It is the exception that
8521 proves the rule: that we ordinarily know quite well who owns what property.
8522 </p><p>
8523 Compare this story to intangible property. You go into a library.  The
8524 library owns the books. But who owns the copyrights? As I've already
8525 described, there's no list of copyright owners. There are authors' names, of
8526 course, but their copyrights could have been assigned, or passed down in an
8527 estate like Grandma's old jewelry. To know who owns what, you would have to
8528 hire a private detective. The bottom line: The owner cannot easily be
8529 located. And in a regime like ours, in which it is a felony to use such
8530 property without the property owner's permission, the property isn't going
8531 to be used.
8532 </p><p>
8533 The consequence with respect to old books is that they won't be digitized,
8534 and hence will simply rot away on shelves. But the consequence for other
8535 creative works is much more dire.
8536 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2810170"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2810177"></a><p>
8537 Consider the story of Michael Agee, chairman of Hal Roach Studios, which
8538 owns the copyrights for the Laurel and Hardy films. Agee is a direct
8539 beneficiary of the Bono Act. The Laurel and Hardy films were made between
8540 1921 and 1951. Only one of these films, <em class="citetitle">The Lucky
8541 Dog</em>, is currently out of copyright. But for the CTEA, films made
8542 after 1923 would have begun entering the public domain. Because Agee
8543 controls the exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal
8544 of money. According to one estimate, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Roach has sold about 60,000
8545 videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent
8546 films.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2810201" href="#ftn.id2810201" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2810224"></a>
8547 </p><p>
8548 Yet Agee opposed the CTEA. His reasons demonstrate a rare virtue in this
8549 culture: selflessness. He argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that
8550 the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act will, if left standing, destroy
8551 a whole generation of American film.
8552 </p><p>
8553
8554 His argument is straightforward. A tiny fraction of this work has any
8555 continuing commercial value. The rest&#8212;to the extent it survives at
8556 all&#8212;sits in vaults gathering dust. It may be that some of this work
8557 not now commercially valuable will be deemed to be valuable by the owners of
8558 the vaults. For this to occur, however, the commercial benefit from the work
8559 must exceed the costs of making the work available for distribution.
8560 </p><p>
8561 We can't know the benefits, but we do know a lot about the costs.  For most
8562 of the history of film, the costs of restoring film were very high; digital
8563 technology has lowered these costs substantially. While it cost more than
8564 $10,000 to restore a ninety-minute black-and-white film in 1993, it can now
8565 cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.<sup>[<a name="id2810261" href="#ftn.id2810261" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
8566
8567 </p><p>
8568 Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most important.
8569 Lawyers, too, are a cost, and increasingly, a very important one. In
8570 addition to preserving the film, a distributor needs to secure the rights.
8571 And to secure the rights for a film that is under copyright, you need to
8572 locate the copyright owner.
8573 </p><p>
8574 Or more accurately, <span class="emphasis"><em>owners</em></span>. As we've seen, there isn't
8575 only a single copyright associated with a film; there are many. There isn't
8576 a single person whom you can contact about those copyrights; there are as
8577 many as can hold the rights, which turns out to be an extremely large
8578 number. Thus the costs of clearing the rights to these films is
8579 exceptionally high.
8580 </p><p>
8581 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But can't you just restore the film, distribute it, and then pay the
8582 copyright owner when she shows up?</span>»</span> Sure, if you want to commit a
8583 felony. And even if you're not worried about committing a felony, when she
8584 does show up, she'll have the right to sue you for all the profits you have
8585 made. So, if you're successful, you can be fairly confident you'll be
8586 getting a call from someone's lawyer. And if you're not successful, you
8587 won't make enough to cover the costs of your own lawyer. Either way, you
8588 have to talk to a lawyer. And as is too often the case, saying you have to
8589 talk to a lawyer is the same as saying you won't make any money.
8590 </p><p>
8591
8592 For some films, the benefit of releasing the film may well exceed these
8593 costs. But for the vast majority of them, there is no way the benefit would
8594 outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old films, Agee
8595 argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until the copyright
8596 expires.
8597 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2810338"></a><p>
8598 But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will have
8599 expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and nitrate stock
8600 dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal canisters in which
8601 they are now stored will be filled with nothing more than dust.
8602 </p><p>
8603 <span class="strong"><strong>Of all the</strong></span> creative work produced by
8604 humans anywhere, a tiny fraction has continuing commercial value. For that
8605 tiny fraction, the copyright is a crucially important legal device. For that
8606 tiny fraction, the copyright creates incentives to produce and distribute
8607 the creative work. For that tiny fraction, the copyright acts as an
8608 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">engine of free expression.</span>»</span>
8609 </p><p>
8610 But even for that tiny fraction, the actual time during which the creative
8611 work has a commercial life is extremely short. As I've indicated, most books
8612 go out of print within one year. The same is true of music and
8613 film. Commercial culture is sharklike. It must keep moving.  And when a
8614 creative work falls out of favor with the commercial distributors, the
8615 commercial life ends.
8616 </p><p>
8617 Yet that doesn't mean the life of the creative work ends. We don't keep
8618 libraries of books in order to compete with Barnes &amp; Noble, and we don't
8619 have archives of films because we expect people to choose between spending
8620 Friday night watching new movies and spending Friday night watching a 1930
8621 news documentary. The noncommercial life of culture is important and
8622 valuable&#8212;for entertainment but also, and more importantly, for
8623 knowledge. To understand who we are, and where we came from, and how we have
8624 made the mistakes that we have, we need to have access to this history.
8625 </p><p>
8626
8627 Copyrights in this context do not drive an engine of free expression.  In
8628 this context, there is no need for an exclusive right. Copyrights in this
8629 context do no good.
8630 </p><p>
8631 Yet, for most of our history, they also did little harm. For most of our
8632 history, when a work ended its commercial life, there was no
8633 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright-related use</em></span> that would be inhibited by an
8634 exclusive right.  When a book went out of print, you could not buy it from a
8635 publisher.  But you could still buy it from a used book store, and when a
8636 used book store sells it, in America, at least, there is no need to pay the
8637 copyright owner anything. Thus, the ordinary use of a book after its
8638 commercial life ended was a use that was independent of copyright law.
8639 </p><p>
8640 The same was effectively true of film. Because the costs of restoring a
8641 film&#8212;the real economic costs, not the lawyer costs&#8212;were so high,
8642 it was never at all feasible to preserve or restore film. Like the remains
8643 of a great dinner, when it's over, it's over. Once a film passed out of its
8644 commercial life, it may have been archived for a bit, but that was the end
8645 of its life so long as the market didn't have more to offer.
8646 </p><p>
8647 In other words, though copyright has been relatively short for most of our
8648 history, long copyrights wouldn't have mattered for the works that lost
8649 their commercial value. Long copyrights for these works would not have
8650 interfered with anything.
8651 </p><p>
8652 But this situation has now changed.
8653 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital2"></a><p>
8654 One crucially important consequence of the emergence of digital technologies
8655 is to enable the archive that Brewster Kahle dreams of.  Digital
8656 technologies now make it possible to preserve and give access to all sorts
8657 of knowledge. Once a book goes out of print, we can now imagine digitizing
8658 it and making it available to everyone, forever. Once a film goes out of
8659 distribution, we could digitize it and make it available to everyone,
8660 forever. Digital technologies give new life to copyrighted material after it
8661 passes out of its commercial life. It is now possible to preserve and assure
8662 universal access to this knowledge and culture, whereas before it was not.
8663 </p><p>
8664
8665
8666 And now copyright law does get in the way. Every step of producing this
8667 digital archive of our culture infringes on the exclusive right of
8668 copyright. To digitize a book is to copy it. To do that requires permission
8669 of the copyright owner. The same with music, film, or any other aspect of
8670 our culture protected by copyright. The effort to make these things
8671 available to history, or to researchers, or to those who just want to
8672 explore, is now inhibited by a set of rules that were written for a
8673 radically different context.
8674 </p><p>
8675 Here is the core of the harm that comes from extending terms: Now that
8676 technology enables us to rebuild the library of Alexandria, the law gets in
8677 the way. And it doesn't get in the way for any useful
8678 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span> purpose, for the purpose of copyright is to
8679 enable the commercial market that spreads culture. No, we are talking about
8680 culture after it has lived its commercial life. In this context, copyright
8681 is serving no purpose <span class="emphasis"><em>at all</em></span> related to the spread of
8682 knowledge. In this context, copyright is not an engine of free
8683 expression. Copyright is a brake.
8684 </p><p>
8685 You may well ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But if digital technologies lower the costs for
8686 Brewster Kahle, then they will lower the costs for Random House, too.  So
8687 won't Random House do as well as Brewster Kahle in spreading culture
8688 widely?</span>»</span>
8689 </p><p>
8690 Maybe. Someday. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that
8691 publishers would be as complete as libraries. If Barnes &amp; Noble offered
8692 to lend books from its stores for a low price, would that eliminate the need
8693 for libraries? Only if you think that the only role of a library is to serve
8694 what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the market</span>»</span> would demand. But if you think the role of a
8695 library is bigger than this&#8212;if you think its role is to archive
8696 culture, whether there's a demand for any particular bit of that culture or
8697 not&#8212;then we can't count on the commercial market to do our library
8698 work for us.
8699 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2810530"></a><p>
8700 I would be the first to agree that it should do as much as it can: We should
8701 rely upon the market as much as possible to spread and enable culture. My
8702 message is absolutely not antimarket. But where we see the market is not
8703 doing the job, then we should allow nonmarket forces the freedom to fill the
8704 gaps. As one researcher calculated for American culture, 94 percent of the
8705 films, books, and music produced between and 1946 is not commercially
8706 available. However much you love the commercial market, if access is a
8707 value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.<sup>[<a name="id2810556" href="#ftn.id2810556" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
8708
8709 </p><p>
8710 <span class="strong"><strong>In January 1999</strong></span>, we filed a lawsuit on
8711 Eric Eldred's behalf in federal district court in Washington, D.C., asking
8712 the court to declare the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
8713 unconstitutional. The two central claims that we made were (1)  that
8714 extending existing terms violated the Constitution's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited
8715 Times</span>»</span> requirement, and (2) that extending terms by another twenty
8716 years violated the First Amendment.
8717 </p><p>
8718 The district court dismissed our claims without even hearing an argument.  A
8719 panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also dismissed our
8720 claims, though after hearing an extensive argument. But that decision at
8721 least had a dissent, by one of the most conservative judges on that
8722 court. That dissent gave our claims life.
8723 </p><p>
8724 Judge David Sentelle said the CTEA violated the requirement that copyrights
8725 be for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited Times</span>»</span> only. His argument was as elegant as it
8726 was simple: If Congress can extend existing terms, then there is no
8727 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stopping point</span>»</span> to Congress's power under the Copyright
8728 Clause. The power to extend existing terms means Congress is not required to
8729 grant terms that are <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> Thus, Judge Sentelle argued,
8730 the court had to interpret the term <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited Times</span>»</span> to give it
8731 meaning. And the best interpretation, Judge Sentelle argued, would be to
8732 deny Congress the power to extend existing terms.
8733 </p><p>
8734 We asked the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as a whole to hear the
8735 case. Cases are ordinarily heard in panels of three, except for important
8736 cases or cases that raise issues specific to the circuit as a whole, where
8737 the court will sit <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en banc</span>»</span> to hear the case.
8738 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2810640"></a><p>
8739
8740 The Court of Appeals rejected our request to hear the case en banc.  This
8741 time, Judge Sentelle was joined by the most liberal member of the
8742 D.C. Circuit, Judge David Tatel. Both the most conservative and the most
8743 liberal judges in the D.C. Circuit believed Congress had overstepped its
8744 bounds.
8745 </p><p>
8746 It was here that most expected Eldred v. Ashcroft would die, for the Supreme
8747 Court rarely reviews any decision by a court of appeals. (It hears about one
8748 hundred cases a year, out of more than five thousand appeals.) And it
8749 practically never reviews a decision that upholds a statute when no other
8750 court has yet reviewed the statute.
8751 </p><p>
8752 But in February 2002, the Supreme Court surprised the world by granting our
8753 petition to review the D.C. Circuit opinion. Argument was set for October of
8754 2002. The summer would be spent writing briefs and preparing for argument.
8755 </p><p>
8756 <span class="strong"><strong>It is over</strong></span> a year later as I write these
8757 words. It is still astonishingly hard. If you know anything at all about
8758 this story, you know that we lost the appeal. And if you know something more
8759 than just the minimum, you probably think there was no way this case could
8760 have been won. After our defeat, I received literally thousands of missives
8761 by well-wishers and supporters, thanking me for my work on behalf of this
8762 noble but doomed cause. And none from this pile was more significant to me
8763 than the e-mail from my client, Eric Eldred.
8764 </p><p>
8765 Men min klient og disse vennene tok feil. Denne saken kunne vært vunnet. Det
8766 burde ha vært vunnet.  Og uansett hvor hardt jeg prøver å fortelle den
8767 historien til meg selv, kan jeg aldri unnslippe troen på at det er min feil
8768 at vi ikke vant.
8769 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2810707"></a><p>
8770
8771 <span class="strong"><strong>Feil</strong></span> ble gjort tidlig, skjønt den ble
8772 først åpenbart på slutten. Vår sak hadde støtte hos en ekstraordinær
8773 advokat, Geoffrey Stewart, helt fra starten, og hos advokatfirmaet hadde han
8774 flyttet til, Jones, Day, Reavis og Pogue. Jones Day mottok mye press fra
8775 sine opphavsrettsbeskyttende klienter på grunn av sin støtte til oss.  De
8776 ignorert dette presset (noe veldig få advokatfirmaer noen sinne ville
8777 gjøre), og ga alt de hadde gjennom hele saken.
8778 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2810735"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2810741"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2810748"></a><p>
8779 Det var tre viktige advokater på saken fra Jones DaY. Geoff Stewart var den
8780 først, men siden ble Dan Bromberg og Don Ayer ganske involvert. Bromberg og
8781 Ayer spesielt hadde en felles oppfatning om hvordan denne saken ville bli
8782 vunnet: vi ville bare vinne, fortalte de gjentatte ganger til meg, hvis vi
8783 få problemet til å virke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">viktig</span>»</span> for Høyesterett. Det måtte
8784 synes som om dramatisk skade ble gjort til ytringsfriheten og fri kultur,
8785 ellers ville de aldri stemt mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">de mektigste mediaselskapene i
8786 verden</span>»</span>.
8787 </p><p>
8788 I hate this view of the law. Of course I thought the Sonny Bono Act was a
8789 dramatic harm to free speech and free culture. Of course I still think it
8790 is. But the idea that the Supreme Court decides the law based on how
8791 important they believe the issues are is just wrong. It might be
8792 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span> as in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">true,</span>»</span> I thought, but it is
8793 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">wrong</span>»</span> as in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">it just shouldn't be that way.</span>»</span> As
8794 I believed that any faithful interpretation of what the framers of our
8795 Constitution did would yield the conclusion that the CTEA was
8796 unconstitutional, and as I believed that any faithful interpretation of what
8797 the First Amendment means would yield the conclusion that the power to
8798 extend existing copyright terms is unconstitutional, I was not persuaded
8799 that we had to sell our case like soap.  Just as a law that bans the
8800 swastika is unconstitutional not because the Court likes Nazis but because
8801 such a law would violate the Constitution, so too, in my view, would the
8802 Court decide whether Congress's law was constitutional based on the
8803 Constitution, not based on whether they liked the values that the framers
8804 put in the Constitution.
8805 </p><p>
8806 In any case, I thought, the Court must already see the danger and the harm
8807 caused by this sort of law. Why else would they grant review? There was no
8808 reason to hear the case in the Supreme Court if they weren't convinced that
8809 this regulation was harmful. So in my view, we didn't need to persuade them
8810 that this law was bad, we needed to show why it was unconstitutional.
8811 </p><p>
8812
8813 There was one way, however, in which I felt politics would matter and in
8814 which I thought a response was appropriate. I was convinced that the Court
8815 would not hear our arguments if it thought these were just the arguments of
8816 a group of lefty loons. This Supreme Court was not about to launch into a
8817 new field of judicial review if it seemed that this field of review was
8818 simply the preference of a small political minority.  Although my focus in
8819 the case was not to demonstrate how bad the Sonny Bono Act was but to
8820 demonstrate that it was unconstitutional, my hope was to make this argument
8821 against a background of briefs that covered the full range of political
8822 views. To show that this claim against the CTEA was grounded in
8823 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> and not politics, then, we tried to gather the
8824 widest range of credible critics&#8212;credible not because they were rich
8825 and famous, but because they, in the aggregate, demonstrated that this law
8826 was unconstitutional regardless of one's politics.
8827 </p><p>
8828 The first step happened all by itself. Phyllis Schlafly's organization,
8829 Eagle Forum, had been an opponent of the CTEA from the very beginning.
8830 Mrs. Schlafly viewed the CTEA as a sellout by Congress. In November 1998,
8831 she wrote a stinging editorial attacking the Republican Congress for
8832 allowing the law to pass. As she wrote, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Do you sometimes wonder why
8833 bills that create a financial windfall to narrow special interests slide
8834 easily through the intricate legislative process, while bills that benefit
8835 the general public seem to get bogged down?</span>»</span> The answer, as the
8836 editorial documented, was the power of money.  Schlafly enumerated Disney's
8837 contributions to the key players on the committees. It was money, not
8838 justice, that gave Mickey Mouse twenty more years in Disney's control,
8839 Schlafly argued.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2810874"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2810881"></a>
8840 </p><p>
8841 In the Court of Appeals, Eagle Forum was eager to file a brief supporting
8842 our position. Their brief made the argument that became the core claim in
8843 the Supreme Court: If Congress can extend the term of existing copyrights,
8844 there is no limit to Congress's power to set terms.  That strong
8845 conservative argument persuaded a strong conservative judge, Judge Sentelle.
8846 </p><p>
8847 In the Supreme Court, the briefs on our side were about as diverse as it
8848 gets. They included an extraordinary historical brief by the Free Software
8849 Foundation (home of the GNU project that made GNU/ Linux possible). They
8850 included a powerful brief about the costs of uncertainty by Intel. There
8851 were two law professors' briefs, one by copyright scholars and one by First
8852 Amendment scholars. There was an exhaustive and uncontroverted brief by the
8853 world's experts in the history of the Progress Clause. And of course, there
8854 was a new brief by Eagle Forum, repeating and strengthening its arguments.
8855 <a class="indexterm" name="id2810910"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2810918"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2810924"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2810931"></a>
8856 </p><p>
8857 Those briefs framed a legal argument. Then to support the legal argument,
8858 there were a number of powerful briefs by libraries and archives, including
8859 the Internet Archive, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the
8860 National Writers Union.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2810944"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2810951"></a>
8861 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2810959"></a><p>
8862 But two briefs captured the policy argument best. One made the argument I've
8863 already described: A brief by Hal Roach Studios argued that unless the law
8864 was struck, a whole generation of American film would disappear. The other
8865 made the economic argument absolutely clear.
8866 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2810977"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2810984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2810990"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2810996"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2811002"></a><p>
8867 This economists' brief was signed by seventeen economists, including five
8868 Nobel Prize winners, including Ronald Coase, James Buchanan, Milton
8869 Friedman, Kenneth Arrow, and George Akerlof. The economists, as the list of
8870 Nobel winners demonstrates, spanned the political spectrum. Their
8871 conclusions were powerful: There was no plausible claim that extending the
8872 terms of existing copyrights would do anything to increase incentives to
8873 create. Such extensions were nothing more than
8874 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rent-seeking</span>»</span>&#8212;the fancy term economists use to describe
8875 special-interest legislation gone wild.
8876 </p><p>
8877 The same effort at balance was reflected in the legal team we gathered to
8878 write our briefs in the case. The Jones Day lawyers had been with us from
8879 the start. But when the case got to the Supreme Court, we added three
8880 lawyers to help us frame this argument to this Court: Alan Morrison, a
8881 lawyer from Public Citizen, a Washington group that had made constitutional
8882 history with a series of seminal victories in the Supreme Court defending
8883 individual rights; my colleague and dean, Kathleen Sullivan, who had argued
8884 many cases in the Court, and who had advised us early on about a First
8885 Amendment strategy; and finally, former solicitor general Charles Fried.
8886 <a class="indexterm" name="id2811038"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2811047"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2811053"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2811059"></a>
8887 </p><p>
8888 Fried was a special victory for our side. Every other former solicitor
8889 general was hired by the other side to defend Congress's power to give media
8890 companies the special favor of extended copyright terms. Fried was the only
8891 one who turned down that lucrative assignment to stand up for something he
8892 believed in. He had been Ronald Reagan's chief lawyer in the Supreme
8893 Court. He had helped craft the line of cases that limited Congress's power
8894 in the context of the Commerce Clause. And while he had argued many
8895 positions in the Supreme Court that I personally disagreed with, his joining
8896 the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2811079"></a>
8897 </p><p>
8898 The government, in defending the statute, had its collection of friends, as
8899 well. Significantly, however, none of these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friends</span>»</span> included
8900 historians or economists. The briefs on the other side of the case were
8901 written exclusively by major media companies, congressmen, and copyright
8902 holders.
8903 </p><p>
8904 The media companies were not surprising. They had the most to gain from the
8905 law. The congressmen were not surprising either&#8212;they were defending
8906 their power and, indirectly, the gravy train of contributions such power
8907 induced. And of course it was not surprising that the copyright holders
8908 would defend the idea that they should continue to have the right to control
8909 who did what with content they wanted to control.
8910 </p><p>
8911 Dr. Seuss's representatives, for example, argued that it was better for the
8912 Dr. Seuss estate to control what happened to Dr. Seuss's work&#8212; better
8913 than allowing it to fall into the public domain&#8212;because if this
8914 creativity were in the public domain, then people could use it to
8915 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">glorify drugs or to create pornography.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2811119" href="#ftn.id2811119" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate,
8916 which defended its <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protection</span>»</span> of the work of George
8917 Gershwin. They refuse, for example, to license <em class="citetitle">Porgy and
8918 Bess</em> to anyone who refuses to use African Americans in the
8919 cast.<sup>[<a name="id2811144" href="#ftn.id2811144" class="footnote">193</a>]</sup> That's their view of how this
8920 part of American culture should be controlled, and they wanted this law to
8921 help them effect that control.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2811160"></a>
8922 </p><p>
8923 This argument made clear a theme that is rarely noticed in this debate.
8924 When Congress decides to extend the term of existing copyrights, Congress is
8925 making a choice about which speakers it will favor.  Famous and beloved
8926 copyright owners, such as the Gershwin estate and Dr. Seuss, come to
8927 Congress and say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Give us twenty years to control the speech about
8928 these icons of American culture. We'll do better with them than anyone
8929 else.</span>»</span> Congress of course likes to reward the popular and famous by
8930 giving them what they want. But when Congress gives people an exclusive
8931 right to speak in a certain way, that's just what the First Amendment is
8932 traditionally meant to block.
8933 </p><p>
8934 We argued as much in a final brief. Not only would upholding the CTEA mean
8935 that there was no limit to the power of Congress to extend
8936 copyrights&#8212;extensions that would further concentrate the market; it
8937 would also mean that there was no limit to Congress's power to play
8938 favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak.
8939 </p><p>
8940 <span class="strong"><strong>Between February</strong></span> and October, there was
8941 little I did beyond preparing for this case. Early on, as I said, I set the
8942 strategy.
8943 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2811208"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2811214"></a><p>
8944 The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we called
8945 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conservatives.</span>»</span> The other we called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
8946 Rest.</span>»</span> The Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice
8947 O'Connor, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas. These five
8948 had been the most consistent in limiting Congress's power. They were the
8949 five who had supported the <em class="citetitle">Lopez/Morrison</em> line of
8950 cases that said that an enumerated power had to be interpreted to assure
8951 that Congress's powers had limits.
8952 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2811241"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxginsburg"></a><p>
8953
8954 The Rest were the four Justices who had strongly opposed limits on
8955 Congress's power. These four&#8212;Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice
8956 Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer&#8212;had repeatedly argued that the
8957 Constitution gives Congress broad discretion to decide how best to implement
8958 its powers. In case after case, these justices had argued that the Court's
8959 role should be one of deference. Though the votes of these four justices
8960 were the votes that I personally had most consistently agreed with, they
8961 were also the votes that we were least likely to get.
8962 </p><p>
8963 In particular, the least likely was Justice Ginsburg's. In addition to her
8964 general view about deference to Congress (except where issues of gender are
8965 involved), she had been particularly deferential in the context of
8966 intellectual property protections. She and her daughter (an excellent and
8967 well-known intellectual property scholar) were cut from the same
8968 intellectual property cloth. We expected she would agree with the writings
8969 of her daughter: that Congress had the power in this context to do as it
8970 wished, even if what Congress wished made little sense.
8971 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2811287"></a><p>
8972 Close behind Justice Ginsburg were two justices whom we also viewed as
8973 unlikely allies, though possible surprises. Justice Souter strongly favored
8974 deference to Congress, as did Justice Breyer. But both were also very
8975 sensitive to free speech concerns. And as we strongly believed, there was a
8976 very important free speech argument against these retrospective extensions.
8977 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2811303"></a><p>
8978 The only vote we could be confident about was that of Justice
8979 Stevens. History will record Justice Stevens as one of the greatest judges
8980 on this Court. His votes are consistently eclectic, which just means that no
8981 simple ideology explains where he will stand. But he had consistently argued
8982 for limits in the context of intellectual property generally. We were fairly
8983 confident he would recognize limits here.
8984 </p><p>
8985 This analysis of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Rest</span>»</span> showed most clearly where our focus
8986 had to be: on the Conservatives. To win this case, we had to crack open
8987 these five and get at least a majority to go our way. Thus, the single
8988 overriding argument that animated our claim rested on the Conservatives'
8989 most important jurisprudential innovation&#8212;the argument that Judge
8990 Sentelle had relied upon in the Court of Appeals, that Congress's power must
8991 be interpreted so that its enumerated powers have limits.
8992 </p><p>
8993
8994 This then was the core of our strategy&#8212;a strategy for which I am
8995 responsible. We would get the Court to see that just as with the
8996 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, under the government's argument here,
8997 Congress would always have unlimited power to extend existing terms. If
8998 anything was plain about Congress's power under the Progress Clause, it was
8999 that this power was supposed to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> Our aim would be
9000 to get the Court to reconcile <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> with
9001 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>: If Congress's power to regulate commerce was
9002 limited, then so, too, must Congress's power to regulate copyright be
9003 limited.
9004 </p><p>
9005 <span class="strong"><strong>The argument</strong></span> on the government's side
9006 came down to this: Congress has done it before. It should be allowed to do
9007 it again. The government claimed that from the very beginning, Congress has
9008 been extending the term of existing copyrights. So, the government argued,
9009 the Court should not now say that practice is unconstitutional.
9010 </p><p>
9011 There was some truth to the government's claim, but not much. We certainly
9012 agreed that Congress had extended existing terms in 1831 and in 1909. And of
9013 course, in 1962, Congress began extending existing terms
9014 regularly&#8212;eleven times in forty years.
9015 </p><p>
9016 But this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">consistency</span>»</span> should be kept in perspective. Congress
9017 extended existing terms once in the first hundred years of the Republic.  It
9018 then extended existing terms once again in the next fifty. Those rare
9019 extensions are in contrast to the now regular practice of extending existing
9020 terms. Whatever restraint Congress had had in the past, that restraint was
9021 now gone. Congress was now in a cycle of extensions; there was no reason to
9022 expect that cycle would end. This Court had not hesitated to intervene where
9023 Congress was in a similar cycle of extension.  There was no reason it
9024 couldn't intervene here.
9025 </p><p>
9026
9027 <span class="strong"><strong>Oral argument</strong></span> was scheduled for the first
9028 week in October. I arrived in D.C. two weeks before the argument. During
9029 those two weeks, I was repeatedly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mooted</span>»</span> by lawyers who had
9030 volunteered to help in the case. Such <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">moots</span>»</span> are basically
9031 practice rounds, where wannabe justices fire questions at wannabe winners.
9032 </p><p>
9033 I was convinced that to win, I had to keep the Court focused on a single
9034 point: that if this extension is permitted, then there is no limit to the
9035 power to set terms. Going with the government would mean that terms would be
9036 effectively unlimited; going with us would give Congress a clear line to
9037 follow: Don't extend existing terms. The moots were an effective practice; I
9038 found ways to take every question back to this central idea.
9039 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2811443"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2811449"></a><p>
9040 One moot was before the lawyers at Jones Day. Don Ayer was the skeptic. He
9041 had served in the Reagan Justice Department with Solicitor General Charles
9042 Fried. He had argued many cases before the Supreme Court. And in his review
9043 of the moot, he let his concern speak: <a class="indexterm" name="id2811462"></a>
9044 </p><p>
9045 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I'm just afraid that unless they really see the harm, they won't be
9046 willing to upset this practice that the government says has been a
9047 consistent practice for two hundred years. You have to make them see the
9048 harm&#8212;passionately get them to see the harm. For if they don't see
9049 that, then we haven't any chance of winning.</span>»</span>
9050 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2811475"></a><p>
9051 He may have argued many cases before this Court, I thought, but he didn't
9052 understand its soul. As a clerk, I had seen the Justices do the right
9053 thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it was right. As a law
9054 professor, I had spent my life teaching my students that this Court does the
9055 right thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it is right. As I
9056 listened to Ayer's plea for passion in pressing politics, I understood his
9057 point, and I rejected it. Our argument was right. That was enough.  Let the
9058 politicians learn to see that it was also good.
9059 </p><p>
9060
9061 <span class="strong"><strong>The night before</strong></span> the argument, a line of
9062 people began to form in front of the Supreme Court. The case had become a
9063 focus of the press and of the movement to free culture. Hundreds stood in
9064 line for the chance to see the proceedings. Scores spent the night on the
9065 Supreme Court steps so that they would be assured a seat.
9066 </p><p>
9067 Not everyone has to wait in line. People who know the Justices can ask for
9068 seats they control. (I asked Justice Scalia's chambers for seats for my
9069 parents, for example.) Members of the Supreme Court bar can get a seat in a
9070 special section reserved for them. And senators and congressmen have a
9071 special place where they get to sit, too. And finally, of course, the press
9072 has a gallery, as do clerks working for the Justices on the Court. As we
9073 entered that morning, there was no place that was not taken. This was an
9074 argument about intellectual property law, yet the halls were filled. As I
9075 walked in to take my seat at the front of the Court, I saw my parents
9076 sitting on the left. As I sat down at the table, I saw Jack Valenti sitting
9077 in the special section ordinarily reserved for family of the Justices.
9078 </p><p>
9079 When the Chief Justice called me to begin my argument, I began where I
9080 intended to stay: on the question of the limits on Congress's power. This
9081 was a case about enumerated powers, I said, and whether those enumerated
9082 powers had any limit.
9083 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2811541"></a><p>
9084 Justice O'Connor stopped me within one minute of my opening.  The history
9085 was bothering her.
9086 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9087 justice o'connor: Congress has extended the term so often through the years,
9088 and if you are right, don't we run the risk of upsetting previous extensions
9089 of time? I mean, this seems to be a practice that began with the very first
9090 act.
9091 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9092 She was quite willing to concede <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">that this flies directly in the face
9093 of what the framers had in mind.</span>»</span> But my response again and again was
9094 to emphasize limits on Congress's power.
9095 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9096
9097 mr. lessig: Well, if it flies in the face of what the framers had in mind,
9098 then the question is, is there a way of interpreting their words that gives
9099 effect to what they had in mind, and the answer is yes.
9100 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9101 There were two points in this argument when I should have seen where the
9102 Court was going. The first was a question by Justice Kennedy, who observed,
9103 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9104 justice kennedy: Well, I suppose implicit in the argument that the '76 act,
9105 too, should have been declared void, and that we might leave it alone
9106 because of the disruption, is that for all these years the act has impeded
9107 progress in science and the useful arts.  I just don't see any empirical
9108 evidence for that.
9109 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9110 Here follows my clear mistake. Like a professor correcting a student, I
9111 answered,
9112 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9113 mr. lessig: Justice, we are not making an empirical claim at all.  Nothing
9114 in our Copyright Clause claim hangs upon the empirical assertion about
9115 impeding progress. Our only argument is this is a structural limit necessary
9116 to assure that what would be an effectively perpetual term not be permitted
9117 under the copyright laws.
9118 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2811619"></a><p>
9119 That was a correct answer, but it wasn't the right answer. The right answer
9120 was instead that there was an obvious and profound harm. Any number of
9121 briefs had been written about it. He wanted to hear it. And here was the
9122 place Don Ayer's advice should have mattered. This was a softball; my answer
9123 was a swing and a miss.
9124 </p><p>
9125 The second came from the Chief, for whom the whole case had been
9126 crafted. For the Chief Justice had crafted the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
9127 ruling, and we hoped that he would see this case as its second cousin.
9128 </p><p>
9129
9130 It was clear a second into his question that he wasn't at all sympathetic.
9131 To him, we were a bunch of anarchists. As he asked:
9132
9133
9134 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9135 chief justice: Well, but you want more than that. You want the right to copy
9136 verbatim other people's books, don't you?
9137 </p><p>
9138 mr. lessig: We want the right to copy verbatim works that should be in the
9139 public domain and would be in the public domain but for a statute that
9140 cannot be justified under ordinary First Amendment analysis or under a
9141 proper reading of the limits built into the Copyright Clause.
9142 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2811667"></a><p>
9143 Things went better for us when the government gave its argument; for now the
9144 Court picked up on the core of our claim. As Justice Scalia asked Solicitor
9145 General Olson,
9146 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9147 justice scalia: You say that the functional equivalent of an unlimited time
9148 would be a violation [of the Constitution], but that's precisely the
9149 argument that's being made by petitioners here, that a limited time which is
9150 extendable is the functional equivalent of an unlimited time.
9151 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9152 When Olson was finished, it was my turn to give a closing rebuttal.  Olson's
9153 flailing had revived my anger. But my anger still was directed to the
9154 academic, not the practical. The government was arguing as if this were the
9155 first case ever to consider limits on Congress's Copyright and Patent Clause
9156 power. Ever the professor and not the advocate, I closed by pointing out the
9157 long history of the Court imposing limits on Congress's power in the name of
9158 the Copyright and Patent Clause&#8212; indeed, the very first case striking
9159 a law of Congress as exceeding a specific enumerated power was based upon
9160 the Copyright and Patent Clause. All true. But it wasn't going to move the
9161 Court to my side.
9162 </p><p>
9163
9164 <span class="strong"><strong>As I left</strong></span> the court that day, I knew
9165 there were a hundred points I wished I could remake. There were a hundred
9166 questions I wished I had answered differently. But one way of thinking about
9167 this case left me optimistic.
9168 </p><p>
9169 The government had been asked over and over again, what is the limit? Over
9170 and over again, it had answered there is no limit. This was precisely the
9171 answer I wanted the Court to hear. For I could not imagine how the Court
9172 could understand that the government believed Congress's power was unlimited
9173 under the terms of the Copyright Clause, and sustain the government's
9174 argument. The solicitor general had made my argument for me. No matter how
9175 often I tried, I could not understand how the Court could find that
9176 Congress's power under the Commerce Clause was limited, but under the
9177 Copyright Clause, unlimited. In those rare moments when I let myself believe
9178 that we may have prevailed, it was because I felt this Court&#8212;in
9179 particular, the Conservatives&#8212;would feel itself constrained by the
9180 rule of law that it had established elsewhere.
9181 </p><p>
9182 <span class="strong"><strong>The morning</strong></span> of January 15, 2003, I was
9183 five minutes late to the office and missed the 7:00 A.M. call from the
9184 Supreme Court clerk. Listening to the message, I could tell in an instant
9185 that she had bad news to report.The Supreme Court had affirmed the decision
9186 of the Court of Appeals. Seven justices had voted in the majority. There
9187 were two dissents.
9188 </p><p>
9189 A few seconds later, the opinions arrived by e-mail. I took the phone off
9190 the hook, posted an announcement to our blog, and sat down to see where I
9191 had been wrong in my reasoning.
9192 </p><p>
9193 My <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. Here was a case that pitted all the money
9194 in the world against <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. And here was the last
9195 naïve law professor, scouring the pages, looking for reasoning.
9196 </p><p>
9197 I first scoured the opinion, looking for how the Court would distinguish the
9198 principle in this case from the principle in
9199 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The argument was nowhere to be found. The case
9200 was not even cited. The argument that was the core argument of our case did
9201 not even appear in the Court's opinion.
9202 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2811785"></a><p>
9203
9204
9205
9206 Justice Ginsburg simply ignored the enumerated powers argument.  Consistent
9207 with her view that Congress's power was not limited generally, she had found
9208 Congress's power not limited here.
9209 </p><p>
9210 Her opinion was perfectly reasonable&#8212;for her, and for Justice
9211 Souter. Neither believes in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. It would be too
9212 much to expect them to write an opinion that recognized, much less
9213 explained, the doctrine they had worked so hard to defeat.
9214 </p><p>
9215 But as I realized what had happened, I couldn't quite believe what I was
9216 reading. I had said there was no way this Court could reconcile limited
9217 powers with the Commerce Clause and unlimited powers with the Progress
9218 Clause. It had never even occurred to me that they could reconcile the two
9219 simply <span class="emphasis"><em>by not addressing the argument</em></span>. There was no
9220 inconsistency because they would not talk about the two together.  There was
9221 therefore no principle that followed from the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
9222 case: In that context, Congress's power would be limited, but in this
9223 context it would not.
9224 </p><p>
9225 Yet by what right did they get to choose which of the framers' values they
9226 would respect? By what right did they&#8212;the silent five&#8212;get to
9227 select the part of the Constitution they would enforce based on the values
9228 they thought important? We were right back to the argument that I said I
9229 hated at the start: I had failed to convince them that the issue here was
9230 important, and I had failed to recognize that however much I might hate a
9231 system in which the Court gets to pick the constitutional values that it
9232 will respect, that is the system we have.
9233 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2811832"></a><p>
9234 Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote very strong dissents. Stevens's opinion
9235 was crafted internal to the law: He argued that the tradition of
9236 intellectual property law should not support this unjustified extension of
9237 terms. He based his argument on a parallel analysis that had governed in the
9238 context of patents (so had we). But the rest of the Court discounted the
9239 parallel&#8212;without explaining how the very same words in the Progress
9240 Clause could come to mean totally different things depending upon whether
9241 the words were about patents or copyrights.  The Court let Justice Stevens's
9242 charge go unanswered.
9243 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2811850"></a><p>
9244
9245
9246 Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever written, was
9247 external to the Constitution. He argued that the term of copyrights has
9248 become so long as to be effectively unlimited. We had said that under the
9249 current term, a copyright gave an author 99.8 percent of the value of a
9250 perpetual term. Breyer said we were wrong, that the actual number was
9251 99.9997 percent of a perpetual term. Either way, the point was clear: If the
9252 Constitution said a term had to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited,</span>»</span> and the existing
9253 term was so long as to be effectively unlimited, then it was
9254 unconstitutional.
9255 </p><p>
9256 These two justices understood all the arguments we had made. But because
9257 neither believed in the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, neither was
9258 willing to push it as a reason to reject this extension. The case was
9259 decided without anyone having addressed the argument that we had carried
9260 from Judge Sentelle. It was <em class="citetitle">Hamlet</em> without the
9261 Prince.
9262 </p><p>
9263 <span class="strong"><strong>Defeat brings depression</strong></span>. They say it is
9264 a sign of health when depression gives way to anger. My anger came quickly,
9265 but it didn't cure the depression. This anger was of two sorts.
9266 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2811913"></a><p>
9267 It was first anger with the five <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Conservatives.</span>»</span> It would have
9268 been one thing for them to have explained why the principle of
9269 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> didn't apply in this case. That wouldn't have
9270 been a very convincing argument, I don't believe, having read it made by
9271 others, and having tried to make it myself. But it at least would have been
9272 an act of integrity.  These justices in particular have repeatedly said that
9273 the proper mode of interpreting the Constitution is
9274 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalism</span>»</span>&#8212;to first understand the framers' text,
9275 interpreted in their context, in light of the structure of the
9276 Constitution. That method had produced <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> and many
9277 other <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalist</span>»</span> rulings. Where was their
9278 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalism</span>»</span> now?
9279 </p><p>
9280
9281 Here, they had joined an opinion that never once tried to explain what the
9282 framers had meant by crafting the Progress Clause as they did; they joined
9283 an opinion that never once tried to explain how the structure of that clause
9284 would affect the interpretation of Congress's power. And they joined an
9285 opinion that didn't even try to explain why this grant of power could be
9286 unlimited, whereas the Commerce Clause would be limited. In short, they had
9287 joined an opinion that did not apply to, and was inconsistent with, their
9288 own method for interpreting the Constitution. This opinion may well have
9289 yielded a result that they liked. It did not produce a reason that was
9290 consistent with their own principles.
9291 </p><p>
9292 My anger with the Conservatives quickly yielded to anger with myself.  For I
9293 had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with a view of the law as
9294 it is.
9295 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2811975"></a><p>
9296 Most lawyers, and most law professors, have little patience for idealism
9297 about courts in general and this Supreme Court in particular.  Most have a
9298 much more pragmatic view. When Don Ayer said that this case would be won
9299 based on whether I could convince the Justices that the framers' values were
9300 important, I fought the idea, because I didn't want to believe that that is
9301 how this Court decides. I insisted on arguing this case as if it were a
9302 simple application of a set of principles.  I had an argument that followed
9303 in logic. I didn't need to waste my time showing it should also follow in
9304 popularity.
9305 </p><p>
9306
9307 As I read back over the transcript from that argument in October, I can see
9308 a hundred places where the answers could have taken the conversation in
9309 different directions, where the truth about the harm that this unchecked
9310 power will cause could have been made clear to this Court. Justice Kennedy
9311 in good faith wanted to be shown. I, idiotically, corrected his
9312 question. Justice Souter in good faith wanted to be shown the First
9313 Amendment harms. I, like a math teacher, reframed the question to make the
9314 logical point. I had shown them how they could strike this law of Congress
9315 if they wanted to. There were a hundred places where I could have helped
9316 them want to, yet my stubbornness, my refusal to give in, stopped me. I have
9317 stood before hundreds of audiences trying to persuade; I have used passion
9318 in that effort to persuade; but I refused to stand before this audience and
9319 try to persuade with the passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis
9320 on which a court should decide the issue.
9321 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2812017"></a><p>
9322 Would it have been different if I had argued it differently? Would it have
9323 been different if Don Ayer had argued it? Or Charles Fried? Or Kathleen
9324 Sullivan? <a class="indexterm" name="id2812028"></a>
9325 </p><p>
9326 My friends huddled around me to insist it would not. The Court was not
9327 ready, my friends insisted. This was a loss that was destined. It would take
9328 a great deal more to show our society why our framers were right. And when
9329 we do that, we will be able to show that Court.
9330 </p><p>
9331 Maybe, but I doubt it. These Justices have no financial interest in doing
9332 anything except the right thing. They are not lobbied. They have little
9333 reason to resist doing right. I can't help but think that if I had stepped
9334 down from this pretty picture of dispassionate justice, I could have
9335 persuaded.
9336 </p><p>
9337 And even if I couldn't, then that doesn't excuse what happened in
9338 January. For at the start of this case, one of America's leading
9339 intellectual property professors stated publicly that my bringing this case
9340 was a mistake. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Court is not ready,</span>»</span> Peter Jaszi said; this
9341 issue should not be raised until it is.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2812062"></a>
9342 </p><p>
9343 After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly,
9344 that he was wrong. But if indeed that Court could not have been persuaded,
9345 then that is all the evidence that's needed to know that here again Peter
9346 was right. Either I was not ready to argue this case in a way that would do
9347 some good or they were not ready to hear this case in a way that would do
9348 some good. Either way, the decision to bring this case&#8212;a decision I
9349 had made four years before&#8212;was wrong.
9350 </p><p>
9351
9352 <span class="strong"><strong>While the reaction</strong></span> to the Sonny Bono Act
9353 itself was almost unanimously negative, the reaction to the Court's decision
9354 was mixed.  No one, at least in the press, tried to say that extending the
9355 term of copyright was a good idea. We had won that battle over ideas. Where
9356 the decision was praised, it was praised by papers that had been skeptical
9357 of the Court's activism in other cases. Deference was a good thing, even if
9358 it left standing a silly law. But where the decision was attacked, it was
9359 attacked because it left standing a silly and harmful law. <em class="citetitle">The
9360 New York Times</em> wrote in its editorial,
9361 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9362 In effect, the Supreme Court's decision makes it likely that we are seeing
9363 the beginning of the end of public domain and the birth of copyright
9364 perpetuity. The public domain has been a grand experiment, one that should
9365 not be allowed to die. The ability to draw freely on the entire creative
9366 output of humanity is one of the reasons we live in a time of such fruitful
9367 creative ferment.
9368 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9369 The best responses were in the cartoons. There was a gaggle of hilarious
9370 images&#8212;of Mickey in jail and the like. The best, from my view of the
9371 case, was Ruben Bolling's, reproduced on the next page (<a class="xref" href="#fig-18" title="Figur 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon">Figur 13.1, &#8220;Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon&#8221;</a>). The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">powerful and wealthy</span>»</span> line is a bit
9372 unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2812132"></a>
9373 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-18"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/18.png" alt="Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon"></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2812153"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
9374 The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the quote from
9375 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>. That <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grand
9376 experiment</span>»</span> we call the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public domain</span>»</span> is over? When I
9377 can make light of it, I think, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Honey, I shrunk the
9378 Constitution.</span>»</span> But I can rarely make light of it. We had in our
9379 Constitution a commitment to free culture. In the case that I fathered, the
9380 Supreme Court effectively renounced that commitment. A better lawyer would
9381 have made them see differently.
9382 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2809279" href="#id2809279" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
9383
9384
9385 There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to describe, but
9386 it's a strong one. One phenomenon that the Internet created was a world of
9387 noncommercial pornographers&#8212;people who were distributing porn but were
9388 not making money directly or indirectly from that distribution.  Such a
9389 class didn't exist before the Internet came into being because the costs of
9390 distributing porn were so high. Yet this new class of distributors got
9391 special attention in the Supreme Court, when the Court struck down the
9392 Communications Decency Act of 1996. It was partly because of the burden on
9393 noncommercial speakers that the statute was found to exceed Congress's
9394 power. The same point could have been made about noncommercial publishers
9395 after the advent of the Internet. The Eric Eldreds of the world before the
9396 Internet were extremely few. Yet one would think it at least as important to
9397 protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2809348" href="#id2809348" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
9398
9399 <a class="indexterm" name="id2809353"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2809361"></a> The full text is: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
9400 protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would
9401 violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen
9402 our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is
9403 also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last forever less one
9404 day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress,</span>»</span> 144
9405 Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
9406 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2809653" href="#id2809653" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
9407
9408 Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey
9409 Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years</span>»</span>,
9410 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17. oktober 1998, 22.
9411 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2809670" href="#id2809670" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
9412
9413 Se Nick Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
9414 Age</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #49</a>.
9415 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2809688" href="#id2809688" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
9416
9417
9418 Alan K. Ota, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars</span>»</span>,
9419 <em class="citetitle">Congressional Quarterly This Week</em>, 8. august 1990,
9420 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
9421 #50</a>.
9422 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2809806" href="#id2809806" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
9423
9424 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>, 514
9425 U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
9426 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2809832" href="#id2809832" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
9427
9428
9429 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>, 529
9430 U.S. 598 (2000).
9431 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2809853" href="#id2809853" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
9432
9433
9434 If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle carries
9435 from one enumerated power to another. The animating point in the context of
9436 the Commerce Clause was that the interpretation offered by the government
9437 would allow the government unending power to regulate commerce&#8212;the
9438 limitation to interstate commerce notwithstanding. The same point is true in
9439 the context of the Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's
9440 interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate
9441 copyrights&#8212;the limitation to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited times</span>»</span>
9442 notwithstanding.
9443 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2809948" href="#id2809948" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
9444
9445
9446 Brief of the Nashville Songwriters Association,
9447 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.
9448 186 (2003) (No. 01-618), n.10, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #51</a>.
9449 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2810023" href="#id2810023" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
9450
9451 The figure of 2 percent is an extrapolation from the study by the
9452 Congressional Research Service, in light of the estimated renewal
9453 ranges. See Brief of Petitioners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9454 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 7, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #52</a>.
9455 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2810201" href="#id2810201" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
9456
9457
9458 See David G. Savage, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright
9459 Law,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 6 October 2002; David
9460 Streitfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court
9461 Hears Arguments Today on Striking Down Copyright Extension,</span>»</span>
9462 <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 9 October 2002.
9463 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2810261" href="#id2810261" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
9464
9465
9466 Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae Supporting the
9467 Petitoners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9468 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01- 618),
9469 12. See also Brief of Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of Petitioners by the
9470 Internet Archive, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9471 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #53</a>.
9472 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2810556" href="#id2810556" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
9473
9474
9475 Jason Schultz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory</span>»</span>,
9476 20 December 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #54</a>.
9477 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2811119" href="#id2811119" class="para">192</a>] </sup>
9478
9479
9480 Brief of Amici Dr. Seuss Enterprise et al., <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9481 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.  (2003) (No. 01-618), 19.
9482 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2811144" href="#id2811144" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
9483
9484
9485 Dinitia Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse
9486 Joins the Fray,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March
9487 1998, B7.
9488 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred-ii"></a>Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</h2></div></div></div><p>
9489 <span class="strong"><strong>The day</strong></span> <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was
9490 decided, fate would have it that I was to travel to Washington, D.C. (The
9491 day the rehearing petition in <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was
9492 denied&#8212;meaning the case was really finally over&#8212;fate would have
9493 it that I was giving a speech to technologists at Disney World.)  This was a
9494 particularly long flight to my least favorite city. The drive into the city
9495 from Dulles was delayed because of traffic, so I opened up my computer and
9496 wrote an op-ed piece.
9497 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2812210"></a><p>
9498 It was an act of contrition. During the whole of the flight from San
9499 Francisco to Washington, I had heard over and over again in my head the same
9500 advice from Don Ayer: You need to make them see why it is important. And
9501 alternating with that command was the question of Justice Kennedy:
9502 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For all these years the act has impeded progress in science and the
9503 useful arts. I just don't see any empirical evidence for that.</span>»</span> And
9504 so, having failed in the argument of constitutional principle, finally, I
9505 turned to an argument of politics.
9506 </p><p>
9507
9508 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> published the piece. In it, I
9509 proposed a simple fix: Fifty years after a work has been published, the
9510 copyright owner would be required to register the work and pay a small
9511 fee. If he paid the fee, he got the benefit of the full term of
9512 copyright. If he did not, the work passed into the public domain.
9513 </p><p>
9514 We called this the Eldred Act, but that was just to give it a name.  Eric
9515 Eldred was kind enough to let his name be used once again, but as he said
9516 early on, it won't get passed unless it has another name.
9517 </p><p>
9518 Or another two names. For depending upon your perspective, this is either
9519 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Public Domain Enhancement Act</span>»</span> or the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright
9520 Term Deregulation Act.</span>»</span> Either way, the essence of the idea is clear
9521 and obvious: Remove copyright where it is doing nothing except blocking
9522 access and the spread of knowledge. Leave it for as long as Congress allows
9523 for those works where its worth is at least $1. But for everything else, let
9524 the content go.
9525 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2812276"></a><p>
9526 The reaction to this idea was amazingly strong. Steve Forbes endorsed it in
9527 an editorial. I received an avalanche of e-mail and letters expressing
9528 support. When you focus the issue on lost creativity, people can see the
9529 copyright system makes no sense. As a good Republican might say, here
9530 government regulation is simply getting in the way of innovation and
9531 creativity. And as a good Democrat might say, here the government is
9532 blocking access and the spread of knowledge for no good reason. Indeed,
9533 there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans on this
9534 issue. Anyone can recognize the stupid harm of the present system.
9535 </p><p>
9536 Indeed, many recognized the obvious benefit of the registration
9537 requirement.  For one of the hardest things about the current system for
9538 people who want to license content is that there is no obvious place to look
9539 for the current copyright owners. Since registration is not required, since
9540 marking content is not required, since no formality at all is required, it
9541 is often impossibly hard to locate copyright owners to ask permission to use
9542 or license their work. This system would lower these costs, by establishing
9543 at least one registry where copyright owners could be identified.
9544 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2812320"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2812327"></a><p>
9545
9546 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, formalities in copyright law were removed in 1976,
9547 when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal requirement
9548 before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id2812345" href="#ftn.id2812345" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The
9549 Europeans are said to view copyright as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natural right.</span>»</span>
9550 Natural rights don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the
9551 Anglo-American tradition that required copyright owners to follow form if
9552 their rights were to be protected, did not, the Europeans thought, properly
9553 respect the dignity of the author. My right as a creator turns on my
9554 creativity, not upon the special favor of the government.
9555 </p><p>
9556 That's great rhetoric. It sounds wonderfully romantic. But it is absurd
9557 copyright policy. It is absurd especially for authors, because a world
9558 without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt
9559 Disney creativity</span>»</span> is destroyed when there is no simple way to know
9560 what's protected and what's not.
9561 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2812413"></a><p>
9562 The fight against formalities achieved its first real victory in Berlin in
9563 1908. International copyright lawyers amended the Berne Convention in 1908,
9564 to require copyright terms of life plus fifty years, as well as the
9565 abolition of copyright formalities. The formalities were hated because the
9566 stories of inadvertent loss were increasingly common. It was as if a Charles
9567 Dickens character ran all copyright offices, and the failure to dot an
9568 <em class="citetitle">i</em> or cross a <em class="citetitle">t</em> resulted in the
9569 loss of widows' only income.
9570 </p><p>
9571 These complaints were real and sensible. And the strictness of the
9572 formalities, especially in the United States, was absurd. The law should
9573 always have ways of forgiving innocent mistakes. There is no reason
9574 copyright law couldn't, as well. Rather than abandoning formalities totally,
9575 the response in Berlin should have been to embrace a more equitable system
9576 of registration.
9577 </p><p>
9578 Even that would have been resisted, however, because registration in the
9579 nineteenth and twentieth centuries was still expensive. It was also a
9580 hassle. The abolishment of formalities promised not only to save the
9581 starving widows, but also to lighten an unnecessary regulatory burden
9582 imposed upon creators.
9583 </p><p>
9584
9585 In addition to the practical complaint of authors in 1908, there was a moral
9586 claim as well. There was no reason that creative property should be a
9587 second-class form of property. If a carpenter builds a table, his rights
9588 over the table don't depend upon filing a form with the government.  He has
9589 a property right over the table <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">naturally,</span>»</span> and he can assert
9590 that right against anyone who would steal the table, whether or not he has
9591 informed the government of his ownership of the table.
9592 </p><p>
9593 This argument is correct, but its implications are misleading. For the
9594 argument in favor of formalities does not depend upon creative property
9595 being second-class property. The argument in favor of formalities turns upon
9596 the special problems that creative property presents.  The law of
9597 formalities responds to the special physics of creative property, to assure
9598 that it can be efficiently and fairly spread.
9599 </p><p>
9600 No one thinks, for example, that land is second-class property just because
9601 you have to register a deed with a court if your sale of land is to be
9602 effective. And few would think a car is second-class property just because
9603 you must register the car with the state and tag it with a license.  In both
9604 of those cases, everyone sees that there is an important reason to secure
9605 registration&#8212;both because it makes the markets more efficient and
9606 because it better secures the rights of the owner. Without a registration
9607 system for land, landowners would perpetually have to guard their
9608 property. With registration, they can simply point the police to a
9609 deed. Without a registration system for cars, auto theft would be much
9610 easier. With a registration system, the thief has a high burden to sell a
9611 stolen car. A slight burden is placed on the property owner, but those
9612 burdens produce a much better system of protection for property generally.
9613 </p><p>
9614 It is similarly special physics that makes formalities important in
9615 copyright law. Unlike a carpenter's table, there's nothing in nature that
9616 makes it relatively obvious who might own a particular bit of creative
9617 property. A recording of Lyle Lovett's latest album can exist in a billion
9618 places without anything necessarily linking it back to a particular
9619 owner. And like a car, there's no way to buy and sell creative property with
9620 confidence unless there is some simple way to authenticate who is the author
9621 and what rights he has. Simple transactions are destroyed in a world without
9622 formalities. Complex, expensive, <span class="emphasis"><em>lawyer</em></span> transactions
9623 take their place.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2812518"></a>
9624 </p><p>
9625 This was the understanding of the problem with the Sonny Bono Act that we
9626 tried to demonstrate to the Court. This was the part it didn't
9627 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">get.</span>»</span> Because we live in a system without formalities, there
9628 is no way easily to build upon or use culture from our past. If copyright
9629 terms were, as Justice Story said they would be, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">short,</span>»</span> then
9630 this wouldn't matter much. For fourteen years, under the framers' system, a
9631 work would be presumptively controlled. After fourteen years, it would be
9632 presumptively uncontrolled.
9633 </p><p>
9634 But now that copyrights can be just about a century long, the inability to
9635 know what is protected and what is not protected becomes a huge and obvious
9636 burden on the creative process. If the only way a library can offer an
9637 Internet exhibit about the New Deal is to hire a lawyer to clear the rights
9638 to every image and sound, then the copyright system is burdening creativity
9639 in a way that has never been seen before <span class="emphasis"><em>because there are no
9640 formalities</em></span>.
9641 </p><p>
9642 The Eldred Act was designed to respond to exactly this problem. If it is
9643 worth $1 to you, then register your work and you can get the longer
9644 term. Others will know how to contact you and, therefore, how to get your
9645 permission if they want to use your work. And you will get the benefit of an
9646 extended copyright term.
9647 </p><p>
9648 If it isn't worth it to you to register to get the benefit of an extended
9649 term, then it shouldn't be worth it for the government to defend your
9650 monopoly over that work either. The work should pass into the public domain
9651 where anyone can copy it, or build archives with it, or create a movie based
9652 on it. It should become free if it is not worth $1 to you.
9653 </p><p>
9654 Noen bekymrer seg over byrden på forfattere. Gjør ikke byrden med å
9655 registrere verket at beløpet $1 egentlig er misvisende?  Er ikke
9656 ekstraarbeidet verdt mer enn $1? Er ikke dette det virkelige problemet med
9657 registrering?
9658 </p><p>
9659
9660 It is. The hassle is terrible. The system that exists now is awful. I
9661 completely agree that the Copyright Office has done a terrible job (no doubt
9662 because they are terribly funded) in enabling simple and cheap
9663 registrations. Any real solution to the problem of formalities must address
9664 the real problem of <span class="emphasis"><em>governments</em></span> standing at the core of
9665 any system of formalities. In this book, I offer such a solution. That
9666 solution essentially remakes the Copyright Office. For now, assume it was
9667 Amazon that ran the registration system. Assume it was one-click
9668 registration.  The Eldred Act would propose a simple, one-click registration
9669 fifty years after a work was published. Based upon historical data, that
9670 system would move up to 98 percent of commercial work, commercial work that
9671 no longer had a commercial life, into the public domain within fifty
9672 years. What do you think?
9673 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2812612"></a><p>
9674 <span class="strong"><strong>Da Steve Forbes</strong></span> støttet idéen, begynte
9675 enkelte i Washington å følge med. Mange kontaktet meg med tips til
9676 representanter som kan være villig til å introdusere en Eldred-lov. og jeg
9677 hadde noen få som foreslo direkte at de kan være villige til å ta det første
9678 skrittet.
9679 </p><p>
9680 En representant, Zoe Lofgren fra California, gikk så langt som å få
9681 lovforslaget utarbeidet. Utkastet løste noen problemer med internasjonal
9682 lov. Det påla de enklest mulige forutsetninger på innehaverne av
9683 opphavsretter. I mai 2003 så det ut som om loven skulle være introdusert.
9684 16. mai, postet jeg på Eldred Act-bloggen, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vi er nære</span>»</span>.  Det
9685 oppstod en generell reaksjon i blogg-samfunnet om at noe godt kunne skje
9686 her.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2812653"></a>
9687 </p><p>
9688 But at this stage, the lobbyists began to intervene. Jack Valenti and the
9689 MPAA general counsel came to the congresswoman's office to give the view of
9690 the MPAA. Aided by his lawyer, as Valenti told me, Valenti informed the
9691 congresswoman that the MPAA would oppose the Eldred Act. The reasons are
9692 embarrassingly thin. More importantly, their thinness shows something clear
9693 about what this debate is really about.
9694 </p><p>
9695
9696 The MPAA argued first that Congress had <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">firmly rejected the central
9697 concept in the proposed bill</span>»</span>&#8212;that copyrights be renewed. That
9698 was true, but irrelevant, as Congress's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">firm rejection</span>»</span> had
9699 occurred long before the Internet made subsequent uses much more likely.
9700 Second, they argued that the proposal would harm poor copyright
9701 owners&#8212;apparently those who could not afford the $1 fee. Third, they
9702 argued that Congress had determined that extending a copyright term would
9703 encourage restoration work. Maybe in the case of the small percentage of
9704 work covered by copyright law that is still commercially valuable, but again
9705 this was irrelevant, as the proposal would not cut off the extended term
9706 unless the $1 fee was not paid. Fourth, the MPAA argued that the bill would
9707 impose <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">enormous</span>»</span> costs, since a registration system is not
9708 free. True enough, but those costs are certainly less than the costs of
9709 clearing the rights for a copyright whose owner is not known. Fifth, they
9710 worried about the risks if the copyright to a story underlying a film were
9711 to pass into the public domain. But what risk is that? If it is in the
9712 public domain, then the film is a valid derivative use.
9713 </p><p>
9714 Finally, the MPAA argued that existing law enabled copyright owners to do
9715 this if they wanted. But the whole point is that there are thousands of
9716 copyright owners who don't even know they have a copyright to give. Whether
9717 they are free to give away their copyright or not&#8212;a controversial
9718 claim in any case&#8212;unless they know about a copyright, they're not
9719 likely to.
9720 </p><p>
9721 <span class="strong"><strong>At the beginning</strong></span> of this book, I told two
9722 stories about the law reacting to changes in technology. In the one, common
9723 sense prevailed.  In the other, common sense was delayed. The difference
9724 between the two stories was the power of the opposition&#8212;the power of
9725 the side that fought to defend the status quo. In both cases, a new
9726 technology threatened old interests. But in only one case did those
9727 interest's have the power to protect themselves against this new competitive
9728 threat.
9729 </p><p>
9730 Jeg brukte disse to tilfellene som en måte å ramme inn krigen som denne
9731 boken har handlet om.  For her er det også en ny teknologi som tvinger loven
9732 til å reagere.  Og her bør vi også spørre, er loven i tråd med eller i strid
9733 med sunn fornuft.  Hvis sunn fornuft støtter loven, hva forklarer denne
9734 sunne fornuften?
9735 </p><p>
9736
9737
9738
9739 When the issue is piracy, it is right for the law to back the copyright
9740 owners. The commercial piracy that I described is wrong and harmful, and the
9741 law should work to eliminate it. When the issue is p2p sharing, it is easy
9742 to understand why the law backs the owners still: Much of this sharing is
9743 wrong, even if much is harmless. When the issue is copyright terms for the
9744 Mickey Mouses of the world, it is possible still to understand why the law
9745 favors Hollywood: Most people don't recognize the reasons for limiting
9746 copyright terms; it is thus still possible to see good faith within the
9747 resistance.
9748 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2812763"></a><p>
9749 But when the copyright owners oppose a proposal such as the Eldred Act,
9750 then, finally, there is an example that lays bare the naked selfinterest
9751 driving this war. This act would free an extraordinary range of content that
9752 is otherwise unused. It wouldn't interfere with any copyright owner's desire
9753 to exercise continued control over his content. It would simply liberate
9754 what Kevin Kelly calls the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dark Content</span>»</span> that fills archives
9755 around the world. So when the warriors oppose a change like this, we should
9756 ask one simple question:
9757 </p><p>
9758 Hva ønsker denne industrien egentlig?
9759 </p><p>
9760 With very little effort, the warriors could protect their content. So the
9761 effort to block something like the Eldred Act is not really about protecting
9762 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> content. The effort to block the Eldred Act is an
9763 effort to assure that nothing more passes into the public domain. It is
9764 another step to assure that the public domain will never compete, that there
9765 will be no use of content that is not commercially controlled, and that
9766 there will be no commercial use of content that doesn't require
9767 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> permission first.
9768 </p><p>
9769 The opposition to the Eldred Act reveals how extreme the other side is. The
9770 most powerful and sexy and well loved of lobbies really has as its aim not
9771 the protection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> but the rejection of a tradition.
9772 Their aim is not simply to protect what is theirs. <span class="emphasis"><em>Their aim is to
9773 assure that all there is is what is theirs</em></span>.
9774 </p><p>
9775
9776 It is not hard to understand why the warriors take this view. It is not hard
9777 to see why it would benefit them if the competition of the public domain
9778 tied to the Internet could somehow be quashed. Just as RCA feared the
9779 competition of FM, they fear the competition of a public domain connected to
9780 a public that now has the means to create with it and to share its own
9781 creation.
9782 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2812834"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2812841"></a><p>
9783 Det som er vanskelig å forstå er hvorfor folket innehar dette synet. Det er
9784 som om loven gjorde at flymaskiner tok seg inn på annen manns eiendom.  MPAA
9785 står side om side med Causbyene og krever at deres fjerne og ubrukelige
9786 eierrettigheter blir respektert, slik at disse fjerne og glemte
9787 opphavsrettsinnehaverne kan blokkere fremgangen til andre.
9788 </p><p>
9789 All this seems to follow easily from this untroubled acceptance of the
9790 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> in intellectual property. Common sense supports it,
9791 and so long as it does, the assaults will rain down upon the technologies of
9792 the Internet. The consequence will be an increasing <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permission
9793 society.</span>»</span> The past can be cultivated only if you can identify the
9794 owner and gain permission to build upon his work. The future will be
9795 controlled by this dead (and often unfindable) hand of the past.
9796 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2812345" href="#id2812345" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
9797
9798 <a class="indexterm" name="id2812350"></a> Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the
9799 Berne Convention, national copyright legislation sometimes made protection
9800 depend upon compliance with formalities such as registration, deposit, and
9801 affixation of notice of the author's claim of copyright. However, starting
9802 with the 1908 act, every text of the Convention has provided that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
9803 enjoyment and the exercise</span>»</span> of rights guaranteed by the Convention
9804 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">shall not be subject to any formality.</span>»</span> The prohibition
9805 against formalities is presently embodied in Article 5(2) of the Paris Text
9806 of the Berne Convention. Many countries continue to impose some form of
9807 deposit or registration requirement, albeit not as a condition of
9808 copyright. French law, for example, requires the deposit of copies of works
9809 in national repositories, principally the National Museum.  Copies of books
9810 published in the United Kingdom must be deposited in the British
9811 Library. The German Copyright Act provides for a Registrar of Authors where
9812 the author's true name can be filed in the case of anonymous or pseudonymous
9813 works. Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">International Intellectual Property Law,
9814 Cases and Materials</em> (New York: Foundation Press, 2001),
9815 153&#8211;54.  </p></div></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>Konklusjon</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxantiretroviraldrugs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhivaidstherapies"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxafricahivmed"></a><p>
9816 <span class="strong"><strong>Det er mer</strong></span> enn trettifem millioner
9817 mennesker over hele verden med AIDS-viruset. Tjuefem millioner av dem bor i
9818 Afrika sør for Sahara.  Sytten millioner har allerede dødd.  Sytten
9819 millioner afrikanere er prosentvis proporsjonalt med syv millioner
9820 amerikanere.  Viktigere er det at dette er 17 millioner afrikanere.
9821 </p><p>
9822 Det finnes ingen kur for AIDS, men det finnes medisiner som kan hemme
9823 sykdommens utvikling.  Disse antiretrovirale terapiene er fortsatt
9824 eksperimentelle, men de har hatt en dramatisk effekt allerede.  I USA øker
9825 AIDS-pasienter som regelmessig tar en cocktail av disse medisinene sin
9826 levealder med ti til tjue år. For noen gjøre medisinene sykdommen nesten
9827 usynlig.
9828 </p><p>
9829 Disse medisinene er dyre.  Da de ble først introdusert i USA, kostet de
9830 mellom $10 000 og $15 000 pr. person hvert år.  I dag koster noen
9831 av dem $25 000 pr. år.  Med disse prisene har, selvfølgelig, ingen
9832 afrikansk stat  råd til medisinen for det store flertall av sine innbyggere:
9833 $15 000 er tredve ganger brutto nasjonalprodukt pr. innbygger i
9834 Zimbabwe.  Med slike priser er disse medisinene fullstendig
9835 utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id2812969" href="#ftn.id2812969" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
9836 </p><p>
9837
9838
9839 Disse prisene er ikke høye fordi ingrediensene til medisinene er dyre.
9840 Disse prisene er høye fordi medisinene er beskyttet av patenter.
9841 Farmasiselskapene som produserer disse livreddende blandingene nyter minst
9842 tjue års monopol på sine oppfinnelser.  De bruker denne monopolmakten til å
9843 hente ut så mye de kan fra markedet.  Ved hjelp av denne makten holder de
9844 prisene høye.
9845 </p><p>
9846 Det er mange som er skeptiske til patenter, spesielt patenter på
9847 medisiner. Det er ikke jeg. Faktisk av alle forskningsområder som kan være
9848 støttet av patenter, er forskning på medisiner, etter min mening, det
9849 klareste tilfelle der patenter er nødvendig. Patenter gir et farmasøytiske
9850 firma en viss forsikring om at hvis det lykkes i å finne opp et nytt
9851 medikament som kan behandle en sykdom, vil det kunne tjene tilbake
9852 investeringen og mer til. Dette ber sosialt et ekstremt verdifullt
9853 insentiv. Jeg er den siste personen som vil argumentere for at loven skal
9854 avskaffe dette, i det minste uten andre endringer.
9855 </p><p>
9856 Men det er én ting å støtte patenter, selv patenter på medisiner. Det er en
9857 annen ting å avgjøre hvordan en best skal håndtere en krise. Og i det
9858 afrikanske ledere begynte å erkjenne ødeleggelsen AIDS brakte, begynte de å
9859 se etter måter å importere HIV-medisiner til kostnader betydelig under
9860 markedspris.
9861 </p><p>
9862 I 1997 forsøkte Sør-Afrika seg på en tilnærming.  Landet vedtok en lov som
9863 tillot import av patenterte medisiner som hadde blitt produsert og solgt i
9864 en annen nasjons marked med godkjenning fra patenteieren.  For eksempel,
9865 hvis medisinen var solgt i India, så kunne den bli importert inn til Afrika
9866 fra India.  Dette kalles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">parallellimport</span>»</span> og er generelt
9867 tillatt i internasjonal handelslovgivning, og spesifikt tillatt i den
9868 europeiske union.<sup>[<a name="id2813060" href="#ftn.id2813060" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
9869 </p><p>
9870 Men USA var imot lovendringen.  Og de nøyde seg ikke med å være imot. Som
9871 International Intellectual Property Association karakteriserte det,
9872 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Myndighetene i USA presset Sør-Afrika &#8230; til å ikke tillate
9873 tvungen lisensiering eller parallellimport</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2809428" href="#ftn.id2809428" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup> Gjennom kontoret til USAs handelsrepresentant
9874 (USTR), ba myndighetene Sør-Afrika om å endre loven&#8212;og for å legge
9875 press bak den forespørselen, listet USTR i 1998 opp Sør-Afrika som et land
9876 som burde vurderes for handelsrestriksjoner.  Samme år gikk mer enn førti
9877 farmasiselskaper til retten for å utfordre myndighetenes handlinger. USA
9878 fikk selskap av andre myndigheter fra EU.  Deres påstand, og påstanden til
9879 farmasiselskapene, var at Sør-Afrika brøt sine internasjonale forpliktelser
9880 ved å diskriminere mot en bestemt type patenter&#8212;farmasøytiske
9881 patenter.  Kravet fra disse myndighetene, med USA i spissen, var at
9882 Sør-Afrika skulle respektere disse patentene på samme måte som alle andre
9883 patenter, uavhengig av eventuell effekt på behandlingen av AIDS i
9884 Sør-Afrika.<sup>[<a name="id2813130" href="#ftn.id2813130" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
9885 </p><p>
9886 Vi bør sette intervensjonen til USA i sammenheng.  Det er ingen tvil om at
9887 patenter ikke er den viktigste årsaken til at Afrikanere ikke har tilgang
9888 til medisiner.  Fattigdom og den totale mangel på effektivt helsevesen betyr
9889 mer. Men uansett om patenter er en viktigste grunnen eller ikke, så har
9890 prisen på medisiner en effekt på etterspørselen, og patenter påvirker
9891 prisen. Så uansett, massiv eller marginal, så var det en effekt av våre
9892 myndigheters intervensjon for å stoppe flyten av medisiner inn til Afrika.
9893 </p><p>
9894 Ved å stoppe flyten av HIV-behandling til Afrika, sikret ikke myndighetene i
9895 USA medisiner til USA borgere. Dette er ikke som hvete (hvis de spise det så
9896 kan ikke vi spise det). Det som USA i effekt intervenerte for å stoppe, var
9897 flyten av kunnskap: Informasjon om hvordan en kan ta kjemikalier som finnes
9898 i Afrika og gjøre disse kjemikaliene om til medisiner som kan redde 15 til
9899 30 millioner liv.
9900 </p><p>
9901 Intervensjonen fra USA ville heller ikke beskytte fortjenesten til
9902 medisinselskapene i USA&#8212; i hvert fall ikke betydelig.  Det var jo ikke
9903 slik at disse landene hadde mulighet til å kjøpe medisinene til de prisene
9904 som medisinselskapene forlangte.  Igjen var afrikanerne for fattige til å ha
9905 råd til disse medisinene til de tilbudte prisene.  Å blokkere for
9906 parallellimport av disse medisinene ville ikke øke salget til de amerikanske
9907 selskapene betydelig.
9908 </p><p>
9909 I stedet var argumentet til fordel for restriksjoner på denne flyten av
9910 informasjon, som var nødvendig for å redde millioner av liv, et argument om
9911 eiendoms ukrenkelighet.<sup>[<a name="id2813224" href="#ftn.id2813224" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup>  Det var på
9912 grunn av at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span> ville bli krenket at disse
9913 medisinene ikke skulle flomme inn til Afrika.  Det var prinsippet om
9914 viktigheten av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span> som fikk disse
9915 myndighetsaktørene til å intervenere mot Sør-Afrikas mottiltak mot AIDS.
9916 </p><p>
9917 La oss ta et skritt tilbake for et øyeblikk.  En gang om tredve år vil våre
9918 barn se tilbake på oss og spørre, hvordan kunne vi la dette skje?  Hvordan
9919 kunne vi tillate å gjennomføre en politikk hvis direkte kostnad var få 15
9920 til 30 millioner afrikanere til å dø raskere, og hvis eneste virkelige
9921 fordel var å opprettholde <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ukrenkeligheten</span>»</span> til en idé?  Hva
9922 slags berettigelse kan noen sinne eksistere for en politikk som resulterer i
9923 så mange døde?  Hva slags galskap er det egentlig som tillater at så mange
9924 dør for slik en abstraksjon?
9925 </p><p>
9926 Noen skylder på farmasiselskapene.  Det gjør ikke jeg.  De er selskaper, og
9927 deres ledere er lovpålagt å tjene penger for selskapene.  De presser på for
9928 en bestemt patentpolitikk, ikke på grunn av idealer, men fordi det er dette
9929 som gjør at de tjener mest penger.  Og dette gjør kun at de tjener mest
9930 penger på grunn av en slags korrupsjon i vårt politiske system&#8212; en
9931 korrupsjon som farmasiselskapene helt klart ikke er ansvarlige for.
9932 </p><p>
9933 Denne korrupsjonen er våre egne politikeres manglende integritet.  For
9934 medisinprodusentene ville elske&#8212;sier de selv, og jeg tror dem &#8212;
9935 å selge sine medisiner så billig som de kan til land i Afrika og andre
9936 steder. Det er utfordringer de må løse å sikre at medisinene ikke kommer
9937 tilbake til USA, men dette er bare teknologiske utfordring. De kan bli
9938 overvunnet.
9939 </p><p>
9940
9941 Et annet problem kan derimot ikke løses. Det er frykten for at en politiker
9942 som skal vise seg og kaller inn lederne hos medisinprodusentene til høring i
9943 senatet eller representantenes hus og spør, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvordan har det seg at du
9944 kan selge HIV-medisinen i Afrika for bare $1 pr. pille, mens samme pille
9945 koster en amerikansker $1 500?</span>»</span> Da det ikke finnes et
9946 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kjapt svar</span>»</span> på det spørsmålet, ville effekten bli regulering
9947 av priser i Amerika.  Medisinprodusentene unngår dermed denne spiralen ved å
9948 sikre at det første steget ikke tas.  De forsterker idéen om at
9949 eierrettigheter skal være ukrenkelige.  De legger seg på en rasjonell
9950 strategi i en irrasjonell omgivelse, med den utilsiktede konsekvens at
9951 kanskje millioner dør.  Og den rasjonelle strategien rammes dermed inn ved
9952 hjel av dette ideal&#8212;helligheten til en idé som kalles
9953 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle rettigheter</span>»</span>.
9954 </p><p>
9955 Så når du konfronteres av ditt barns sunne fornuft, hva vil du si?  Når den
9956 sunne fornuften hos en generasjon endelig gjør opprør mot hva vi har gjort,
9957 hvordan vil vi rettferdiggjøre det?  Hva er argumentet?
9958 </p><p>
9959 En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk støtte til
9960 patentsystemet uten å måtte nå alle overalt på nøyaktig samme måte. På samme
9961 måte som en fornuftig opphavsrettspolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk
9962 støtte til et opphavsretts-system uten å måtte regulere spredningen av
9963 kultur perfekt og for alltid.  En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for
9964 og gi sterk støtte til et patentsystem uten å måtte blokkere spredning av
9965 medisiner til et land som uansett ikke er rikt nok til å ha råd til
9966 markedsprisen.  En fornuftig politikk kan en dermed si kunne være en
9967 balansert politikk.  For det meste av vår historie har både opphavsrett- og
9968 patentpolitikken i denne forstand vært balansert.
9969 </p><p>
9970 Men vi som kultur har mistet denne følelsen for balanse.  Vi har mistet det
9971 kritiske blikket som hjelper oss til å se forskjellen mellom sannhet og
9972 ekstremisme.  En slags eiendomsfundamentalisme, uten grunnlag i vår
9973 tradisjon, hersker nå i vår kultur&#8212;sært, og med konsekvenser mer
9974 alvorlig for spredningen av idéer og kultur enn nesten enhver annen politisk
9975 enkeltavgjørelse vi som demokrati kan fatte.
9976 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2813373"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2813452"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2813460"></a><p>
9977
9978 <span class="strong"><strong>En enkel idé</strong></span> blender oss, og under dekke
9979 av mørket skjer mye som de fleste av oss ville avvist hvis vi hadde fulgt
9980 med.  Så ukritisk aksepterer vi idéen om eierskap til idéer at vi ikke
9981 engang legger merke til hvor uhyrlig det er å nekte tilgang til idéer for et
9982 folk som dør uten dem.  Så ukritisk aksepterer vi idéen om eiendom til
9983 kulturen at vi ikke engang stiller spørsmål ved når kontrollen over denne
9984 eiendommen fjerner vår evne, som folk, til å utvikle vår kultur
9985 demokratisk.  Blindhet blir vår sunne fornuft, og utfordringen for enhver
9986 som vil gjenvinne retten til å dyrke vår kultur er å finne en måte å få
9987 denne sunne fornuften til å åpne sine øyne.
9988 </p><p>
9989 Så langt sover sunn fornuft.  Det er intet opprør.  Sunn fornuft ser ennå
9990 ikke hva det er å gjøre opprør mot.  Ekstremismen som nå dominerer denne
9991 debatten resonerer med idéer som virker naturlige, og resonansen er
9992 forsterket av våre moderne RCA-ene.  De fører en frenetisk krig for å
9993 bekjempe <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> og knuser kreativitetskultur.  De
9994 forsvarer idéen om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativt eierskap</span>»</span>, mens de endrer ekte
9995 skapere til moderne leilendinger.  De blir fornærmet av idéen om at
9996 rettigheter skulle være balanserte, selv om hver av hovedaktørene i denne
9997 innholdskrigen selv hadde fordeler av et mer balansert ideal.  Hykleriet
9998 rår.  Men i en by som Washington blir ikke hykleriet en gang lagt merke
9999 til.  Mektige lobbyister, kompliserte problemer og MTV-oppmerksomhetsspenn
10000 gir en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">perfekt storm</span>»</span> for fri kultur.
10001 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2813540"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbiomedicalresearch"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2813559"></a><p>
10002 <span class="strong"><strong>I august 2003</strong></span> brøt en kamp ut i USA om en
10003 avgjørelse fra World Intellectual Property Organiation om å avlyse et
10004 møte.<sup>[<a name="id2813576" href="#ftn.id2813576" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke
10005 med interressenter hadde WIPO bestemt å avholde et møte for å diskutere
10006 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape goder for
10007 felleskapet</span>»</span>.  Disse prosjektene som hadde lyktes i å produsere goder
10008 for fellesskapet uten å basere seg eksklusivt på bruken av proprietære
10009 immaterielle rettigheter.  Eksempler inkluderer internettet og verdensveven,
10010 begge som ble utviklet på grunnlag av protokoller i allemannseie.  Det hadde
10011 med en begynnende trend for å støtte åpne akademiske tidsskrifter, og
10012 inkluderte Public Library of Science-prosjektet som jeg beskriver i
10013 etterordet.  Det inkluderte et prosjekt for a utvikle
10014 enkeltnukleotidforskjeller (SNPs), som er antatt å få stor betydning i
10015 biomedisinsk forskning.  (Dette ideelle prosjektet besto av et konsortium av
10016 Wellcome Trust og farmasøytiske og teknologiske selskaper, inkludert
10017 Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb,
10018 Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola, Novartis, Pfizer, og
10019 Searle.)  Det inkluderte Globalt posisjonssystem (GPS) som Ronald Reagen
10020 frigjorde tidlig på 1980-tallet.  Og det inkluderte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og
10021 fri programvare</span>»</span>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2813669"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2813678"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2813684"></a>
10022 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2813692"></a><p>
10023 Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles
10024 perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell
10025 ekstremisme. I stedet, hos alle disse, ble immaterielle rettigheter
10026 balansert med avtaler om å holde tilgang åpen, eller for å legge
10027 begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
10028 </p><p>
10029 Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen
10030 ideell.<sup>[<a name="id2813717" href="#ftn.id2813717" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
10031 både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker.  De involverte i hovedsak
10032 vitenskapen, men fra mange perspektiver.  Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for
10033 denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som
10034 drev med immaterielle rettighetsspørsmål.
10035 </p><p>
10036
10037 Faktisk fikk jeg en gang offentlig kjeft for å ikke anerkjenne dette faktum
10038 om WIPO.  I februar 2003 leverte jeg et hovedinnlegg på en forberedende
10039 konferanse for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).  På en
10040 pressekonferanse før innlegget, ble jeg spurt hva jeg skulle snakke om.  Jeg
10041 svarte at jeg skulle snakke litt om viktigheten av balanse rundt
10042 immaterielle verdier for utviklingen av informasjonssamfunnet.  Ordstyreren
10043 på arrangementet avbrøt meg da brått for å informere meg og journalistene
10044 tilstede at ingen spørsmål rundt immaterielle verdier ville bli diskutert av
10045 WSIS, da slike spørsmål kun skulle diskuteres i WIPO.  I innlegget jeg hadde
10046 forberedt var temaet om immaterielle verdier en forholdvis liten del av det
10047 hele.  Men etter denne forbløffende uttalelsen, gjorde jeg immaterielle
10048 verdier til hovedfokus for mitt innlegg.  Det var ikke mulig å snakke om et
10049 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">informasjonssamfunn</span>»</span> uten at en også snakket om andelen av
10050 informasjon og kultur som ikke er vernet av opphavsretten.  Mitt innlegg
10051 gjorde ikke min overivrige moderator veldig glad.  Og hun hadde uten tvil
10052 rett i at omfanget til vern av immaterielle rettigheter normalt hørte inn
10053 under WIPO.  Men etter mitt syn, kunne det ikke bli for mye diskusjon om
10054 hvor mye immaterielle rettigheter som trengs, siden etter mitt syn, hadde
10055 selve idéen om en balanse rundt immaterielle rettigheter hadde gått tapt.
10056 </p><p>
10057 Så uansett om WSIS kan diskutere balanse i intellektuell eiendom eller ikke,
10058 så hadde jeg trodd det var tatt for gitt at WIPO kunne og burde.  Og dermed
10059 møtet om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape
10060 fellesgoder</span>»</span> virker å passe perfekt for WIPOs agenda.
10061 </p><p>
10062 Men det er ett prosjekt i listen som er svært kontroversielt, i hvert fall
10063 blant lobbyister. Dette prosjektet er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og fri
10064 programvare</span>»</span>. Microsoft spesielt er skeptisk til diskusjon om
10065 emnet. Fra deres perspektiv, ville en konferanse for å diskutere åpen
10066 kildekode og fri programvare være som en konferanse for å diskutere Apples
10067 operativsystem.  Både åpen kildekode og fri programvare konkurrerer med
10068 Microsofts programvare.  Og internasjonalt har mange myndigheter begynt å
10069 utforske krav om at de skal bruke åpen kildekode eller fri programvare, i
10070 stedet for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">proprietær programvare</span>»</span>, til sine egne interne
10071 behov.
10072 </p><p>
10073 Jeg mener ikke å gå inn i den debatten her.  Det er viktig kun for å gjøre
10074 det klart at skillet ikke er mellom kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell
10075 programvare.  Det er mange viktige selskaper som er fundamentalt avhengig av
10076 fri programvare, der IBM er den mest fremtredende.  IBM har i stadig større
10077 grad skiftet sitt fokus til GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, det mest berømte
10078 biten av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri programvare</span>»</span>&#8212;og IBM er helt klart en
10079 kommersiell aktør. Dermed er det å støtte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri programvare</span>»</span>
10080 ikke å motsette seg kommersielle aktører.  Det er i stedet å støtte en måte
10081 å drive programvareutvikling som er forskjellig fra Microsofts.<sup>[<a name="id2813859" href="#ftn.id2813859" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2813918"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2813924"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2813932"></a>
10082 <a class="indexterm" name="id2813939"></a>
10083 </p><p>
10084
10085 Mer viktig for våre formål, er at å støtte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og fri
10086 programvare</span>»</span> ikke er å motsette seg opphavsrett. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Åpen
10087 kildekode og fri programvare</span>»</span> er ikke programvare uten
10088 opphavsrettslig vern. Istedet, på samme måte som programvare fra Microsoft,
10089 insisterer opphavsrettsinnehaverne av fri programvare ganske sterkt at
10090 vilkårene i deres programvarelisens blir respektert av de som tar i bruk fri
10091 programvare.  Vilkårene i den lisensen er uten tvil forskjellig fra
10092 vilkårene i en proprietær programvarelisens.  For eksempel krever fri
10093 programvare lisensiert med den generelle offentlige lisensen (GPL), at
10094 kildekoden for programvare gjøres tilgjengelig for alle som endrer og
10095 videredistribuerer programvaren.  Men dette kravet er kun effektivt hvis
10096 opphavsrett råder over programvare.  Hvis opphavsretten ikke råder over
10097 programvare, så kunne ikke fri programvare pålegge slike krav på de som tar
10098 i bruk programvaren.  Den er dermed like avhengig av opphavsrettsloven som
10099 Microsoft.
10100 </p><p>
10101 Det er dermed forståelig at Microsoft, som utviklere av proprietær
10102 programvare, gikk imot et slikt WIPO-møte, og like fullt forståelig at de
10103 bruker sine lobbyister til å få USAs myndigheter til å gå imot møtet.  Og
10104 ganske riktig, det er akkurat dette som i følge rapporter hadde skjedd.  I
10105 følge Jonathan Krim i <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, lyktes
10106 Microsofts lobbyister i å få USAs myndigheter til å legge ned veto mot et
10107 slikt møte.<sup>[<a name="id2814012" href="#ftn.id2814012" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
10108 møtet avlyst.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2814030"></a>
10109 </p><p>
10110 Jeg klandrer ikke Microsoft for å gjøre det de kan for å fremme sine egne
10111 interesser i samsvar med loven. Og lobbyvirksomhet mot myndighetene er
10112 åpenbart i samsvar med loven. Det er ikke noe overraskende her med deres
10113 lobbyvirksomhet, og ikke veldig overraskende at den mektigste
10114 programvareprodusenten i USA har lyktes med sin lobbyvirksomhet.
10115 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2814052"></a><p>
10116 Det som var overraskende var USAs regjerings begrunnelse for å være imot
10117 møtet.  Igjen, sitert av Krim, forklarte Lois Boland, direktør for
10118 internasjonale forbindelser ved USAs patent og varemerkekontor, at
10119 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">programvare med åpen kildekode går imot til formålet til WIPO, som er
10120 å fremme immaterielle rettigheter.</span>»</span>.  Hun skal i følge sitatet ha
10121 sagt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Å holde et møte som har som formål å fraskrive seg eller
10122 frafalle slike rettigheter synes for oss å være i strid med formålene til
10123 WIPO.</span>»</span>
10124 </p><p>
10125 Disse utsagnene er forbløffende på flere nivåer.
10126 </p><p>
10127 For det første er de ganske enkelt ikke riktige.  Som jeg beskrev, er det
10128 meste av åpen kildekode og fri programvare fundamentalt avhengig av den
10129 immaterielle retten kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrett</span>»</span>.  Uten den vil
10130 begrensningene definert av disse lisensene ikke fungere. Dermed er det å si
10131 at de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">går imot</span>»</span> formålet om å fremme immaterielle rettigheter
10132 å avsløre en ekstraordinær mangel på forståelse&#8212;den type feil som er
10133 tilgivelig hos en førsteårs jusstudent, men pinlig fra en høyt plassert
10134 statstjenestemann som håndterer utfordringer rundt immaterielle rettigheter.
10135 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2814108"></a><p>
10136 For det andre, hvem har noen gang hevdet at WIPOs eksklusive mål var å
10137 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fremme</span>»</span> immaterielle rettigheter maksimalt?  Som jeg fikk
10138 kjeft om på den forberedende konferansen til WSIS, skal WIPO vurdere ikke
10139 bare hvordan best beskytte immaterielle rettigheter, men også hva som er den
10140 beste balansen rundt immaterielle rettigheter.  Som enhver økonom og advokat
10141 vet, er det vanskelige spørsmålet i immaterielle rettighetsjuss å finne den
10142 balansen.  Men at det skulle være en grense, trodde jeg, var ubestridt.  Man
10143 ønsker å spørre Ms. Boland om generelle medisiner (medisiner basert på
10144 medisiner med patenter som er utløpt) i strid med WIPOs oppdrag?  Svekker
10145 allemannseie immaterielle rettigheter?  Ville det vært bedre om internettets
10146 protokoller hadde vært patentert?
10147 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2814146"></a><p>
10148 For det tredje, selv om en tror at formålet med WIPO var å maksimere
10149 immaterielle rettigheter, så innehas immaterielle rettigheter, i vår
10150 tradisjon, av individer og selskaper.  De får bestemme hva som skal gjøres
10151 med disse rettighetene, igjen fordi det er <span class="emphasis"><em>de</em></span> som eier
10152 rettighetene. Hvis de ønsker å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frafalle</span>»</span> eller
10153 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frasi</span>»</span> seg sine rettigheter, så er det helt etter boka i vår
10154 tradisjon.  Når Bill Gates gir bort mer enn $20 milliarder til gode formål,
10155 så er ikke det uforenelig med målene til eiendomssystemet.  Det er heller
10156 tvert i mot, akkurat hva eiendomssysstemet er ment å oppnå, at individer har
10157 retten til å bestemme hva de vil gjøre med <span class="emphasis"><em>sin</em></span> eiendom.
10158 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxboland"></a><p>
10159
10160 Når Ms. Boland sier at det er noe galt med et møte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">som har som sitt
10161 formål å fraskrive eller frafalle slike rettigheter</span>»</span>, så sier hun at
10162 WIPO har en interesse i å påvirke valgene til enkeltpersoner som eier
10163 immaterielle rettigheter.  At på en eller annen WIPOs oppdrag bør være å
10164 stoppe individer fra å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fraskrive</span>»</span> eller
10165 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frafalle</span>»</span> seg sine immaterielle rettigheter.  At interessen
10166 til WIPO ikke bare er  maksimale immaterielle rettigheter, men også at de
10167 skal utøves på den mest ekstreme og restriktive mulig måten.
10168 </p><p>
10169 Det er en historie om akkurat et slikt eierskapssystem som er velkjent i den
10170 anglo-amerikansk tradisjon.  Det kalles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">føydalisme</span>»</span>. Under
10171 føydalismen var eiendommer ikke bare kontrollert av et relativt lite antall
10172 individer og aktører.  Men det føydale systemet hadde en sterk interesse i å
10173 sikre at landeier i systemet ikke svekke føydalismen ved å frigjøre folkene
10174 og eiendomene som de kontrollerte til det frie markedet.  Føydalismen var
10175 avhengig av maksimal kontroll og konsentrasjon.  Det sloss mot enhver frihet
10176 som kunne forstyrre denne kontrollen.
10177 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2814254"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2814260"></a><p>
10178 Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
10179 vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2814272" href="#ftn.id2814272" class="footnote">204</a>]</sup>
10180 Vi kommer til å få et informasjonssamfunn.  Så mye er sikkert.  Vårt eneste
10181 valg nå er hvorvidt dette informasjonssamfunnet skal være
10182 <span class="emphasis"><em>fritt</em></span> eller <span class="emphasis"><em>føydalt</em></span>.  Trenden er
10183 mot det føydale.
10184 </p><p>
10185 Da denne bataljen brøt ut, blogget jeg om dette.  En heftig debatt brøt ut i
10186 kommentarfeltet.  Ms. Boland hadde en rekke støttespillere som forsøkte å
10187 vise hvorfor hennes kommentarer ga mening.  Men det var spesielt en
10188 kommentar som gjorde meg trist.  En anonym kommentator skrev,
10189 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
10190
10191 George, du misforstår Lessig: Han snakker bare om verden slik den burde være
10192 (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">målet til WIPO, og målet til enhver regjering, bør være å fremme den
10193 riktige balansen for immaterielle rettigheter, ikke bare å fremme
10194 immaterielle rettigheter</span>»</span>), ikke som den er.  Hvis vi snakket om
10195 verden slik den er, så har naturligvis Boland ikke sagt noe galt.  Men i
10196 verden slik Lessig vil at den skal være, er det åpenbart at hun har sagt noe
10197 galt.  En må alltid være oppmerksom på forskjellen mellom Lessigs og vår
10198 verden.
10199 </p></blockquote></div><p>
10200 Jeg gikk glipp av ironien først gangen jeg leste den. Jeg lese den raskt og
10201 trodde forfatteren støttet idéen om at det våre myndigheter burde gjøre var
10202 å søke balanse. (Min kritikk av Ms Boland, selvfølgelig, var ikke om
10203 hvorvidt hun søkte balanse eller ikke; min kritikk var at hennes kommentarer
10204 avslørte en feil kun en førsteårs jusstudent burde kunne gjøre. Jeg har noen
10205 illusjon om ekstremismen hos våre myndigheter, uansett om de er
10206 republikanere eller demokrater. Min eneste tilsynelatende illusjon er
10207 hvorvidt våre myndigheter bør snakke sant eller ikke.)
10208 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2814359"></a><p>
10209 Det var derimot åpenbart at den som postet meldingen ikke støttet idéen.  I
10210 stedet latterliggjorde forfatteren selve idéen om at i den virkelig verden
10211 skulle <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">målet</span>»</span> til myndighetene være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">å fremme den
10212 riktige balanse</span>»</span> for immaterielle rettigheter.  Det var åpenbart
10213 tåpelig for ham.  Og det avslørte åpenbart, trodde han, min egen tåpelige
10214 utopisme.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Typisk for en akademiker</span>»</span>, kunne forfatteren like
10215 gjerne ha fortsatt.
10216 </p><p>
10217 Jeg forstår kritikken av akademisk utopisme.  Jeg mener også at utopisme er
10218 tåpelig, og jeg vil være blant de første til å gjøre narr av de absurde
10219 urealistiske idealer til akademikere gjennom historien (og ikke bare i vårt
10220 eget lands historie).
10221 </p><p>
10222 Men når det har blitt dumt å anta at rollen til våre myndigheter bør være å
10223 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">oppnå balanse</span>»</span>, da kan du regne meg blant de dumme, for det
10224 betyr at dette faktisk har blitt ganske seriøst.  Hvis det bør være åpenbart
10225 for alle at myndighetene ikke søker å oppnå balanse, at myndighetene ganske
10226 enkelt et verktøy for de mektigste lobbyistene, at idéen om å forvente bedre
10227 av myndighetene er absurd, at idéen om å kreve at myndighetene snakker sant
10228 og ikke lyver bare er naiv, hva har da vi, det mektigste demokratiet i
10229 verden, blitt?
10230 </p><p>
10231
10232 Det kan være galskap å forvente at en mektig myndigshetsperson skal si
10233 sannheten. Det kan være galskap å tro at myndighetenes politikk skal gjøre
10234 mer enn å tjene de mektigste interesser. Det kan være galskap å argumentere
10235 for å bevare en tradisjon som har vært en del av vår tradisjon for
10236 mesteparten av vår historie&#8212;fri kultur.
10237 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2814438"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2814446"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2814452"></a><p>
10238 Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger.  Snart.
10239 </p><p>
10240 <span class="strong"><strong>Det finnes øyeblikk</strong></span> av håp i denne
10241 kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte mindre strenge
10242 eierskapsregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere medieeierskap, dannet det
10243 seg en en ekstraordinær koalisjon på tvers av partiene for å bekjempe
10244 endringen. For kanskje første gang i historien organiserte interesser så
10245 forskjellige som NRA, ACLU, moveon.org, William Safire, Ted Turner og
10246 Codepink Women for Piece seg for å protestere på denne endringen i
10247 FCC-reglene.  Så mange som 700 000 brev ble sendt til FCC med krav om flere
10248 høringer og et annet resultat.
10249 </p><p>
10250 Disse protestene stoppet ikke FCC, men like etter stemte en bred koalisjon i
10251 senatet for å reversere avgjørelsen i FCC. De fiendtlige høringene som ledet
10252 til avstemmingen avslørte hvor mektig denne bevegelsen hadde blitt.  Det var
10253 ingen betydningsfull støtte for FCCs avgjørelse, mens det var bred og
10254 vedvarende støtte for å bekjempe ytterligere konsentrasjon i media.
10255 </p><p>
10256 Men selv denne bevegelsen går glipp av en viktig brikke i puslespillet.  Å
10257 være stor er ikke ille i seg selv. Frihet er ikke truet bare på grunn av at
10258 noen blir veldig rik, eller på grunn av at det bare er en håndfull store
10259 aktører.  Den dårlige kvaliteten til Big Macs eller Quartar Punders betyr
10260 ikke at du ikke kan få en god hamburger andre steder.
10261 </p><p>
10262 Faren med mediekonsentrasjon kommer ikke fra selve konsentrasjonen, men
10263 kommer fra føydalismen som denne konsentrasjonen fører til når den kobles
10264 til endringer i opphavsretten. Det er ikke kun at det er noen mektige
10265 selskaper som styrer en stadig voksende andel av mediene. Det er at denne
10266 konsentrasjonen kan påkalle en like oppsvulmet rekke
10267 rettigheter&#8212;eiendomsrettigheter i en historisk ekstrem form&#8212;som
10268 gjør størrelsen ille.
10269 </p><p>
10270 Det er derfor betydningsfullt at så mange vil kjempe for å kreve konkurranse
10271 og økt mangfold. Likevel, hvis kampanjen blir forstått til å kun gjelde
10272 størrelse, så er ikke det veldig overraskende. Vi amerikanere har en lang
10273 historie med å slåss mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stort</span>»</span>, klokt eller ikke. At vi kan
10274 være motivert til å slåss mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">store</span>»</span> igjen ikke noe nytt.
10275 </p><p>
10276 Det ville vært noe nytt, og noe veldig viktig, hvis like mange kan være med
10277 på en kampanje for å bekjempe økende ekstremisme bygget inn i idéen om
10278 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span>.  Ikke fordi balanse er fremmed for vår
10279 tradisjon. Jeg argumenterer for at balanse er vår tradisjon.  Men fordi
10280 evnen til å tenke kritisk på omfanget av alt som kalles
10281 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> ikke er lenger er godt trent i denne tradisjonen.
10282 </p><p>
10283 Hvis vi var Akilles, så ville dette være vår hæl. Dette ville være stedet
10284 for våre tragedie.
10285 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2814583"></a><p>
10286 <span class="strong"><strong>Mens jeg skriver</strong></span> disse avsluttende
10287 ordene, er nyhetene fylt med historier om at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre
10288 individer.<sup>[<a name="id2814600" href="#ftn.id2814600" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup>  Eminem har nettopp blitt
10289 saksøkt for å ha <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">samplet</span>»</span> noen andres musikk.<sup>[<a name="id2814665" href="#ftn.id2814665" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup>  Historien om hvordan Bob Dylan har
10290 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjålet</span>»</span> fra en japansk forfatter har nettopp gått verden
10291 over.<sup>[<a name="id2814688" href="#ftn.id2814688" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup>  En på innsiden i
10292 Hollywood&#8212;som insisterer på at han må forbli anonym&#8212;rapporterer
10293 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en utrolig samtale med disse studiofolkene.  De har fantastisk
10294 [gammelt] innhold som de ville elske å bruke, men det kan de ikke på grunn
10295 av at de først må klarere rettighetene.  De har hauger med ungdommer som
10296 kunne gjøre fantastiske ting med innholdet, men det vil først kreve hauger
10297 med advokater for å klarere det først</span>»</span>.  Kongressrepresentanter
10298 snakker om å gi datavirus politimyndighet for å ta ned datamaskiner som
10299 antas å bryte loven.  Universiteter truer med å utvise ungdommer som bruker
10300 en datamaskin for å dele innhold.
10301 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2814732"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2814739"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2814745"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2814751"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2814757"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2814764"></a><p>
10302
10303 I mens på andre siden av Atlanteren har BBC nettopp annonsert at de vil
10304 bygge opp et <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativt arkiv</span>»</span> som britiske borgere kan laste
10305 ned BBC-innhold fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.<sup>[<a name="id2814782" href="#ftn.id2814782" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup> Og i Brasil har kulturministeren, Gilberto Gil, i
10306 seg selv en folkehelt i brasiliansk musikk, slått seg sammen med Creative
10307 Commons for å gi ut innhold og frie lisenser i dette latinamerikanske
10308 landet.<sup>[<a name="id2814807" href="#ftn.id2814807" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup>  Jeg har fortalt en mørk
10309 historie.  Sannheten er mer blandet.  En teknologi har gitt oss mer frihet.
10310 Sakte begynner noen å forstå at denne friheten trenger ikke å bety anarki.
10311 Vi kan få med oss fri kultur inn i det tjueførste århundre, uten at artister
10312 taper og uten at potensialet for digital teknologi blir knust.  Det vil
10313 kreve omtanke, og viktigere, det vil kreve at noen omformer RCA-ene av i dag
10314 til Causbyere.
10315 </p><p>
10316
10317 Sunn fornuft må gjøre opprør. Den må handle for å frigjøre kulturen. Og
10318 snart, hvis dette potensialet skal noen gang bli realisert.
10319
10320
10321
10322 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2812969" href="#id2812969" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
10323
10324 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Final Report: Integrating
10325 Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy</span>»</span> (London, 2002),
10326 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10327 #55</a>. I følge en pressemelding fra verdens helseorganisasjon sendt ut
10328 9. juli 2002, mottar kun 320 000 av de 6 millioner som trenger medisiner i
10329 utviklingsland dem de trenger&#8212;og halvparten av dem er i Brasil.
10330 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2813060" href="#id2813060" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
10331
10332 Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: <em class="citetitle">Who
10333 Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New Press, 2003),
10334 37.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2813070"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2813078"></a>
10335 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2809428" href="#id2809428" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
10336
10337
10338 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10339 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, a
10340 Report Prepared for the World Intellectual Property Organization</em>
10341 (Washington, D.C., 2000), 14, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #56</a>. For a firsthand
10342 account of the struggle over South Africa, see Hearing Before the
10343 Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, House
10344 Committee on Government Reform, H. Rep., 1st sess., Ser. No. 106-126 (22
10345 July 1999), 150&#8211;57 (statement of James Love).
10346 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2813130" href="#id2813130" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
10347
10348
10349 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10350 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, en
10351 rapport forberedt for the World Intellectual Property
10352 Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2813224" href="#id2813224" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
10353
10354
10355
10356 See Sabin Russell, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's
10357 Needs at Odds with Firms' Profit Motive,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
10358 Chronicle</em>, 24 May 1999, A1, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #57</a> (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">compulsory
10359 licenses and gray markets pose a threat to the entire system of intellectual
10360 property protection</span>»</span>); Robert Weissman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">AIDS and Developing
10361 Countries: Democratizing Access to Essential Medicines,</span>»</span>
10362 <em class="citetitle">Foreign Policy in Focus</em> 4:23 (August 1999), available
10363 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #58</a> (describing
10364 U.S. policy); John A. Harrelson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents, and
10365 the HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between Intellectual
10366 Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Widener Law
10367 Symposium Journal</em> (Spring 2001): 175.
10368
10369 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2813576" href="#id2813576" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
10370
10371 Jonathan Krim, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source</span>»</span>,
10372 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, august 2003, E1, tilgjengelig fra
10373 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #59</a>; William New,
10374 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Global Group's Shift on `Open Source' Meeting Spurs Stir</span>»</span>,
10375 <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19. august 2003,
10376 tilgjengelig  fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10377 #60</a>; William New, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks
10378 at WIPO</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>,
10379 19. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #61</a>.
10380 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2813717" href="#id2813717" class="para">201</a>] </sup>
10381
10382 Jeg bør nevne at jeg var en av folkene som ba WIPO om dette møtet.
10383 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2813859" href="#id2813859" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
10384
10385
10386 Microsofts posisjon om åpen kildekode og fri programvare er mer
10387 sofistikert.  De har flere ganger forklart at de har ikke noe problem med
10388 programvare som er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode</span>»</span> eller programvare som er
10389 allemannseie.  Microsofts prinsipielle motstand er mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri
10390 programvare</span>»</span> lisensiert med en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyleft</span>»</span>-lisens, som
10391 betyr at lisensen krever at de som lisensierer skal adoptere same vilkår for
10392 ethvert avledet verk.  Se Bradford L. Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Future of Software:
10393 Enabling the Marketplace to Decide</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Government Policy
10394 Toward Open Source Software</em> (Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings
10395 Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute for
10396 Public Policy Research, 2002), 69, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #62</a>. Se også Craig Mundie,
10397 Microsoft senior vice president, <em class="citetitle">The Commercial Software
10398 Model</em>, diskusjon ved New York University Stern School of
10399 Business (3. mai 2001), tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #63</a>.
10400 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2814012" href="#id2814012" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
10401
10402
10403 Krim, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #64</a>.
10404 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2814272" href="#id2814272" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
10405
10406 Se Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
10407 210&#8211;20.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2813124"></a>
10408 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2814600" href="#id2814600" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
10409
10410
10411 John Borland, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers</span>»</span>, CNET News.com,
10412 september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #65</a>; Paul R. La Monica,
10413 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Industry Sues Swappers</span>»</span>, CNN/Money, 8 september 2003,
10414 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10415 #66</a>; Soni Sangha og Phyllis Furman sammen med Robert Gearty,
10416 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sued for a Song, N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old Among 261 Cited as Sharers</span>»</span>,
10417 <em class="citetitle">New York Daily News</em>, 9. september 2003, 3; Frank
10418 Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in
10419 Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants</span>»</span>,
10420 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10. september 2003, E1; Katie Dean,
10421 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Wired
10422 News</em>, 10. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #67</a>.
10423 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2814665" href="#id2814665" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
10424
10425
10426 Jon Wiederhorn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eminem Gets Sued &#8230; by a Little Old
10427 Lady</span>»</span>, mtv.com, 17. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #68</a>.
10428 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2814688" href="#id2814688" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
10429
10430
10431
10432 Kenji Hall, Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for
10433 Dylan Songs</span>»</span>, Kansascity.com, 9. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #69</a>.
10434
10435 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2814782" href="#id2814782" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
10436
10437 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public</span>»</span>, pressemelding
10438 fra BBC, 24. august 2003, tilgjengelig  fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #70</a>.
10439 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2814807" href="#id2814807" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
10440
10441
10442 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative Commons and Brazil</span>»</span>, Creative Commons Weblog,
10443 6. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #71</a>.
10444 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Etterord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-afterword"></a>Etterord</h2></div></div></div><p>
10445
10446
10447
10448 <span class="strong"><strong>I hvert fall</strong></span> noen av de som har lest helt
10449 hit vil være enig med meg om at noe må gjøres for å endre retningen vi
10450 holder.  Balansen i denne boken kartlegger hva som kan gjøres.
10451 </p><p>
10452 Jeg deler dette kartet i to deler: det som enhver kan gjøre nå, og det som
10453 krever hjelp fra lovgiverne.  Hvis det er en lærdom vi kan trekke fra
10454 historien om å endre på sunn fornuft, så er det at det krever å endre
10455 hvordan mange mennesker tenker på den aktuelle saken.
10456 </p><p>
10457 Det betyr at denne bevegelsen må starte i gatene.  Det må rekrutteres et
10458 signifikant antall foreldre, lærere, bibliotekarer, skapere, forfattere,
10459 musikere, filmskapere, forskere&#8212;som alle må fortelle denne historien
10460 med sine egne ord, og som kan fortelle sine naboer hvorfor denne kampen er
10461 så viktig.
10462 </p><p>
10463 Når denne bevegelsen har hatt sin effekt i gatene, så er det et visst håp om
10464 at det kan ha effekt i Washington.  Vi er fortsatt et demokrati. Hva folk
10465 mener betyr noe.  Ikke så mye som det burde, i hvert fall når en RCA står
10466 imot, men likevel, det betyr noe.  Og dermed vil jeg skissere, i den andre
10467 delen som følger, endringer som kongressen kunne gjøre for å bedre sikre en
10468 fri kultur.
10469 </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>
10470 <span class="strong"><strong>Common sense</strong></span> is with the copyright
10471 warriors because the debate so far has been framed at the extremes&#8212;as
10472 a grand either/or: either property or anarchy, either total control or
10473 artists won't be paid. If that really is the choice, then the warriors
10474 should win.
10475 </p><p>
10476 The mistake here is the error of the excluded middle. There are extremes in
10477 this debate, but the extremes are not all that there is. There are those who
10478 believe in maximal copyright&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span>&#8212;
10479 and those who reject copyright&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved.</span>»</span> The
10480 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts believe that you should ask
10481 permission before you <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> a copyrighted work in any way. The
10482 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts believe you should be able to do
10483 with content as you wish, regardless of whether you have permission or not.
10484 </p><p>
10485
10486 When the Internet was first born, its initial architecture effectively
10487 tilted in the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>»</span> direction. Content could be
10488 copied perfectly and cheaply; rights could not easily be controlled. Thus,
10489 regardless of anyone's desire, the effective regime of copyright under the
10490 original design of the Internet was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved.</span>»</span>
10491 Content was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taken</span>»</span> regardless of the rights. Any rights were
10492 effectively unprotected.
10493 </p><p>
10494 This initial character produced a reaction (opposite, but not quite equal)
10495 by copyright owners. That reaction has been the topic of this book. Through
10496 legislation, litigation, and changes to the network's design, copyright
10497 holders have been able to change the essential character of the environment
10498 of the original Internet. If the original architecture made the effective
10499 default <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved,</span>»</span> the future architecture will make
10500 the effective default <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">all rights reserved.</span>»</span> The architecture
10501 and law that surround the Internet's design will increasingly produce an
10502 environment where all use of content requires permission.  The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut
10503 and paste</span>»</span> world that defines the Internet today will become a
10504 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">get permission to cut and paste</span>»</span> world that is a creator's
10505 nightmare.
10506 </p><p>
10507 What's needed is a way to say something in the middle&#8212;neither
10508 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">all rights reserved</span>»</span> nor <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>»</span> but
10509 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">some rights reserved</span>»</span>&#8212; and thus a way to respect
10510 copyrights but enable creators to free content as they see fit. In other
10511 words, we need a way to restore a set of freedoms that we could just take
10512 for granted before.
10513 </p><div class="section" title="16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="examples"></a>16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="browsing"></a><p>
10514 If you step back from the battle I've been describing here, you will
10515 recognize this problem from other contexts. Think about privacy. Before the
10516 Internet, most of us didn't have to worry much about data about our lives
10517 that we broadcast to the world. If you walked into a bookstore and browsed
10518 through some of the works of Karl Marx, you didn't need to worry about
10519 explaining your browsing habits to your neighbors or boss. The
10520 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> of your browsing habits was assured.
10521 </p><p>
10522 Hva gjorde at det var sikret?
10523 </p><p>
10524 Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, your privacy was
10525 assured because of an inefficient architecture for gathering data and hence
10526 a market constraint (cost) on anyone who wanted to gather that data. If you
10527 were a suspected spy for North Korea, working for the CIA, no doubt your
10528 privacy would not be assured.  But that's because the CIA would (we hope)
10529 find it valuable enough to spend the thousands required to track you. But
10530 for most of us (again, we can hope), spying doesn't pay. The highly
10531 inefficient architecture of real space means we all enjoy a fairly robust
10532 amount of privacy. That privacy is guaranteed to us by friction. Not by law
10533 (there is no law protecting <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> in public places), and in
10534 many places, not by norms (snooping and gossip are just fun), but instead,
10535 by the costs that friction imposes on anyone who would want to spy.
10536 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2815110"></a><p>
10537 Enter the Internet, where the cost of tracking browsing in particular has
10538 become quite tiny. If you're a customer at Amazon, then as you browse the
10539 pages, Amazon collects the data about what you've looked at. You know this
10540 because at the side of the page, there's a list of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">recently
10541 viewed</span>»</span> pages. Now, because of the architecture of the Net and the
10542 function of cookies on the Net, it is easier to collect the data than
10543 not. The friction has disappeared, and hence any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span>
10544 protected by the friction disappears, too.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2815134"></a>
10545 </p><p>
10546 Amazon, of course, is not the problem. But we might begin to worry about
10547 libraries. If you're one of those crazy lefties who thinks that people
10548 should have the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span> to browse in a library without the
10549 government knowing which books you look at (I'm one of those lefties, too),
10550 then this change in the technology of monitoring might concern you. If it
10551 becomes simple to gather and sort who does what in electronic spaces, then
10552 the friction-induced privacy of yesterday disappears.
10553 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2815156"></a><p>
10554
10555 It is this reality that explains the push of many to define
10556 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> on the Internet. It is the recognition that
10557 technology can remove what friction before gave us that leads many to push
10558 for laws to do what friction did.<sup>[<a name="id2815175" href="#ftn.id2815175" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup> And
10559 whether you're in favor of those laws or not, it is the pattern that is
10560 important here. We must take affirmative steps to secure a kind of freedom
10561 that was passively provided before. A change in technology now forces those
10562 who believe in privacy to affirmatively act where, before, privacy was given
10563 by default.
10564 </p><p>
10565 A similar story could be told about the birth of the free software
10566 movement. When computers with software were first made available
10567 commercially, the software&#8212;both the source code and the
10568 binaries&#8212; was free. You couldn't run a program written for a Data
10569 General machine on an IBM machine, so Data General and IBM didn't care much
10570 about controlling their software.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2815216"></a>
10571 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2815228"></a><p>
10572 Dette var verden Richard Stallman ble født inn i, og mens han var forsker
10573 ved MIT, lærte han til å elske samfunnet som utviklet seg når en var fri til
10574 å utforske og fikle med programvaren som kjørte på datamaskiner. Av den
10575 smarte sorten selv, og en talentfull programmerer, begynte Stallman å basere
10576 seg frihet til å legge til eller endre på andre personers arbeid.
10577 </p><p>
10578 In an academic setting, at least, that's not a terribly radical idea. In a
10579 math department, anyone would be free to tinker with a proof that someone
10580 offered. If you thought you had a better way to prove a theorem, you could
10581 take what someone else did and change it. In a classics department, if you
10582 believed a colleague's translation of a recently discovered text was flawed,
10583 you were free to improve it. Thus, to Stallman, it seemed obvious that you
10584 should be free to tinker with and improve the code that ran a machine. This,
10585 too, was knowledge. Why shouldn't it be open for criticism like anything
10586 else?
10587 </p><p>
10588 No one answered that question. Instead, the architecture of revenue for
10589 computing changed. As it became possible to import programs from one system
10590 to another, it became economically attractive (at least in the view of some)
10591 to hide the code of your program. So, too, as companies started selling
10592 peripherals for mainframe systems. If I could just take your printer driver
10593 and copy it, then that would make it easier for me to sell a printer to the
10594 market than it was for you.
10595 </p><p>
10596
10597 Thus, the practice of proprietary code began to spread, and by the early
10598 1980s, Stallman found himself surrounded by proprietary code.  The world of
10599 free software had been erased by a change in the economics of computing. And
10600 as he believed, if he did nothing about it, then the freedom to change and
10601 share software would be fundamentally weakened.
10602 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2815285"></a><p>
10603 Derfor, i 1984, startet Stallmann på et prosjekt for å bygge et fritt
10604 operativsystem, slik i hvert fall en flik av fri programvare skulle
10605 overleve.  Dette var starten på GNU-prosjektet, som
10606 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Linux</span>»</span>-kjernen til Linus Torvalds senere ble lagt til i for å
10607 produsere GNU/Linux-operativsystemet. <a class="indexterm" name="id2815307"></a>
10608 <a class="indexterm" name="id2815313"></a>
10609 </p><p>
10610 Stallman's technique was to use copyright law to build a world of software
10611 that must be kept free. Software licensed under the Free Software
10612 Foundation's GPL cannot be modified and distributed unless the source code
10613 for that software is made available as well. Thus, anyone building upon
10614 GPL'd software would have to make their buildings free as well. This would
10615 assure, Stallman believed, that an ecology of code would develop that
10616 remained free for others to build upon. His fundamental goal was freedom;
10617 innovative creative code was a byproduct.
10618 </p><p>
10619 Stallman was thus doing for software what privacy advocates now do for
10620 privacy. He was seeking a way to rebuild a kind of freedom that was taken
10621 for granted before. Through the affirmative use of licenses that bind
10622 copyrighted code, Stallman was affirmatively reclaiming a space where free
10623 software would survive. He was actively protecting what before had been
10624 passively guaranteed.
10625 </p><p>
10626 Finally, consider a very recent example that more directly resonates with
10627 the story of this book. This is the shift in the way academic and scientific
10628 journals are produced.
10629 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxacademocjournals"></a><p>
10630
10631 As digital technologies develop, it is becoming obvious to many that
10632 printing thousands of copies of journals every month and sending them to
10633 libraries is perhaps not the most efficient way to distribute
10634 knowledge. Instead, journals are increasingly becoming electronic, and
10635 libraries and their users are given access to these electronic journals
10636 through password-protected sites. Something similar to this has been
10637 happening in law for almost thirty years: Lexis and Westlaw have had
10638 electronic versions of case reports available to subscribers to their
10639 service.  Although a Supreme Court opinion is not copyrighted, and anyone is
10640 free to go to a library and read it, Lexis and Westlaw are also free to
10641 charge users for the privilege of gaining access to that Supreme Court
10642 opinion through their respective services.
10643 </p><p>
10644 There's nothing wrong in general with this, and indeed, the ability to
10645 charge for access to even public domain materials is a good incentive for
10646 people to develop new and innovative ways to spread knowledge.  The law has
10647 agreed, which is why Lexis and Westlaw have been allowed to flourish. And if
10648 there's nothing wrong with selling the public domain, then there could be
10649 nothing wrong, in principle, with selling access to material that is not in
10650 the public domain.
10651 </p><p>
10652 But what if the only way to get access to social and scientific data was
10653 through proprietary services? What if no one had the ability to browse this
10654 data except by paying for a subscription?
10655 </p><p>
10656 As many are beginning to notice, this is increasingly the reality with
10657 scientific journals. When these journals were distributed in paper form,
10658 libraries could make the journals available to anyone who had access to the
10659 library. Thus, patients with cancer could become cancer experts because the
10660 library gave them access. Or patients trying to understand the risks of a
10661 certain treatment could research those risks by reading all available
10662 articles about that treatment. This freedom was therefore a function of the
10663 institution of libraries (norms) and the technology of paper journals
10664 (architecture)&#8212;namely, that it was very hard to control access to a
10665 paper journal.
10666 </p><p>
10667 As journals become electronic, however, the publishers are demanding that
10668 libraries not give the general public access to the journals. This means
10669 that the freedoms provided by print journals in public libraries begin to
10670 disappear. Thus, as with privacy and with software, a changing technology
10671 and market shrink a freedom taken for granted before.
10672 </p><p>
10673 This shrinking freedom has led many to take affirmative steps to restore the
10674 freedom that has been lost. The Public Library of Science (PLoS), for
10675 example, is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making scientific research
10676 available to anyone with a Web connection. Authors of scientific work submit
10677 that work to the Public Library of Science.  That work is then subject to
10678 peer review. If accepted, the work is then deposited in a public, electronic
10679 archive and made permanently available for free. PLoS also sells a print
10680 version of its work, but the copyright for the print journal does not
10681 inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2815436"></a>
10682 </p><p>
10683 This is one of many such efforts to restore a freedom taken for granted
10684 before, but now threatened by changing technology and markets.  There's no
10685 doubt that this alternative competes with the traditional publishers and
10686 their efforts to make money from the exclusive distribution of content. But
10687 competition in our tradition is presumptively a good&#8212;especially when
10688 it helps spread knowledge and science.
10689 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2815446"></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>
10690 Den samme strategien kan brukes på kultur, som et svar på den økende
10691 kontrollen som gjennomføres gjennom lov og teknologi.
10692 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2815495"></a><p>
10693 Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation
10694 established in Massachusetts, but with its home at Stanford University. Its
10695 aim is to build a layer of <span class="emphasis"><em>reasonable</em></span> copyright on top
10696 of the extremes that now reign. It does this by making it easy for people to
10697 build upon other people's work, by making it simple for creators to express
10698 the freedom for others to take and build upon their work. Simple tags, tied
10699 to human-readable descriptions, tied to bulletproof licenses, make this
10700 possible.
10701 </p><p>
10702
10703 <span class="emphasis"><em>Simple</em></span>&#8212;which means without a middleman, or
10704 without a lawyer.  By developing a free set of licenses that people can
10705 attach to their content, Creative Commons aims to mark a range of content
10706 that can easily, and reliably, be built upon. These tags are then linked to
10707 machine-readable versions of the license that enable computers automatically
10708 to identify content that can easily be shared. These three expressions
10709 together&#8212;a legal license, a human-readable description, and
10710 machine-readable tags&#8212;constitute a Creative Commons license. A
10711 Creative Commons license constitutes a grant of freedom to anyone who
10712 accesses the license, and more importantly, an expression of the ideal that
10713 the person associated with the license believes in something different than
10714 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All</span>»</span> or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No</span>»</span> extremes. Content is marked with
10715 the CC mark, which does not mean that copyright is waived, but that certain
10716 freedoms are given.
10717 </p><p>
10718 These freedoms are beyond the freedoms promised by fair use. Their precise
10719 contours depend upon the choices the creator makes. The creator can choose a
10720 license that permits any use, so long as attribution is given. She can
10721 choose a license that permits only noncommercial use.  She can choose a
10722 license that permits any use so long as the same freedoms are given to other
10723 uses (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">share and share alike</span>»</span>). Or any use so long as no
10724 derivative use is made. Or any use at all within developing nations. Or any
10725 sampling use, so long as full copies are not made. Or lastly, any
10726 educational use.
10727 </p><p>
10728 These choices thus establish a range of freedoms beyond the default of
10729 copyright law. They also enable freedoms that go beyond traditional fair
10730 use. And most importantly, they express these freedoms in a way that
10731 subsequent users can use and rely upon without the need to hire a
10732 lawyer. Creative Commons thus aims to build a layer of content, governed by
10733 a layer of reasonable copyright law, that others can build upon. Voluntary
10734 choice of individuals and creators will make this content available. And
10735 that content will in turn enable us to rebuild a public domain.
10736 </p><p>
10737 This is just one project among many within the Creative Commons.  And of
10738 course, Creative Commons is not the only organization pursuing such
10739 freedoms. But the point that distinguishes the Creative Commons from many is
10740 that we are not interested only in talking about a public domain or in
10741 getting legislators to help build a public domain. Our aim is to build a
10742 movement of consumers and producers of content (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">content
10743 conducers,</span>»</span> as attorney Mia Garlick calls them)  who help build the
10744 public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the importance of the public
10745 domain to other creativity.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2815592"></a>
10746 </p><p>
10747 The aim is not to fight the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts. The
10748 aim is to complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a
10749 culture are produced by insane and unintended consequences of laws written
10750 centuries ago, applied to a technology that only Jefferson could have
10751 imagined. The rules may well have made sense against a background of
10752 technologies from centuries ago, but they do not make sense against the
10753 background of digital technologies. New rules&#8212;with different freedoms,
10754 expressed in ways so that humans without lawyers can use them&#8212;are
10755 needed. Creative Commons gives people a way effectively to begin to build
10756 those rules.
10757 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline2"></a><p>
10758 Why would creators participate in giving up total control? Some participate
10759 to better spread their content. Cory Doctorow, for example, is a science
10760 fiction author. His first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
10761 Kingdom</em>, was released on-line and for free, under a Creative
10762 Commons license, on the same day that it went on sale in bookstores.
10763 </p><p>
10764 Why would a publisher ever agree to this? I suspect his publisher reasoned
10765 like this: There are two groups of people out there: (1)  those who will buy
10766 Cory's book whether or not it's on the Internet, and (2) those who may never
10767 hear of Cory's book, if it isn't made available for free on the
10768 Internet. Some part of (1) will download Cory's book instead of buying
10769 it. Call them bad-(1)s. Some part of (2)  will download Cory's book, like
10770 it, and then decide to buy it. Call them (2)-goods.  If there are more
10771 (2)-goods than bad-(1)s, the strategy of releasing Cory's book free on-line
10772 will probably <span class="emphasis"><em>increase</em></span> sales of Cory's book.
10773 </p><p>
10774 Indeed, the experience of his publisher clearly supports that conclusion.
10775 The book's first printing was exhausted months before the publisher had
10776 expected. This first novel of a science fiction author was a total success.
10777 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2815670"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2815677"></a><p>
10778
10779 The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content was
10780 confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner, who wrote a
10781 book about the free software movement titled <em class="citetitle">Free for
10782 All</em>, made an electronic version of his book free on-line under a
10783 Creative Commons license after the book went out of print. He then monitored
10784 used book store prices for the book. As predicted, as the number of
10785 downloads increased, the used book price for his book increased, as well.
10786 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2815700"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2815711"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2815718"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2815725"></a><p>
10787 These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary
10788 content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the Commons. There
10789 are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other reasons. Many who use
10790 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sampling license</span>»</span> do so because anything else would be
10791 hypocritical. The sampling license says that others are free, for commercial
10792 or noncommercial purposes, to sample content from the licensed work; they
10793 are just not free to make full copies of the licensed work available to
10794 others. This is consistent with their own art&#8212;they, too, sample from
10795 others. Because the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal</em></span> costs of sampling are so high
10796 (Walter Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born
10797 sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not
10798 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allow</span>»</span> Public Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs
10799 are so high<sup>[<a name="id2815758" href="#ftn.id2815758" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), these artists release
10800 into the creative environment content that others can build upon, so that
10801 their form of creativity might grow.
10802 </p><p>
10803 Finally, there are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons
10804 license just because they want to express to others the importance of
10805 balance in this debate. If you just go along with the system as it is, you
10806 are effectively saying you believe in the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span>
10807 model. Good for you, but many do not. Many believe that however appropriate
10808 that rule is for Hollywood and freaks, it is not an appropriate description
10809 of how most creators view the rights associated with their content. The
10810 Creative Commons license expresses this notion of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Some Rights
10811 Reserved,</span>»</span> and gives many the chance to say it to others.
10812 </p><p>
10813
10814 In the first six months of the Creative Commons experiment, over 1 million
10815 objects were licensed with these free-culture licenses. The next step is
10816 partnerships with middleware content providers to help them build into their
10817 technologies simple ways for users to mark their content with Creative
10818 Commons freedoms. Then the next step is to watch and celebrate creators who
10819 build content based upon content set free.
10820 </p><p>
10821 These are first steps to rebuilding a public domain. They are not mere
10822 arguments; they are action. Building a public domain is the first step to
10823 showing people how important that domain is to creativity and
10824 innovation. Creative Commons relies upon voluntary steps to achieve this
10825 rebuilding. They will lead to a world in which more than voluntary steps are
10826 possible.
10827 </p><p>
10828 Creative Commons is just one example of voluntary efforts by individuals and
10829 creators to change the mix of rights that now govern the creative field. The
10830 project does not compete with copyright; it complements it. Its aim is not
10831 to defeat the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and
10832 creators to exercise their rights more flexibly and cheaply. That
10833 difference, we believe, will enable creativity to spread more easily.
10834 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2815836"></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>
10835 <span class="strong"><strong>We will</strong></span> not reclaim a free culture by
10836 individual action alone. It will also take important reforms of laws. We
10837 have a long way to go before the politicians will listen to these ideas and
10838 implement these reforms.  But that also means that we have time to build
10839 awareness around the changes that we need.
10840 </p><p>
10841 In this chapter, I outline five kinds of changes: four that are general, and
10842 one that's specific to the most heated battle of the day, music. Each is a
10843 step, not an end. But any of these steps would carry us a long way to our
10844 end.
10845 </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>
10846 If you buy a house, you have to record the sale in a deed. If you buy land
10847 upon which to build a house, you have to record the purchase in a deed.  If
10848 you buy a car, you get a bill of sale and register the car. If you buy an
10849 airplane ticket, it has your name on it.
10850 </p><p>
10851
10852
10853 These are all formalities associated with property. They are requirements
10854 that we all must bear if we want our property to be protected.
10855 </p><p>
10856 In contrast, under current copyright law, you automatically get a copyright,
10857 regardless of whether you comply with any formality. You don't have to
10858 register. You don't even have to mark your content. The default is control,
10859 and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">formalities</span>»</span> are banished.
10860 </p><p>
10861 Why?
10862 </p><p>
10863 As I suggested in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, the motivation to abolish formalities was a good
10864 one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities imposed a burden
10865 on copyright holders without much benefit. Thus, it was progress when the
10866 law relaxed the formal requirements that a copyright owner must bear to
10867 protect and secure his work. Those formalities were getting in the way.
10868 </p><p>
10869 But the Internet changes all this. Formalities today need not be a
10870 burden. Rather, the world without formalities is the world that burdens
10871 creativity. Today, there is no simple way to know who owns what, or with
10872 whom one must deal in order to use or build upon the creative work of
10873 others. There are no records, there is no system to trace&#8212; there is no
10874 simple way to know how to get permission. Yet given the massive increase in
10875 the scope of copyright's rule, getting permission is a necessary step for
10876 any work that builds upon our past. And thus, the <span class="emphasis"><em>lack</em></span>
10877 of formalities forces many into silence where they otherwise could speak.
10878 </p><p>
10879 The law should therefore change this requirement<sup>[<a name="id2815959" href="#ftn.id2815959" class="footnote">212</a>]</sup>&#8212;but it should not change it by going back to the old, broken
10880 system. We should require formalities, but we should establish a system that
10881 will create the incentives to minimize the burden of these formalities.
10882 </p><p>
10883 The important formalities are three: marking copyrighted work, registering
10884 copyrights, and renewing the claim to copyright. Traditionally, the first of
10885 these three was something the copyright owner did; the second two were
10886 something the government did. But a revised system of formalities would
10887 banish the government from the process, except for the sole purpose of
10888 approving standards developed by others.
10889 </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>
10890 Under the old system, a copyright owner had to file a registration with the
10891 Copyright Office to register or renew a copyright. When filing that
10892 registration, the copyright owner paid a fee. As with most government
10893 agencies, the Copyright Office had little incentive to minimize the burden
10894 of registration; it also had little incentive to minimize the fee.  And as
10895 the Copyright Office is not a main target of government policymaking, the
10896 office has historically been terribly underfunded. Thus, when people who
10897 know something about the process hear this idea about formalities, their
10898 first reaction is panic&#8212;nothing could be worse than forcing people to
10899 deal with the mess that is the Copyright Office.
10900 </p><p>
10901 Yet it is always astonishing to me that we, who come from a tradition of
10902 extraordinary innovation in governmental design, can no longer think
10903 innovatively about how governmental functions can be designed.  Just because
10904 there is a public purpose to a government role, it doesn't follow that the
10905 government must actually administer the role. Instead, we should be creating
10906 incentives for private parties to serve the public, subject to standards
10907 that the government sets.
10908 </p><p>
10909 In the context of registration, one obvious model is the Internet.  There
10910 are at least 32 million Web sites registered around the world.  Domain name
10911 owners for these Web sites have to pay a fee to keep their registration
10912 alive. In the main top-level domains (.com, .org, .net), there is a central
10913 registry. The actual registrations are, however, performed by many competing
10914 registrars. That competition drives the cost of registering down, and more
10915 importantly, it drives the ease with which registration occurs up.
10916 </p><p>
10917
10918 We should adopt a similar model for the registration and renewal of
10919 copyrights. The Copyright Office may well serve as the central registry, but
10920 it should not be in the registrar business. Instead, it should establish a
10921 database, and a set of standards for registrars. It should approve
10922 registrars that meet its standards. Those registrars would then compete with
10923 one another to deliver the cheapest and simplest systems for registering and
10924 renewing copyrights. That competition would substantially lower the burden
10925 of this formality&#8212;while producing a database of registrations that
10926 would facilitate the licensing of content.
10927 </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>
10928 It used to be that the failure to include a copyright notice on a creative
10929 work meant that the copyright was forfeited. That was a harsh punishment for
10930 failing to comply with a regulatory rule&#8212;akin to imposing the death
10931 penalty for a parking ticket in the world of creative rights.  Here again,
10932 there is no reason that a marking requirement needs to be enforced in this
10933 way. And more importantly, there is no reason a marking requirement needs to
10934 be enforced uniformly across all media.
10935 </p><p>
10936 The aim of marking is to signal to the public that this work is copyrighted
10937 and that the author wants to enforce his rights. The mark also makes it easy
10938 to locate a copyright owner to secure permission to use the work.
10939 </p><p>
10940 One of the problems the copyright system confronted early on was that
10941 different copyrighted works had to be differently marked. It wasn't clear
10942 how or where a statue was to be marked, or a record, or a film. A new
10943 marking requirement could solve these problems by recognizing the
10944 differences in media, and by allowing the system of marking to evolve as
10945 technologies enable it to. The system could enable a special signal from the
10946 failure to mark&#8212;not the loss of the copyright, but the loss of the
10947 right to punish someone for failing to get permission first.
10948 </p><p>
10949
10950 Let's start with the last point. If a copyright owner allows his work to be
10951 published without a copyright notice, the consequence of that failure need
10952 not be that the copyright is lost. The consequence could instead be that
10953 anyone has the right to use this work, until the copyright owner complains
10954 and demonstrates that it is his work and he doesn't give
10955 permission.<sup>[<a name="id2816088" href="#ftn.id2816088" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
10956 work would therefore be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use unless someone complains.</span>»</span> If
10957 someone does complain, then the obligation would be to stop using the work
10958 in any new work from then on though no penalty would attach for existing
10959 uses.  This would create a strong incentive for copyright owners to mark
10960 their work.
10961 </p><p>
10962 That in turn raises the question about how work should best be marked. Here
10963 again, the system needs to adjust as the technologies evolve. The best way
10964 to ensure that the system evolves is to limit the Copyright Office's role to
10965 that of approving standards for marking content that have been crafted
10966 elsewhere.
10967 </p><p>
10968 For example, if a recording industry association devises a method for
10969 marking CDs, it would propose that to the Copyright Office. The Copyright
10970 Office would hold a hearing, at which other proposals could be made. The
10971 Copyright Office would then select the proposal that it judged preferable,
10972 and it would base that choice <span class="emphasis"><em>solely</em></span> upon the
10973 consideration of which method could best be integrated into the registration
10974 and renewal system. We would not count on the government to innovate; but we
10975 would count on the government to keep the product of innovation in line with
10976 its other important functions.
10977 </p><p>
10978 Finally, marking content clearly would simplify registration requirements.
10979 If photographs were marked by author and year, there would be little reason
10980 not to allow a photographer to reregister, for example, all photographs
10981 taken in a particular year in one quick step. The aim of the formality is
10982 not to burden the creator; the system itself should be kept as simple as
10983 possible.
10984 </p><p>
10985 The objective of formalities is to make things clear. The existing system
10986 does nothing to make things clear. Indeed, it seems designed to make things
10987 unclear.
10988 </p><p>
10989 If formalities such as registration were reinstated, one of the most
10990 difficult aspects of relying upon the public domain would be removed.  It
10991 would be simple to identify what content is presumptively free; it would be
10992 simple to identify who controls the rights for a particular kind of content;
10993 it would be simple to assert those rights, and to renew that assertion at
10994 the appropriate time.
10995 </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>
10996 Vernetiden i opphavsretten har gått fra fjorten år til nittifem år der
10997 selskap har forfatterskapet , og livstiden til forfatteren pluss sytti år
10998 for individuelle forfattere.
10999 </p><p>
11000 In <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>, I proposed a
11001 seventy-five-year term, granted in five-year increments with a requirement
11002 of renewal every five years.  That seemed radical enough at the time. But
11003 after we lost <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
11004 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, the proposals became even more
11005 radical. <em class="citetitle">The Economist</em> endorsed a proposal for a
11006 fourteen-year copyright term.<sup>[<a name="id2816221" href="#ftn.id2816221" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup> Others
11007 have proposed tying the term to the term for patents.
11008 </p><p>
11009 I agree with those who believe that we need a radical change in copyright's
11010 term. But whether fourteen years or seventy-five, there are four principles
11011 that are important to keep in mind about copyright terms.
11012 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
11013
11014
11015 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it short:</em></span> The term should be as long as necessary
11016 to give incentives to create, but no longer. If it were tied to very strong
11017 protections for authors (so authors were able to reclaim rights from
11018 publishers), rights to the same work (not derivative works) might be
11019 extended further. The key is not to tie the work up with legal regulations
11020 when it no longer benefits an author.
11021 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11022
11023
11024
11025 <span class="emphasis"><em>Gjør det enkelt:</em></span> Skillelinjen mellom verker uten
11026 opphavsrettslig vern og innhold som er beskyttet må forbli klart.  Advokater
11027 liker uklarheten som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> og forskjellen mellom
11028 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">idéer</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">uttrykk</span>»</span> har.  Denne type lovverk gir
11029 dem en masse arbeid.  Men de som skrev grunnloven hadde en enklere idé:
11030 vernet versus ikke vernet. Verdien av korte vernetider er at det er lite
11031 behov for å bygge inn unntak i opphavsretten når vernetiden holdes kort.  En
11032 klar og aktiv <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">advokat-fri sone</span>»</span> gjør komplesiteten av
11033 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">idé/uttrykk</span>»</span> mindre nødvendig å
11034 håndtere.
11035
11036 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11037
11038 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it alive:</em></span> Copyright should have to be renewed.
11039 Especially if the maximum term is long, the copyright owner should be
11040 required to signal periodically that he wants the protection continued. This
11041 need not be an onerous burden, but there is no reason this monopoly
11042 protection has to be granted for free. On average, it takes ninety minutes
11043 for a veteran to apply for a pension.<sup>[<a name="id2816342" href="#ftn.id2816342" class="footnote">215</a>]</sup>
11044 If we make veterans suffer that burden, I don't see why we couldn't require
11045 authors to spend ten minutes every fifty years to file a single form.
11046 <a class="indexterm" name="id2816363"></a>
11047 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11048
11049
11050 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it prospective:</em></span> Whatever the term of copyright
11051 should be, the clearest lesson that economists teach is that a term once
11052 given should not be extended. It might have been a mistake in 1923 for the
11053 law to offer authors only a fifty-six-year term. I don't think so, but it's
11054 possible. If it was a mistake, then the consequence was that we got fewer
11055 authors to create in 1923 than we otherwise would have. But we can't correct
11056 that mistake today by increasing the term. No matter what we do today, we
11057 will not increase the number of authors who wrote in 1923. Of course, we can
11058 increase the reward that those who write now get (or alternatively, increase
11059 the copyright burden that smothers many works that are today invisible). But
11060 increasing their reward will not increase their creativity in 1923.  What's
11061 not done is not done, and there's nothing we can do about that now.  </p></li></ol></div><p>
11062 Disse endringene vil sammen gi en <span class="emphasis"><em>gjennomsnittlig</em></span>
11063 opphavsrettslig vernetid som er mye kortere enn den gjeldende vernetiden.
11064 Frem til 1976 var gjennomsnittlig vernetid kun 32.2 år.  Vårt mål bør være
11065 det samme.
11066 </p><p>
11067 Uten tvil vil ekstremistene kalle disse idéene
11068 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikale</span>»</span>. (Tross alt, så kaller jeg dem
11069 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ekstremister</span>»</span>.) Men igjen, vernetiden jeg anbefalte var lengre
11070 enn vernetiden under Richard Nixon. hvor <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikalt</span>»</span> kan det
11071 være å be om en mer sjenerøs opphavsrettighet enn da Richard Nixon var
11072 president?
11073 </p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="freefairuse"></a>16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2816445"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2816452"></a><p>
11074 As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally granted
11075 property owners the right to control their property from the ground to the
11076 heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property rights quickly
11077 changed. There was no fuss, no constitutional challenge.  It made no sense
11078 anymore to grant that much control, given the emergence of that new
11079 technology.
11080 </p><p>
11081 Our Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive
11082 right</span>»</span> to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">their writings.</span>»</span> Congress has given authors
11083 an exclusive right to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">their writings</span>»</span> plus any derivative
11084 writings (made by others) that are sufficiently close to the author's
11085 original work. Thus, if I write a book, and you base a movie on that book, I
11086 have the power to deny you the right to release that movie, even though that
11087 movie is not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">my writing.</span>»</span>
11088 </p><p>
11089 Congress granted the beginnings of this right in 1870, when it expanded the
11090 exclusive right of copyright to include a right to control translations and
11091 dramatizations of a work.<sup>[<a name="id2816503" href="#ftn.id2816503" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> The courts
11092 have expanded it slowly through judicial interpretation ever since. This
11093 expansion has been commented upon by one of the law's greatest judges, Judge
11094 Benjamin Kaplan.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2816519"></a>
11095 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
11096 So inured have we become to the extension of the monopoly to a large range
11097 of so-called derivative works, that we no longer sense the oddity of
11098 accepting such an enlargement of copyright while yet intoning the
11099 abracadabra of idea and expression.<sup>[<a name="id2816535" href="#ftn.id2816535" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
11100 </p></blockquote></div><p>
11101 I think it's time to recognize that there are airplanes in this field and
11102 the expansiveness of these rights of derivative use no longer make
11103 sense. More precisely, they don't make sense for the period of time that a
11104 copyright runs. And they don't make sense as an amorphous grant.  Consider
11105 each limitation in turn.
11106 </p><p>
11107 <span class="emphasis"><em>Term:</em></span> If Congress wants to grant a derivative right,
11108 then that right should be for a much shorter term. It makes sense to protect
11109 John Grisham's right to sell the movie rights to his latest novel (or at
11110 least I'm willing to assume it does); but it does not make sense for that
11111 right to run for the same term as the underlying copyright. The derivative
11112 right could be important in inducing creativity; it is not important long
11113 after the creative work is done.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2816567"></a>
11114 </p><p>
11115 <span class="emphasis"><em>Scope:</em></span> Likewise should the scope of derivative rights
11116 be narrowed.  Again, there are some cases in which derivative rights are
11117 important.  Those should be specified. But the law should draw clear lines
11118 around regulated and unregulated uses of copyrighted material. When all
11119 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">reuse</span>»</span> of creative material was within the control of
11120 businesses, perhaps it made sense to require lawyers to negotiate the
11121 lines. It no longer makes sense for lawyers to negotiate the lines. Think
11122 about all the creative possibilities that digital technologies enable; now
11123 imagine pouring molasses into the machines. That's what this general
11124 requirement of permission does to the creative process. Smothers it.
11125 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2816599"></a><p>
11126 This was the point that Alben made when describing the making of the Clint
11127 Eastwood CD. While it makes sense to require negotiation for foreseeable
11128 derivative rights&#8212;turning a book into a movie, or a poem into a
11129 musical score&#8212;it doesn't make sense to require negotiation for the
11130 unforeseeable. Here, a statutory right would make much more sense.
11131 </p><p>
11132 In each of these cases, the law should mark the uses that are protected, and
11133 the presumption should be that other uses are not protected.  This is the
11134 reverse of the recommendation of my colleague Paul Goldstein.<sup>[<a name="id2816622" href="#ftn.id2816622" class="footnote">218</a>]</sup> His view is that the law should be written so that
11135 expanded protections follow expanded uses.
11136 </p><p>
11137 Goldstein's analysis would make perfect sense if the cost of the legal
11138 system were small. But as we are currently seeing in the context of the
11139 Internet, the uncertainty about the scope of protection, and the incentives
11140 to protect existing architectures of revenue, combined with a strong
11141 copyright, weaken the process of innovation.
11142 </p><p>
11143
11144 The law could remedy this problem either by removing protection beyond the
11145 part explicitly drawn or by granting reuse rights upon certain statutory
11146 conditions. Either way, the effect would be to free a great deal of culture
11147 to others to cultivate. And under a statutory rights regime, that reuse
11148 would earn artists more income.
11149 </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>
11150 The battle that got this whole war going was about music, so it wouldn't be
11151 fair to end this book without addressing the issue that is, to most people,
11152 most pressing&#8212;music. There is no other policy issue that better
11153 teaches the lessons of this book than the battles around the sharing of
11154 music.
11155 </p><p>
11156 The appeal of file-sharing music was the crack cocaine of the Internet's
11157 growth. It drove demand for access to the Internet more powerfully than any
11158 other single application. It was the Internet's killer app&#8212;possibly in
11159 two senses of that word. It no doubt was the application that drove demand
11160 for bandwidth. It may well be the application that drives demand for
11161 regulations that in the end kill innovation on the network.
11162 </p><p>
11163 The aim of copyright, with respect to content in general and music in
11164 particular, is to create the incentives for music to be composed, performed,
11165 and, most importantly, spread. The law does this by giving an exclusive
11166 right to a composer to control public performances of his work, and to a
11167 performing artist to control copies of her performance.
11168 </p><p>
11169 File-sharing networks complicate this model by enabling the spread of
11170 content for which the performer has not been paid. But of course, that's not
11171 all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»">5</a>, they enable four
11172 different kinds of sharing:
11173 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
11174
11175
11176 Det er noen som bruker delingsnettverk som erstatninger for å kjøpe CDer.
11177 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11178
11179
11180 There are also some who are using sharing networks to sample, on the way to
11181 purchasing CDs.
11182 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11183
11184
11185
11186
11187 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk til å få tilgang til innhold som
11188 ikke lenger er i salg, men fortsatt er vernet av opphavsrett eller som ville
11189 ha vært altfor vanskelig å få kjøpt via nettet.
11190 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11191
11192
11193 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk for å få tilgang til innhold som
11194 ikke er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, eller for å få tilgang som
11195 opphavsrettsinnehaveren åpenbart går god for.
11196 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11197 Any reform of the law needs to keep these different uses in focus. It must
11198 avoid burdening type D even if it aims to eliminate type A. The eagerness
11199 with which the law aims to eliminate type A, moreover, should depend upon
11200 the magnitude of type B. As with VCRs, if the net effect of sharing is
11201 actually not very harmful, the need for regulation is significantly
11202 weakened.
11203 </p><p>
11204 As I said in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»">5</a>, the actual harm caused by sharing is controversial.  For
11205 the purposes of this chapter, however, I assume the harm is real. I assume,
11206 in other words, that type A sharing is significantly greater than type B,
11207 and is the dominant use of sharing networks.
11208 </p><p>
11209 Uansett, det er et avgjørende faktum om den gjeldende teknologiske
11210 omgivelsen som vi må huske på hvis vi skal forstå hvordan loven bør reagere.
11211 </p><p>
11212 Today, file sharing is addictive. In ten years, it won't be. It is addictive
11213 today because it is the easiest way to gain access to a broad range of
11214 content.  It won't be the easiest way to get access to a broad range of
11215 content in ten years. Today, access to the Internet is cumbersome and
11216 slow&#8212;we in the United States are lucky to have broadband service at
11217 1.5 MBs, and very rarely do we get service at that speed both up and
11218 down. Although wireless access is growing, most of us still get access
11219 across wires. Most only gain access through a machine with a keyboard. The
11220 idea of the always on, always connected Internet is mainly just an idea.
11221 </p><p>
11222
11223 But it will become a reality, and that means the way we get access to the
11224 Internet today is a technology in transition. Policy makers should not make
11225 policy on the basis of technology in transition. They should make policy on
11226 the basis of where the technology is going. The question should not be, how
11227 should the law regulate sharing in this world? The question should be, what
11228 law will we require when the network becomes the network it is clearly
11229 becoming? That network is one in which every machine with electricity is
11230 essentially on the Net; where everywhere you are&#8212;except maybe the
11231 desert or the Rockies&#8212;you can instantaneously be connected to the
11232 Internet. Imagine the Internet as ubiquitous as the best cell-phone service,
11233 where with the flip of a device, you are connected.
11234 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2816832"></a><p>
11235 In that world, it will be extremely easy to connect to services that give
11236 you access to content on the fly&#8212;such as Internet radio, content that
11237 is streamed to the user when the user demands. Here, then, is the critical
11238 point: When it is <span class="emphasis"><em>extremely</em></span> easy to connect to services
11239 that give access to content, it will be <span class="emphasis"><em>easier</em></span> to
11240 connect to services that give you access to content than it will be to
11241 download and store content <span class="emphasis"><em>on the many devices you will have for
11242 playing content</em></span>. It will be easier, in other words, to subscribe
11243 than it will be to be a database manager, as everyone in the
11244 download-sharing world of Napster-like technologies essentially is. Content
11245 services will compete with content sharing, even if the services charge
11246 money for the content they give access to. Already cell-phone services in
11247 Japan offer music (for a fee) streamed over cell phones (enhanced with plugs
11248 for headphones). The Japanese are paying for this content even though
11249 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> content is available in the form of MP3s across the
11250 Web.<sup>[<a name="id2816887" href="#ftn.id2816887" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
11251
11252 </p><p>
11253
11254 This point about the future is meant to suggest a perspective on the
11255 present: It is emphatically temporary. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem</span>»</span> with file
11256 sharing&#8212;to the extent there is a real problem&#8212;is a problem that
11257 will increasingly disappear as it becomes easier to connect to the
11258 Internet.  And thus it is an extraordinary mistake for policy makers today
11259 to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">solving</span>»</span> this problem in light of a technology that will
11260 be gone tomorrow.  The question should not be how to regulate the Internet
11261 to eliminate file sharing (the Net will evolve that problem away). The
11262 question instead should be how to assure that artists get paid, during this
11263 transition between twentieth-century models for doing business and
11264 twenty-first-century technologies.
11265 </p><p>
11266 The answer begins with recognizing that there are different
11267 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problems</span>»</span> here to solve. Let's start with type D
11268 content&#8212;uncopyrighted content or copyrighted content that the artist
11269 wants shared. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem</span>»</span> with this content is to make sure
11270 that the technology that would enable this kind of sharing is not rendered
11271 illegal. You can think of it this way: Pay phones are used to deliver ransom
11272 demands, no doubt.  But there are many who need to use pay phones who have
11273 nothing to do with ransoms. It would be wrong to ban pay phones in order to
11274 eliminate kidnapping.
11275 </p><p>
11276 Type C content raises a different <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem.</span>»</span> This is content
11277 that was, at one time, published and is no longer available. It may be
11278 unavailable because the artist is no longer valuable enough for the record
11279 label he signed with to carry his work. Or it may be unavailable because the
11280 work is forgotten. Either way, the aim of the law should be to facilitate
11281 the access to this content, ideally in a way that returns something to the
11282 artist.
11283 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2816966"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2816977"></a><p>
11284 Again, the model here is the used book store. Once a book goes out of print,
11285 it may still be available in libraries and used book stores. But libraries
11286 and used book stores don't pay the copyright owner when someone reads or
11287 buys an out-of-print book. That makes total sense, of course, since any
11288 other system would be so burdensome as to eliminate the possibility of used
11289 book stores' existing. But from the author's perspective, this
11290 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sharing</span>»</span> of his content without his being compensated is less
11291 than ideal.
11292 </p><p>
11293 The model of used book stores suggests that the law could simply deem
11294 out-of-print music fair game. If the publisher does not make copies of the
11295 music available for sale, then commercial and noncommercial providers would
11296 be free, under this rule, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">share</span>»</span> that content, even though
11297 the sharing involved making a copy. The copy here would be incidental to the
11298 trade; in a context where commercial publishing has ended, trading music
11299 should be as free as trading books.
11300 </p><p>
11301
11302
11303
11304 Alternatively, the law could create a statutory license that would ensure
11305 that artists get something from the trade of their work. For example, if the
11306 law set a low statutory rate for the commercial sharing of content that was
11307 not offered for sale by a commercial publisher, and if that rate were
11308 automatically transferred to a trust for the benefit of the artist, then
11309 businesses could develop around the idea of trading this content, and
11310 artists would benefit from this trade.
11311 </p><p>
11312 This system would also create an incentive for publishers to keep works
11313 available commercially. Works that are available commercially would not be
11314 subject to this license. Thus, publishers could protect the right to charge
11315 whatever they want for content if they kept the work commercially
11316 available. But if they don't keep it available, and instead, the computer
11317 hard disks of fans around the world keep it alive, then any royalty owed for
11318 such copying should be much less than the amount owed a commercial
11319 publisher.
11320 </p><p>
11321 The hard case is content of types A and B, and again, this case is hard only
11322 because the extent of the problem will change over time, as the technologies
11323 for gaining access to content change. The law's solution should be as
11324 flexible as the problem is, understanding that we are in the middle of a
11325 radical transformation in the technology for delivering and accessing
11326 content.
11327 </p><p>
11328 Så her er en løsning som i første omgang kan virke veldig undelig for begge
11329 sider i denne krigen, men som jeg tror vil gi mer mening når en får tenkt
11330 seg om.
11331 </p><p>
11332 Stripped of the rhetoric about the sanctity of property, the basic claim of
11333 the content industry is this: A new technology (the Internet)  has harmed a
11334 set of rights that secure copyright. If those rights are to be protected,
11335 then the content industry should be compensated for that harm. Just as the
11336 technology of tobacco harmed the health of millions of Americans, or the
11337 technology of asbestos caused grave illness to thousands of miners, so, too,
11338 has the technology of digital networks harmed the interests of the content
11339 industry.
11340 </p><p>
11341
11342
11343 Jeg elsker internett, så jeg liker ikke å sammenligne det med tobakk eller
11344 asbest.  Men analogien er rimelig når en ser det fra lovens perspektiv. Og
11345 det foreslår en rimelig respons: I stedet for å forsøke å ødelegge internett
11346 eller p2p-teknologien som i dag skader innholdsleverandører på internett, så
11347 bør vi finne en relativt enkel måte å kompensere de som blir skadelidende.
11348 </p><p>
11349 The idea would be a modification of a proposal that has been floated by
11350 Harvard law professor William Fisher.<sup>[<a name="id2817098" href="#ftn.id2817098" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
11351 Fisher suggests a very clever way around the current impasse of the
11352 Internet. Under his plan, all content capable of digital transmission would
11353 (1) be marked with a digital watermark (don't worry about how easy it is to
11354 evade these marks; as you'll see, there's no incentive to evade them). Once
11355 the content is marked, then entrepreneurs would develop (2) systems to
11356 monitor how many items of each content were distributed. On the basis of
11357 those numbers, then (3) artists would be compensated. The compensation would
11358 be paid for by (4) an appropriate tax.
11359 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2817300"></a><p>
11360 Fisher's proposal is careful and comprehensive. It raises a million
11361 questions, most of which he answers well in his upcoming book,
11362 <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep</em>. The modification that I would make
11363 is relatively simple: Fisher imagines his proposal replacing the existing
11364 copyright system.  I imagine it complementing the existing system. The aim
11365 of the proposal would be to facilitate compensation to the extent that harm
11366 could be shown. This compensation would be temporary, aimed at facilitating
11367 a transition between regimes. And it would require renewal after a period of
11368 years. If it continues to make sense to facilitate free exchange of content,
11369 supported through a taxation system, then it can be continued. If this form
11370 of protection is no longer necessary, then the system could lapse into the
11371 old system of controlling access.
11372 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2817327"></a><p>
11373
11374 Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim is
11375 not just to ensure that artists are paid, but also to ensure that the system
11376 supports the widest range of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">semiotic democracy</span>»</span> possible. But
11377 the aims of semiotic democracy would be satisfied if the other changes I
11378 described were accomplished&#8212;in particular, the limits on derivative
11379 uses. A system that simply charges for access would not greatly burden
11380 semiotic democracy if there were few limitations on what one was allowed to
11381 do with the content itself.
11382 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2817352"></a><p>
11383 No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of
11384 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">harm</span>»</span> to an industry. But the difficulty of making that
11385 calculation would be outweighed by the benefit of facilitating
11386 innovation. This background system to compensate would also not need to
11387 interfere with innovative proposals such as Apple's MusicStore. As experts
11388 predicted when Apple launched the MusicStore, it could beat
11389 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> by being easier than free is. This has proven correct:
11390 Apple has sold millions of songs at even the very high price of 99 cents a
11391 song. (At 99 cents, the cost is the equivalent of a per-song CD price,
11392 though the labels have none of the costs of a CD to pay.) Apple's move was
11393 countered by Real Networks, offering music at just 79 cents a song. And no
11394 doubt there will be a great deal of competition to offer and sell music
11395 on-line.
11396 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2817389"></a><p>
11397 This competition has already occurred against the background of
11398 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> music from p2p systems. As the sellers of cable
11399 television have known for thirty years, and the sellers of bottled water for
11400 much more than that, there is nothing impossible at all about
11401 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">competing with free.</span>»</span> Indeed, if anything, the competition
11402 spurs the competitors to offer new and better products. This is precisely
11403 what the competitive market was to be about. Thus in Singapore, though
11404 piracy is rampant, movie theaters are often luxurious&#8212;with
11405 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">first class</span>»</span> seats, and meals served while you watch a
11406 movie&#8212;as they struggle and succeed in finding ways to compete with
11407 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free.</span>»</span>
11408 </p><p>
11409 Dette konkurranseregimet, med en sikringsmekanisme for å sikre at kunstnere
11410 ikke taper, ville bidra mye til nyskapning innen levering av
11411 innhold. Konkurransen ville fortsette å redusere type-A-deling.  Det ville
11412 inspirere en ekstraordinær rekke av nye innovatører&#8212;som ville ha
11413 retten til a bruke innhold, og ikke lenger frykte usikre og barbarisk
11414 strenge straffer fra loven.
11415 </p><p>
11416 Oppsummert, så er dette mitt forslag:
11417 </p><p>
11418
11419
11420
11421 Internett er i endring. Vi bør ikke regulere en teknologi i endring. Vi bør
11422 i stedet regulere for å minimere skaden påført interesser som er berørt av
11423 denne teknologiske endringen, samtidig vi muliggjør, og oppmuntrer, den mest
11424 effektive teknologien vi kan lage.
11425 </p><p>
11426 Vi kan minimere skaden og samtidig maksimere fordelen med innovasjon ved å
11427 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
11428
11429
11430 garantere retten til å engasjere seg i type-D-deling;
11431 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11432
11433
11434 tillate ikke-kommersiell type-C-deling uten erstatningsansvar, og
11435 kommersiell type-C-deling med en lav og fast rate fastsatt ved lov.
11436 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11437
11438
11439 mens denne overgangen pågår, skattlegge og kompensere for type-A-deling, i
11440 den grad faktiske skade kan påvises.
11441 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11442 Men hva om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>»</span> ikke forsvinner?  Hva om det
11443 finnes et konkurranseutsatt marked som tilbyr innhold til en lav kostnad,
11444 men et signifikant antall av forbrukere fortsetter å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span>
11445 innhold uten å betale?  Burde loven gjøre noe da?
11446 </p><p>
11447 Ja, det bør den.  Men, nok en gang, hva den bør gjøre avhenger hvordan
11448 realitetene utvikler seg. Disse endringene fjerner kanskje ikke all
11449 type-A-deling. Men det virkelige spørmålet er ikke om de eliminerer deling i
11450 abstrakt betydning.  Det virkelige spørsmålet er hvilken effekt det har på
11451 markedet.  Er det bedre (a) å ha en teknologi som er 95 prosent sikker og
11452 gir et marked av størrelse <em class="citetitle">x</em>, eller (b) å ha en
11453 teknologi som er 50 prosent sikker, og som gir et marked som er fem ganger
11454 større enn <em class="citetitle">x</em>?  Mindre sikker kan gi mer uautorisert
11455 deling, men det vil sannsynligvis også gi et mye større marked for
11456 autorisert deling. Det viktigste er å sikre kunstneres kompensasjon uten å
11457 ødelegge internettet.  Når det er på plass, kan det hende det er riktig å
11458 finne måter å spore opp de smålige piratene.
11459 </p><p>
11460
11461 Men vi er langt unna å spikke problemet ned til dette delsettet av
11462 type-A-delere.  Og vårt fokus inntil er der bør ikke være å finne måter å
11463 ødelegge internettet.  Var fokus inntil vi er der bør være hvordan sikre at
11464 artister får betalt, mens vi beskytter rommet for nyskapning og kreativitet
11465 som internettet er.
11466 </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>
11467 Jeg er en advokat. Jeg lever av å utdanne advokater. Jeg tror på loven. Jeg
11468 tror på opphavsrettsloven. Jeg har faktisk viet livet til å jobbe med loven,
11469 ikke fordi det er mye penger å tjene, men fordi det innebærer idealer som
11470 jeg elsker å leve opp til.
11471 </p><p>
11472 Likevel har mye av denne boken vært kritikk av advokater, eller rollen
11473 advokater har spilt i denne debatten.  Loven taler om idealer, mens det er
11474 min oppfatning av vår yrkesgruppe er blitt for knyttet til klienten.  Og i
11475 en verden der rike klienter har sterke synspunkter vil uviljen hos vår
11476 yrkesgruppe til å stille spørsmål med eller protestere mot dette sterke
11477 synet ødelegge loven.
11478 </p><p>
11479 Indisiene for slik bøyning er overbevisene.  Jeg er angrepet som en
11480 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikal</span>»</span> av mange innenfor yrket, og likevel er meningene jeg
11481 argumenterer for nøyaktig de meningene til mange av de mest moderate og
11482 betydningsfulle personene i historien til denne delen av loven. Mange trodde
11483 for eksempel at vår utfordring til lovforslaget om å utvide opphavsrettens
11484 vernetid var galskap.  Mens bare tredve år siden mente den dominerende
11485 foreleser og utøver i opphavsrettsfeltet, Melville Nimmer, at den var
11486 åpenbar.<sup>[<a name="id2817626" href="#ftn.id2817626" class="footnote">221</a>]</sup>
11487
11488 </p><p>
11489 Min kritikk av rollen som advokater har spilt i denne debatten handler
11490 imidlertid ikke bare om en profesjonell skjevhet. Det handler enda viktigere
11491 om vår manglende evne til å faktisk ta inn over oss hva loven koster.
11492 </p><p>
11493 Økonomer er forventet å være gode til å forstå utgifter og inntekter.  Men
11494 som oftest antar økonomene uten peiling på hvordan det juridiske systemet
11495 egentlig fungerer, at transaksjonskostnaden i det juridiske systemet er
11496 lav.<sup>[<a name="id2817665" href="#ftn.id2817665" class="footnote">222</a>]</sup>  De ser et system som har
11497 eksistert i hundrevis av år, og de antar at det fungerer slik grunnskolens
11498 samfunnsfagsundervisning lærte dem at det fungerer.
11499 </p><p>
11500
11501
11502 Men det juridiske systemet fungerer ikke. Eller for å være mer nøyaktig, det
11503 fungerer kun for de med mest ressurser.  Det er ikke fordi systemet er
11504 korrupt. Jeg tror overhodet ikke vårt juridisk system (på føderalt nivå, i
11505 hvert fall) er korrupt. Jeg mener ganske enkelt at på grunn av at kostnadene
11506 med vårt juridiske systemet er så hårreisende høyt vil en praktisk talt
11507 aldri oppnå rettferdighet.
11508 </p><p>
11509 Disse kostnadene forstyrrer fri kultur på mange vis.  En advokats tid
11510 faktureres hos de største firmaene for mer enn $400 pr. time. Hvor mye tid
11511 bør en slik advokat bruke på å lese sakene nøye, eller undersøke obskure
11512 rettskilder.  Svaret er i økende grad: svært lite. Jussen er avhengig av
11513 nøye formulering og utvikling av doktrine, men nøye formulering og utvikling
11514 av doktrine er avhengig av nøyaktig arbeid.  Men nøyaktig arbeid koster for
11515 mye, bortsett fra i de mest høyprofilerte og kostbare sakene.
11516 </p><p>
11517 Kostbarheten, klomsetheten og tilfeldigheten til dette systemet håner vår
11518 tradisjon. Og advokater, såvel som akademikere, bør se det som sin plikt å
11519 endre hvordan loven praktiseres&#8212; eller bedre, endre loven slik at den
11520 fungerer. Det er galt at systemet fungerer godt bare for den øverste
11521 1-prosenten av klientene.  Det kan gjøres radikalt mer effektivt, og billig,
11522 og dermed radikalt mer rettferdig.
11523 </p><p>
11524 Men inntil en slik reform er gjennomført, bør vi som samfunn holde lover
11525 unna områder der vi vet den bare vil skade.  Og det er nettopp det loven
11526 altfor ofte vil gjøre hvis for mye av vår kultur er lovregulert.
11527 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2817766"></a><p>
11528 Tenk på de fantastiske tingene ditt barn kan gjøre eller lage med digital
11529 teknologi&#8212;filmen, musikken, web-siden, bloggen. Eller tenk på de
11530 fantastiske tingene ditt fellesskap kunne få til med digital
11531 teknologi&#8212;en wiki, oppsetting av låve, kampanje til å endre noe. Tenk
11532 på alle de kreative tingene, og tenk deretter på kald sirup helt inn i
11533 maskinene. Dette er hva et hvert regime som krever tillatelser fører
11534 til. Dette er virkeligheten slik den var i Brezhnevs Russland.
11535 </p><p>
11536
11537 Loven bør regulere i visse områder av kulturen&#8212;men det bør regulere
11538 kultur bare der reguleringen bidrar positivt. Likevel tester advokater
11539 sjeldent sin kraft, eller kraften som de fremmer, mot dette enkle pragmatisk
11540 spørsmålet: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vil det bidra positivt?</span>»</span>.  Når de blir utfordret
11541 om det utvidede rekkevidden til loven, er advokat-svaret, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvorfor
11542 ikke?</span>»</span>
11543 </p><p>
11544 Vi burde spørre: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvorfor?</span>»</span>. Vis meg hvorfor din regulering av
11545 kultur er nødvendig og vis meg hvordan reguleringen bidrar positivt.  Før du
11546 kan vise meg begge, holde advokatene din unna.
11547 </p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2815175" href="#id2815175" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
11548
11549
11550
11551 See, for example, Marc Rotenberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Information Practices and the
11552 Architecture of Privacy (What Larry Doesn't Get),</span>»</span>
11553 <em class="citetitle">Stanford Technology Law Review</em> 1 (2001):
11554 par. 6&#8211;18, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a> (describing examples in
11555 which technology defines privacy policy). See also Jeffrey Rosen,
11556 <em class="citetitle">The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious
11557 Age</em> (New York: Random House, 2004) (mapping tradeoffs between
11558 technology and privacy).</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2815758" href="#id2815758" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
11559
11560
11561 <em class="citetitle">Willful Infringement: A Report from the Front Lines of the Real
11562 Culture Wars</em> (2003), produced by Jed Horovitz, directed by Greg
11563 Hittelman, a Fiat Lucre production, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a>.
11564 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2815959" href="#id2815959" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
11565
11566
11567 The proposal I am advancing here would apply to American works only.
11568 Obviously, I believe it would be beneficial for the same idea to be adopted
11569 by other countries as well.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2816088" href="#id2816088" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
11570
11571
11572 There would be a complication with derivative works that I have not solved
11573 here. In my view, the law of derivatives creates a more complicated system
11574 than is justified by the marginal incentive it creates.
11575 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2816221" href="#id2816221" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
11576
11577
11578
11579 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Radical Rethink</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 366:8308
11580 (25. januar 2003): 15, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #74</a>.
11581 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2816342" href="#id2816342" class="para">215</a>] </sup>
11582
11583
11584 Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation
11585 and/or Pension, VA Form 21-526 (OMB Approved No. 2900-0001), tilgjengelig
11586 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #75</a>.
11587 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2816503" href="#id2816503" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
11588
11589
11590 Benjamin Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">An Unhurried View of Copyright</em> (New
11591 York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 32.
11592 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2816535" href="#id2816535" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
11593
11594 Ibid., 56.
11595 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2816622" href="#id2816622" class="para">218</a>] </sup>
11596
11597 Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the
11598 Celestial Jukebox</em> (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003),
11599 187&#8211;216.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2815190"></a>
11600 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2816887" href="#id2816887" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
11601
11602
11603 For eksempel, se, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Media Watch</span>»</span>, The J@pan
11604 Inc. Newsletter, 3 April 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #76</a>.
11605 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2817098" href="#id2817098" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
11606
11607 <a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments3"></a> William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital
11608 Music: Problems and Possibilities</em> (sist revidert: 10. oktober
11609 2000), tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11610 #77</a>; William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep: Technology, Law,
11611 and the Future of Entertainment</em> (kommer) (Stanford: Stanford
11612 University Press, 2004), kap. 6, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #78</a>. Professor Netanel har
11613 foreslått en relatert idé som ville gjøre at opphavsretten ikke gjelder
11614 ikke-kommersiell deling fra og ville etablere kompenasjon til kunstnere for
11615 å balansere eventuelle tap. Se Neil Weinstock Netanel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Impose a
11616 Noncommercial Use Levy to Allow Free P2P File Sharing</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig
11617 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #79</a>. For andre
11618 forslag, se Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Who's Holding Back Broadband?</span>»</span>
11619 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 8. january 2002, A17; Philip
11620 S. Corwin på vegne av Sharman Networks, Et brev til Senator Joseph R. Biden,
11621 Jr., leder i the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 26. februar. 2002,
11622 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11623 #80</a>; Serguei Osokine, <em class="citetitle">A Quick Case for Intellectual
11624 Property Use Fee (IPUF)</em>, 3. mars 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #81</a>; Jefferson Graham,
11625 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kazaa, Verizon Propose to Pay Artists Directly</span>»</span>,
11626 <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 13. mai 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #82</a>; Steven M. Cherry,
11627 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Getting Copyright Right</span>»</span>, IEEE Spectrum Online, 1. juli 2002,
11628 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11629 #83</a>; Declan McCullagh, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Verizon's Copyright Campaign</span>»</span>,
11630 CNET News.com, 27. august 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #84</a>.  Forslaget fra Fisher
11631 er ganske likt forslaget til Richard Stallman når det gjelder DAT.  I
11632 motsetning til Fishers forslag, ville Stallmanns forslag ikke betale
11633 kunstnere proposjonalt, selv om mer populære artister ville få mer betalt
11634 enn mindre populære.  Slik det er typisk med Stallman, la han fram sitt
11635 forslag omtrent ti år før dagens debatt. Se <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #85</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2817256"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2817263"></a>
11636 <a class="indexterm" name="id2817270"></a>
11637 <a class="indexterm" name="id2817277"></a>
11638 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2817626" href="#id2817626" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
11639
11640
11641 Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright's First Amendment</span>»</span> (Melville
11642 B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture), <em class="citetitle">UCLA law Review</em> 48
11643 (2001): 1057, 1069&#8211;70.
11644 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2817665" href="#id2817665" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
11645
11646 Et godt eksempel er arbeidet til professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz bør få
11647 ros for sin nøye gjennomgang av data om opphavsrettsbrudd, som fikk ham til
11648 å stille spørsmål med sin egen uttalte posisjon&#8212;to ganger.  I starten
11649 predicated han at nedlasting ville påføre industrien vesentlig skade.  Han
11650 endret så sitt syn etter i lys av dataene, og han har siden endret sitt syn
11651 på nytt.  Sammenlign Stan J. Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network
11652 Economy: The True Forces That Drive the Digital Marketplace</em> (New
11653 York: Amacom, 2002), (gikk igjennom hans originale syn men uttrykte skepsis)
11654 med Stan J.  Liebowitz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Will MP3s Annihilate the Record
11655 Industry?</span>»</span> artikkelutkast, juni 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #86</a>.  Den nøye analysen til
11656 Liebowitz er ekstremt verdifull i sin estimering av effekten av
11657 fildelingsteknologi.  Etter mitt syn underestimerer han forøvrig kostnaden
11658 til det juridiske system.  Se, for eksempel,
11659 <em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174&#8211;76.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2817641"></a>
11660 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Notater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>Notater</h2></div></div></div><p>
11661 I denne teksten er det referanser til lenker på verdensveven.  Og som alle
11662 som har forsøkt å bruke nettet vet, så vil disse lenkene være svært
11663 ustabile.  Jeg har forsøkt å motvirke denne ustabiliteten ved å omdirigere
11664 lesere til den originale kilden gjennom en nettside som hører til denne
11665 boken.  For hver lenke under, så kan du gå til http://free-culture.cc/notes
11666 og finne den originale kilden ved å klikke på nummeret etter #-tegnet.  Hvis
11667 den originale lenken fortsatt er i live, så vil du bli omdirigert til den
11668 lenken.  Hvis den originale lenken har forsvunnet, så vil du bli omdirigert
11669 til en passende referanse til materialet.
11670 </p></div><div class="chapter" title="Takk til"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>Takk til</h2></div></div></div><p>
11671 Denne boken er produktet av en lang og så langt mislykket kamp som begynte
11672 da jeg leste om Eric Eldreds krig for å sørge for at bøker forble
11673 frie. Eldreds innsats bidro til å lansere en bevegelse, fri
11674 kultur-bevegelsen, og denne boken er tilegnet ham.
11675 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2817914"></a><p>
11676 Jeg fikk veiledning på ulike steder fra venner og akademikere, inkludert
11677 Glenn Brown, Peter DiCola, Jennifer Mnookin, Richard Posner, Mark Rose og
11678 Kathleen Sullivan. Og jeg fikk korreksjoner og veiledning fra mange
11679 fantastiske studenter ved Stanford Law School og Stanford University. Det
11680 inkluderer Andrew B. Coan, John Eden, James P. Fellers, Christopher
11681 Guzelian, Erica Goldberg, Robert Hallman, Andrew Harris, Matthew Kahn,
11682 Brian-Link, Ohad Mayblum, Alina Ng og Erica Platt. Jeg er særlig takknemlig
11683 overfor Catherine Crump og Harry Surden, som hjalp til med å styre deres
11684 forskning og til Laura Lynch, som briljant håndterte hæren de samlet, samt
11685 bidro med sitt egen kritisk blikk på mye av dette.
11686 </p><p>
11687
11688 Yuko Noguchi hjalp meg å forstå lovene i Japan, så vel som Japans
11689 kultur. Jeg er henne takknemlig, og til de mange i Japan som hjalp meg med
11690 forundersøkelsene til denne boken: Joi Ito, Takayuki Matsutani, Naoto
11691 Misaki, Michihiro Sasaki, Hiromichi Tanaka, Hiroo Yamagata og Yoshihiro
11692 Yonezawa.  Jeg er også takknemlig til professor Nobuhiro Nakayama og Tokyo
11693 University Business Law Center, som ga meg muligheten til å bruke tid i
11694 Japan, og Tadashi Shiraishi og Kiyokazu Yamagami for deres generøse hjelp
11695 mens jeg var der.
11696 </p><p>
11697 Dette er de tradisjonelle former for hjelp som akademikere regelmessig
11698 trekker på. Men i tillegg til dem, har Internett gjort det mulig å motta råd
11699 og korrigering fra mange som jeg har aldri møtt.  Blant de som har svart med
11700 svært nyttig råd etter forespørsler om boken på bloggen min er Dr. Muhammed
11701 Al-Ubaydli, David Gerstein og Peter Dimauro, I tillegg en lang liste med de
11702 som hadde spesifikke idéer om måter å utvikle mine argumenter på.  De
11703 inkluderte Richard Bondi, Steven Cherry, David Coe, Nik Cubrilovic, Bob
11704 Devine, Charles Eicher, Thomas Guida, Elihu M. Gerson, Jeremy Hunsinger,
11705 Vaughn Iverson, John Karabaic, Jeff Keltner, James Lindenschmidt,
11706 K. L. Mann, Mark Manning, Nora McCauley, Jeffrey McHugh, Evan McMullen, Fred
11707 Norton, John Pormann, Pedro A. D.  Rezende, Shabbir Safdar, Saul Schleimer,
11708 Clay Shirky, Adam Shostack, Kragen Sitaker, Chris Smith, Bruce Steinberg,
11709 Andrzej Jan Taramina, Sean Walsh, Matt Wasserman, Miljenko Williams,
11710 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Wink,</span>»</span> Roger Wood, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ximmbo da Jazz,</span>»</span> og Richard
11711 Yanco. (jeg beklager hvis jeg gikk glipp av noen, med datamaskiner kommer
11712 feil og en krasj i e-postsystemet mitt gjorde at jeg mistet en haug med
11713 flotte svar.)
11714 </p><p>
11715 Richard Stallman og Michael Carroll har begge lest hele boken i utkast, og
11716 hver av dem har bidratt med svært nyttige korreksjoner og råd. Michael hjalp
11717 meg å se mer tydelig betydningen av regulering for avledede verker . Og
11718 Richard korrigerte en pinlig stor mengde feil.  Selv om mitt arbeid er
11719 delvis inspirert av Stallmans, er han ikke enig med meg på vesentlige steder
11720 i denne boken.
11721 </p><p>
11722 Til slutt, og for evig, er jeg Bettina takknemlig, som alltid har insistert
11723 på at det ville være endeløs lykke utenfor disse kampene, og som alltid har
11724 hatt rett.  Denne trege eleven er som alltid takknemlig for hennes
11725 evigvarende tålmodighet og kjærlighet.
11726 </p></div><div class="index" title="Indeks"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2818045"></a>Indeks</h2></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>A</h3><dl><dt>ABC, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Adobe eBook Reader, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Adromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Africa, medications for HIV patients in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>agricultural patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Aibo robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>akademiske tidsskrifter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>antiretroviral drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>archive.org, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(se også Internett-arkivet)</dt></dl></dd><dt>Aristoteles, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>arkitektur, begrensninger med opphav i, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>arkiver, digitale, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Armstrong, Edwin Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>artister</dt><dd><dl><dt>musikkindustriens betaling til, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>retrospective compilations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2788981">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Asia, kommersiell piratvirksomhet i, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>AT&amp;T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Barnes &amp; Noble, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>BBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bern-konvensjonen (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>bilder, eierskap til, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>biomedical research, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Bitiske parlamentet, det, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>blogger (Web-logger), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>bøker</dt><dd><dl><dt>Engelsk opphavsrettslov utviklet for, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>gratis online-utgivelser av, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>out of print, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>på internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>resales of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>totalt antall, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>tre typer bruk av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>bokselgere, Engelske, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Boland, Lois, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Mary, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Sonny, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>bot-er, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Boyle, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Branagh, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Brasil, fri kultur i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brezhnev, Leonid, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>browsing, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Coase, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>CodePink Women in Peace, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Coe, Brian, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Comcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>copyleft licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></dt><dt>Creative Commons, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Crichton, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Crosskey, William W., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>D</h3><dl><dt>Daguerre, Louis, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Daley, Elizabeth, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>dataspill, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Day After Trinity, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>DDT, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Dean, Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Drahos, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2788981">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Dryden, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>eiendomsrettigheter</dt><dd><dl><dt>lufttrafikk mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Elektronisk forpost-stiftelsen (EFF), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>fantasifoster/chimera, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2788981">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>fotografering, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Fried, Charles, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Friedman, Milton, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>G</h3><dl><dt>Garlick, Mia, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Gates, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>General Film Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>generiske medisiner, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Grokster, Ltd., <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>hacks, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>handguns, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, Konge av England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Herrera, Rebecca, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>history, records of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS therapies, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>hvis verdi, så rettighet-teorien, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2788981">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2788981">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: «Pirater»</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>innovasjon, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Internet Explorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Irak-krigen, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>ISPer (Internet-tilbydere), brukeridentiteter avslørt av, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Jentespeidere, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2788981">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>jernbaneindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Jonson, Ben, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>kjørehastighet, begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>kringkastingsflagg, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>kunst, undergrunns, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>landeierskap, lufttrafikk og, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>Lessing, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>lovbestemte skader, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>lufttrafikk, landeierskap mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2788981">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2788981">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Marijuana Policy Project, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>markedsføring, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>markedskonsentrasjon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Michigan Technical University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Microsoft, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>mobiltelefoner, musikk streamet via, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>normer, reguleringspåvirkning fra, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>O</h3><dl><dt>O'Connor, Sandra Day, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Olafson, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Olson, Theodore B., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Oppenheimer, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>originalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Orwell, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Picker, Randal C., <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Politikk, (Aristotles), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Princeton University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Public Enemy, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Q</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>R</h3><dl><dt>rap music, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#id2788981">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></dt><dt>RPI (Se Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Silent Sprint (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robothund produsert av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Sousa, John Philip, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>stålindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Stanford University, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Star Wars, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Statute of Monopolies (1656), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Stevens, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Supermann-tegneserier, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Sutherland, Donald, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Tatel, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Tauzin, Billy, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Taylor, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>tegnefilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Thurmond, Strom, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Tocqueville, Alexis de, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Torvalds, Linus, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Tysk opphavsrettslov, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>Vanderbilt University, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>veteranpensjoner, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Wellcome Trust, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></dt><dt>White House press releases, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>World Trade Center, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Worldcom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Wright-brødrene, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2788981">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div></body></html>