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 &quot;e.biz 25,&quot; og omtalt som en av Scientific American's &quot;50 visjonærer&quot;. 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="id2598336"></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 "e.biz
  19 25," og omtalt som en av Scientific American's "50 visjonærer".  Etter
  20 utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, og Yale Law
  21 School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit
  22 Court of Appeals.
  23   </p></div></div></div><hr></div><div class="dedication" title="Dedikasjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2548753"></a>Dedikasjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
  24 Til Eric Eldred &#8212; hvis arbeid først trakk meg til denne saken, og for
  25 hvem saken fortsetter.
  26 </p></div><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">Forord</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-introduction">0. Introduksjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="part"><a href="#c-piracy">I. "Piratvirksomhet"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#creators">1. Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#mere-copyists">2. Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#catalogs">3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#pirates">4. Kapittel fire: "Pirater"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#piracy">5. Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part"><a href="#c-property">II. "Eiendom"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#founders">6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#recorders">7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#transformers">8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#collectors">9. Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#property-i">10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part"><a href="#c-puzzles">III. Nøtter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#chimera">11. Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#harms">12. Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part"><a href="#c-balances">IV. Maktfordeling</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#eldred">13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#eldred-ii">14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-conclusion">15. Konklusjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-afterword">16. Etterord</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section"><a href="#themsoon">Dem, snart</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-notes">17. Notater</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#c-acknowledgments">18. Takk til</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#id2629434">Indeks</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="list-of-figures"><p><b>Figuroversikt</b></p><dl><dt>10.1. <a href="#fig-1331">How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken
  27 the right or regulation.</a></dt><dt>10.2. <a href="#fig-1361">Law has a special role in affecting the three.</a></dt><dt>10.3. <a href="#fig-1371">Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</a></dt><dt>10.4. <a href="#fig-1381">effective state of anarchy after the Internet.</a></dt><dt>10.5. <a href="#fig-1441">Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</a></dt><dt>10.6. <a href="#fig-1442">"Opphavsrett" i dag.</a></dt><dt>10.7. <a href="#fig-1521">Alle potensielle bruk av en bok.</a></dt><dt>10.8. <a href="#fig-1531">Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok.</a></dt><dt>10.9. <a href="#fig-1541">Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a
  28 copyrighted work.</a></dt><dt>10.10. <a href="#fig-1542">Uregulert kopiering anses som "rimelig bruk".</a></dt><dt>10.11. <a href="#fig-1551">Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
  29 regulated.</a></dt><dt>10.12. <a href="#fig-1611">Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.</a></dt><dt>10.13. <a href="#fig-1612">List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.</a></dt><dt>10.14. <a href="#fig-1621">E-bok av Aristoteles "Politikk"</a></dt><dt>10.15. <a href="#fig-1622">Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".</a></dt><dt>10.16. <a href="#fig-1631">List of the permissions for "The Future of Ideas".</a></dt><dt>10.17. <a href="#fig-1641">List of the permissions for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland".</a></dt><dt>10.18. <a href="#fig-1711">VCR/handgun cartoon.</a></dt><dt>10.19. <a href="#fig-1761">Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.</a></dt><dt>13.1. <a href="#fig-18">Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Kolofon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id2548534"></a>Kolofon</h2><p>
  30 Du kan kjøpe en kopi av denne boken ved å klikke på en av lenkene nedenfor:
  31 </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><p>
  32 Andre bøker av Lawrence Lessig
  33 </p><p>
  34 The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World
  35 </p><p>
  36 Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace
  37 </p><p>
  38 The Penguin Press, New York
  39 </p><p>
  40 Fri Kultur
  41 </p><p>
  42 Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
  43 og kontrollere kreativiteten
  44 </p><p>
  45 Lawrence Lessig
  46 </p><p>
  47 THE PENGUIN PRESS, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.  375 Hudson Street
  48 New York, New York
  49 </p><p>
  50 Opphavsrettbeskyttet © Lawrence Lessig.  Alle rettigheter reservert.
  51 </p><p>
  52 Excerpt from an editorial titled "The Coming of Copyright Perpetuity,"
  53 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, January 16, 2003. Copyright
  54 © 2003 by The New York Times Co.  Reprinted with permission.
  55 </p><p>
  56 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
  57 Media Services, Inc.  All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
  58 </p><p>
  59 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
  60 Commissioner, Michael J. Copps.
  61 </p><p>
  62 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
  63 </p><p>
  64 Lessig, Lawrence.  Free culture : how big media uses technology and the law
  65 to lock down culture and control creativity / Lawrence Lessig.
  66 </p><p>
  67 p. cm.
  68 </p><p>
  69 Includes index.
  70 </p><p>
  71 ISBN 1-59420-006-8 (hardcover)
  72 </p><p>
  73 1. Intellectual property&#8212;United States. 2. Mass media&#8212;United
  74 States.
  75 </p><p>
  76 3. Technological innovations&#8212;United States. 4. Art&#8212;United
  77 States. I. Title.
  78 </p><p>
  79 KF2979.L47
  80 </p><p>
  81 343.7309'9&#8212;dc22
  82 </p><p>
  83 This book is printed on acid-free paper.
  84 </p><p>
  85 Printed in the United States of America
  86 </p><p>
  87 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4
  88 </p><p>
  89 Designed by Marysarah Quinn
  90 </p><p>
  91 Oversatt til bokmål av Petter Reinholdtsen og Anders Hagen
  92 Jarmund. Kildefilene til oversetterprosjektet er <a class="ulink" href="https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/free-culture-lessig" target="_top">tilgjengelig
  93 fra github</a>.  Rapporter feil med oversettelsen via github.
  94 </p><p>
  95 Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this
  96 publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval
  97 system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
  98 photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission
  99 of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.
 100 </p><p>
 101 The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the Internet or
 102 via any other means without the permission of the publisher is illegal and
 103 punishable by law.  Please purchase only authorized electronic editions and
 104 do not participate in or encourage electronic piracy of copyrighted
 105 materials. Your support of the author's rights is appreciated.
 106 </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>
 107 David Pogue, en glimrende skribent og forfatter av utallige tekniske
 108 datarelaterte tekster, skrev dette på slutten av hans gjennomgang av min
 109 første bok, <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace</em>:
 110 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 111 I motsetning til faktiske lover, så har ikke internett-programvare
 112 kapasiteten til å straffe.  Den påvirker ikke folk som ikke er online (og
 113 kun en veldig liten minoritet av verdens befolkning er online).  Og hvis du
 114 ikke liker systemet på internett, så kan du alltid slå av
 115 modemet.<sup>[<a name="preface01" href="#ftn.preface01" class="footnote">1</a>]</sup>
 116 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 117 Pogue var skeptisk til argumentet som er kjernen av boken &#8212; at
 118 programvaren, eller "koden", fungerte som en slags lov &#8212; og foreslo i
 119 sin anmeldelse den lykkelig tanken at hvis livet i cyberspace gikk dårlig,
 120 så kan vi alltid som med en trylleformel slå over en bryter og komme hjem
 121 igjen. Slå av modemet, koble fra datamaskinen, og eventuelle problemer som
 122 finnes <span class="emphasis"><em>den</em></span> virkeligheten ville ikke "påvirke" oss mer.
 123 </p><p>
 124
 125 Pogue kan ha hatt rett i 1999 &#8212; jeg er skeptisk, men det kan
 126 hende. Men selv om han hadde rett da, så er ikke argumentet gyldig
 127 nå. <em class="citetitle">Fri Kultur</em> er om problemene internett forårsaker
 128 selv etter at modemet er slått av.  Den er et argument om hvordan slagene
 129 som nå brer om seg i livet on-line har fundamentalt påvirket "folk som er
 130 ikke pålogget."  Det finnes ingen bryter som kan isolere oss fra
 131 internettets effekt.
 132 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2548428"></a><p>
 133 Men i motsetning til i boken <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, er argumentet her
 134 ikke så mye om internett i seg selv. Istedet er det om konsekvensen av
 135 internett for en del av vår tradisjon som er mye mer grunnleggende, og
 136 uansett hvor hardt dette er for en geek-wanna-be å innrømme, mye viktigere.
 137 </p><p>
 138 Den tradisjonen er måten vår kultur blir laget på.  Som jeg vil forklare i
 139 sidene som følger, kommer vi fra en tradisjon av "fri kultur"&#8212;ikke
 140 "fri" som i "fri bar" (for å låne et uttrykk fra stifteren av fri
 141 programvarebevegelsen<sup>[<a name="id2548410" href="#ftn.id2548410" class="footnote">2</a>]</sup>), men "fri" som i
 142 "talefrihet", "fritt marked", "frihandel", "fri konkurranse", "fri vilje" og
 143 "frie valg".  En fri kultur støtter og beskytter skapere og oppfinnere.
 144 Dette gjør den direkte ved å tildele immaterielle rettigheter.  Men det gjør
 145 den indirekte ved å begrense rekkevidden for disse rettighetene, for å
 146 garantere at neste generasjon skapere og oppfinnere forblir <span class="emphasis"><em>så fri
 147 som mulig</em></span> fra kontroll fra fortiden.  En fri kultur er ikke en
 148 kultur uten eierskap, like lite som et fritt marked er et marked der alt er
 149 gratis.  Det motsatte av fri kultur er "tillatelseskultur"&#8212;en kultur
 150 der skapere kun kan skape med tillatelse fra de mektige, eller fra skaperne
 151 fra fortiden.
 152 </p><p>
 153 Hvis vi forsto denne endringen, så tror jeg vi ville stå imot den.  Ikke
 154 "vi" på venstresiden eller "dere" på høyresiden, men vi som ikke har
 155 investert i den bestemt kulturindustrien som har definert det tjuende
 156 århundre. Enten du er på venstre eller høyresiden, hvis du i denne forstand
 157 ikke har interesser, vil historien jeg forteller her gi deg problemer. For
 158 endringene jeg beskriver påvirker verdier som begge sider av vår politiske
 159 kultur anser som grunnleggende.
 160 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2549113"></a><p>
 161 Vi så et glimt av dette tverrpolitiske raseri på forsommeren i 2003. Da FCC
 162 vurderte endringer i reglene for medieeierskap som ville slakke på
 163 begrensningene rundt mediekonsentrasjon, sendte en ekstraordinær koalisjon
 164 mer enn 700 000 brev til FCC for å motsette seg endringen.  Mens William
 165 Safire beskrev å marsjere "ubehagelig sammen med CodePink Women for Peace
 166 and the National Rifle Association, mellom liberale Olympia Snowe og
 167 konservative Ted Stevens", formulerte han  kanskje det enkleste uttrykket
 168 for hva som var på spill: konsentrasjonen av makt.  Så spurte han:
 169 <a class="indexterm" name="id2549132"></a>
 170 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 171 Høres dette ikke-konservativt ut?  Ikke for meg.  Denne konsentrasjonen av
 172 makt&#8212;politisk, selskapsmessig, pressemessig, kulturelt&#8212;bør være
 173 bannlyst av konservative.  Spredningen av makt gjennom lokal kontroll, og
 174 derigjennom oppmuntre til individuell deltagelse, er essensen i føderalismen
 175 og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<sup>[<a name="id2549155" href="#ftn.id2549155" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
 176 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 177 Denne idéen er et element i argumentet til <em class="citetitle">Fri
 178 Kultur</em>, selv om min fokus ikke bare er på konsentrasjonen av
 179 makt som følger av konsentrasjonen i eierskap, men mer viktig, og fordi det
 180 er mindre synlig, på konsentrasjonen av makt som er resultat av en radikal
 181 endring i det effektive virkeområdet til loven.  Loven er i endring, og
 182 endringen forandrer på hvordan vår kultur blir skapt. Den endringen bør
 183 bekymre deg&#8212;Uansett om du bryr deg om internett eller ikke, og uansett
 184 om du er til venstre for Safires eller til høyre. Inspirasjonen til tittelen
 185 og mye av argumentet i denne boken kommer fra arbeidet til Richard Stallman
 186 og Free Software Foundation. Faktisk, da jeg leste Stallmans egne tekster på
 187 nytt, spesielt essyene i <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free Society</em>,
 188 innser jeg at alle de teoretiske innsiktene jeg utvikler her er innsikter
 189 som Stallman beskrev for tiår siden.  Man kan dermed godt argumentere for at
 190 dette verket kun er et avledet verk.
 191 </p><p>
 192
 193 Jeg godtar kritikken, hvis det faktisk er kritikk.  Arbeidet til en advokat
 194 er alltid avledede verker, og jeg mener ikke å gjøre noe mer i denne boken
 195 enn å minne en kultur om en tradisjon som alltid har vært deres egen. Som
 196 Stallman forsvarer jeg denne tradisjonen på grunnlag av verdier. Som
 197 Stallman tror jeg dette er verdiene til frihet.  Og som Stallman, tror jeg
 198 dette er verdier fra vår fortid som må forsvares i vår fremtid.  En fri
 199 kultur har vært vår fortid, men vil bare være vår fremtid hvis vi endrer
 200 retningen vi følger akkurat nå.  På samme måte som Stallmans argumenter for
 201 fri programvare, treffer argumenter for en fri kultur på forvirring som er
 202 vanskelig å unngå, og enda vanskeligere å forstå.  En fri kultur er ikke en
 203 kultur uten eierskap. Det er ikke en kultur der kunstnere ikke får
 204 betalt. En kultur uten eierskap eller en der skaperne ikke kan få betalt, er
 205 anarki, ikke frihet.  Anarki er ikke hva jeg fremmer her.
 206 </p><p>
 207 I stedet er den frie kulturen som jeg forsvarer i denne boken en balanse
 208 mellom anarki og kontroll.  En fri kultur, i likhet med et fritt marked, er
 209 fylt med eierskap.  Den er fylt med regler for eierskap og kontrakter som
 210 blir håndhevet av staten.  Men på samme måte som det frie markedet blir
 211 pervertert hvis dets eierskap blir føydalt, så kan en fri kultur bli ødelagt
 212 av ekstremisme i eierskapsrettighetene som definerer den.  Det er dette jeg
 213 frykter om vår kultur i dag.  Det er som motpol til denne ekstremismen at
 214 denne boken er skrevet.
 215 </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>
 216 David Pogue, "Don't Just Chat, Do Something," <em class="citetitle">New York
 217 Times</em>, 30. januar 2000
 218 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2548410" href="#id2548410" class="para">2</a>] </sup>
 219 Richard M. Stallman, <em class="citetitle">Fri programvare, Frie samfunn</em> 57
 220 (Joshua Gay, red. 2002).
 221 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2549155" href="#id2549155" class="para">3</a>] </sup> William Safire, "The Great Media Gulp," <em class="citetitle">New York
 222 Times</em>, 22. mai 2003.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2549163"></a>
 223 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 0. Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Kapittel 0. Introduksjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
 224 17. desember 1903, på en vindfylt strand i Nord-Carolina i såvidt under
 225 hundre sekunder, demonstrerte Wright-brødrene at et selvdrevet fartøy tyngre
 226 enn luft kunne fly.  Øyeblikket var elektrisk, og dens betydning ble alment
 227 forstått. Nesten umiddelbart, eksploderte interessen for denne nye
 228 teknologien som muliggjorde bemannet luftfart og en hærskare av oppfinnere
 229 begynte å bygge videre på den.
 230 </p><p>
 231 Da Wright-brødrene fant opp flymaskinen, hevdet loven i USA at en grunneier
 232 ble antatt å eie ikke bare overflaten på området sitt, men også alt landet
 233 under bakken, helt ned til senterpunktet i jorda, og alt volumet over
 234 bakken, "i ubestemt grad, oppover".<sup>[<a name="id2549321" href="#ftn.id2549321" class="footnote">4</a>]</sup> I
 235 mange år undret lærde over hvordan en best skulle tolke idéen om at
 236 eiendomsretten gikk helt til himmelen. Betød dette at du eide stjernene?
 237 Kunne en dømme gjess for at de regelmessig og med vilje tok seg inn på annen
 238 manns eiendom?
 239 </p><p>
 240 Så kom flymaskiner, og for første gang hadde dette prinsippet i lovverket i
 241 USA&#8212;dypt nede i grunnlaget for vår tradisjon og akseptert av de
 242 viktigste juridiske tenkerne i vår fortid&#8212;en betydning. Hvis min
 243 eiendom rekker til himmelen, hva skjer når United flyr over mitt område?
 244 Har jeg rett til å nekte dem å bruke min eiendom?  Har jeg mulighet til å
 245 inngå en eksklusiv avtale med Delta Airlines?  Kan vi gjennomføre en auksjon
 246 for å finne ut hvor mye disse rettighetene er verdt?
 247 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2549341"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2604602"></a><p>
 248 I 1945 ble disse spørsmålene en føderal sak. Da bøndene Thomas Lee og Tinie
 249 Causby i Nord Carolina begynte å miste kyllinger på grunn av lavtflygende
 250 militære fly (vettskremte kyllinger fløy tilsynelatende i låveveggene og
 251 døde), saksøkte Causbyene regjeringen for å trenge seg inn på deres
 252 eiendom. Flyene rørte selvfølgelig aldri overflaten på Causbys' eiendom. Men
 253 hvis det stemte som Blackstone, Kent, og Cola hadde sagt, at deres eiendom
 254 strakk seg "i ubestemt grad, oppover," så hadde regjeringen trengt seg inn
 255 på deres eiendom, og Causbys ønsket å sette en stopper for dette.
 256 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2547603"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2547610"></a><p>
 257 Høyesterett gikk med på å ta opp Causbys sak. Kongressen hadde vedtatt at
 258 luftfartsveiene var tilgjengelig for alle, men hvis ens eiendom virkelig
 259 rakk til himmelen, da kunne muligens kongressens vedtak ha vært i strid med
 260 grunnlovens forbud mot å "ta" eiendom uten kompensasjon.  Retten erkjente at
 261 "det er gammel doktrine etter sedvane at en eiendom rakk til utkanten av
 262 universet.", men dommer Douglas hadde ikke tålmodighet for forhistoriske
 263 doktriner.  I et enkelt avsnitt, ble hundrevis av år med
 264 eiendomslovgivningen strøket. Som han skrev på vegne av retten,
 265 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 266 [Denne] doktrinen har ingen plass i den moderne verden.  Luften er en
 267 offentlig motorvei, slik kongressen har erklært.  Hvis det ikke var
 268 tilfelle, ville hver eneste transkontinentale flyrute utsette operatørene
 269 for utallige søksmål om inntrenging på annen manns eiendom.  Idéen er i
 270 strid med sunn fornuft.  Å anerkjenne slike private krav til luftrommet
 271 ville blokkere disse motorveiene, seriøst forstyrre muligheten til kontroll
 272 og utvikling av dem i fellesskapets interesse og overføre til privat
 273 eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.<sup>[<a name="id2547648" href="#ftn.id2547648" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
 274 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 275 "Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft."
 276 </p><p>
 277
 278 Det er hvordan loven vanligvis fungerer.  Ikke ofte like brått eller
 279 utålmodig, men til slutt er dette hvordan loven fungerer.  Det var ikke
 280 stilen til Douglas å utbrodere.  Andre dommere ville ha skrevet mange flere
 281 sider før de nådde sin konklusjon, men for Douglas holdt det med en enkel
 282 linje: "Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.".  Men uansett om det tar flere
 283 sider eller kun noen få ord, så er det en genial egenskap med et
 284 rettspraksis-system, slik som vårt er, at loven tilpasser seg til aktuelle
 285 teknologiene.  Og mens den tilpasser seg, så endres den.  Idéer som var
 286 solide som fjell i en tidsalder knuses i en annen.
 287 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2547707"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2547714"></a><p>
 288 Eller, det er hvordan ting skjer når det ikke er noen mektige på andre siden
 289 av endringen.  Causbyene var bare bønder.  Og selv om det uten tvil var
 290 mange som dem som var lei av den økende trafikken i luften (og en håper ikke
 291 for mange kyllinger flakset seg inn i vegger), ville Causbyene i verden
 292 finne det svært hardt å samles for å stoppe idéen, og teknologien, som
 293 Wright-brødrene hadde ført til verden.  Wright-brødrene spyttet flymaskiner
 294 inn i den teknologiske meme-dammen. Idéen spredte seg deretter som et virus
 295 i en kyllingfarm. Causbyene i verden fant seg selv omringet av "det synes
 296 rimelig" gitt teknologien som Wright-brødrene hadde produsert.  De kunne stå
 297 på sine gårder, med døde kyllinger i hendene, og heve knyttneven mot disse
 298 nye teknologiene så mye de ville.  De kunne ringe sine representanter eller
 299 til og med saksøke.  Men når alt kom til alt, ville kraften i det som virket
 300 "åpenbart" for alle andre&#8212;makten til "sunn fornuft"&#8212;ville vinne
 301 frem.  Deres "personlige interesser" ville ikke få lov til å nedkjempe en
 302 åpenbar fordel for fellesskapet.
 303 </p><p>
 304 Edwin Howard Armstrong er en av USAs glemte oppfinnergenier. Han dukket opp
 305 på oppfinnerscenen etter titaner som Thomas Edison og Alexander Graham
 306 Bell.  Alle hans bidrag på området radioteknologi gjør han til kanskje den
 307 viktigste av alle enkeltoppfinnere i de første femti årene av radio.  Han
 308 var bedre utdannet enn Michael Faraday, som var bokbinderlærling da han
 309 oppdaget elektrisk induksjon i 1831.  Men han hadde like god intuisjon om
 310 hvordan radioverden virket, og ved minst tre anledninger, fant Armstrong opp
 311 svært viktig teknologier som brakte vår forståelse av radio et hopp videre.
 312 <a class="indexterm" name="id2547724"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2604949"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2604955"></a>
 313 </p><p>
 314 Dagen etter julaften i 1933, ble fire patenter utstedt til Armstrong for
 315 hans mest signifikante oppfinnelse&#8212;FM-radio.  Inntil da hadde
 316 forbrukerradioer vært amplitude-modulert (AM) radio.  Tidens teoretikere
 317 hadde sagt at frekvens-modulert (FM) radio.  De hadde rett når det gjelder
 318 et smalt bånd av spektrumet.  Men Armstrong oppdaget at frekvens-modulert
 319 radio i et vidt bånd i spektrumet leverte en forbløffende gjengivelse av
 320 lyd, med mye mindre senderstyrke og støy.
 321 </p><p>
 322 Den 5. november 1935 demonstrerte han teknologien på et møte hos institutt
 323 for radioingeniører ved Empire State-bygningen i New York City.  Han vred
 324 radiosøkeren over en rekke AM-stasjoner, inntil radioen låste seg mot en
 325 kringkasting som han hadde satt opp 27 kilometer unna.  Radioen ble helt
 326 stille, som om den var død, og så, med en klarhet ingen andre i rommet noen
 327 gang hadde hørt fra et elektrisk apparat, produserte det lyden av en
 328 opplesers stemme: "Dette er amatørstasjon W2AG ved Yonkers, New York, som
 329 opererer på frekvensmodulering ved to og en halv meter."
 330 </p><p>
 331 Publikum hørte noe ingen hadde trodd var mulig:
 332 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 333 Et glass vann ble fylt opp foran mikrofonen i Yonkers, og det hørtes ut som
 334 et glass som ble fylt opp. &#8230; Et papir ble krøllet og revet opp, og
 335 det hørtes ut som papir og ikke som en sprakende skogbrann. &#8230;
 336 Sousa-marsjer ble spilt av fra plater og en pianosolo og et gitarnummer ble
 337 utført. &#8230; Musikken ble presentert med en livaktighet som sjeldent om
 338 noen gang før hadde vært hørt fra en radio-"musikk-boks".<sup>[<a name="id2605020" href="#ftn.id2605020" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
 339 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 340
 341 Som vår egen sunn fornuft forteller oss, hadde Armstrong oppdaget en mye
 342 bedre radioteknologi.  Men på tidspunktet for hans oppfinnelse, jobbet
 343 Armstrong for RCA. RCA var den dominerende aktøren i det da dominerende
 344 AM-radiomarkedet. I 1935 var det tusen radiostasjoner over hele USA, men
 345 stasjonene i de store byene var alle eid av en liten håndfull selskaper.
 346
 347 </p><p>
 348 Presidenten i RCA, David Sarnoff, en venn av Armstrong, var ivrig etter å få
 349 Armstrong til å oppdage en måte å fjerne støyen fra AM-radio. Så Sarnoff var
 350 ganske spent da Armstrong fortalte ham at han hadde en enhet som fjernet
 351 støy fra "radio.".   Men da Armstrong demonstrerte sin oppfinnelse, var ikke
 352 Sarnoff fornøyd.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2605061"></a>
 353 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 354 Jeg trodde Armstrong ville finne opp et slags filter for å fjerne skurring
 355 fra AM-radioen vår. Jeg trodde ikke han skulle starte en revolusjon &#8212;
 356 starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.<sup>[<a name="id2604967" href="#ftn.id2604967" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
 357 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 358 Armstrongs oppfinnelse truet RCAs AM-herredømme, så selskapet lanserte en
 359 kampanje for å knuse FM-radio. Mens FM kan ha vært en overlegen teknologi,
 360 var Sarnoff en overlegen taktiker. En forfatter beskrev det slik,
 361 <a class="indexterm" name="id2605104"></a>
 362 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 363 Kreftene til fordel for FM, i hovedsak ingeniørfaglige, kunne ikke overvinne
 364 tyngden til strategien utviklet av avdelingene for salg, patenter og juss
 365 for å undertrykke denne trusselen til selskapets posisjon.  For FM utgjorde,
 366 hvis det fikk utvikle seg uten begrensninger &#8230; en komplett endring i
 367 maktforholdene rundt radio &#8230; og muligens fjerningen av det nøye
 368 begrensede AM-systemet som var grunnlaget for RCA stigning til
 369 makt.<sup>[<a name="id2605131" href="#ftn.id2605131" class="footnote">8</a>]</sup>
 370 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 371 RCA holdt først teknologien innomhus, og insistere på at det var nødvendig
 372 med ytterligere tester. Da Armstrong, etter to år med testing, ble
 373 utålmodig, begynte RCA å bruke sin makt hos myndighetene til holde tilbake
 374 den generelle spredningen av FM-radio. I 1936, ansatte RCA den tidligere
 375 lederen av FCC og ga ham oppgaven med å sikre at FCC tilordnet
 376 radiospekteret på en måte som ville kastrere FM&#8212;hovedsakelig ved å
 377 flytte FM-radio til et annet band i spekteret. I første omgang lyktes ikke
 378 disse forsøkene.  Men mens Armstrong og nasjonen var distrahert av andre
 379 verdenskrig, begynte RCAs arbeid å bære frukter.  Like etter at krigen var
 380 over, annonserte FCC et sett med avgjørelser som ville ha en klar effekt:
 381 FM-radio ville bli forkrøplet.Lawrence lessing beskrevet det slik,
 382 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 383 Serien med slag mot kroppen som FM-radio mottok rett etter krigen, i en
 384 serie med avgjørelser manipulert gjennom FCC av de store radiointeressene,
 385 var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.<sup>[<a name="id2605146" href="#ftn.id2605146" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
 386 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2605186"></a><p>
 387 For å gjøre plass i spektrumet for RCAs nyeste satsingsområde, televisjon,
 388 skulle FM-radioens brukere flyttes til et helt nytt band i spektrumet.
 389 Sendestyrken til FM-radioene ble også redusert, og gjorde at FM ikke lenger
 390 kunne brukes for å sende programmer fra en del av landet til en annen.
 391 (Denne endringen ble sterkt støttet av AT&amp;T, på grunn av at fjerningen
 392 av FM-videresendingsstasjoner ville bety at radiostasjonene ville bli nødt
 393 til å kjøpe kablede linker fra AT&amp;T.)  Spredningen av FM-radio var
 394 dermed kvalt, i hvert fall midlertidig.
 395 </p><p>
 396 Armstrong sto imot RCAs innsats. Som svar motsto RCA Armstrongs patenter.
 397 Etter å ha bakt FM-teknologi inn i den nye standarden for TV, erklærte RCS
 398 patentene ugyldige&#8212;uten grunn og nesten femten år etter at de ble
 399 utstedet.  De nektet dermed å betale ham for bruken av patentene.  I seks år
 400 kjempet Armstrong en dyr søksmålskrig for å forsvare patentene sine.  Til
 401 slutt, samtidig som patentene utløp, tilbød RCA et forlik så lavt at det
 402 ikke engang dekket Armstrongs advokatregning.  Beseiret, knust og nå blakk,
 403 skrev Armstrong i 1954 en kort beskjed til sin kone, før han gikk ut av et
 404 vindu i trettende etasje og falt i døden.
 405 </p><p>
 406
 407 Dette er slik loven virker noen ganger.  Ikke ofte like tragisk, og sjelden
 408 med heltemodig drama, men noen ganger er det slik det virker. Fra starten
 409 har myndigheter og myndighetsorganer blitt tatt til fange. Det er mer
 410 sannsynlig at de blir fanget når en mektig interesse er truet av enten en
 411 juridisk eller teknologisk endring.  Denne mektige interessen utøver for
 412 ofte sin innflytelse hos myndighetene til å få myndighetene til å beskytte
 413 den.  Retorikken for denne beskyttelsen er naturligvis alltid med fokus på
 414 fellesskapets beste.  Realiteten er noe annet.  Idéer som kan være solide
 415 som fjell i en tidsalder, men som overlatt til seg selv, vil falle sammen i
 416 en annen, er videreført gjennom denne subtile korrupsjonen i vår politiske
 417 prosess.  RCA hadde hva Causby-ene ikke hadde: Makten til å undertrykke
 418 effekten av en teknologisk endring.
 419 </p><p>
 420 Det er ingen enkeltoppfinner av Internet.  Ei heller er det en god dato som
 421 kan brukes til å markere når det ble født.  Likevel har internettet i løpet
 422 av svært kort tid blitt en del av vanlige amerikaneres liv.  I følge the Pew
 423 Internet and American Life-prosjektet, har 58 prosent av amerikanerne hatt
 424 tilgang til internettet i 2002, opp fra 49 prosent to år
 425 tidligere.<sup>[<a name="id2605267" href="#ftn.id2605267" class="footnote">10</a>]</sup> Det tallet kan uten
 426 problemer passere to tredjedeler av nasjonen ved utgangen av 2004.
 427 </p><p>
 428 Etter hvert som internett er blitt integrert inn i det vanlige liv har ting
 429 blitt endret.  Noen av disse endringene er teknisk&#8212;internettet har
 430 gjort kommunikasjon raskere, det har redusert kostnaden med å samle inn
 431 data, og så videre.  Disse tekniske endringene er ikke fokus for denne
 432 boken.  De er viktige.  De er ikke godt forstått.  Men de er den type ting
 433 som ganske enkelt ville blir borte hvis vi alle bare slo av internettet.  De
 434 påvirker ikke folk som ikke bruker internettet, eller i det miste påvirker
 435 det ikke dem direkte.  De er et godt tema for en bok om internettet.  Men
 436 dette er ikke en bok om internettet.
 437 </p><p>
 438 I stedet er denne boken om effekten av internettet ut over internettet i seg
 439 selv.  En effekt på hvordan kultur blir skapt.  Min påstand er at
 440 internettet har ført til en viktig og ukjent endring i denne prosessen.
 441 Denne endringen vil forandre en tradisjon som er like gammel som republikken
 442 selv.  De fleste, hvis de la merke til denne endringen, ville avvise den.
 443 Men de fleste legger ikke engang merke til denne endringen som internettet
 444 har introdusert.
 445 </p><p>
 446 Vi kan få en følelse av denne endringen ved å skille mellom kommersiell og
 447 ikke-kommersiell kultur, ved å knytte lovens reguleringer til hver av dem.
 448 Med "kommersiell kultur" mener jeg den delen av vår kultur som er produsert
 449 og solgt eller produsert for å bli solgt.  Med "ikke-kommersiell kultur"
 450 mener jeg alt det andre. Da gamle menn satt rundt i parker eller på
 451 gatehjørner og fortalte historier som unger og andre lyttet til, så var det
 452 ikke-kommersiell kultur.  Da Noah Webster publiserte sin "Reader", eller
 453 Joel Barlow sin poesi, så var det kommersiell kultur.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2605332"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2605340"></a>
 454 </p><p>
 455 Fra historisk tid, og for omtrent hele vår tradisjon, har ikke-kommersiell
 456 kultur i hovedsak ikke vært regulert.  Selvfølgelig, hvis din historie var
 457 utuktig, eller hvis dine sanger forstyrret freden, kunne loven gripe inn.
 458 Men loven var aldri direkte interessert i skapingen eller spredningen av
 459 denne form for kultur, og lot denne kulturen være "fri".  Den vanlige måten
 460 som vanlige individer delte og formet deres kultur&#8212;historiefortelling,
 461 formidling av scener fra teater eller TV, delta i fan-klubber, deling av
 462 musikk, laging av kassetter&#8212;ble ikke styrt av lovverket.
 463 </p><p>
 464 Fokuset på loven var kommersiell kreativitet.  I starten forsiktig, etter
 465 hvert betraktelig, beskytter loven insentivet til skaperne ved å tildele dem
 466 en eksklusiv rett til deres kreative verker, slik at de kan selge disse
 467 eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.<sup>[<a name="id2605373" href="#ftn.id2605373" class="footnote">11</a>]</sup> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
 468 kreativitet og kultur, og det har blitt en viktigere og viktigere del i
 469 USA.  Men det var på ingen måte dominerende i vår tradisjon.  Det var i
 470 stedet bare en del, en kontrollert del, balansert mot det frie.
 471 </p><p>
 472 Denne grove inndelingen mellom den frie og den kontrollerte har nå blitt
 473 fjernet.<sup>[<a name="id2605410" href="#ftn.id2605410" class="footnote">12</a>]</sup> Internettet har satt scenen
 474 for denne fjerningen, og pressen frem av store medieaktører har loven nå
 475 påvirket det.  For første gang i vår tradisjon, har de vanlige måtene som
 476 individer skaper og deler kultur havnet innen rekekvidde for reguleringene
 477 til loven, som har blitt utvidet til å dra inn i sitt kontrollområde den
 478 enorme mengden kultur og kreativitet som den aldri tidligere har nådd over.
 479 Teknologien som tok vare på den historiske balansen&#8212;mellom bruken av
 480 den delen av kulturen vår som var fri og bruken av vår kultur som krevde
 481 tillatelse&#8212;har blitt borte.  Konsekvensen er at vi er mindre og mindre
 482 en fri kultur, og mer og mer en tillatelseskultur.
 483 </p><p>
 484 Denne endringen blir rettferdiggjort som nødvendig for å beskytte
 485 kommersiell kreativitet.  Og ganske riktig, proteksjonisme er nøyaktig det
 486 som motiverer endringen.  Men proteksjonismen som rettferdiggjør endringene
 487 som jeg skal beskrive lenger ned er ikke den begrensede og balanserte typen
 488 som har definert loven tidligere.  Dette er ikke en proteksjonisme for å
 489 beskytte artister.  Det er i stedet en proteksjonisme for å beskytte
 490 bestemte forretningsformer.  Selskaper som er truet av potensialet til
 491 internettet for å endre måten både kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell kultur
 492 blir skapt og delt, har samlet seg for å få lovgiverne til å bruke loven for
 493 å beskytte selskapene.  Dette er historien om RCA og Armstrong, og det er
 494 drømmen til Causbyene.
 495 </p><p>
 496 For internettet har sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mulighet for mange til å
 497 delta i prosessen med å bygge og kultivere en kultur som rekker lagt utenfor
 498 lokale grenselinjer.  Den makten har endret markedsplassen for å lage og
 499 kultivere kultur generelt, og den endringen truer i neste omgang etablerte
 500 innholdsindustrier. Internettet er dermed for industriene som bygget og
 501 distribuerte innhold i det tjuende århundret hva FM-radio var for AM-radio,
 502 eller hva traileren var for jernbaneindustrien i det nittende århundret:
 503 begynnelsen på slutten, eller i hvert fall en markant endring. Digitale
 504 teknologier, knyttet til internettet, kunne produsere et mye mer
 505 konkurransedyktig og levende marked for å bygge og kultivere kultur.  Dette
 506 markedet kunne inneholde en mye videre og mer variert utvalg av skapere.
 507 Disse skaperne kunne produsere og distribuere et mye mer levende utvalg av
 508 kreativitet. Og avhengig av noen få viktige faktorer, så kunne disse
 509 skaperne tjenere mer i snitt fra dette systemet enn skaperne gjør i
 510 dag&#8212;så lenge RCA-ene av i dag ikke bruker loven til å beskytte dem
 511 selv mot denne konkurransen.
 512 </p><p>
 513 Likevel, som jeg argumenterer for i sidene som følger, er dette nøyaktig det
 514 som skjer i vår kultur i dag.  Dette som er dagens ekvivalenter til tidlig
 515 tjuende århundres radio og nittende århundres jernbaner bruker deres makt
 516 til å få loven til å beskytte dem mot dette nye, mer effektive, mer levende
 517 teknologi for å bygge kultur. De lykkes i deres plan om å gjøre om
 518 internettet før internettet gjør om på dem.
 519 </p><p>
 520 Det ser ikke slik ut for mange.  Kamphandlingene over opphavsrett og
 521 internettet er fjernt for de fleste.  For de få som følger dem, virker de i
 522 hovedsak å handle om et enklere sett med spørsmål&#8212;hvorvidt
 523 "piratvirksomhet" vil bli akseptert, og hvorvidt "eiendomsretten" vil bli
 524 beskyttet.  "Krigen" som har blitt erklært mot teknologiene til
 525 internettet&#8212;det presidenten for Motion Picture Association of America
 526 (MPAA) Jack Valenti kaller sin "egen terroristkrig"<sup>[<a name="id2605538" href="#ftn.id2605538" class="footnote">13</a>]</sup>&#8212;har blitt rammet inn som en kamp om å følge
 527 loven og respektere eiendomsretten.  For å vite hvilken side vi bør ta i
 528 denne krigen, de fleste tenker at vi kun trenger å bestemme om hvorvidt vi
 529 er for eiendomsrett eller mot den.
 530 </p><p>
 531 Hvis dette virkelig var alternativene, så ville jeg være enig med Jack
 532 Valenti og innholdsindustrien.  Jeg tror også på eiendomsretten, og spesielt
 533 på viktigheten av hva Mr. Valenti så pent kaller "kreativ eiendomsrett".
 534 Jeg tror at "piratvirksomhet" er galt, og at loven, riktig innstilt, bør
 535 straffe "piratvirksomhet", både på og utenfor internettet.
 536 </p><p>
 537 Men disse enkle trosoppfatninger maskerer et mye mer grunnleggende spørsmål
 538 og en mye mer dramatisk endring. Min frykt er at med mindre vi begynner å
 539 legge merke til denne endringen, så vil krigen for å befri verden fra
 540 internettets "pirater" også fjerne verdier fra vår kultur som har vært
 541 integrert til vår tradisjon helt fra starten.
 542 </p><p>
 543 Disse verdiene bygget en tradisjon som, for i hvert fall de første 180 årene
 544 av vår republikk, garanterte skaperne rettigheten til å bygge fritt på deres
 545 fortid, og beskyttet skaperne og innovatørene fra både statlig og privat
 546 kontroll.  Det første grunnlovstillegget beskyttet skaperne fra statlig
 547 kontroll.  Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,<sup>[<a name="id2605604" href="#ftn.id2605604" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
 548 skaperne mot privat kontroll.  Vår tradisjon var dermed hverken Sovjet eller
 549 tradisjonen til velgjørere.  I stedet skar det ut en bred manøvreringsrom
 550 hvor skapere kunne kultivere og utvide vår kultur.
 551 </p><p>
 552 Likevel har lovens respons til internettet, når det knyttes sammen til
 553 endringer i teknologien i internettet selv, ført til massiv økting av den
 554 effektive reguleringen av kreativitet i USA.  For å bygge på eller kritisere
 555 kulturen rundt oss må en spørre, som Oliver Twist, om tillatelse først.
 556 Tillatelse er, naturligvis, ofte innvilget&#8212;men det er ikke ofte
 557 innvilget til den kritiske eller den uavhengige.  Vi har bygget en slags
 558 kulturell adel.  De innen dette adelskapet har et enkelt liv, mens de på
 559 utsiden har det ikke.  Men det er adelskap i alle former som er fremmed for
 560 vår tradisjon.
 561 </p><p>
 562 Historien som følger er om denne krigen.  Er det ikke om "betydningen av
 563 teknologi" i vanlig liv.  Jeg tror ikke på guder, hverken digitale eller
 564 andre typer.  Det er heller ikke et forsøk på å demonisere noen individer
 565 eller gruppe, jeg tro heller ikke i en djevel, selskapsmessig eller på annen
 566 måte.  Det er ikke en moralsk historie.  Ei heller er det et rop om hellig
 567 krig mot en industri.
 568 </p><p>
 569 Det er i stedet et forsøk på å forstå en håpløst ødeleggende krig som er
 570 inspirert av teknologiene til internettet, men som rekker lang utenfor dens
 571 kode.  Og ved å forstå denne kampen er den en innsats for å finne veien til
 572 fred.  Det er ingen god grunn for å fortsette dagens batalje rundt
 573 internett-teknologiene.  Det vil være til stor skade for vår tradisjon og
 574 kultur hvis den får lov til å fortsette ukontrollert. Vi må forstå kilden
 575 til denne krigen.  Vi må finne en løsning snart.
 576 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2605686"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2605692"></a><p>
 577 Lik Causbyenes kamp er denne krigen, delvis, om "eiendomsrett". Eiendommen i
 578 denne krigen er ikke like håndfast som den til Causbyene, og ingen uskyldige
 579 kyllinger har så langt mistet livet.  Likevel er idéene rundt denne
 580 "eiendomsretten" like åpenbare for de fleste som Causbyenes krav om
 581 ukrenkeligheten til deres bondegård var for dem. De fleste av oss tar for
 582 gitt de uvanlig mektige krav som eierne av "immaterielle rettigheter" nå
 583 hevder.  De fleste av oss, som Causbyene, behandler disse kravene som
 584 åpenbare.  Og dermed protesterer vi, som Causbyene,, når ny teknologi griper
 585 inn i denne eiendomsretten.  Det er så klart for oss som det var fro dem at
 586 de nye teknologiene til internettet "tar seg til rette" mot legitime krav
 587 til "eiendomsrett".  Det er like klart for oss som det var for dem at loven
 588 skulle ta affære for å stoppe denne inntrengingen i annen manns eiendom.
 589 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2605735"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2605741"></a><p>
 590
 591 Og dermed, når nerder og teknologer forsvarer sin tids Armstrong og
 592 Wright-brødenes teknologi, får de lite sympati fra de fleste av oss. Sunn
 593 fornuft gjør ikke opprør.  I motsetning til saken til de uheldige Causbyene,
 594 er sunn fornuft på samme side som eiendomseierne i denne krigen.  I
 595 motsetning til hos de heldige Wright-brødrene, har internettet ikke
 596 inspirert en revolusjon til fordel for seg.
 597 </p><p>
 598 Mitt håp er å skyve denne sunne fornuften videre.  Jeg har blitt stadig mer
 599 overrasket over kraften til denne idéen om immaterielle rettigheter og, mer
 600 viktig, dets evne til å slå av kritisk tanke hos lovmakere og innbyggere.
 601 Det har aldri før i vår historie vært så mye av vår "kultur" som har vært
 602 "eid" enn det er nå.  Og likevel har aldri før konsentrasjonen av makt til å
 603 kontrollere <span class="emphasis"><em>bruken</em></span> av kulturen vært mer akseptert uten
 604 spørsmål enn det er nå.
 605 </p><p>
 606 Gåten er, hvorfor det?  Er det fordi vi fått en innsikt i sannheten om
 607 verdien og betydningen av absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur? Er det
 608 fordi vi har oppdaget at vår tradisjon med å avvise slike absolutte krav var
 609 feil?
 610 </p><p>
 611 Eller er det på grunn av at idéer om absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur
 612 gir fordeler til RCA-ene i vår tid, og passer med vår ureflekterte
 613 intuisjon?
 614 </p><p>
 615 Er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår tradisjon om fri kultur en
 616 forekomst av USA som korrigerer en feil fra sin fortid, slik vi gjorde det
 617 etter en blodig krig mot slaveri, og slik vi sakte gjør det mot
 618 forskjellsbehandling?  Eller er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår
 619 tradisjon med fri kultur nok et eksempel på at vårt politiske system er
 620 fanget av noen få mektige særinteresser?
 621 </p><p>
 622 Fører sunn fornuft til det ekstreme i dette spørsmålet på grunn av at sunn
 623 fornuft faktisk tror på dette ekstreme?  Eller står sunn fornuft i stillhet
 624 i møtet med dette ekstreme fordi, som med Armstrong versus RCA, at den mer
 625 mektige siden har sikret seg at det har et mye mer mektig synspunkt?
 626 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2605830"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2605836"></a><p>
 627
 628 Jeg forsøker ikke å være mystisk.  Mine egne synspunkter er klare. Jeg mener
 629 det var riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør mot ekstremismen til
 630 Causbyene.  Jeg mener det ville være riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør
 631 mot de ekstreme krav som gjøres i dag på vegne av "immaterielle
 632 rettigheter".  Det som loven krever i dag er mer å mer like dumt som om
 633 lensmannen skulle arrestere en flymaskin for å trenge inn på annen manns
 634 eiendom.  Men konsekvensene av den nye dumskapen vil bli mye mer
 635 dyptgripende.
 636
 637 </p><p>
 638 Basketaket som pågår akkurat nå senterer seg rundt to idéer:
 639 "piratvirksomhet" og "eiendom".  Mitt mål med denne bokens neste to deler er
 640 å utforske disse to idéene.
 641 </p><p>
 642 Metoden min er ikke den vanlige metoden for en akademiker.  Jeg ønsker ikke
 643 å pløye deg inn i et komplisert argument, steinsatt med referanser til
 644 obskure franske teoretikere&#8212;uansett hvor naturlig det har blitt for
 645 den rare sorten vi akademikere har blitt.  Jeg vil i stedet begynne hver del
 646 med en samling historier som etablerer en sammenheng der disse
 647 tilsynelatende enkle idéene kan bli fullt ut forstått.
 648 </p><p>
 649 De to delene setter opp kjernen i påstanden til denne boken: at mens
 650 internettet faktisk har produsert noe fantastisk og nytt, bidrar våre
 651 myndigheter, presset av store medieaktører for å møte dette "noe nytt" til å
 652 ødelegge noe som er svært gammelt.  I stedet for å forstå endringene som
 653 internettet kan gjøre mulig, og i stedet for å ta den tiden som trengs for å
 654 la "sunn fornuft" finne ut hvordan best svare på utfordringen, så lar vi de
 655 som er mest truet av endringene bruke sin makt til å endre loven&#8212;og
 656 viktigere, å bruke sin makt til å endre noe fundamentalt om hvordan vi
 657 alltid har fungert.
 658 </p><p>
 659 Jeg tror vi tillater dette, ikke fordi det er riktig, og heller ikke fordi
 660 de fleste av oss tror på disse endringene.  Vi tillater det på grunn av at
 661 de interessene som er mest truet er blant de mest mektige aktørene i vår
 662 deprimerende kompromitterte prosess for å utforme lover. Denne boken er
 663 historien om nok en konsekvens for denne type korrupsjon&#8212;en konsekvens
 664 for de fleste av oss forblir ukjent med.
 665 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2549321" href="#id2549321" class="para">4</a>] </sup>
 666 St. George Tucker, <em class="citetitle">Blackstone's Commentaries</em> 3 (South
 667 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1969), 18.
 668 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2547648" href="#id2547648" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
 669 USA mot Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. Domstolen fant at det kunne være
 670 å "ta" hvis regjeringens bruk av sitt land reelt sett hadde ødelagt verdien
 671 av eiendomen til Causby.  Dette eksemplet ble foreslått for meg i Keith
 672 Aokis flotte stykke, "(intellectual) Property and Sovereignty: Notes Toward
 673 a cultural Geography of Authorship", <em class="citetitle">Stanford Law
 674 Review</em> 48 (1996): 1293, 1333. Se også Paul Goldstein,
 675 <em class="citetitle">Real Property</em> (Mineola, N.Y.: Foundation Press
 676 (1984)), 1112&#8211;13.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2547732"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2547674"></a>
 677 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2605020" href="#id2605020" class="para">6</a>] </sup>
 678 Lawrence Lessing, <em class="citetitle">Man of High Fidelity:: Edwin Howard
 679 Armstrong</em> (Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company, 1956), 209.
 680 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2604967" href="#id2604967" class="para">7</a>] </sup> Se "Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era," første
 681 elektroniske kirke i USA, hos www.webstationone.com/fecha, tilgjengelig fra
 682 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #1</a>.
 683 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2605131" href="#id2605131" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
 684 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2605146" href="#id2605146" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
 685 Lessing, 256.
 686 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2605267" href="#id2605267" class="para">10</a>] </sup>
 687 Amanda Lenhart, "The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
 688 Internet Access and the Digital Divide," Pew Internet and American Life
 689 Project, 15. april 2003: 6, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #2</a>.
 690 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2605373" href="#id2605373" class="para">11</a>] </sup>
 691 Dette er ikke det eneste formålet med opphavsrett, men det er helt klart
 692 hovedformålet med opphavsretten slik den er etablert i føderal grunnlov.
 693 Opphavsrettslovene i delstatene beskyttet historisk ikke bare kommersielle
 694 interesse når det gjaldt publikasjoner, men også personverninteresser.  Ved
 695 å gi forfattere eneretten til å publisere først, ga delstatenes
 696 opphavsrettslovene forfatterne makt til å kontrollere spredningen av fakta
 697 om seg selv. Se Samuel D. Warren og Louis Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy",
 698 Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198&#8211;200.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2547730"></a>
 699 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2605410" href="#id2605410" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
 700 Se Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (New York:
 701 Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2605418"></a>
 702 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2605538" href="#id2605538" class="para">13</a>] </sup>
 703 Amy Harmon, "Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates Use New Tools
 704 to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club," <em class="citetitle">New York
 705 Times</em>, 17. januar 2002.
 706 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2605604" href="#id2605604" class="para">14</a>] </sup>
 707 Neil W. Netanel, "Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society," <em class="citetitle">Yale
 708 Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2605613"></a>
 709 </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. "Piratvirksomhet"</h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title='"Piratvirksomhet"'><div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield1"></a><p>
 710 Helt siden loven begynte å regulere kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært
 711 en krig mot "piratvirksomhet".  De presise konturene av dette konseptet,
 712 "piratvirksomhet", har vært vanskelig å tegne opp, men bildet av
 713 urettferdighet er enkelt å beskrive.  Som Lord Mansfield skrev i en sak som
 714 utvidet rekkevidden for engelsk opphavsrettslov til å inkludere noteark,
 715 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 716 En person kan bruke kopien til å spille den, men han har ingen rett til å
 717 robbe forfatteren for profitten, ved å lage flere kopier og distribuere
 718 etter eget forgodtbefinnende.<sup>[<a name="id2604740" href="#ftn.id2604740" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
 719 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2604756"></a></blockquote></div><p>
 720
 721 I dag er vi midt inne i en annen "krig" mot "piratvirksomhet". Internettet
 722 har fremprovosert denne krigen.  Internettet gjør det mulig å effektivt spre
 723 innhold.  Peer-to-peer (p2p) fildeling er blant det mest effektive av de
 724 effektive teknologier internettet muliggjør. Ved å bruke distribuert
 725 intelligens, kan p2p-systemer muliggjøre enkel spredning av innhold på en
 726 måte som ingen forestilte seg for en generasjon siden.
 727
 728 </p><p>
 729 Denne effektiviteten respekterer ikke de tradisjonelle skillene i
 730 opphavsretten. Nettverket skiller ikke mellom deling av
 731 opphavsrettsbeskyttet og ikke opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold. Dermed har det
 732 vært deling av en enorm mengde opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold.  Denne
 733 delingen har i sin tur ansporet til krigen, på grunn av at eiere av
 734 opphavsretter frykter delingen vil "frata forfatteren overskuddet."
 735 </p><p>
 736 Krigerne har snudd seg til domstolene, til lovgiverne, og i stadig større
 737 grad til teknologi for å forsvare sin "eiendom" mot denne
 738 "piratvirksomheten".  En generasjon amerikanere, advarer krigerne, blir
 739 oppdratt til å tro at "eiendom" skal være "gratis".  Glem tatoveringer, ikke
 740 tenk på kroppspiercing&#8212;våre barn blir <span class="emphasis"><em>tyver</em></span>!
 741 </p><p>
 742 Det er ingen tvil om at "piratvirksomhet" er galt, og at pirater bør
 743 straffes.  Men før vi roper på bødlene, bør vi sette dette
 744 "piratvirksomhets"-begrepet i en sammenheng.  For mens begrepet blir mer og
 745 mer brukt, har det i sin kjerne en ekstraordinær idé som nesten helt sikkert
 746 er feil.
 747 </p><p>
 748 Idéen høres omtrent slik ut:
 749 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 750 Kreativt arbeid har verdi.  Når jeg bruker, eller tar, eller bygger på det
 751 kreative arbeidet til andre, så tar jeg noe fra dem som har verdi.  Når jeg
 752 tar noe av verdi fra noen andre, bør jeg få tillatelse fra dem.  Å ta noe
 753 som har verdi fra andre uten tillatelse er galt.  Det er en form for
 754 piratvirksomhet.
 755 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2604858"></a><p>
 756 Dette synet går dypt i de pågående debattene.  Det er hva jussprofessor
 757 Rochelle Dreyfuss ved NYU kritiserer som "hvis verdi, så rettighet"-teorien
 758 for kreative eierrettigheter <sup>[<a name="id2604873" href="#ftn.id2604873" class="footnote">16</a>]</sup>&#8212;hvis det finnes verdi, så må noen ha rettigheten til denne
 759 verdien.  Det er perspektivet som fikk komponistenes rettighetsorganisasjon,
 760 ASCAP, til å saksøke jentespeiderne for å ikke betale for sangene som
 761 jentene sagt rundt jentespeidernes leirbål.<sup>[<a name="id2604885" href="#ftn.id2604885" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> Det fantes "verdi" (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en
 762 "rettighet"&#8212;til og med mot jentespeiderne.
 763 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2606434"></a><p>
 764
 765 Denne idéen er helt klart en mulig forståelse om hvordan kreative
 766 eierrettigheter bør virke.  Det er helt klart et mulig design for et
 767 lovsystem som beskytter kreative eierrettigheter.  Men teorien om "hvis
 768 verdi, så rettighet" for kreative eierrettigheter har aldri vært USAs teori
 769 for kreative eierrettigheter.  It har aldri stått rot i vårt lovverk.
 770 </p><p>
 771 I vår tradisjon har immaterielle rettigheter i stedet vært et instrument.
 772 Det bygger fundamentet for et rikt kreativt samfunn, men er fortsatt servilt
 773 til verdien av kreativitet.  Dagens debatt har snudd dette helt rundt.  Vi
 774 har blitt så opptatt av å beskytte instrumentet at vi mister verdien av
 775 syne.
 776 </p><p>
 777 Kilden til denne forvirringen er et skille som loven ikke lenger bryr seg om
 778 å markere&#8212;skillet mellom å gjenpublisere noens verk på den ene siden,
 779 og bygge på og gjøre om verket på den andre.  Da opphavsretten kom var det
 780 kun publisering som ble berørt. Opphavsretten i dag regulerer begge.
 781 </p><p>
 782 Før teknologiene til internettet dukket opp, betød ikke denne begrepsmessige
 783 sammenblandingen mye.  Teknologiene for å publisere var kostbare, som betød
 784 at det meste av publisering var kommersiell. Kommersielle aktører kunne
 785 håndtere byrden pålagt av loven&#8212;til og med byrden som den bysantiske
 786 kompleksiteten som opphavsrettsloven har blitt.  Det var bare nok en kostnad
 787 ved å drive forretning.
 788 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2606487"></a><p>
 789 Men da internettet dukket opp, forsvant denne naturlige begrensningen til
 790 lovens virkeområde.  Loven kontrollerer ikke bare kreativiteten til
 791 kommersielle skapere, men effektivt sett kreativiteten til alle. Selv om
 792 utvidelsen ikke ville bety stort hvis opphavsrettsloven kun regulerte
 793 "kopiering", så betyr utvidelsen mye når loven regulerer så bredt og obskurt
 794 som den gjør.  Byrden denne loven gir oppveier nå langt fordelene den ga da
 795 den ble vedtatt&#8212;helt klart slik den påvirker ikke-kommersiell
 796 kreativitet, og i stadig større grad slik den påvirker kommersiell
 797 kreativitet.  Dermed, slik vi ser klarere i kapitlene som følger, er lovens
 798 rolle mindre og mindre å støtte kreativitet, og mer og mer å beskytte
 799 enkelte industrier mot konkurranse.  Akkurat på tidspunktet da digital
 800 teknologi kunne sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mengde med kommersiell og
 801 ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, tynger loven denne kreativiteten med sinnsykt
 802 kompliserte og vage regler og med trusselen om uanstendig harde straffer.
 803 Vi ser kanskje, som Richard Florida skriver, "Fremveksten av den kreative
 804 klasse"<sup>[<a name="id2606496" href="#ftn.id2606496" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup> Dessverre ser vi også en
 805 ekstraordinær fremvekst av reguleringer av denne kreative klassen.
 806 </p><p>
 807 Disse byrdene gir ingen mening i vår tradisjon.  Vi bør begynne med å forstå
 808 den tradisjonen litt mer, og ved å plassere dagens slag om oppførsel med
 809 merkelappen "piratvirksomhet" i sin rette sammenheng.
 810 </p><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#creators">1. Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#mere-copyists">2. Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#catalogs">3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#pirates">4. Kapittel fire: "Pirater"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#piracy">5. Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2604740" href="#id2604740" class="para">15</a>] </sup>
 811
 812
 813 <em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
 814 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777) (Mansfield).
 815 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2604873" href="#id2604873" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
 816
 817
 818 Se Rochelle Dreyfuss, "Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language in the
 819 Pepsi Generation," <em class="citetitle">Notre Dame Law Review</em> 65 (1990):
 820 397.
 821 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2604885" href="#id2604885" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
 822
 823 Lisa Bannon, "The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay Up,"
 824 <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 21. august 1996, tilgjengelig
 825 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #3</a>; Jonathan
 826 Zittrain, "Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of Property vs. Free
 827 Speech, No One Wins," <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 24. november
 828 2002.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2606423"></a>
 829 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2606496" href="#id2606496" class="para">18</a>] </sup>
 830
 831 I <em class="citetitle">The Rise of the Creative Class</em> (New York: Basic
 832 Books, 2002), dokumenterer Richard Florida en endring i arbeidsstokken mot
 833 kreativitetsarbeide.  Hans tekst omhandler derimot ikke direkte de juridiske
 834 vilkår som kreativiteten blir muliggjort eller hindret under.  Jeg er helt
 835 klart enig med ham i viktigheten og betydningen av denne endringen, men jeg
 836 tror også at vilkårene som disse endringene blir aktivert under er mye
 837 vanskeligere.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2606560"></a>
 838 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 1. Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>Kapittel 1. Kapittel en: Skaperne</h2></div></div></div><p>
 839 I 1928 ble en tegnefilmfigur født.  En tidlig Mikke Mus debuterte i mai
 840 dette året, i en stille flopp ved navn <em class="citetitle">Plane Crazy</em>.
 841 I november, i Colony teateret i New York City, ble den første vidt
 842 distribuerte tegnefilmen med synkronisert lyd, <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
 843 Willy</em>, vist frem med figuren som skulle bli til Mikke Mus.
 844 </p><p>
 845 Film med synkronisert lyd hadde blitt introdusert et år tidligere i filmen
 846 <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em>.  Suksessen fikk Walt Disney til å
 847 kopiere teknikken og mikse lyd med tegnefilm.  Ingen visste hvorvidt det
 848 ville virke eller ikke, og om det fungere, hvorvidt publikum villa ha sans
 849 for det.  Men da Disney gjorde en test sommeren 1928, var resultatet
 850 entydig.  Som Disney beskriver dette første eksperimentet,
 851 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 852
 853 Et par av guttene mine kunne lese noteark, og en av dem kunne spille
 854 munnspill.  Vi stappet dem inn i et rom hvor de ikke kunne se skjermen, og
 855 gjorde det slik at lyden de spilte ble sendt videre til et rom hvor våre
 856 koner og venner var plassert for å se på bildet.
 857
 858 </p><p>
 859 Guttene brukte et note- og lydeffekt-ark.  Etter noen dårlige oppstarter,
 860 kom endelig lyd og handling i gang med et smell. Munnspilleren spilte
 861 melodien, og resten av oss i lydavdelingen slamret på tinnkasseroller og
 862 blåste på slide-fløyte til rytmen. Synkroniseringen var nesten helt riktig.
 863 </p><p>
 864 Effekten på vårt lille publikum var intet mindre enn elektrisk.  De reagerte
 865 nesten instinktivt til denne union av lyd og bevegelse.  Jeg trodde de
 866 tullet med meg.  Så de puttet meg i publikum og satte igang på nytt.  Det
 867 var grufullt, men det var fantastisk.  Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id2606677" href="#ftn.id2606677" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
 868 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 869 Disneys daværende partner, og en av animasjonsverdenens mest ekstraordinære
 870 talenter, Ub Iwerks, uttalte det sterkere: "Jeg har aldri vært så begeistret
 871 i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like bra." <a class="indexterm" name="id2606699"></a>
 872 </p><p>
 873 Disney hadde laget noe helt nyt, basert på noe relativt nytt. Synkronisert
 874 lyd ga liv til en form for kreativitet som sjeldent hadde&#8212;unntatt fra
 875 Disneys hender&#8212;vært noe annet en fyllstoff for andre filmer.  Gjennom
 876 animasjonens tidligere historie var det Disneys oppfinnelse som satte
 877 standarden som andre måtte sloss for å oppfylle.  Og ganske ofte var Disneys
 878 store geni, hans gnist av kreativitet, bygget på arbeidet til andre.
 879 </p><p>
 880 Dette er kjent stoff.  Det du kanskje ikke vet er at 1928 også markerer en
 881 annen viktig overgang.  I samme år laget et komedie-geni (i motsetning til
 882 tegnefilm-geni) sin siste uavhengig produserte stumfilm.  Dette geniet var
 883 Buster Keaton.  Filmen var <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>.
 884 </p><p>
 885 Keaton ble født inn i en vauderville-familie i 1895.  I stumfilm-æraen hadde
 886 han mestret bruken av bredpenslet fysisk komedie på en måte som tente
 887 ukontrollerbar latter fra hans publikum. <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill,
 888 Jr</em>. var en klassiker av denne typen, berømt blant film-elskere
 889 for sine utrolige stunts.  Filmen var en klassisk Keaton&#8212;fantastisk
 890 populær og blant de beste i sin sjanger.
 891 </p><p>
 892 <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>. kom før Disneys tegnefilm
 893 Steamboat Willie.  Det er ingen tilfeldighet at titlene er så
 894 like. Steamboat Willie er en direkte tegneserieparodi av Steamboat
 895 Bill,<sup>[<a name="id2606771" href="#ftn.id2606771" class="footnote">20</a>]</sup> og begge bygger på en felles sang
 896 som kilde.  Det er ikke kun fra nyskapningen med synkronisert lyd i
 897 <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em> at vi får <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
 898 Willie</em>.  Det er også fra Buster Keatons nyskapning Steamboat
 899 Bill, Jr., som igjen var inspirert av sangen "Steamboat Bill", at vi får
 900 Steamboat Willie.  Og fra Steamboat Willie får vi så Mikke Mus.
 901 </p><p>
 902 Denne "låningen" var ikke unik, hverken for Disney eller for industrien.
 903 Disney apet alltid etter full-lengde massemarkedsfilmene rundt
 904 ham.<sup>[<a name="id2606824" href="#ftn.id2606824" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> Det samme gjorde mange andre.
 905 Tidlige tegnefilmer er stappfulle av etterapninger&#8212;små variasjoner
 906 over suksessfulle temaer, gamle historier fortalt på nytt.  Nøkkelen til
 907 suksess var brilliansen i forskjellene.  Med Disney var det lyden som ga
 908 gnisten til hans animasjoner.  Senere var det kvaliteten på hans arbeide
 909 relativt til de masseproduserte tegnefilmene som han konkurrerte med.
 910 Likevel var disse bidragene bygget på toppen av fundamentet som var lånt.
 911 Disney bygget på arbeidet til andre som kom før han, og skapte noe nytt ut
 912 av noe som bare var litt gammelt.
 913 </p><p>
 914 Noen ganger var låningen begrenset, og noen ganger var den betydelig. Tenkt
 915 på eventyrene til brødrene Grimm.  Hvis du er like ubevisst som jeg var, så
 916 tror du sannsynlighvis at disse fortellingene er glade, søte historier som
 917 passer for ethvert barn ved leggetid.  Realiteten er at Grimm-eventyrene er,
 918 for oss, ganske dystre.  Det er noen sjeldne og kanskje spesielt ambisiøse
 919 foreldre som ville våge å lese disse blodige moralistiske historiene til
 920 sine barn, ved leggetid eller hvilken som helst annet tidspunkt.
 921 </p><p>
 922
 923 Disney tok disse historiene og fortalte dem på nytt på en måte som førte dem
 924 inn i en ny tidsalder. Han ga historiene liv, med både karakterer og
 925 lys. Uten å fjerne bitene av frykt og fare helt, gjorde han morsomt det som
 926 var mørkt og satte inn en ekte følelse av medfølelse der det før var
 927 frykt. Og ikke bare med verkene av brødrene Grimm.  Faktisk er katalogen
 928 over Disney-arbeid som baserer seg på arbeidet til andre ganske forbløffende
 929 når den blir samlet: <em class="citetitle">Snøhvit</em> (1937),
 930 <em class="citetitle">Fantasia</em> (1940), <em class="citetitle">Pinocchio</em>
 931 (1940), <em class="citetitle">Dumbo</em> (1941), <em class="citetitle">Bambi</em>
 932 (1942), <em class="citetitle">Song of the South</em> (1946),
 933 <em class="citetitle">Askepott</em> (1950), <em class="citetitle">Alice in
 934 Wonderland</em> (1951), <em class="citetitle">Robin Hood</em> (1952),
 935 <em class="citetitle">Peter Pan</em> (1953), <em class="citetitle">Lady og
 936 landstrykeren</em> (1955), <em class="citetitle">Mulan</em> (1998),
 937 <em class="citetitle">Tornerose</em> (1959), <em class="citetitle">101
 938 dalmatinere</em> (1961), <em class="citetitle">Sverdet i steinen</em>
 939 (1963), og <em class="citetitle">Jungelboken</em> (1967)&#8212;for ikke å nevne
 940 et nylig eksempel som vi bør kanskje glemme raskt, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
 941 Planet</em> (2003). I alle disse tilfellene, har Disney (eller
 942 Disney, Inc.) hentet kreativitet fra kultur rundt ham, blandet med
 943 kreativiteten fra sitt eget ekstraordinære talent, og deretter brent denne
 944 blandingen inn i sjelen til sin kultur. Hente, blande og brenne.
 945 </p><p>
 946 Dette er en type kreativitet.  Det er en kreativitet som vi bør huske på og
 947 feire.  Det er noen som vil si at det finnes ingen kreativitet bortsett fra
 948 denne typen.  Vi trenger ikke gå så langt for å anerkjenne dens betydning.
 949 Vi kan kalle dette "Disney-kreativitet", selv om det vil være litt
 950 misvisende.  Det er mer presist "Walt Disney-kreativitet"&#8212;en
 951 uttrykksform og genialitet som bygger på kulturen rundt oss og omformer den
 952 til noe annet.
 953 </p><p> I 1928 var kulturen som Disney fritt kunne trekke veksler på relativt
 954 fersk.  Allemannseie i 1928 var ikke veldig gammelt og var dermed ganske
 955 levende.  Gjennomsnittlig vernetid i opphavsretten var bare rundt tredve
 956 år&#8212;for den lille delen av kreative verk som faktisk var
 957 opphavsrettsbeskyttet.<sup>[<a name="id2606966" href="#ftn.id2606966" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> Det betyr at i
 958 tredve år, i gjennomsnitt, hadde forfattere eller kreative verks
 959 opphavsrettighetsinnehaver en "eksklusiv rett" til a kontrollere bestemte
 960 typer bruk av verket.  For å bruke disse opphavsrettsbeskyttede verkene på
 961 de begrensede måtene krevde tillatelse fra opphavsrettsinnehaveren.
 962 </p><p>
 963 Når opphavsrettens vernetid er over, faller et verk i det fri og blir
 964 allemannseie.  Ingen tillatelse trengs da for å bygge på eller bruke dette
 965 verket.  Ingen tillatelse og dermed, ingen advokater. Allemannseie er en
 966 "advokat-fri sone".  Det meste av innhold fra det nittende århundre var
 967 dermed fritt tilgjengelig for Disney å bruke eller bygge på i 1928.  Det var
 968 tilgjengelig for enhver&#8212;uansett om de hadde forbindelser eller ikke,
 969 om de var rik eller ikke, om de var akseptert eller ikke&#8212;til å bruke
 970 og bygge videre på.
 971 </p><p>
 972
 973 Dette er slik det alltid har vært&#8212;inntil ganske nylig.  For
 974 mesteparten av vår historie, har allemannseiet vært like over horisonten.
 975 Fram til 1978 var den gjennomsnittlige opphavsrettslige vernetiden aldri mer
 976 enn trettito år, som gjorde at det meste av kultur fra en og en halv
 977 generasjon tidligere var tilgjengelig for enhver å bygge på uten tillatelse
 978 fra noen.  Tilsvarende for i dag ville være at kreative verker fra 1960- og
 979 1970-tallet nå ville være fritt tilgjengelig for de neste Walt Disney å
 980 bygge på uten tillatelse.  Men i dag er allemannseie presumtivt kun for
 981 innhold fra før mellomkrigstiden.
 982 </p><p>
 983 Walt Disney hadde selvfølgelig ikke monopol på "Walt Disney-kreativitet".
 984 Det har heller ikke USA.  Normen med fri kultur har, inntil nylig, og
 985 unntatt i totalitære nasjoner, vært bredt utnyttet og svært universell.
 986 </p><p>
 987 Vurder for eksempel en form for kreativitet som synes underlig for mange
 988 amerikanere, men som er overalt i japansk kultur:
 989 <em class="citetitle">manga</em>, eller tegneserier.  Japanerne er fanatiske når
 990 det gjelder tegneserier.  Over 40 prosent av publikasjoner er tegneserier,
 991 og 30 prosent av publikasjonsomsetningen stammer fra tegneserier.  De er
 992 over alt i det japanske samfunnet, tilgjengelig fra ethvert
 993 tidsskriftsutsalg, og i hendene på en stor andel av pendlere på Japans
 994 ekstraordinære system for offentlig transport.
 995 </p><p>
 996 Amerikanere har en tendens til å se ned på denne formen for kultur. Det er
 997 et lite attraktivt kjennetegn hos oss.  Vi misforstår sannsynligvis mye
 998 rundt manga, på grunn av at få av oss noen gang har lest noe som ligner på
 999 historiene i disse "grafiske historiene" forteller.  For en japaner dekker
1000 manga ethvert aspekt ved det sosiale liv.  For oss er tegneserier "menn i
1001 strømpebukser".  Og uansett er det ikke slik at T-banen i New York er full
1002 av folk som leser Joyse eller Hemingway for den saks skyld.  Folk i ulike
1003 kulturer skiller seg ut på forskjellig måter, og japanerne på dette
1004 interessante viset.
1005 </p><p>
1006 Men mitt formål her er ikke å forstå manga.  Det er å beskrive en variant av
1007 manga som fra en advokats perspektiv er ganske merkelig, men som fra en
1008 Disneys perspektiv er ganske godt kjent.
1009 </p><p>
1010
1011 Dette er fenomenet <em class="citetitle">doujinshi</em>.  Doujinshi er også
1012 tegneserier, men de er slags etterapings-tegneserier.  En rik etikk styrer
1013 de som skaper doujinshi.  Det er ikke doujinshi hvis det
1014 <span class="emphasis"><em>bare</em></span> er en kopi.  Kunstneren må gjøre et bidrag til
1015 kunsten han kopierer ved å omforme det enten subtilt eller betydelig.  En
1016 doujinshi-tegneserie kan dermed ta en massemarkeds-tegneserie og utvikle den
1017 i en annen retning&#8212;med en annen historie-linje.  Eller tegneserien kan
1018 beholde figuren som seg selv men endre litt på utseendet.  Det er ingen
1019 bestemt formel for hva som gjør en doujinshi tilstrekkelig "forskjellig".
1020 Men de må være forskjellige hvis de skal anses som ekte doujinshi.  Det er
1021 faktisk komiteer som går igjennom doujinshi for å bli med på messer, og
1022 avviser etterapninger som bare er en kopi.
1023 </p><p>
1024 Disse etterapings-tegneseriene er ikke en liten del av manga-markedet.  Det
1025 er enorme.  Mer en 33 000 "sirkler" av skapere over hele Japan som
1026 produserer disse bitene av Walt Disney-kreativitet.  Mer en 450 000 japanere
1027 samles to ganger i året, i den største offentlige samlingen i langet, for å
1028 bytte og selge dem.  Dette markedet er parallelt med det kommersielle
1029 massemarkeds-manga-markedet.  På noen måter konkurrerer det åpenbart med det
1030 markedet, men det er ingen vedvarende innsats fra de som kontrollerer det
1031 kommersielle manga-markedet for å stenge doujinshi-markedet.  Det blomstrer,
1032 på tross av konkurransen og til tross for loven.
1033 </p><p>
1034 Den mest gåtefulle egenskapen med doujinshi-markedet, for de som har
1035 juridisk trening i hvert fall, er at det overhodet tillates å eksistere.
1036 Under japansk opphavsrettslov, som i hvert fall på dette området (på
1037 papiret) speiler USAs opphavsrettslov, er doujinshi-markedet ulovlig.
1038 Doujinshi er helt klart "avledede verk".  Det er ingen generell praksis hos
1039 doujinshi-kunstnere for å sikre seg tillatelse hos manga-skaperne.  I stedet
1040 er praksisen ganske enkelt å ta og endre det andre har laget, slik Walt
1041 Disney gjorde med <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>.  For både
1042 japansk og USAs lov, er å "ta" uten tillatelse fra den opprinnelige
1043 opphavsrettsinnehaver ulovlig.  Det er et brudd på opphavsretten til det
1044 opprinnelige verket å lage en kopi eller et avledet verk uten tillatelse fra
1045 den opprinnelige rettighetsinnehaveren.
1046 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
1047 Likevel eksisterer dette illegale markedet og faktisk blomstrer i Japan, og
1048 etter manges syn er det nettopp fordi det eksisterer at japansk manga
1049 blomstrer.  Som USAs tegneserieskaper Judd Winick fortalte meg, "I
1050 amerikansk tegneseriers første dager var det ganske likt det som foregår i
1051 Japan i dag. &#8230; Amerikanske tegneserier kom til verden ved å kopiere
1052 hverandre. &#8230; Det er slik [kunstnerne] lærer å tegne&#8212;ved å se i
1053 tegneseriebøker og ikke følge streken, men ved å se på dem og kopiere dem"
1054 og bygge basert på dem.<sup>[<a name="id2607137" href="#ftn.id2607137" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
1055 </p><p>
1056 Amerikanske tegneserier nå er ganske annerledes, forklarer Winick, delvis på
1057 grunn av de juridiske problemene med å tilpasse tegneserier slik doujinshi
1058 får lov til.  Med for eksempel Supermann, fortalte Winick meg, "er det en
1059 rekke regler, og du må følge dem".  Det er ting som Supermann "ikke kan"
1060 gjøre.  "For en som lager tegneserier er det frustrerende å måtte begrense
1061 seg til noen parameter som er femti år gamle."
1062 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2607261"></a><p>
1063 Normen i Japan reduserer denne juridiske utfordringen.  Noen sier at det
1064 nettopp er den oppsamlede fordelen i det japanske mangamarkedet som
1065 forklarer denne reduksjonen.  Jussprofessor Salil Mehra ved Temple
1066 University hypnotiserer for eksempel med at manga-markedet aksepterer disse
1067 teoretiske bruddene fordi de får mangamarkedet til å bli rikere og mer
1068 produktivt.  Alle ville få det verre hvis doujinshi ble bannlyst, så loven
1069 bannlyser ikke doujinshi.<sup>[<a name="id2607286" href="#ftn.id2607286" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
1070 </p><p>
1071 Problemet med denne historien, derimot, og som Mehra helt klart erkjenner,
1072 er at mekanismen som produserer denne "hold hendene borte"-responsen ikke er
1073 forstått.  Det kan godt være at markedet som helhet gjør det bedre hvis
1074 doujinshi tillates i stedet for å bannlyse den, men det forklarer likevel
1075 ikke hvorfor individuelle opphavsrettsinnehavere ikke saksøker.  Hvis loven
1076 ikke har et generelt unntak for doujinshi, og det finnes faktisk noen
1077 tilfeller der individuelle manga-kunstnere har saksøkt doujinshi-kunstnere,
1078 hvorfor er det ikke et mer generelt mønster for å blokkere denne "frie
1079 takingen" hos doujinshi-kulturen?
1080 </p><p>
1081 Jeg var fire nydelige måneder i Japan, og jeg stilte dette spørsmål så ofte
1082 som jeg kunne.  Kanskje det beste svaret til slutt kom fra en venn i et
1083 større japansk advokatfirma. "Vi har ikke nok advokater", fortalte han meg
1084 en ettermiddag.  Det er "bare ikke nok ressurser til å tiltale tilfeller som
1085 dette".
1086 </p><p>
1087
1088 Dette er et tema vi kommer tilbake til: at lovens regulering både er en
1089 funksjon av ordene i bøkene, og kostnadene med å få disse ordene til å ha
1090 effekt.  Akkurat nå er det endel åpenbare spørsmål som presser seg frem:
1091 Ville Japan gjøre det bedre med flere advokater? Ville manga være rikere
1092 hvis doujinshi-kunstnere ble regelmessig rettsforfulgt?  Ville Japan vinne
1093 noe viktig hvis de kunne stoppe praksisen med deling uten kompensasjon?
1094 Skader piratvirksomhet ofrene for piratvirksomheten, eller hjelper den dem?
1095 Ville advokaters kamp mot denne piratvirksomheten hjelpe deres klienter,
1096 eller skade dem? La oss ta et øyeblikks pause.
1097 </p><p>
1098 Hvis du er som meg et tiår tilbake, eller som folk flest når de først
1099 begynner å tenke på disse temaene, da bør du omtrent nå være rådvill om noe
1100 du ikke hadde tenkt igjennom før.
1101 </p><p>
1102 Vi lever i en verden som feirer "eiendom".  Jeg er en av de som feierer.
1103 Jeg tror på verdien av eiendom generelt, og jeg tror også på verdien av den
1104 sære formen for eiendom som advokater kaller "immateriell
1105 eiendom".<sup>[<a name="id2607380" href="#ftn.id2607380" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> Et stort og variert samfunn
1106 kan ikke overleve uten eiendom, og et moderne samfunn kan ikke blomstre uten
1107 immaterielle eierrettigheter.
1108 </p><p>
1109 Men det tar bare noen sekunders refleksjon for å innse at det er masse av
1110 verdi der ute som "eiendom" ikke dekker.  Jeg mener ikke "kjærlighet kan
1111 ikke kjøpes med penger" men heller, at en verdi som ganske enkelt er del av
1112 produksjonsprosessen, både for kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell produksjon.
1113 Hvis Disneys animatører hadde stjålet et sett med blyanter for å tegne
1114 Steamboat Willie, vi ville ikke nølt med å dømme det som galt&#8212;selv om
1115 det er trivielt og selv om det ikke blir oppdaget.  Men det var intet galt,
1116 i hvert fall slik loven var da, med at Disney tok fra Buster Keaton eller
1117 fra Grimm-brødrene.  Det var intet galt med å ta fra Keaton, fordi Disneys
1118 bruk ville blitt ansett som "rimelig".  Det var intet galt med å ta fra
1119 brødrene Grimm fordi deres verker var allemannseie.
1120 </p><p>
1121
1122 Dermed, selv om de tingene som Disney tok&#8212;eller mer generelt, tingene
1123 som blir tatt av enhver som utøver Walt Disney-kreativitet&#8212;er
1124 verdifulle, så anser ikke vår tradisjon det som galt å ta disse tingene.
1125 Noen ting forblir frie til å bli tatt i en fri kultur og denne friheten er
1126 bra.
1127 </p><p>
1128 Det er det samme med doujinshi-kulturen.  Hvis en doujinshi-kunstner brøt
1129 seg inn på kontoret til en forlegger, og stakk av med tusen kopier av hans
1130 siste verk&#8212;eller bare en kopi&#8212;uten å betale, så ville vi uten å
1131 nøle si at kunstneren har gjort noe galt.  I tillegg til å ha trengt seg inn
1132 på andres eiendom, ville han ha stjålet noe av verdi. Loven forbyr stjeling
1133 i enhver form, uansett hvor stort eller lite som blir tatt.
1134 </p><p>
1135 Likevel er det en åpenbar motvilje, selv blant japanske advokater, for å si
1136 at etterapende tegneseriekunstnere "stjeler".  Denne formen for Walt
1137 Disney-kreativitet anses som rimelig og riktig, selv om spesielt advokater
1138 synes det er vanskelig å forklare hvorfor.
1139 </p><p>
1140 Det er det same med tusen eksempler som dukker opp over alt med en gang en
1141 begynner å se etter dem.  Forskerne bygger på arbeidet til andre forskere
1142 uten å spørre eller betale for privilegiet. ("Unnskyld meg, professor
1143 Einstein, men kan jeg få tillatelse til å bruke din relativitetsteori til å
1144 vise at du tok feil om kvantefysikk?") Teatertropper viser frem
1145 bearbeidelser av verkene til Shakespeare uten å sikre seg noen tillatelser.
1146 (Er det <span class="emphasis"><em>noen</em></span> som tror at Shakespeare ville vært mer
1147 spredt i vår kultur om det var et sentralt rettighetsklareringskontor for
1148 Shakespeare som alle som laget Shakespeare-produksjoner måtte appellere til
1149 først?)  Og Hollywood går igjennom sykluser med en bestemt type filmer: fem
1150 astroidefilmer i slutten av 1990-tallet, to vulkankatastrofefilmer i 1997.
1151 </p><p>
1152
1153 Skapere her og overalt har alltid og til alle tider bygd på kreativiteten
1154 som eksisterte før og som omringer dem nå.  Denne byggingen er alltid og
1155 overalt i det minste delvis gjort uten tillatelse og uten å kompensere den
1156 opprinnelige skaperen.  Intet samfunn, fritt eller kontrollert, har noen
1157 gang krevd at enhver bruk skulle bli betalt for eller at tillatelse for Walt
1158 Disney-kreativitet alltid måtte skaffes.  Istedet har ethvert samfunn latt
1159 en bestemt bit av sin kultur være fritt tilgjengelig for alle å
1160 ta&#8212;frie samfunn muligens i større grad enn ufrie, men en viss grad i
1161 alle samfunn.
1162
1163 </p><p>
1164 Det vanskelige spørsmålet er derfor ikke <span class="emphasis"><em>om</em></span> en kultur
1165 er fri.  Alle kulturer er frie til en viss grad. Det vanskelige spørsmålet
1166 er i stedet "<span class="emphasis"><em>hvor</em></span> fri er denne kulturen er?" Hvor mye
1167 og hvor bredt, er kulturen fritt tilgjengelig for andre å ta, og bygge på?
1168 Er den friheten begrenset til partimedlemmer?  Til medlemmer av
1169 kongefamilien?  Til de ti største selskapene på New York-børsen?  Eller er
1170 at frihet bredt tilgjengelig? Til kunstnere generelt, uansett om de er
1171 tilknyttet til nasjonalmuseet eller ikke?  Til musikere generelt, uansett om
1172 de er hvite eller ikke? Til filmskapere generelt, uansett om de er
1173 tilknyttet et studio eller ikke?
1174 </p><p>
1175 Frie kulturer er kulturer som etterlater mye åpent for andre å bygge på.
1176 Ufrie, eller tillatelse-kulturer etterlater mye mindre.  Vår var en fri
1177 kultur. Den er på tur til å bli mindre fri.
1178 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2606677" href="#id2606677" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
1179
1180
1181 Leonard Maltin, <em class="citetitle">Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated
1182 Cartoons</em> (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 34&#8211;35.
1183 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2606771" href="#id2606771" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
1184
1185
1186 Jeg er takknemlig overfor David Gerstein og hans nøyaktige historie,
1187 beskrevet på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #4</a>.  I
1188 følge Dave Smith ved the Disney Archives, betalte Disney for å bruke
1189 musikken til fem sanger i <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willie</em>:
1190 "Steamboat Bill," "The Simpleton" (Delille), "Mischief Makers" (Carbonara),
1191 "Joyful Hurry No. 1" (Baron), og "Gawky Rube" (Lakay). En sjette sang, "The
1192 Turkey in the Straw," var allerede allemannseie.  Brev fra David Smith til
1193 Harry Surden, 10. juli 2003, tilgjenglig i arkivet til forfatteren.
1194 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2606824" href="#id2606824" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
1195
1196
1197 Han var også tilhenger av allmannseiet. Se Chris Sprigman, "The Mouse that
1198 Ate the Public Domain," Findlaw, 5. mars 2002, fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #5</a>.
1199 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2606966" href="#id2606966" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
1200
1201
1202 Inntil 1976 ga opphavsrettsloven en forfatter to mulige verneperioder: en
1203 initiell periode, og en fornyingsperiode.  Jeg har beregnet
1204 "gjennomsnittlig" vernetid ved å finne vektet gjennomsnitt av de totale
1205 registreringer for et gitt år, og andelen fornyinger.  Hvis 100
1206 opphavsretter ble registrert i år 1, bare 15 av dem ble fornyet, og
1207 fornyingsvernetiden er 28 år, så er gjennomsnittlig vernetid 32,2
1208 år. Fornyingsdata og andre relevante data ligger på nettsidene tilknyttet
1209 denne boka, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
1210 #6</a>.
1211 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2607137" href="#id2607137" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
1212
1213
1214 For en utmerket historie, se Scott McCloud, <em class="citetitle">Reinventing
1215 Comics</em> (New York: Perennial, 2000).
1216 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2607286" href="#id2607286" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
1217
1218
1219 Se Salil K. Mehra, "Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain Why All
1220 the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?" <em class="citetitle">Rutgers Law
1221 Review</em> 55 (2002): 155, 182. "det kan være en kollektiv økonomisk
1222 rasjonalitet som får manga- og anime-kunstnere til ikke å saksøke for
1223 opphavsrettsbrudd. Én hypotese er at alle manga-kunstnere kan være bedre
1224 stilt hvis de setter sin individuelle egeninteresse til side og bestemmer
1225 seg for ikke å forfølge sine juridiske rettigheter. Dette er essensielt en
1226 løsning på fangens dilemma."
1227 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2607380" href="#id2607380" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
1228
1229 Begrepet <em class="citetitle">immateriell eiendom</em> er av relativ ny
1230 opprinnelse. Se See Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
1231 Copywrongs</em>, 11 (New York: New York University Press, 2001). Se
1232 også Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> (New York:
1233 Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. Begrepet presist beskriver et sett med
1234 "eiendoms"-rettigheter&#8212;opphavsretter, patenter, varemerker og
1235 forretningshemmeligheter&#8212;men egenskapene til disse rettighetene er
1236 svært forskjellige.<a class="indexterm" name="id2607398"></a>
1237 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title='Kapittel 2. Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Kapittel 2. Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><p>
1238 I 1839 fant Louis Daguerre opp den første praktiske teknologien for å
1239 produsere det vi ville kalle "fotografier".  Rimelig nok ble de kalt
1240 "daguerreotyper".  Prosessen var komplisert og kostbar, og feltet var dermed
1241 begrenset til profesjonelle og noen få ivrige og velstående amatører.  (Det
1242 var til og med en amerikansk Daguerre-forening som hjalp til med å regulere
1243 industrien, slik alle slike foreninger gjør, ved å holde konkurransen ned
1244 slik at prisene var høye.)  <a class="indexterm" name="id2607628"></a>
1245 </p><p>
1246 Men til tross for høye priser var etterspørselen etter daguerreotyper
1247 sterk.  Dette inspirerte oppfinnere til å finne enklere og billigere måter å
1248 lage "automatiske bilder".  William Talbot oppdaget snart en prosess for å
1249 lage "negativer".  Men da negativene var av glass, og måtte holdes fuktige,
1250 forble prosessen kostbar og tung.  På 1870-tallet ble tørrplater utviklet,
1251 noe som gjorde det enklere å skille det å ta et bilde fra å fremkalle det.
1252 Det var fortsatt plater av glass, og dermed var det fortsatt ikke en prosess
1253 som var innenfor rekkevidden til de fleste amatører. <a class="indexterm" name="id2607648"></a>
1254 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxeastmangeorge"></a><p>
1255
1256 Den teknologiske endringen som gjorde masse-fotografering mulig skjedde ikke
1257 før i 1888, og det var takket være en eneste mann. George Eastman, selv en
1258 amatørfotograf, var frustrert over den plate-baserte fotografi-teknologien.
1259 I et lysglimt av innsikt (for å si det slik), forsto Eastman at hvis filmen
1260 kunne gjøres bøyelig, så kunne den holdes på en enkel rull.  Denne rullen
1261 kunne så sendes til en fremkaller, og senke kostnadene til fotografering
1262 vesentlig.  Ved å redusere kostnadene, forventet Eastman at han dramatisk
1263 kunne utvide andelen fotografer.
1264 </p><p>
1265 Eastman utviklet bøyelig, emulsjons-belagt papirfilm og plasserte ruller med
1266 dette i små, enkle kameraer: Kodaken.  Enheten ble markedsfør med grunnlag
1267 dens enkelhet. "Du trykker på knappen og vi fikser resten."<sup>[<a name="id2607695" href="#ftn.id2607695" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> Som han beskrev det i <em class="citetitle">The Kodak
1268 Primer</em>: <a class="indexterm" name="id2607709"></a>
1269 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1270 Prinsippet til Kodak-systemet er skillet mellom arbeidet som enhver kan
1271 utføre når en tar fotografier, fra arbeidet som kun en ekspert kan
1272 gjøre. &#8230; Vi utstyrte alle, menn, kvinner og barn, som hadde
1273 tilstrekkelig intelligens til å peke en boks i riktig retning og trykke på
1274 en knapp, med et instrument som helt fjernet fra praksisen med å fotografere
1275 nødvendigheten av uvanlig utstyr eller for den del, noe som helst spesiell
1276 kunnskap om kunstarten.  Det kan tas i bruk uten forutgående studier, uten
1277 et mørkerom og uten kjemikalier.<sup>[<a name="id2605201" href="#ftn.id2605201" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
1278 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1279 For $25 kunne alle ta bilder.  Det var allerede film i kameraet, og når det
1280 var brukt ble kameraet returnert til en Eastman-fabrikk hvor filmen ble
1281 fremkalt.  Etter hvert, naturligvis, ble både kostnaden til kameraet og hvor
1282 enkelt et var å bruke forbedret.  Film på rull ble dermed grunnlaget for en
1283 eksplosiv vekst i fotografering blant folket. Eastmans kamera ble lagt ut
1284 for salg i 1888, og et år senere trykket Kodak mer enn seks tusen negativer
1285 om dagen.  Fra 1888 til 1909, mens produksjonen i industrien vokste med 4,7
1286 prosent, økte salget av fotografisk utstyr og materiale med 11
1287 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2607774" href="#ftn.id2607774" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
1288 samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2607784" href="#ftn.id2607784" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
1289 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2607793"></a><p>
1290
1291
1292 Den virkelige betydningen av oppfinnelsen til Eastman, var derimot ikke
1293 økonomisk.  Den var sosial.  Profesjonell fotografering ga individer et
1294 glimt av steder de ellers aldri ville se. Amatørfotografering ga dem
1295 muligheten til å arkivere deres liv på en måte som de aldri hadde vært i
1296 stand til tidligere.  Som forfatter Brian Coe skriver, "For første gang
1297 tilbød fotoalbumet mannen i gata et permanent arkiv over hans familie og
1298 dens aktiviteter. &#8230; For første gang i historien fantes det en
1299 autentisk visuell oppføring av utseende og aktivitet til vanlige mennesker
1300 laget uten [skrivefør] tolkning eller forutinntatthet."<sup>[<a name="id2607726" href="#ftn.id2607726" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
1301 </p><p>
1302 På denne måten var Kodak-kameraet og film uttrykksteknologier. Blyanten og
1303 malepenselen var selvfølgelig også en uttrykksteknologi. Men det tok årevis
1304 med trening før de kunne bli brukt nyttig og effektiv av amatører.  Med
1305 Kodaken var uttrykk mulig mye raskere og enklere.  Barrièren for å uttrykke
1306 seg var senket.  Snobber ville fnyse over "kvaliteten", profesjonelle ville
1307 avvise den som irrelevant.  Men se et barn studere hvordan best velge
1308 bildemotiv og du får følelsen av hva slags kreativitetserfaring som Kodaken
1309 muliggjorde.  Demokratiske verktøy ga vanlige folk en måte å uttrykke dem
1310 selv på enklere enn noe annet verktøy kunne ha gjort før.
1311 </p><p>
1312 Hva krevdes for at denne teknologien skulle blomstre.  Eastmans genialitet
1313 var åpenbart en viktig del.  Men den juridiske miljøet som Eastmans
1314 oppfinnelse vokste i var også viktig.  For tidlig i historien til
1315 fotografering, var det en rekke av rettsavgjørelser som godt kunne ha endret
1316 kursen til fotograferingen betydelig.  Domstoler ble spurt om fotografen,
1317 amatør eller profesjonell, måtte ha ha tillatelse før han kunne fange og
1318 trykke hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket.  Svaret var nei.<sup>[<a name="id2607874" href="#ftn.id2607874" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
1319 </p><p>
1320
1321 Argumentene til fordel for å kreve tillatelser vil høres overraskende kjent
1322 ut.  Fotografen "tok" noe fra personen eller bygningen som ble
1323 fotografert&#8212;røvet til seg noe av verdi.  Noen trodde til og med at han
1324 tok målets sjel.  På samme måte som Disney ikke var fri til å ta blyantene
1325 som hans animatører brukte til å tegne Mikke, så skulle heller ikke disse
1326 fotografene være fri til å ta bilder som de fant verdi i.
1327 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2607907"></a><p>
1328 På den andre siden var et argument som også bør bør være kjent. Joda, det
1329 var kanskje noe av verdi som ble brukt.  Men borgerne burde ha rett til å
1330 fange i hvert fall de bildene som var tatt av offentlig område.  (Louis
1331 Brandeis, som senere ble høyesterettsjustitiarus, mente regelen skulle være
1332 annerledes for bilder tatt av private områder.<sup>[<a name="id2607941" href="#ftn.id2607941" class="footnote">32</a>]</sup>) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting.
1333 På samme måte som Disney kunne hente inspirasjon fra <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
1334 Bill, Jr</em>. eller Grimm-brødrene, så burde fotografene stå fritt
1335 til å fange et bilde uten å kompensere kilden.
1336 </p><p>
1337 Heldigvis for Mr. Eastman, og for fotografering generelt, gikk disse
1338 tidligere avgjørelsene i favør av piratene.  Generelt ble det ikke nødvendig
1339 å sikre seg tillatelse før et bilde kunne tas og deles med andre.  I stedet
1340 var det antatt at tillatelse var gitt.  Frihet var utgangspunktet.  (Loven
1341 ga etter en stund et unntak for berømte personer: kommersielle fotografer
1342 som tok bilder av berømte personer for kommersielle formål har flere
1343 begrensninger enn resten av oss.  Men i det vanlige tilfellet, kan bildet
1344 fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.<sup>[<a name="id2607993" href="#ftn.id2607993" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
1345 </p><p>
1346 Vi kan kun spekulere om hvordan fotografering ville ha utviklet seg om loven
1347 hadde slått ut den andre veien.  Hvis den hadde vært mot fotografen, da
1348 ville fotografen måttet dokumentere at tillatelse var på plass.  Kanskje
1349 Eastman Kodak også måtte ha dokumentert at tillatelse var gitt, før de
1350 utviklet filmen som bildene ble fanget på.  Tross alt, hvis tillatelse ikke
1351 var gitt, da ville Eastman Kodak ha nytt fordeler fra "tyveriet" begått av
1352 fotografer.  På samme måte som Napster nøt fordeler fra opphavsrettsbrudd
1353 utført av Napster-brukere, så ville Kodak nytt fordeler fra
1354 "bilde-rettighets"-brudd til deres fotografer.  Vi kan forestille oss at
1355 loven da krevede at en form for tillatelse ble vist frem før et selskap
1356 fremkalte bildene.  Vi kan forestille oss et system bli utviklet for å legge
1357 frem slike tillatelser.
1358 </p><p>
1359
1360
1361
1362 Men selv om vi kan tenke oss dette godkjenningssystemet, så vil det være
1363 svært vanskelig å se hvordan fotografering skulle ha blomstret slik det
1364 gjorde hvis det var bygd inn krav om godkjenning i reglene som styrte det.
1365 Fotografering ville eksistert.  Det ville ha økt sin betydning over tid.
1366 Profesjonelle ville ha fortsatt å bruke teknologien slik de
1367 gjorde&#8212;siden profesjonelle enklere kunne håndtert byrdene pålagt dem
1368 av godkjenningssystemet.  Men spredningen av fotografering til vanlige folk
1369 villa aldri ha skjedd.  Veksten det skapte kunne aldri ha skjedd.  Og det
1370 ville uten tvil aldri vært realisert en slik vekst i demokratisk
1371 uttrykksteknologi.  Hvis du kjører gjennom området Presidio i San Francisco,
1372 kan det hende du ser to gusjegule skolebusser overmalt med fargefulle og
1373 iøynefallende bilder, og logoen "Just Think!" i stedet for navnet på en
1374 skole. Men det er lite som er "bare" mentalt i prosjektene som disse bussene
1375 muliggjør.  Disse bussene er fylt med teknologi som lærer unger å fikle med
1376 film.  Ikke filmen til Eastman.  Ikke en gang filmen i din videospiller.  I
1377 stedet er det snakk om "filmen" til digitale kamera.  Just Think! er et
1378 prosjekt som gjør det mulig for unger å lage filmer, som en måte å forstå og
1379 kritisere den filmede kulturen som de finner over alt rundt seg.  Hvert år
1380 besøker disse bussene mer enn tredve skoler og gir mellom tre hundre og fire
1381 hundre barn muligheten til å lære noe om media ved å gjøre noe med media.
1382 Ved å gjøre, så tenker de.  Ved å fikle, så lærer de.
1383 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2608056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2608067"></a><p>
1384 Disse bussene er ikke billige, men teknologien de har med seg blir billigere
1385 og billigere.  Kostnaden til et høykvalitets digitalt videosystem har falt
1386 dramatisk.  Som en analytiker omtalte det, "for fem år siden kostet et godt
1387 sanntids redigerinssystem for digital video $25 000.  I dag kan du få
1388 profesjonell kvalitet for $595."<sup>[<a name="id2608145" href="#ftn.id2608145" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup> Disse
1389 bussene er fylt med teknologi som ville kostet hundre-tusenvis av dollar for
1390 bare ti år siden.  Og det er nå mulig å forestille seg ikke bare slike
1391 busser, men klasserom rundt om i landet hvor unger kan lære mer og mer av
1392 det lærerne kaller "medie-skriveføre" eller "mediekompetanse".
1393 </p><p>
1394
1395 "Media-skriveføre," eller "mediekompetanse" som administrerende direktør
1396 Dave Yanofsky i Just Think!, sier det, "er evnen til &#8230; å forstå,
1397 analysere og dekonstruere mediebilder. Dets mål er å gjøre [unger] i stand
1398 til å forstå hvordan mediene fungerer, hvordan de er konstruert, hvordan de
1399 blir levert, og hvordan folk bruker dem". <a class="indexterm" name="id2607814"></a>
1400 </p><p>
1401 Dette kan virke som en litt rar måte å tenke på "skrivefør". For de fleste
1402 handler skrivefør å kunne lese og skrive.  "Skriveføre folk kjenner ting som
1403 Faulkner, Hemingway og å kjenne igjen delte infinitiver.
1404 </p><p>
1405 Mulig det.  Men i en verden hvor barn ser i gjennomsnitt 390 timer med
1406 TV-reklaager i året, eller generelt mellom 20 000 og 45 000
1407 reklameinnslag,<sup>[<a name="id2608214" href="#ftn.id2608214" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> så er det mer og mer
1408 viktig å forstå "gramatikken" til media.  For på samme måte som det er en
1409 gramatikk for det skrevne ord, så er det også en for media.  Og akkurat slik
1410 som unger lærer å skrive ved å skrive masse grusom prosa, så lærer unger å
1411 skrive media ved å konstruere masse (i hvert fall i begynnelsen) grusom
1412 media.
1413 </p><p>
1414 Et voksende felt av akademikere og aktivister ser denne formen for
1415 skriveføre som avgjørende for den neste generasjonen av kultur. For selv om
1416 de som har skrevet forstår hvor vanskelig det er å skrive&#8212;hvor
1417 vanskelig det er å bestemme rekkefølge i historien, å holde på
1418 oppmerksomheten hos leseren, å forme språket slik at det er
1419 forståelig&#8212;så har få av oss en reell følelse av hvor vanskelig medier
1420 er. Eller mer fundamentalt, de færreste av av oss har en følelse for
1421 hvordan media fungerer, hvordan det holder et publikum eller leder leseren
1422 gjennom historien, hvordan det utløser følelser eller bygger opp spenningen.
1423 </p><p>
1424 Det tok filmkusten en generasjon før den kunne gjøre disse tingene bra.  Men
1425 selv da, så var kunnskapen i filmingen, ikke i å skrive om filmen.
1426 Ferdigheten kom fra erfaring med å lage en film, ikke fra å lese en bok om
1427 den.  En lærer å skrive ved å skrive, og deretter reflektere over det en har
1428 skrevet.  En lærer å skrive med bilder ved å lage dem, og deretter
1429 reflektere over det en har laget.
1430 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2608246"></a><p>
1431 This grammar has changed as media has changed. When it was just film, as
1432 Elizabeth Daley, executive director of the University of Southern
1433 California's Annenberg Center for Communication and dean of the USC School
1434 of Cinema-Television, explained to me, the grammar was about "the placement
1435 of objects, color, &#8230; rhythm, pacing, and texture."<sup>[<a name="id2608178" href="#ftn.id2608178" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> But as computers open up an interactive space where
1436 a story is "played" as well as experienced, that grammar changes. The simple
1437 control of narrative is lost, and so other techniques are necessary. Author
1438 Michael Crichton had mastered the narrative of science fiction.  But when he
1439 tried to design a computer game based on one of his works, it was a new
1440 craft he had to learn. How to lead people through a game without their
1441 feeling they have been led was not obvious, even to a wildly successful
1442 author.<sup>[<a name="id2608327" href="#ftn.id2608327" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
1443 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2608348"></a><p>
1444 Akkurat denne ferdigheten er håndverket en lærer til de som lager
1445 filmer. Som Daley skriver, "folk er svært overrasket over hvordan de blir
1446 ledet gjennom en film.  Den er perfekt konstruert for å hindre deg fra å se
1447 det, så du aner det ikke.  Hvis en som lager filmer lykkes så vet du ikke at
1448 du har vært ledet." Hvis du vet at du ble ledet igjennom en film, så har
1449 filmen feilet.
1450 </p><p>
1451 Likevel er innsatsen for å utvide skriveføren&#8212;til en som går ut over
1452 tekst til å ta med lyd og visuelle elementer&#8212;handler ikke om å lage
1453 bedre filmregisører.  Målet er ikke å forbedre filmyrket i det hele tatt.  I
1454 stedet, som Daley forklarer,
1455 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1456 Fra mitt perspektiv er antagelig det viktigste digitale skillet ikke om en
1457 har tilgang til en boks eller ikke.  Det er evnen til å ha kontroll over
1458 språket som boksen bruker.  I motsatt fall er det bare noen få som kan
1459 skrive i dette språket, og alle oss andre er redusert til å ikke kunne
1460 skrive.
1461 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1462 "Skrivebeskyttet." Passive mottakerne av kultur produsert andre
1463 steder. Sofapoteter. Forbrukere. Dette er medieverden fra det tjuende
1464 århundre.
1465 </p><p>
1466 Det tjueførste århundret kan bli annerledes.  Dette er et kritisk punkt: Det
1467 kan bli både lesing og skriving.  Eller i det minste lesing og bedre
1468 forståelse for håndverket å skrive.  Eller det beste, lesing og forstå
1469 verktøyene som gir skriving mulighet til å veilede eller villede.  Målet med
1470 enhver skriveførhet, og denne skriveførheten spesielt, er å "gi folket
1471 myndighet til å velge det språket som passer for det de trenger å lage eller
1472 uttrykke".<sup>[<a name="id2608419" href="#ftn.id2608419" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> Det gir studenter mulighet
1473 "til å kommunisere i språket til det tjueførste århundret".<sup>[<a name="id2608438" href="#ftn.id2608438" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
1474 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2608446"></a><p>
1475 Som det alle andre språk, læres dette språket lettere for noen enn for
1476 andre.  Det kommer ikke nødvendigvis lettere for de som gjør det godt
1477 skriftlig. Daley og Stephanie Barish, direktør for Institutt for
1478 Multimedia-skriveføre ved Annenberg-senteret, beskriver et spesielt sterkt
1479 eksempel fra et prosjekt de gjennomførte i en videregående skole.  Den
1480 videregående skolen var en veldig fattig skole i den indre byen i Los
1481 Angeles.  Etter alle tradisjonelle måleenheter for suksess var denne skolen
1482 en fiasko.  Men Daley og Barish gjennomførte et program som ga ungene en
1483 mulighet til å bruke film til å uttrykke sine meninger om noe som studentene
1484 visste noe om&#8212;våpen-relatert vold.
1485 </p><p>
1486 Klassen møttes fredag ettermiddag, og skapte et relativt nytt problem for
1487 skolen.  Mens utfordringen i de fleste klasser var å få ungene til å dukke
1488 opp, var utfordringen for denne klassen å holde dem unna. "Ungene dukket opp
1489 06:00, og dro igjen 05:00 på natta", sa Barish. De jobbet hardere enn i noen
1490 annen klasse for å gjøre det utdanning burde handle om&#8212;å lære hvordan
1491 de skulle uttrykke seg.
1492 </p><p>
1493 Ved å bruke hva som helst av "fritt tilgjengelig web-stoff de kunne finne",
1494 og relativt enkle verktøy som gjorde det mulig for ungene å blande "bilde,
1495 lyd og tekst", sa Barish at denne klassen produserte en serie av prosjekter
1496 som viste noe om våpen-basert vold som få ellers ville forstå. Dette var et
1497 tema veldig nært livene til disse studentene.  Prosjektet "ga dem et verktøy
1498 og bemyndiget dem slik at de både ble i stand til å forstå det og snakke om
1499 det", forklarer Barish.  Dette verktøyet lyktes med å skape
1500 uttrykk&#8212;mye mer vellykket og kraffylt enn noe som hadde blitt laget
1501 ved å kun bruke tekst.  "Hvis du hadde sagt til disse studentene at 'du må
1502 gjøre dette i tekstform', så hadde de bare kastet hendene i været og gått og
1503 gjort noe annet", forklarer Barish.  Delvis, uten tvil, fordi å uttrykke seg
1504 selv i tekstform ikke er noe disse studentene gjør godt. Heller ikke er
1505 tekstform en form som kan uttrykke <span class="emphasis"><em>disse</em></span> ideene godt.
1506 Kraften i denne meldingen avhenger av dens forbindelse med denne for for
1507 uttrykk.
1508 </p><p>
1509
1510
1511
1512 "But isn't education about teaching kids to write?" I asked. In part, of
1513 course, it is. But why are we teaching kids to write? Education, Daley
1514 explained, is about giving students a way of "constructing meaning." To say
1515 that that means just writing is like saying teaching writing is only about
1516 teaching kids how to spell. Text is one part&#8212;and increasingly, not the
1517 most powerful part&#8212;of constructing meaning. As Daley explained in the
1518 most moving part of our interview,
1519 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1520 What you want is to give these students ways of constructing meaning. If all
1521 you give them is text, they're not going to do it.  Because they can't. You
1522 know, you've got Johnny who can look at a video, he can play a video game,
1523 he can do graffiti all over your walls, he can take your car apart, and he
1524 can do all sorts of other things. He just can't read your text. So Johnny
1525 comes to school and you say, "Johnny, you're illiterate. Nothing you can do
1526 matters." Well, Johnny then has two choices: He can dismiss you or he [can]
1527 dismiss himself. If his ego is healthy at all, he's going to dismiss
1528 you. [But i]nstead, if you say, "Well, with all these things that you can
1529 do, let's talk about this issue. Play for me music that you think reflects
1530 that, or show me images that you think reflect that, or draw for me
1531 something that reflects that." Not by giving a kid a video camera and
1532 &#8230; saying, "Let's go have fun with the video camera and make a little
1533 movie." But instead, really help you take these elements that you
1534 understand, that are your language, and construct meaning about the
1535 topic. &#8230;
1536 </p><p>
1537 That empowers enormously. And then what happens, of course, is eventually,
1538 as it has happened in all these classes, they bump up against the fact, "I
1539 need to explain this and I really need to write something." And as one of
1540 the teachers told Stephanie, they would rewrite a paragraph 5, 6, 7, 8
1541 times, till they got it right.
1542 </p><p>
1543
1544 Because they needed to. There was a reason for doing it. They needed to say
1545 something, as opposed to just jumping through your hoops. They actually
1546 needed to use a language that they didn't speak very well. But they had come
1547 to understand that they had a lot of power with this language."
1548 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1549 When two planes crashed into the World Trade Center, another into the
1550 Pentagon, and a fourth into a Pennsylvania field, all media around the world
1551 shifted to this news. Every moment of just about every day for that week,
1552 and for weeks after, television in particular, and media generally, retold
1553 the story of the events we had just witnessed. The telling was a retelling,
1554 because we had seen the events that were described. The genius of this awful
1555 act of terrorism was that the delayed second attack was perfectly timed to
1556 assure that the whole world would be watching.
1557 </p><p>
1558 Disse gjenfortellingene ga en økende familiær følelse.  Det var musikk
1559 spesiallaget for mellom-innslagene, og avansert grafikk som blinket tvers
1560 over skjermen.  Det var en formel for intervjuer.  Det var "balanse" og
1561 seriøsitet.  Dette var nyheter koreaografert slik vi i stadig større grad
1562 forventer det, "nyheter som underholdning", selv om underholdningen er en
1563 tragedie.
1564 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2608613"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2608619"></a><p>
1565 But in addition to this produced news about the "tragedy of September 11,"
1566 those of us tied to the Internet came to see a very different production as
1567 well. The Internet was filled with accounts of the same events. Yet these
1568 Internet accounts had a very different flavor. Some people constructed photo
1569 pages that captured images from around the world and presented them as slide
1570 shows with text. Some offered open letters. There were sound
1571 recordings. There was anger and frustration.  There were attempts to provide
1572 context. There was, in short, an extraordinary worldwide barn raising, in
1573 the sense Mike Godwin uses the term in his book <em class="citetitle">Cyber
1574 Rights</em>, around a news event that had captured the attention of
1575 the world. There was ABC and CBS, but there was also the Internet.
1576 </p><p>
1577
1578 Det er ikke så enkelt som at jeg ønsker å lovprise internettet&#8212;selv om
1579 jeg mener at folkene som støtter denne formen for tale bør lovprises.  Jeg
1580 ønsker i stedet å peke på viktigheten av denne formen for tale.  For på
1581 samme måte som en Kodak, gjør internettet folk i stand til å fange bilder.
1582 Og på samme måte som med en film laget av en av studentene på "Just
1583 Think!"-bussen, kan visuelle bilder bli blandet med lyd og tekst.
1584 </p><p>
1585 But unlike any technology for simply capturing images, the Internet allows
1586 these creations to be shared with an extraordinary number of people,
1587 practically instantaneously. This is something new in our
1588 tradition&#8212;not just that culture can be captured mechanically, and
1589 obviously not just that events are commented upon critically, but that this
1590 mix of captured images, sound, and commentary can be widely spread
1591 practically instantaneously.
1592 </p><p>
1593 September 11 was not an aberration. It was a beginning. Around the same
1594 time, a form of communication that has grown dramatically was just beginning
1595 to come into public consciousness: the Web-log, or blog. The blog is a kind
1596 of public diary, and within some cultures, such as in Japan, it functions
1597 very much like a diary. In those cultures, it records private facts in a
1598 public way&#8212;it's a kind of electronic <em class="citetitle">Jerry
1599 Springer</em>, available anywhere in the world.
1600 </p><p>
1601 But in the United States, blogs have taken on a very different character.
1602 There are some who use the space simply to talk about their private
1603 life. But there are many who use the space to engage in public
1604 discourse. Discussing matters of public import, criticizing others who are
1605 mistaken in their views, criticizing politicians about the decisions they
1606 make, offering solutions to problems we all see: blogs create the sense of a
1607 virtual public meeting, but one in which we don't all hope to be there at
1608 the same time and in which conversations are not necessarily linked. The
1609 best of the blog entries are relatively short; they point directly to words
1610 used by others, criticizing with or adding to them.  They are arguably the
1611 most important form of unchoreographed public discourse that we have.
1612 </p><p>
1613
1614 That's a strong statement. Yet it says as much about our democracy as it
1615 does about blogs. This is the part of America that is most difficult for
1616 those of us who love America to accept: Our democracy has atrophied.  Of
1617 course we have elections, and most of the time the courts allow those
1618 elections to count. A relatively small number of people vote in those
1619 elections. The cycle of these elections has become totally professionalized
1620 and routinized. Most of us think this is democracy.
1621 </p><p>
1622 But democracy has never just been about elections. Democracy means rule by
1623 the people, but rule means something more than mere elections. In our
1624 tradition, it also means control through reasoned discourse.  This was the
1625 idea that captured the imagination of Alexis de Tocqueville, the
1626 nineteenth-century French lawyer who wrote the most important account of
1627 early "Democracy in America." It wasn't popular elections that fascinated
1628 him&#8212;it was the jury, an institution that gave ordinary people the
1629 right to choose life or death for other citizens.  And most fascinating for
1630 him was that the jury didn't just vote about the outcome they would
1631 impose. They deliberated. Members argued about the "right" result; they
1632 tried to persuade each other of the "right" result, and in criminal cases at
1633 least, they had to agree upon a unanimous result for the process to come to
1634 an end.<sup>[<a name="id2608668" href="#ftn.id2608668" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
1635 </p><p>
1636 Yet even this institution flags in American life today. And in its place,
1637 there is no systematic effort to enable citizen deliberation. Some are
1638 pushing to create just such an institution.<sup>[<a name="id2608755" href="#ftn.id2608755" class="footnote">41</a>]</sup> And in some towns in New England, something close to deliberation
1639 remains. But for most of us for most of the time, there is no time or place
1640 for "democratic deliberation" to occur.
1641 </p><p>
1642 More bizarrely, there is generally not even permission for it to occur.  We,
1643 the most powerful democracy in the world, have developed a strong norm
1644 against talking about politics. It's fine to talk about politics with people
1645 you agree with. But it is rude to argue about politics with people you
1646 disagree with. Political discourse becomes isolated, and isolated discourse
1647 becomes more extreme.<sup>[<a name="id2608780" href="#ftn.id2608780" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> We say what our
1648 friends want to hear, and hear very little beyond what our friends say.
1649 </p><p>
1650
1651 Enter the blog. The blog's very architecture solves one part of this
1652 problem. People post when they want to post, and people read when they want
1653 to read. The most difficult time is synchronous time.  Technologies that
1654 enable asynchronous communication, such as e-mail, increase the opportunity
1655 for communication. Blogs allow for public discourse without the public ever
1656 needing to gather in a single public place.
1657 </p><p>
1658 But beyond architecture, blogs also have solved the problem of
1659 norms. There's no norm (yet) in blog space not to talk about politics.
1660 Indeed, the space is filled with political speech, on both the right and the
1661 left. Some of the most popular sites are conservative or libertarian, but
1662 there are many of all political stripes. And even blogs that are not
1663 political cover political issues when the occasion merits.
1664 </p><p>
1665 Betydningene av disse bloggene er liten nå, men ikke ubetydelig. Navnet
1666 Howard Dean har i stor grad forsvunnet fra 2004-presidentvalgkampen bortsett
1667 fra hos noen få blogger.  Men selv om antallet lesere er lavt, så har det å
1668 lese dem en effekt. <a class="indexterm" name="id2608828"></a>
1669 </p><p>
1670 One direct effect is on stories that had a different life cycle in the
1671 mainstream media. The Trent Lott affair is an example. When Lott "misspoke"
1672 at a party for Senator Strom Thurmond, essentially praising Thurmond's
1673 segregationist policies, he calculated correctly that this story would
1674 disappear from the mainstream press within forty-eight hours. It did. But he
1675 didn't calculate its life cycle in blog space. The bloggers kept researching
1676 the story. Over time, more and more instances of the same "misspeaking"
1677 emerged. Finally, the story broke back into the mainstream press. In the
1678 end, Lott was forced to resign as senate majority leader.<sup>[<a name="id2608847" href="#ftn.id2608847" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2608855"></a>
1679 </p><p>
1680 Denne annerledes syklusen er mulig på grunn av at et tilsvarende kommersielt
1681 press ikke eksisterer hos blogger slik det gjør hos andre kanaler.
1682 Televisjon og aviser er kommersielle aktører.  De må arbeide for å holde på
1683 oppmerksomheten.  Hvis de mister lesere, så mister de inntekter.  Som haier,
1684 må de bevege seg videre.
1685 </p><p>
1686 But bloggers don't have a similar constraint. They can obsess, they can
1687 focus, they can get serious. If a particular blogger writes a particularly
1688 interesting story, more and more people link to that story. And as the
1689 number of links to a particular story increases, it rises in the ranks of
1690 stories. People read what is popular; what is popular has been selected by a
1691 very democratic process of peer-generated rankings.
1692 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinerdave"></a><p>
1693
1694 There's a second way, as well, in which blogs have a different cycle from
1695 the mainstream press. As Dave Winer, one of the fathers of this movement and
1696 a software author for many decades, told me, another difference is the
1697 absence of a financial "conflict of interest." "I think you have to take the
1698 conflict of interest" out of journalism, Winer told me.  "An amateur
1699 journalist simply doesn't have a conflict of interest, or the conflict of
1700 interest is so easily disclosed that you know you can sort of get it out of
1701 the way."
1702 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2608914"></a><p>
1703 These conflicts become more important as media becomes more concentrated
1704 (more on this below). A concentrated media can hide more from the public
1705 than an unconcentrated media can&#8212;as CNN admitted it did after the Iraq
1706 war because it was afraid of the consequences to its own
1707 employees.<sup>[<a name="id2608729" href="#ftn.id2608729" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> It also needs to sustain a
1708 more coherent account. (In the middle of the Iraq war, I read a post on the
1709 Internet from someone who was at that time listening to a satellite uplink
1710 with a reporter in Iraq. The New York headquarters was telling the reporter
1711 over and over that her account of the war was too bleak: She needed to offer
1712 a more optimistic story. When she told New York that wasn't warranted, they
1713 told her <span class="emphasis"><em>that</em></span> they were writing "the story.")
1714 </p><p> Blog space gives amateurs a way to enter the debate&#8212;"amateur" not in
1715 the sense of inexperienced, but in the sense of an Olympic athlete, meaning
1716 not paid by anyone to give their reports. It allows for a much broader range
1717 of input into a story, as reporting on the Columbia disaster revealed, when
1718 hundreds from across the southwest United States turned to the Internet to
1719 retell what they had seen.<sup>[<a name="id2608949" href="#ftn.id2608949" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> And it
1720 drives readers to read across the range of accounts and "triangulate," as
1721 Winer puts it, the truth. Blogs, Winer says, are "communicating directly
1722 with our constituency, and the middle man is out of it"&#8212;with all the
1723 benefits, and costs, that might entail.
1724 </p><p>
1725
1726 Winer is optimistic about the future of journalism infected with
1727 blogs. "It's going to become an essential skill," Winer predicts, for public
1728 figures and increasingly for private figures as well. It's not clear that
1729 "journalism" is happy about this&#8212;some journalists have been told to
1730 curtail their blogging.<sup>[<a name="id2608979" href="#ftn.id2608979" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> But it is clear
1731 that we are still in transition. "A lot of what we are doing now is warm-up
1732 exercises," Winer told me.  There is a lot that must mature before this
1733 space has its mature effect.  And as the inclusion of content in this space
1734 is the least infringing use of the Internet (meaning infringing on
1735 copyright), Winer said, "we will be the last thing that gets shut down."
1736 </p><p>
1737 This speech affects democracy. Winer thinks that happens because "you don't
1738 have to work for somebody who controls, [for] a gatekeeper." That is
1739 true. But it affects democracy in another way as well.  As more and more
1740 citizens express what they think, and defend it in writing, that will change
1741 the way people understand public issues. It is easy to be wrong and
1742 misguided in your head. It is harder when the product of your mind can be
1743 criticized by others. Of course, it is a rare human who admits that he has
1744 been persuaded that he is wrong. But it is even rarer for a human to ignore
1745 when he has been proven wrong.  The writing of ideas, arguments, and
1746 criticism improves democracy.  Today there are probably a couple of million
1747 blogs where such writing happens. When there are ten million, there will be
1748 something extraordinary to report.
1749 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2609059"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><p>
1750 John Seely Brown er sjefsforsker ved Xerox Corporation.  Hans arbeid, i
1751 følge hans eget nettsted, er "menneskelig læring og &#8230; å skape
1752 kunnskapsøkologier for å skape &#8230; innovasjon".
1753 </p><p>
1754 Brown ser dermed på disse teknologiene for digital kreativitet litt
1755 annerledes enn fra perspektivene jeg har skissert opp så langt.  Jeg er
1756 sikker på at han blir begeistret for enhver teknologi som kan forbedre
1757 demokratiet.  Men det han virkelig blir begeistret over er hvordan disse
1758 teknologiene påvirker læring.
1759 </p><p>
1760
1761 As Brown believes, we learn by tinkering. When "a lot of us grew up," he
1762 explains, that tinkering was done "on motorcycle engines, lawnmower engines,
1763 automobiles, radios, and so on." But digital technologies enable a different
1764 kind of tinkering&#8212;with abstract ideas though in concrete form. The
1765 kids at Just Think! not only think about how a commercial portrays a
1766 politician; using digital technology, they can take the commercial apart and
1767 manipulate it, tinker with it to see how it does what it does. Digital
1768 technologies launch a kind of bricolage, or "free collage," as Brown calls
1769 it. Many get to add to or transform the tinkering of many others.
1770 </p><p>
1771 Det beste eksemplet i større skala så langt på denne typen fikling er fri
1772 programvare og åpen kildekode (FS/OSS).  FS/OSS er programvare der
1773 kildekoden deles ut.  Alle kan laste ned teknologien som får et
1774 FS/OSS-program til å fungere.  Og enhver som har lyst til å lære hvordan en
1775 bestemt bit av FS/OSS-teknologi fungerer kan fikle med koden.
1776 </p><p>
1777 This opportunity creates a "completely new kind of learning platform," as
1778 Brown describes. "As soon as you start doing that, you &#8230; unleash a
1779 free collage on the community, so that other people can start looking at
1780 your code, tinkering with it, trying it out, seeing if they can improve it."
1781 Each effort is a kind of apprenticeship. "Open source becomes a major
1782 apprenticeship platform."
1783 </p><p>
1784 In this process, "the concrete things you tinker with are abstract.  They
1785 are code." Kids are "shifting to the ability to tinker in the abstract, and
1786 this tinkering is no longer an isolated activity that you're doing in your
1787 garage. You are tinkering with a community platform. &#8230; You are
1788 tinkering with other people's stuff. The more you tinker the more you
1789 improve." The more you improve, the more you learn.
1790 </p><p>
1791 Denne sammen tingen skjer også med innhold.  Og det skjer på samme
1792 samarbeidende måte når dette innholdet er del av nettet.  Som Brown
1793 formulerer det, "nettet er det første medium som virkelig tar hensyn til
1794 flere former for intelligens".  Tidligere teknologier, slik som skrivemaskin
1795 eller tekstbehandling, hjelper med å fremme tekst.  Men nettet fremmer mye
1796 mer enn tekst.  "Nettet &#8230; si hvis du er musikalsk, hvis du er
1797 kunstnerisk, hvis du er visuell, hvis du er interessert i film &#8230;da er
1798 det en masse du kan gå igang med på dette mediet.  Det kan fremme og ta
1799 hensyn til alle disse formene for intelligens."
1800 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2609178"></a><p>
1801
1802 Brown snakker om hva Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish Og Just Think! lærer
1803 bort: at denne fiklingen med kultur lærer såvel som den skaper. Den utvikler
1804 talenter litt anderledes, og den bygger en annen type gjenkjenning.
1805 </p><p>
1806 Likevel er friheten til å fikle med disse objektene ikke garantert. Faktisk,
1807 som vi vil se i løpet av denne boken, er den friheten i stadig større grad
1808 omstridt.  Mens det ikke er noe tvil om at din far hadde rett til å fikle
1809 med bilmotoren, så er det stor tvil om dine barn vil ha retten til å fikle
1810 med bilder som hun finner over alt. Loven, og teknologi i stadig større
1811 grad, forstyrrer friheten som teknolog, nysgjerrigheten, ellers ville sikre.
1812 </p><p>
1813 Disse begresningene har blitt fokusen for forskere og akademikere. Professor
1814 Ed Felten ved Princeton (som vi vil se mer fra i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>10</a>) har utviklet et
1815 kraftfylt argument til fordel for "retten til å fikle" slik det gjøres i
1816 informatikk og til kunnskap generelt.<sup>[<a name="id2609226" href="#ftn.id2609226" class="footnote">47</a>]</sup>
1817 Men bekymringen til Brown er tidligere, og mer fundamentalt.  Det handler om
1818 hva slags læring unger kan få, eller ikke kan få, på grunn av loven.
1819 </p><p>
1820 "Dette er dit utviklingen av utdanning i det tjueførste århundret er på
1821 vei", forklarer Brown.  Vi må "forstå hvordan unger som vokser opp digitalt
1822 tenker og ønsker å lære".
1823 </p><p>
1824 "Likevel", fortsatte Brown, og som balansen i denne boken vil føre bevis
1825 for, "bygger vi et juridisk system som fullstendig undertrykker den
1826 naturlige tendensen i dagens digitale unger. &#8230; We bygger en
1827 arkitektur som frigjør 60 prosent av hjernen [og] et juridisk system som
1828 stenger ned den delen av hjernen".
1829 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2609256"></a><p>
1830 Vi bygger en teknologi som tar magien til Kodak, mikser inn bevegelige
1831 bilder og lyd, og legger inn plass for kommentarer og en mulighet til å spre
1832 denne kreativiteten over alt.  Men vi bygger loven for å stenge ned denne
1833 teknologien.
1834 </p><p>
1835 "Ikke måten å drive en kultur på", sa Brewster Kahle, som vi møtte i
1836 kapittel <a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere">9</a>,
1837 kommenterte til meg i et sjeldent øyeblikk av nedstemthet.
1838 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2607695" href="#id2607695" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
1839
1840
1841 Reese V. Jenkins, <em class="citetitle">Images and Enterprise</em> (Baltimore:
1842 Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 112.
1843 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2605201" href="#id2605201" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
1844
1845 Brian Coe, <em class="citetitle">The Birth of Photography</em> (New York:
1846 Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2607748"></a>
1847 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2607774" href="#id2607774" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
1848
1849
1850 Jenkins, 177.
1851 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2607784" href="#id2607784" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
1852
1853
1854 Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178.
1855 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2607726" href="#id2607726" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
1856
1857
1858 Coe, 58.
1859 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2607874" href="#id2607874" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
1860
1861
1862 For illustrerende saker, se for eksempel, <em class="citetitle">Pavesich</em>
1863 mot <em class="citetitle">N.E. Life Ins. Co</em>., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905);
1864 <em class="citetitle">Foster-Milburn Co</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Chinn</em>,
1865 123090 S.W. 364, 366 (Ky. 1909); <em class="citetitle">Corliss</em> mot
1866 <em class="citetitle">Walker</em>, 64 F. 280 (Mass.  Dist. Ct. 1894).
1867 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2607941" href="#id2607941" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
1868
1869 Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy,"
1870 <em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2607950"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2607958"></a>
1871 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2607993" href="#id2607993" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
1872
1873
1874 Se Melville B. Nimmer, "The Right of Publicity," <em class="citetitle">Law and
1875 Contemporary Problems</em> 19 (1954): 203; William L. Prosser,
1876 "Privacy," <em class="citetitle">California Law Review</em> 48 (1960)
1877 398&#8211;407; <em class="citetitle">White</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Samsung
1878 Electronics America, Inc</em>., 971 F.  2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992),
1879 sert. nektet, 508 U.S. 951 (1993).
1880 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2608145" href="#id2608145" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
1881
1882
1883 H. Edward Goldberg, "Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and Software You
1884 Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations," cadalyst, februar 2002,
1885 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #7</a>.
1886 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2608214" href="#id2608214" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
1887
1888
1889 Judith Van Evra, <em class="citetitle">Television and Child Development</em>
1890 (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); "Findings on Family
1891 and TV Study," <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25. mai 1997, B6.
1892 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2608178" href="#id2608178" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
1893
1894 Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002.
1895 <a class="indexterm" name="id2608303"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2608311"></a>
1896 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2608327" href="#id2608327" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
1897
1898
1899 Se Scott Steinberg, "Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs," E!online, 4. november
1900 2000, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
1901 #8</a>; "Timeline," 22. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #9</a>.
1902 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2608419" href="#id2608419" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
1903
1904 Intervju med Daley og Barish.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2608426"></a>
1905 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2608438" href="#id2608438" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
1906
1907
1908 ibid.
1909 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2608668" href="#id2608668" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
1910
1911
1912 Se for eksempel Alexis de Tocqueville, <em class="citetitle">Democracy in
1913 America</em>, bk. 1, overs.  Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books,
1914 2000), kap. 16.
1915 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2608755" href="#id2608755" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
1916
1917
1918 Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin, "Deliberation Day," <em class="citetitle">Journal of
1919 Political Philosophy</em> 10 (2) (2002): 129.
1920 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2608780" href="#id2608780" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
1921
1922
1923 Cass Sunstein, <em class="citetitle">Republic.com</em> (Princeton: Princeton
1924 University Press, 2001), 65&#8211;80, 175, 182, 183, 192.
1925 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2608847" href="#id2608847" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
1926
1927
1928 Noah Shachtman, "With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the Pot," New York
1929 Times, 16 January 2003, G5.
1930 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2608729" href="#id2608729" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
1931
1932
1933 Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003.
1934 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2608949" href="#id2608949" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
1935
1936
1937 John Schwartz, "Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of Information
1938 Online," <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 2 februar 2003, A28; Staci
1939 D. Kramer, "Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but Strong Overall," Online
1940 Journalism Review, 2. februar 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #10</a>.
1941 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2608979" href="#id2608979" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
1942
1943 See Michael Falcone, "Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?"
1944 <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 29 September 2003, C4. ("Not all news
1945 organizations have been as accepting of employees who blog. Kevin Sites, a
1946 CNN correspondent in Iraq who started a blog about his reporting of the war
1947 on March 9, stopped posting 12 days later at his bosses' request. Last year
1948 Steve Olafson, a <em class="citetitle">Houston Chronicle</em> reporter, was
1949 fired for keeping a personal Web log, published under a pseudonym, that
1950 dealt with some of the issues and people he was covering.")  <a class="indexterm" name="id2609011"></a>
1951 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2609226" href="#id2609226" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
1952
1953
1954 Se for eksempel, Edward Felten og Andrew Appel, "Technological Access
1955 Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,"
1956 <em class="citetitle">Communications of the Association for Computer
1957 Machinery</em> 43 (2000): 9.
1958 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Kapittel 3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger</h2></div></div></div><p>
1959 Høsten 2001, ble Jesse Jordan fra Oceanside, New York, innrullert som
1960 førsteårsstudent ved Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, i Troy, New York.
1961 Hans studieprogram ved RPI var informasjonsteknologi.  Selv om han ikke var
1962 en programmerer, bestemte Jesse seg i oktober å begynne å fikle med en
1963 søkemotorteknologi som var tilgjengelig på RPI-nettverket.
1964 </p><p>
1965 RPI is one of America's foremost technological research institutions.  It
1966 offers degrees in fields ranging from architecture and engineering to
1967 information sciences. More than 65 percent of its five thousand
1968 undergraduates finished in the top 10 percent of their high school
1969 class. The school is thus a perfect mix of talent and experience to imagine
1970 and then build, a generation for the network age.
1971 </p><p>
1972 RPI's computer network links students, faculty, and administration to one
1973 another. It also links RPI to the Internet. Not everything available on the
1974 RPI network is available on the Internet. But the network is designed to
1975 enable students to get access to the Internet, as well as more intimate
1976 access to other members of the RPI community.
1977 </p><p>
1978
1979 Search engines are a measure of a network's intimacy. Google brought the
1980 Internet much closer to all of us by fantastically improving the quality of
1981 search on the network. Specialty search engines can do this even better. The
1982 idea of "intranet" search engines, search engines that search within the
1983 network of a particular institution, is to provide users of that institution
1984 with better access to material from that institution.  Businesses do this
1985 all the time, enabling employees to have access to material that people
1986 outside the business can't get. Universities do it as well.
1987 </p><p>
1988 These engines are enabled by the network technology itself.  Microsoft, for
1989 example, has a network file system that makes it very easy for search
1990 engines tuned to that network to query the system for information about the
1991 publicly (within that network) available content.  Jesse's search engine was
1992 built to take advantage of this technology. It used Microsoft's network file
1993 system to build an index of all the files available within the RPI network.
1994 </p><p>
1995 Jesse's wasn't the first search engine built for the RPI network.  Indeed,
1996 his engine was a simple modification of engines that others had built. His
1997 single most important improvement over those engines was to fix a bug within
1998 the Microsoft file-sharing system that could cause a user's computer to
1999 crash. With the engines that existed before, if you tried to access a file
2000 through a Windows browser that was on a computer that was off-line, your
2001 computer could crash. Jesse modified the system a bit to fix that problem,
2002 by adding a button that a user could click to see if the machine holding the
2003 file was still on-line.
2004 </p><p>
2005 Jesse's engine went on-line in late October. Over the following six months,
2006 he continued to tweak it to improve its functionality. By March, the system
2007 was functioning quite well. Jesse had more than one million files in his
2008 directory, including every type of content that might be on users'
2009 computers.
2010 </p><p>
2011
2012 Thus the index his search engine produced included pictures, which students
2013 could use to put on their own Web sites; copies of notes or research; copies
2014 of information pamphlets; movie clips that students might have created;
2015 university brochures&#8212;basically anything that users of the RPI network
2016 made available in a public folder of their computer.
2017 </p><p>
2018 But the index also included music files. In fact, one quarter of the files
2019 that Jesse's search engine listed were music files. But that means, of
2020 course, that three quarters were not, and&#8212;so that this point is
2021 absolutely clear&#8212;Jesse did nothing to induce people to put music files
2022 in their public folders. He did nothing to target the search engine to these
2023 files. He was a kid tinkering with a Google-like technology at a university
2024 where he was studying information science, and hence, tinkering was the
2025 aim. Unlike Google, or Microsoft, for that matter, he made no money from
2026 this tinkering; he was not connected to any business that would make any
2027 money from this experiment. He was a kid tinkering with technology in an
2028 environment where tinkering with technology was precisely what he was
2029 supposed to do.
2030 </p><p>
2031 On April 3, 2003, Jesse was contacted by the dean of students at RPI. The
2032 dean informed Jesse that the Recording Industry Association of America, the
2033 RIAA, would be filing a lawsuit against him and three other students whom he
2034 didn't even know, two of them at other universities.  A few hours later,
2035 Jesse was served with papers from the suit.  As he read these papers and
2036 watched the news reports about them, he was increasingly astonished.
2037 </p><p>
2038 "It was absurd," he told me. "I don't think I did anything wrong. &#8230; I
2039 don't think there's anything wrong with the search engine that I ran or
2040 &#8230; what I had done to it. I mean, I hadn't modified it in any way that
2041 promoted or enhanced the work of pirates. I just modified the search engine
2042 in a way that would make it easier to use"&#8212;again, a <span class="emphasis"><em>search
2043 engine</em></span>, which Jesse had not himself built, using the Windows
2044 filesharing system, which Jesse had not himself built, to enable members of
2045 the RPI community to get access to content, which Jesse had not himself
2046 created or posted, and the vast majority of which had nothing to do with
2047 music.
2048 </p><p>
2049
2050 But the RIAA branded Jesse a pirate. They claimed he operated a network and
2051 had therefore "willfully" violated copyright laws. They demanded that he pay
2052 them the damages for his wrong. For cases of "willful infringement," the
2053 Copyright Act specifies something lawyers call "statutory damages." These
2054 damages permit a copyright owner to claim $150,000 per infringement. As the
2055 RIAA alleged more than one hundred specific copyright infringements, they
2056 therefore demanded that Jesse pay them at least $15,000,000.
2057 </p><p>
2058 Similar lawsuits were brought against three other students: one other
2059 student at RPI, one at Michigan Technical University, and one at
2060 Princeton. Their situations were similar to Jesse's. Though each case was
2061 different in detail, the bottom line in each was exactly the same: huge
2062 demands for "damages" that the RIAA claimed it was entitled to.  If you
2063 added up the claims, these four lawsuits were asking courts in the United
2064 States to award the plaintiffs close to $100
2065 <span class="emphasis"><em>billion</em></span>&#8212;six times the <span class="emphasis"><em>total</em></span>
2066 profit of the film industry in 2001.<sup>[<a name="id2609485" href="#ftn.id2609485" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
2067 </p><p>
2068 Jesse called his parents. They were supportive but a bit frightened.  An
2069 uncle was a lawyer. He began negotiations with the RIAA. They demanded to
2070 know how much money Jesse had. Jesse had saved $12,000 from summer jobs and
2071 other employment. They demanded $12,000 to dismiss the case.
2072 </p><p>
2073 The RIAA wanted Jesse to admit to doing something wrong. He refused. They
2074 wanted him to agree to an injunction that would essentially make it
2075 impossible for him to work in many fields of technology for the rest of his
2076 life. He refused. They made him understand that this process of being sued
2077 was not going to be pleasant. (As Jesse's father recounted to me, the chief
2078 lawyer on the case, Matt Oppenheimer, told Jesse, "You don't want to pay
2079 another visit to a dentist like me.") And throughout, the RIAA insisted it
2080 would not settle the case until it took every penny Jesse had saved.
2081 </p><p>
2082
2083 Jesse's family was outraged at these claims. They wanted to fight.  But
2084 Jesse's uncle worked to educate the family about the nature of the American
2085 legal system. Jesse could fight the RIAA. He might even win. But the cost of
2086 fighting a lawsuit like this, Jesse was told, would be at least $250,000. If
2087 he won, he would not recover that money. If he won, he would have a piece of
2088 paper saying he had won, and a piece of paper saying he and his family were
2089 bankrupt.
2090 </p><p>
2091 Så Jesse hadde et mafia-lignende valg: $250,000 og en sjanse til å vinne,
2092 eller $12.000 og et forlik.
2093 </p><p>
2094 The recording industry insists this is a matter of law and morality.  Let's
2095 put the law aside for a moment and think about the morality.  Where is the
2096 morality in a lawsuit like this? What is the virtue in scapegoatism? The
2097 RIAA is an extraordinarily powerful lobby. The president of the RIAA is
2098 reported to make more than $1 million a year.  Artists, on the other hand,
2099 are not well paid. The average recording artist makes $45,900.<sup>[<a name="id2609549" href="#ftn.id2609549" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> There are plenty of ways for the RIAA to affect and
2100 direct policy. So where is the morality in taking money from a student for
2101 running a search engine?<sup>[<a name="id2609564" href="#ftn.id2609564" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
2102 </p><p>
2103 23. juni overførte Jesse alle sine oppsparte midler til advokaten som jobbet
2104 for RIA.  Saken mot ham ble trukket.  Og med dette, ble unggutten som hadde
2105 fiklet med en datamaskin og blitt saksøkt for 15 millioner dollar en
2106 aktivist:
2107 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2108 I was definitely not an activist [before]. I never really meant to be an
2109 activist. &#8230; [But] I've been pushed into this. In no way did I ever
2110 foresee anything like this, but I think it's just completely absurd what the
2111 RIAA has done.
2112 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2113 Jesse's parents betray a certain pride in their reluctant activist. As his
2114 father told me, Jesse "considers himself very conservative, and so do
2115 I. &#8230; He's not a tree hugger. &#8230; I think it's bizarre that they
2116 would pick on him. But he wants to let people know that they're sending the
2117 wrong message. And he wants to correct the record."
2118 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2609485" href="#id2609485" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
2119
2120
2121
2122 Tim Goral, "Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks: Suit
2123 Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages," <em class="citetitle">Professional Media Group
2124 LCC</em> 6 (2003): 5, tilgjengelig fra 2003 WL 55179443.
2125 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2609549" href="#id2609549" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
2126
2127
2128 Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001)
2129 (27&#8211;2042&#8212;Musicians and Singers). See also National Endowment for
2130 the Arts, <em class="citetitle">More Than One in a Blue Moon</em> (2000).
2131 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2609564" href="#id2609564" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
2132
2133
2134 Douglas Lichtman kommer med et relatert poeng i "KaZaA and Punishment,"
2135 <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 10. september 2003, A24.
2136 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title='Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: "Pirater"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: "Pirater"</h2></div></div></div><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></div><p>
2137 If "piracy" means using the creative property of others without their
2138 permission&#8212;if "if value, then right" is true&#8212;then the history of
2139 the content industry is a history of piracy. Every important sector of "big
2140 media" today&#8212;film, records, radio, and cable TV&#8212;was born of a
2141 kind of piracy so defined. The consistent story is how last generation's
2142 pirates join this generation's country club&#8212;until now.
2143 </p><div class="section" title="Film"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="film"></a>Film</h2></div></div></div><p>
2144
2145 The film industry of Hollywood was built by fleeing pirates.<sup>[<a name="id2609644" href="#ftn.id2609644" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> Creators and directors migrated from the East Coast
2146 to California in the early twentieth century in part to escape controls that
2147 patents granted the inventor of filmmaking, Thomas Edison. These controls
2148 were exercised through a monopoly "trust," the Motion Pictures Patents
2149 Company, and were based on Thomas Edison's creative property&#8212;patents.
2150 Edison formed the MPPC to exercise the rights this creative property gave
2151 him, and the MPPC was serious about the control it demanded.
2152 </p><p>
2153 As one commentator tells one part of the story,
2154 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2155 A January 1909 deadline was set for all companies to comply with the
2156 license. By February, unlicensed outlaws, who referred to themselves as
2157 independents protested the trust and carried on business without submitting
2158 to the Edison monopoly. In the summer of 1909 the independent movement was
2159 in full-swing, with producers and theater owners using illegal equipment and
2160 imported film stock to create their own underground market.
2161 </p><p>
2162 With the country experiencing a tremendous expansion in the number of
2163 nickelodeons, the Patents Company reacted to the independent movement by
2164 forming a strong-arm subsidiary known as the General Film Company to block
2165 the entry of non-licensed independents. With coercive tactics that have
2166 become legendary, General Film confiscated unlicensed equipment,
2167 discontinued product supply to theaters which showed unlicensed films, and
2168 effectively monopolized distribution with the acquisition of all U.S. film
2169 exchanges, except for the one owned by the independent William Fox who
2170 defied the Trust even after his license was revoked.<sup>[<a name="id2609702" href="#ftn.id2609702" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2609734"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2609741"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2609747"></a>
2171 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2172 The Napsters of those days, the "independents," were companies like Fox. And
2173 no less than today, these independents were vigorously resisted.  "Shooting
2174 was disrupted by machinery stolen, and `accidents' resulting in loss of
2175 negatives, equipment, buildings and sometimes life and limb frequently
2176 occurred."<sup>[<a name="id2609763" href="#ftn.id2609763" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> That led the independents to
2177 flee the East Coast. California was remote enough from Edison's reach that
2178 filmmakers there could pirate his inventions without fear of the law. And
2179 the leaders of Hollywood filmmaking, Fox most prominently, did just that.
2180 </p><p>
2181
2182 California vokste naturligvis raskt, og effektiv håndhevelse av føderale
2183 lover spredte seg til slutt vestover.  Men fordi patenter tildeler
2184 patentinnehaveren et i sannhet "begrenset" monopol (kun sytten år på den
2185 tiden), så patentene var utgått før nok føderale lovmenn dukket opp. En ny
2186 industri var født, delvis fra piratvirksomhet mot Edison's kreative
2187 rettigheter.
2188 </p></div><div class="section" title="Innspilt musikk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="recordedmusic"></a>Innspilt musikk</h2></div></div></div><p>
2189 Plateindustrien ble født av en annen type piratvirksomhet, dog for å forstå
2190 hvordan krever at en setter seg inn i detaljer om hvordan loven regulerer
2191 musikk.
2192 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><p>
2193 At the time that Edison and Henri Fourneaux invented machines for
2194 reproducing music (Edison the phonograph, Fourneaux the player piano), the
2195 law gave composers the exclusive right to control copies of their music and
2196 the exclusive right to control public performances of their music. In other
2197 words, in 1900, if I wanted a copy of Phil Russel's 1899 hit "Happy Mose,"
2198 the law said I would have to pay for the right to get a copy of the musical
2199 score, and I would also have to pay for the right to perform it publicly.
2200 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2609844"></a><p>
2201 But what if I wanted to record "Happy Mose," using Edison's phonograph or
2202 Fourneaux's player piano? Here the law stumbled. It was clear enough that I
2203 would have to buy any copy of the musical score that I performed in making
2204 this recording. And it was clear enough that I would have to pay for any
2205 public performance of the work I was recording.  But it wasn't totally clear
2206 that I would have to pay for a "public performance" if I recorded the song
2207 in my own house (even today, you don't owe the Beatles anything if you sing
2208 their songs in the shower), or if I recorded the song from memory (copies in
2209 your brain are not&#8212;yet&#8212; regulated by copyright law). So if I
2210 simply sang the song into a recording device in the privacy of my own home,
2211 it wasn't clear that I owed the composer anything. And more importantly, it
2212 wasn't clear whether I owed the composer anything if I then made copies of
2213 those recordings.  Because of this gap in the law, then, I could effectively
2214 pirate someone else's song without paying its composer anything.
2215 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2609852"></a><p>
2216 The composers (and publishers) were none too happy about this capacity to
2217 pirate. As South Dakota senator Alfred Kittredge put it, <a class="indexterm" name="id2609886"></a>
2218 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2219 Imagine the injustice of the thing. A composer writes a song or an opera. A
2220 publisher buys at great expense the rights to the same and copyrights
2221 it. Along come the phonographic companies and companies who cut music rolls
2222 and deliberately steal the work of the brain of the composer and publisher
2223 without any regard for [their] rights.<sup>[<a name="id2609905" href="#ftn.id2609905" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
2224 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2225 The innovators who developed the technology to record other people's works
2226 were "sponging upon the toil, the work, the talent, and genius of American
2227 composers,"<sup>[<a name="id2609937" href="#ftn.id2609937" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> and the "music publishing
2228 industry" was thereby "at the complete mercy of this one
2229 pirate."<sup>[<a name="id2609947" href="#ftn.id2609947" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> As John Philip Sousa put it,
2230 in as direct a way as possible, "When they make money out of my pieces, I
2231 want a share of it."<sup>[<a name="id2609958" href="#ftn.id2609958" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
2232 </p><p>
2233 These arguments have familiar echoes in the wars of our day. So, too, do the
2234 arguments on the other side. The innovators who developed the player piano
2235 argued that "it is perfectly demonstrable that the introduction of automatic
2236 music players has not deprived any composer of anything he had before their
2237 introduction." Rather, the machines increased the sales of sheet
2238 music.<sup>[<a name="id2609976" href="#ftn.id2609976" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> In any case, the innovators
2239 argued, the job of Congress was "to consider first the interest of [the
2240 public], whom they represent, and whose servants they are." "All talk about
2241 `theft,'" the general counsel of the American Graphophone Company wrote, "is
2242 the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in ideas musical, literary
2243 or artistic, except as defined by statute."<sup>[<a name="id2609982" href="#ftn.id2609982" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2610001"></a>
2244 </p><p>
2245
2246 The law soon resolved this battle in favor of the composer
2247 <span class="emphasis"><em>and</em></span> the recording artist. Congress amended the law to
2248 make sure that composers would be paid for the "mechanical reproductions" of
2249 their music. But rather than simply granting the composer complete control
2250 over the right to make mechanical reproductions, Congress gave recording
2251 artists a right to record the music, at a price set by Congress, once the
2252 composer allowed it to be recorded once. This is the part of copyright law
2253 that makes cover songs possible. Once a composer authorizes a recording of
2254 his song, others are free to record the same song, so long as they pay the
2255 original composer a fee set by the law.
2256 </p><p>
2257 American law ordinarily calls this a "compulsory license," but I will refer
2258 to it as a "statutory license." A statutory license is a license whose key
2259 terms are set by law. After Congress's amendment of the Copyright Act in
2260 1909, record companies were free to distribute copies of recordings so long
2261 as they paid the composer (or copyright holder)  the fee set by the statute.
2262 </p><p>
2263 This is an exception within the law of copyright. When John Grisham writes a
2264 novel, a publisher is free to publish that novel only if Grisham gives the
2265 publisher permission. Grisham, in turn, is free to charge whatever he wants
2266 for that permission. The price to publish Grisham is thus set by Grisham,
2267 and copyright law ordinarily says you have no permission to use Grisham's
2268 work except with permission of Grisham.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2610047"></a>
2269 </p><p>
2270 But the law governing recordings gives recording artists less. And thus, in
2271 effect, the law <span class="emphasis"><em>subsidizes</em></span> the recording industry
2272 through a kind of piracy&#8212;by giving recording artists a weaker right
2273 than it otherwise gives creative authors. The Beatles have less control over
2274 their creative work than Grisham does. And the beneficiaries of this less
2275 control are the recording industry and the public. The recording industry
2276 gets something of value for less than it otherwise would pay; the public
2277 gets access to a much wider range of musical creativity. Indeed, Congress
2278 was quite explicit about its reasons for granting this right. Its fear was
2279 the monopoly power of rights holders, and that that power would stifle
2280 follow-on creativity.<sup>[<a name="id2609668" href="#ftn.id2609668" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2610088"></a>
2281 </p><p>
2282 While the recording industry has been quite coy about this recently,
2283 historically it has been quite a supporter of the statutory license for
2284 records. As a 1967 report from the House Committee on the Judiciary relates,
2285 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2286 the record producers argued vigorously that the compulsory license system
2287 must be retained. They asserted that the record industry is a
2288 half-billion-dollar business of great economic importance in the United
2289 States and throughout the world; records today are the principal means of
2290 disseminating music, and this creates special problems, since performers
2291 need unhampered access to musical material on nondiscriminatory
2292 terms. Historically, the record producers pointed out, there were no
2293 recording rights before 1909 and the 1909 statute adopted the compulsory
2294 license as a deliberate anti-monopoly condition on the grant of these
2295 rights. They argue that the result has been an outpouring of recorded music,
2296 with the public being given lower prices, improved quality, and a greater
2297 choice.<sup>[<a name="id2610120" href="#ftn.id2610120" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
2298 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2299 By limiting the rights musicians have, by partially pirating their creative
2300 work, the record producers, and the public, benefit.
2301 </p></div><div class="section" title="Radio"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="radio"></a>Radio</h2></div></div></div><p>
2302 Radio was also born of piracy.
2303 </p><p>
2304 When a radio station plays a record on the air, that constitutes a "public
2305 performance" of the composer's work.<sup>[<a name="id2610157" href="#ftn.id2610157" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> As
2306 I described above, the law gives the composer (or copyright holder)  an
2307 exclusive right to public performances of his work. The radio station thus
2308 owes the composer money for that performance.
2309 </p><p>
2310
2311 But when the radio station plays a record, it is not only performing a copy
2312 of the <span class="emphasis"><em>composer's</em></span> work. The radio station is also
2313 performing a copy of the <span class="emphasis"><em>recording artist's</em></span> work. It's
2314 one thing to have "Happy Birthday" sung on the radio by the local children's
2315 choir; it's quite another to have it sung by the Rolling Stones or Lyle
2316 Lovett. The recording artist is adding to the value of the composition
2317 performed on the radio station.  And if the law were perfectly consistent,
2318 the radio station would have to pay the recording artist for his work, just
2319 as it pays the composer of the music for his work.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2610223"></a>
2320
2321
2322 </p><p>
2323 But it doesn't. Under the law governing radio performances, the radio
2324 station does not have to pay the recording artist. The radio station need
2325 only pay the composer. The radio station thus gets a bit of something for
2326 nothing. It gets to perform the recording artist's work for free, even if it
2327 must pay the composer something for the privilege of playing the song.
2328 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmadonna"></a><p>
2329 This difference can be huge. Imagine you compose a piece of music.  Imagine
2330 it is your first. You own the exclusive right to authorize public
2331 performances of that music. So if Madonna wants to sing your song in public,
2332 she has to get your permission.
2333 </p><p>
2334 Imagine she does sing your song, and imagine she likes it a lot. She then
2335 decides to make a recording of your song, and it becomes a top hit. Under
2336 our law, every time a radio station plays your song, you get some money. But
2337 Madonna gets nothing, save the indirect effect on the sale of her CDs. The
2338 public performance of her recording is not a "protected" right. The radio
2339 station thus gets to <span class="emphasis"><em>pirate</em></span> the value of Madonna's work
2340 without paying her anything.
2341 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2610274"></a><p>
2342 No doubt, one might argue that, on balance, the recording artists
2343 benefit. On average, the promotion they get is worth more than the
2344 performance rights they give up. Maybe. But even if so, the law ordinarily
2345 gives the creator the right to make this choice. By making the choice for
2346 him or her, the law gives the radio station the right to take something for
2347 nothing.
2348 </p></div><div class="section" title="Kabel-TV"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>Kabel-TV</h2></div></div></div><p>
2349
2350 Cable TV was also born of a kind of piracy.
2351 </p><p>
2352
2353 When cable entrepreneurs first started wiring communities with cable
2354 television in 1948, most refused to pay broadcasters for the content that
2355 they echoed to their customers. Even when the cable companies started
2356 selling access to television broadcasts, they refused to pay for what they
2357 sold. Cable companies were thus Napsterizing broadcasters' content, but more
2358 egregiously than anything Napster ever did&#8212; Napster never charged for
2359 the content it enabled others to give away.
2360 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2610308"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2610324"></a><p>
2361 Broadcasters and copyright owners were quick to attack this theft.  Rosel
2362 Hyde, chairman of the FCC, viewed the practice as a kind of "unfair and
2363 potentially destructive competition."<sup>[<a name="id2610336" href="#ftn.id2610336" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup>
2364 There may have been a "public interest" in spreading the reach of cable TV,
2365 but as Douglas Anello, general counsel to the National Association of
2366 Broadcasters, asked Senator Quentin Burdick during testimony, "Does public
2367 interest dictate that you use somebody else's property?"<sup>[<a name="id2610352" href="#ftn.id2610352" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> As another broadcaster put it,
2368 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2369 The extraordinary thing about the CATV business is that it is the only
2370 business I know of where the product that is being sold is not paid
2371 for.<sup>[<a name="id2610369" href="#ftn.id2610369" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
2372 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2373 Igjen, kravene til opphavsrettsinnehaverne virket rimelige nok:
2374 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2375 Alt vi ber om er en veldig enkel ting, at folk som tar vår eiendom gratis
2376 betaler for den.  Vi forsøker å stoppe piratvirksomhet og jeg kan ikke tenke
2377 på et svakere ord for å beskrive det.  Jeg tror det er sterkere ord som
2378 ville passe.<sup>[<a name="id2610397" href="#ftn.id2610397" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
2379 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2380 Disse var "gratispassasjerer", sa presidenten Charlton Heston i Screen
2381 Actor's Guild, som "tok lønna fra skuespillerne"<sup>[<a name="id2610415" href="#ftn.id2610415" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
2382 </p><p>
2383 Men igjen, det er en annen side i debatten.  Som assisterende justisminister
2384 Edwin Zimmerman sa det,
2385 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2386 Our point here is that unlike the problem of whether you have any copyright
2387 protection at all, the problem here is whether copyright holders who are
2388 already compensated, who already have a monopoly, should be permitted to
2389 extend that monopoly. &#8230; The question here is how much compensation
2390 they should have and how far back they should carry their right to
2391 compensation.<sup>[<a name="id2609593" href="#ftn.id2609593" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2610459"></a>
2392 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2393 Opphavsrettinnehaverne tok kabelselskapene til retten. Høyesterett fant to
2394 ganger at kabelselskaper ikke skyldte opphavsrettinnehaverne noen ting.
2395 </p><p>
2396 It took Congress almost thirty years before it resolved the question of
2397 whether cable companies had to pay for the content they "pirated." In the
2398 end, Congress resolved this question in the same way that it resolved the
2399 question about record players and player pianos. Yes, cable companies would
2400 have to pay for the content that they broadcast; but the price they would
2401 have to pay was not set by the copyright owner.  The price was set by law,
2402 so that the broadcasters couldn't exercise veto power over the emerging
2403 technologies of cable. Cable companies thus built their empire in part upon
2404 a "piracy" of the value created by broadcasters' content.
2405 </p><p>
2406 These separate stories sing a common theme. If "piracy" means using value
2407 from someone else's creative property without permission from that
2408 creator&#8212;as it is increasingly described today<sup>[<a name="id2610448" href="#ftn.id2610448" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup> &#8212; then <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> industry
2409 affected by copyright today is the product and beneficiary of a certain kind
2410 of piracy. Film, records, radio, cable TV. &#8230; The list is long and
2411 could well be expanded. Every generation welcomes the pirates from the
2412 last. Every generation&#8212;until now.
2413 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2609644" href="#id2609644" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
2414
2415 I am grateful to Peter DiMauro for pointing me to this extraordinary
2416 history. See also Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
2417 Copywrongs</em>, 87&#8211;93, which details Edison's "adventures"
2418 with copyright and patent.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2609555"></a>
2419 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2609702" href="#id2609702" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
2420
2421
2422 J. A. Aberdeen, <em class="citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent
2423 Motion Picture Producers</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) and
2424 expanded texts posted at "The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion Picture
2425 Patents Company vs. the Independent Outlaws," available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #11</a>. For a discussion of
2426 the economic motive behind both these limits and the limits imposed by
2427 Victor on phonographs, see Randal C. Picker, "From Edison to the Broadcast
2428 Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of Copyright"
2429 (September 2002), University of Chicago Law School, James M. Olin Program in
2430 Law and Economics, Working Paper No. 159.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2609763" href="#id2609763" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
2431
2432
2433 Marc Wanamaker, "The First Studios," <em class="citetitle">The Silents
2434 Majority</em>, arkivert på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #12</a>.
2435 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2609905" href="#id2609905" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
2436
2437 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright: Hearings on S. 6330
2438 and H.R. 19853 Before the ( Joint) Committees on Patents, 59th Cong. 59, 1st
2439 sess. (1906) (statement of Senator Alfred B. Kittredge, of South Dakota,
2440 chairman), reprinted in <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the Copyright
2441 Act</em>, E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South
2442 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2609919"></a>
2443 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2609937" href="#id2609937" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
2444
2445
2446 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223 (statement of
2447 Nathan Burkan, attorney for the Music Publishers Association).
2448 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2609947" href="#id2609947" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
2449
2450
2451 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (statement of
2452 Nathan Burkan, attorney for the Music Publishers Association).
2453 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2609958" href="#id2609958" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
2454
2455
2456 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (statement of
2457 John Philip Sousa, composer).
2458 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2609976" href="#id2609976" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
2459
2460
2461
2462 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283&#8211;84
2463 (statement of Albert Walker, representative of the Auto-Music Perforating
2464 Company of New York).
2465 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2609982" href="#id2609982" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
2466
2467
2468 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 376 (prepared
2469 memorandum of Philip Mauro, general patent counsel of the American
2470 Graphophone Company Association).
2471 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2609668" href="#id2609668" class="para">60</a>] </sup>
2472
2473
2474
2475 Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on S. 2499, S. 2900, H.R. 243, and
2476 H.R. 11794 Before the ( Joint) Committee on Patents, 60th Cong., 1st sess.,
2477 217 (1908) (statement of Senator Reed Smoot, chairman), reprinted in
2478 <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act</em>,
2479 E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman
2480 Reprints, 1976).
2481 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2610120" href="#id2610120" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
2482
2483
2484 Copyright Law Revision: Report to Accompany H.R. 2512, House Committee on
2485 the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 1st sess., House Document no. 83, (8 March
2486 1967). I am grateful to Glenn Brown for drawing my attention to this report.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2610157" href="#id2610157" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
2487
2488 See 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, sections 106 and 110. At
2489 the beginning, record companies printed "Not Licensed for Radio Broadcast"
2490 and other messages purporting to restrict the ability to play a record on a
2491 radio station.  Judge Learned Hand rejected the argument that a warning
2492 attached to a record might restrict the rights of the radio station. See
2493 <em class="citetitle">RCA Manufacturing
2494 Co</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Whiteman</em>, 114 F. 2d 86 (2nd
2495 Cir. 1940). See also Randal C.  Picker, "From Edison to the Broadcast Flag:
2496 Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of Copyright,"
2497 <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 281.
2498 <a class="indexterm" name="id2610182"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2610190"></a>
2499 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2610336" href="#id2610336" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
2500
2501
2502 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV: Hearing on S. 1006 Before the
2503 Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee
2504 on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 78 (1966)  (statement of Rosel
2505 H. Hyde, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission).
2506 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2610352" href="#id2610352" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
2507
2508
2509 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 116 (statement of Douglas A. Anello,
2510 general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters).
2511 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2610369" href="#id2610369" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
2512
2513
2514 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 126 (statement of Ernest W. Jennes,
2515 general counsel of the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.).
2516 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2610397" href="#id2610397" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
2517
2518
2519 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 169 (joint statement of Arthur B.  Krim,
2520 president of United Artists Corp., and John Sinn, president of United
2521 Artists Television, Inc.).
2522 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2610415" href="#id2610415" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
2523
2524
2525 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 209 (vitnemål fra Charlton Heston,
2526 president i Screen Actors Guild).
2527 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2609593" href="#id2609593" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
2528
2529 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 216 (statement of Edwin M.  Zimmerman,
2530 acting assistant attorney general).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2610420"></a>
2531 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2610448" href="#id2610448" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
2532
2533
2534 See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The
2535 Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet&#8212;The Myth of Free
2536 Information</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #13</a>. "The threat of
2537 piracy&#8212;the use of someone else's creative work without permission or
2538 compensation&#8212;has grown with the Internet."
2539 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title='Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="piracy"></a>Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"</h2></div></div></div><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></span></dt></dl></div><p>
2540 There is piracy of copyrighted material. Lots of it. This piracy comes in
2541 many forms. The most significant is commercial piracy, the unauthorized
2542 taking of other people's content within a commercial context. Despite the
2543 many justifications that are offered in its defense, this taking is
2544 wrong. No one should condone it, and the law should stop it.
2545 </p><p>
2546
2547 But as well as copy-shop piracy, there is another kind of "taking" that is
2548 more directly related to the Internet. That taking, too, seems wrong to
2549 many, and it is wrong much of the time. Before we paint this taking
2550 "piracy," however, we should understand its nature a bit more.  For the harm
2551 of this taking is significantly more ambiguous than outright copying, and
2552 the law should account for that ambiguity, as it has so often done in the
2553 past.
2554
2555 </p><div class="section" title="Piracy I"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-i"></a>Piracy I</h2></div></div></div><p>
2556 All across the world, but especially in Asia and Eastern Europe, there are
2557 businesses that do nothing but take others people's copyrighted content,
2558 copy it, and sell it&#8212;all without the permission of a copyright
2559 owner. The recording industry estimates that it loses about $4.6 billion
2560 every year to physical piracy<sup>[<a name="id2610439" href="#ftn.id2610439" class="footnote">70</a>]</sup> (that
2561 works out to one in three CDs sold worldwide). The MPAA estimates that it
2562 loses $3 billion annually worldwide to piracy.
2563 </p><p>
2564 This is piracy plain and simple. Nothing in the argument of this book, nor
2565 in the argument that most people make when talking about the subject of this
2566 book, should draw into doubt this simple point: This piracy is wrong.
2567 </p><p>
2568 Which is not to say that excuses and justifications couldn't be made for
2569 it. We could, for example, remind ourselves that for the first one hundred
2570 years of the American Republic, America did not honor foreign copyrights. We
2571 were born, in this sense, a pirate nation. It might therefore seem
2572 hypocritical for us to insist so strongly that other developing nations
2573 treat as wrong what we, for the first hundred years of our existence,
2574 treated as right.
2575 </p><p>
2576 That excuse isn't terribly strong. Technically, our law did not ban the
2577 taking of foreign works. It explicitly limited itself to American
2578 works. Thus the American publishers who published foreign works without the
2579 permission of foreign authors were not violating any rule.  The copy shops
2580 in Asia, by contrast, are violating Asian law. Asian law does protect
2581 foreign copyrights, and the actions of the copy shops violate that law. So
2582 the wrong of piracy that they engage in is not just a moral wrong, but a
2583 legal wrong, and not just an internationally legal wrong, but a locally
2584 legal wrong as well.
2585 </p><p>
2586
2587 True, these local rules have, in effect, been imposed upon these
2588 countries. No country can be part of the world economy and choose not to
2589 protect copyright internationally. We may have been born a pirate nation,
2590 but we will not allow any other nation to have a similar childhood.
2591 </p><p>
2592 If a country is to be treated as a sovereign, however, then its laws are its
2593 laws regardless of their source. The international law under which these
2594 nations live gives them some opportunities to escape the burden of
2595 intellectual property law.<sup>[<a name="id2610651" href="#ftn.id2610651" class="footnote">71</a>]</sup> In my view,
2596 more developing nations should take advantage of that opportunity, but when
2597 they don't, then their laws should be respected. And under the laws of these
2598 nations, this piracy is wrong.
2599 </p><p>
2600 Alternatively, we could try to excuse this piracy by noting that in any
2601 case, it does no harm to the industry. The Chinese who get access to
2602 American CDs at 50 cents a copy are not people who would have bought those
2603 American CDs at $15 a copy. So no one really has any less money than they
2604 otherwise would have had.<sup>[<a name="id2610696" href="#ftn.id2610696" class="footnote">72</a>]</sup>
2605 </p><p>
2606 This is often true (though I have friends who have purchased many thousands
2607 of pirated DVDs who certainly have enough money to pay for the content they
2608 have taken), and it does mitigate to some degree the harm caused by such
2609 taking. Extremists in this debate love to say, "You wouldn't go into Barnes
2610 &amp; Noble and take a book off of the shelf without paying; why should it
2611 be any different with on-line music?" The difference is, of course, that
2612 when you take a book from Barnes &amp; Noble, it has one less book to
2613 sell. By contrast, when you take an MP3 from a computer network, there is
2614 not one less CD that can be sold.  The physics of piracy of the intangible
2615 are different from the physics of piracy of the tangible.
2616 </p><p>
2617
2618 This argument is still very weak. However, although copyright is a property
2619 right of a very special sort, it <span class="emphasis"><em>is</em></span> a property
2620 right. Like all property rights, the copyright gives the owner the right to
2621 decide the terms under which content is shared. If the copyright owner
2622 doesn't want to sell, she doesn't have to. There are exceptions: important
2623 statutory licenses that apply to copyrighted content regardless of the wish
2624 of the copyright owner. Those licenses give people the right to "take"
2625 copyrighted content whether or not the copyright owner wants to sell. But
2626 where the law does not give people the right to take content, it is wrong to
2627 take that content even if the wrong does no harm. If we have a property
2628 system, and that system is properly balanced to the technology of a time,
2629 then it is wrong to take property without the permission of a property
2630 owner. That is exactly what "property" means.
2631 </p><p>
2632 Finally, we could try to excuse this piracy with the argument that the
2633 piracy actually helps the copyright owner. When the Chinese "steal" Windows,
2634 that makes the Chinese dependent on Microsoft.  Microsoft loses the value of
2635 the software that was taken. But it gains users who are used to life in the
2636 Microsoft world. Over time, as the nation grows more wealthy, more and more
2637 people will buy software rather than steal it. And hence over time, because
2638 that buying will benefit Microsoft, Microsoft benefits from the piracy. If
2639 instead of pirating Microsoft Windows, the Chinese used the free GNU/Linux
2640 operating system, then these Chinese users would not eventually be buying
2641 Microsoft.  Without piracy, then, Microsoft would lose.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2610804"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2610811"></a>
2642 <a class="indexterm" name="id2610817"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2610829"></a>
2643 </p><p>
2644 This argument, too, is somewhat true. The addiction strategy is a good
2645 one. Many businesses practice it. Some thrive because of it. Law students,
2646 for example, are given free access to the two largest legal databases. The
2647 companies marketing both hope the students will become so used to their
2648 service that they will want to use it and not the other when they become
2649 lawyers (and must pay high subscription fees).
2650 </p><p>
2651 Still, the argument is not terribly persuasive. We don't give the alcoholic
2652 a defense when he steals his first beer, merely because that will make it
2653 more likely that he will buy the next three. Instead, we ordinarily allow
2654 businesses to decide for themselves when it is best to give their product
2655 away. If Microsoft fears the competition of GNU/Linux, then Microsoft can
2656 give its product away, as it did, for example, with Internet Explorer to
2657 fight Netscape. A property right means giving the property owner the right
2658 to say who gets access to what&#8212;at least ordinarily. And if the law
2659 properly balances the rights of the copyright owner with the rights of
2660 access, then violating the law is still wrong.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2610574"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2610854"></a>
2661 <a class="indexterm" name="id2610874"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2610880"></a>
2662 </p><p>
2663
2664
2665 Thus, while I understand the pull of these justifications for piracy, and I
2666 certainly see the motivation, in my view, in the end, these efforts at
2667 justifying commercial piracy simply don't cut it. This kind of piracy is
2668 rampant and just plain wrong. It doesn't transform the content it steals; it
2669 doesn't transform the market it competes in. It merely gives someone access
2670 to something that the law says he should not have.  Nothing has changed to
2671 draw that law into doubt. This form of piracy is flat out wrong.
2672 </p><p>
2673 But as the examples from the four chapters that introduced this part
2674 suggest, even if some piracy is plainly wrong, not all "piracy" is. Or at
2675 least, not all "piracy" is wrong if that term is understood in the way it is
2676 increasingly used today. Many kinds of "piracy" are useful and productive,
2677 to produce either new content or new ways of doing business.  Neither our
2678 tradition nor any tradition has ever banned all "piracy" in that sense of
2679 the term.
2680 </p><p>
2681 This doesn't mean that there are no questions raised by the latest piracy
2682 concern, peer-to-peer file sharing. But it does mean that we need to
2683 understand the harm in peer-to-peer sharing a bit more before we condemn it
2684 to the gallows with the charge of piracy.
2685 </p><p>
2686 For (1) like the original Hollywood, p2p sharing escapes an overly
2687 controlling industry; and (2) like the original recording industry, it
2688 simply exploits a new way to distribute content; but (3) unlike cable TV, no
2689 one is selling the content that is shared on p2p services.
2690 </p><p>
2691 These differences distinguish p2p sharing from true piracy. They should push
2692 us to find a way to protect artists while enabling this sharing to survive.
2693 </p></div><div class="section" title="Piracy II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-ii"></a>Piracy II</h2></div></div></div><p>
2694
2695 The key to the "piracy" that the law aims to quash is a use that "rob[s] the
2696 author of [his] profit."<sup>[<a name="id2610948" href="#ftn.id2610948" class="footnote">73</a>]</sup> This means we
2697 must determine whether and how much p2p sharing harms before we know how
2698 strongly the law should seek to either prevent it or find an alternative to
2699 assure the author of his profit.
2700 </p><p>
2701 Peer-to-peer sharing was made famous by Napster. But the inventors of the
2702 Napster technology had not made any major technological innovations.  Like
2703 every great advance in innovation on the Internet (and, arguably, off the
2704 Internet as well<sup>[<a name="id2610972" href="#ftn.id2610972" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
2705 crew had simply put together components that had been developed
2706 independently.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2611001"></a>
2707 </p><p>
2708 The result was spontaneous combustion. Launched in July 1999, Napster
2709 amassed over 10 million users within nine months. After eighteen months,
2710 there were close to 80 million registered users of the system.<sup>[<a name="id2611014" href="#ftn.id2611014" class="footnote">75</a>]</sup> Courts quickly shut Napster down, but other
2711 services emerged to take its place. (Kazaa is currently the most popular p2p
2712 service. It boasts over 100 million members.) These services' systems are
2713 different architecturally, though not very different in function: Each
2714 enables users to make content available to any number of other users. With a
2715 p2p system, you can share your favorite songs with your best friend&#8212;
2716 or your 20,000 best friends.
2717 </p><p>
2718 According to a number of estimates, a huge proportion of Americans have
2719 tasted file-sharing technology. A study by Ipsos-Insight in September 2002
2720 estimated that 60 million Americans had downloaded music&#8212;28 percent of
2721 Americans older than 12.<sup>[<a name="id2611050" href="#ftn.id2611050" class="footnote">76</a>]</sup> A survey by
2722 the NPD group quoted in <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> estimated
2723 that 43 million citizens used file-sharing networks to exchange content in
2724 May 2003.<sup>[<a name="id2611078" href="#ftn.id2611078" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these
2725 are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a massive quantity of content is
2726 being "taken" on these networks. The ease and inexpensiveness of
2727 file-sharing networks have inspired millions to enjoy music in a way that
2728 they hadn't before.
2729 </p><p>
2730 Some of this enjoying involves copyright infringement. Some of it does
2731 not. And even among the part that is technically copyright infringement,
2732 calculating the actual harm to copyright owners is more complicated than one
2733 might think. So consider&#8212;a bit more carefully than the polarized
2734 voices around this debate usually do&#8212;the kinds of sharing that file
2735 sharing enables, and the kinds of harm it entails.
2736 </p><p>
2737
2738
2739 Fildelerne deler ulike typer innhold.  Vi kan dele disse ulike typene inn i
2740 fire typer.
2741 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
2742
2743 There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing
2744 content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD,
2745 these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who
2746 takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available
2747 for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who
2748 would.  The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead
2749 of purchasing.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2611131"></a>
2750 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2751
2752
2753 There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing
2754 it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard
2755 of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of
2756 targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed.  If the friend recommending
2757 the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect
2758 that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this
2759 sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.
2760 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2761
2762
2763 There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content
2764 that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the
2765 transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is
2766 among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood
2767 but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the
2768 network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a
2769 solid weekend "recalling" old songs. She was astonished at the range and mix
2770 of content that was available.)  For content not sold, this is still
2771 technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright owner is
2772 not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is zero&#8212;the same
2773 harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to a
2774 local collector.
2775 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780 Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content
2781 that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.
2782 </p></li></ol></div><p>
2783 Hvordan balanserer disse ulike delingstypene?
2784 </p><p>
2785 Let's start with some simple but important points. From the perspective of
2786 the law, only type D sharing is clearly legal. From the perspective of
2787 economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.<sup>[<a name="id2611199" href="#ftn.id2611199" class="footnote">78</a>]</sup> Type B sharing is illegal but plainly
2788 beneficial. Type C sharing is illegal, yet good for society (since more
2789 exposure to music is good)  and harmless to the artist (since the work is
2790 not otherwise available). So how sharing matters on balance is a hard
2791 question to answer&#8212;and certainly much more difficult than the current
2792 rhetoric around the issue suggests.
2793 </p><p>
2794 Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how harmful
2795 type A sharing is. Just as Edison complained about Hollywood, composers
2796 complained about piano rolls, recording artists complained about radio, and
2797 broadcasters complained about cable TV, the music industry complains that
2798 type A sharing is a kind of "theft" that is "devastating" the industry.
2799 </p><p>
2800 While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder
2801 to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame
2802 technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a
2803 good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst &amp; Young put it, "Rather
2804 than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels fought
2805 it."<sup>[<a name="id2611243" href="#ftn.id2611243" class="footnote">79</a>]</sup> The labels claimed that every
2806 album taped was an album unsold, and when record sales fell by 11.4 percent
2807 in 1981, the industry claimed that its point was proved. Technology was the
2808 problem, and banning or regulating technology was the answer.
2809 </p><p>
2810 Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity to enact
2811 regulation, MTV was launched, and the industry had a record turnaround. "In
2812 the end," Cap Gemini concludes, "the `crisis' &#8230; was not the fault of
2813 the tapers&#8212;who did not [stop after MTV came into being]&#8212;but had
2814 to a large extent resulted from stagnation in musical innovation at the
2815 major labels."<sup>[<a name="id2610706" href="#ftn.id2610706" class="footnote">80</a>]</sup>
2816 </p><p>
2817 But just because the industry was wrong before does not mean it is wrong
2818 today. To evaluate the real threat that p2p sharing presents to the industry
2819 in particular, and society in general&#8212;or at least the society that
2820 inherits the tradition that gave us the film industry, the record industry,
2821 the radio industry, cable TV, and the VCR&#8212;the question is not simply
2822 whether type A sharing is harmful. The question is also
2823 <span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> harmful type A sharing is, and how beneficial the
2824 other types of sharing are.
2825 </p><p>
2826 We start to answer this question by focusing on the net harm, from the
2827 standpoint of the industry as a whole, that sharing networks cause.  The
2828 "net harm" to the industry as a whole is the amount by which type A sharing
2829 exceeds type B. If the record companies sold more records through sampling
2830 than they lost through substitution, then sharing networks would actually
2831 benefit music companies on balance. They would therefore have little
2832 <span class="emphasis"><em>static</em></span> reason to resist them.
2833
2834 </p><p>
2835 Could that be true? Could the industry as a whole be gaining because of file
2836 sharing? Odd as that might sound, the data about CD sales actually suggest
2837 it might be close.
2838 </p><p>
2839 In 2002, the RIAA reported that CD sales had fallen by 8.9 percent, from 882
2840 million to 803 million units; revenues fell 6.7 percent.<sup>[<a name="id2611339" href="#ftn.id2611339" class="footnote">81</a>]</sup> This confirms a trend over the past few years. The
2841 RIAA blames Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other
2842 causes that could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a
2843 more than 20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since 1999. That no
2844 doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales. Rising prices could
2845 account for at least some of the loss. "From 1999 to 2001, the average price
2846 of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19."<sup>[<a name="id2611382" href="#ftn.id2611382" class="footnote">82</a>]</sup> Competition from other forms of media could also
2847 account for some of the decline. As Jane Black of
2848 <em class="citetitle">BusinessWeek</em> notes, "The soundtrack to the film
2849 <em class="citetitle">High Fidelity</em> has a list price of $18.98. You could
2850 get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99."<sup>[<a name="id2611415" href="#ftn.id2611415" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
2851 </p><p>
2852
2853
2854
2855 But let's assume the RIAA is right, and all of the decline in CD sales is
2856 because of Internet sharing. Here's the rub: In the same period that the
2857 RIAA estimates that 803 million CDs were sold, the RIAA estimates that 2.1
2858 billion CDs were downloaded for free. Thus, although 2.6 times the total
2859 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, sales revenue fell by just 6.7
2860 percent.
2861 </p><p>
2862 There are too many different things happening at the same time to explain
2863 these numbers definitively, but one conclusion is unavoidable: The recording
2864 industry constantly asks, "What's the difference between downloading a song
2865 and stealing a CD?"&#8212;but their own numbers reveal the difference. If I
2866 steal a CD, then there is one less CD to sell. Every taking is a lost
2867 sale. But on the basis of the numbers the RIAA provides, it is absolutely
2868 clear that the same is not true of downloads. If every download were a lost
2869 sale&#8212;if every use of Kazaa "rob[bed] the author of [his]
2870 profit"&#8212;then the industry would have suffered a 100 percent drop in
2871 sales last year, not a 7 percent drop. If 2.6 times the number of CDs sold
2872 were downloaded for free, and yet sales revenue dropped by just 6.7 percent,
2873 then there is a huge difference between "downloading a song and stealing a
2874 CD."
2875 </p><p>
2876 These are the harms&#8212;alleged and perhaps exaggerated but, let's assume,
2877 real. What of the benefits? File sharing may impose costs on the recording
2878 industry. What value does it produce in addition to these costs?
2879 </p><p>
2880 One benefit is type C sharing&#8212;making available content that is
2881 technically still under copyright but is no longer commercially available.
2882 This is not a small category of content. There are millions of tracks that
2883 are no longer commercially available.<sup>[<a name="id2611439" href="#ftn.id2611439" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup>
2884 And while it's conceivable that some of this content is not available
2885 because the artist producing the content doesn't want it to be made
2886 available, the vast majority of it is unavailable solely because the
2887 publisher or the distributor has decided it no longer makes economic sense
2888 <span class="emphasis"><em>to the company</em></span> to make it available.
2889 </p><p>
2890 In real space&#8212;long before the Internet&#8212;the market had a simple
2891 response to this problem: used book and record stores. There are thousands
2892 of used book and used record stores in America today.<sup>[<a name="id2611496" href="#ftn.id2611496" class="footnote">85</a>]</sup> These stores buy content from owners, then sell the
2893 content they buy. And under American copyright law, when they buy and sell
2894 this content, <span class="emphasis"><em>even if the content is still under
2895 copyright</em></span>, the copyright owner doesn't get a dime. Used book and
2896 record stores are commercial entities; their owners make money from the
2897 content they sell; but as with cable companies before statutory licensing,
2898 they don't have to pay the copyright owner for the content they sell.
2899 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2611542"></a><p>
2900 Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used record
2901 stores. It is different, of course, because the person making the content
2902 available isn't making money from making the content available.  It is also
2903 different, of course, because in real space, when I sell a record, I don't
2904 have it anymore, while in cyberspace, when someone shares my 1949 recording
2905 of Bernstein's "Two Love Songs," I still have it. That difference would
2906 matter economically if the owner of the copyright were selling the record in
2907 competition to my sharing. But we're talking about the class of content that
2908 is not currently commercially available. The Internet is making it
2909 available, through cooperative sharing, without competing with the market.
2910 </p><p>
2911 It may well be, all things considered, that it would be better if the
2912 copyright owner got something from this trade. But just because it may well
2913 be better, it doesn't follow that it would be good to ban used book
2914 stores. Or put differently, if you think that type C sharing should be
2915 stopped, do you think that libraries and used book stores should be shut as
2916 well?
2917 </p><p>
2918
2919 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, file-sharing networks enable type D
2920 sharing to occur&#8212;the sharing of content that copyright owners want to
2921 have shared or for which there is no continuing copyright. This sharing
2922 clearly benefits authors and society. Science fiction author Cory Doctorow,
2923 for example, released his first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
2924 Kingdom</em>, both free on-line and in bookstores on the same
2925 day. His (and his publisher's) thinking was that the on-line distribution
2926 would be a great advertisement for the "real" book. People would read part
2927 on-line, and then decide whether they liked the book or not. If they liked
2928 it, they would be more likely to buy it. Doctorow's content is type D
2929 content. If sharing networks enable his work to be spread, then both he and
2930 society are better off. (Actually, much better off: It is a great book!)
2931 </p><p>
2932 Likewise for work in the public domain: This sharing benefits society with
2933 no legal harm to authors at all. If efforts to solve the problem of type A
2934 sharing destroy the opportunity for type D sharing, then we lose something
2935 important in order to protect type A content.
2936 </p><p>
2937 The point throughout is this: While the recording industry understandably
2938 says, "This is how much we've lost," we must also ask, "How much has society
2939 gained from p2p sharing? What are the efficiencies? What is the content that
2940 otherwise would be unavailable?"
2941 </p><p>
2942 For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this chapter, much
2943 of the "piracy" that file sharing enables is plainly legal and good.  And
2944 like the piracy I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title='Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: "Pirater"'>4</a>, much of this piracy is motivated by a new way of
2945 spreading content caused by changes in the technology of distribution. Thus,
2946 consistent with the tradition that gave us Hollywood, radio, the recording
2947 industry, and cable TV, the question we should be asking about file sharing
2948 is how best to preserve its benefits while minimizing (to the extent
2949 possible) the wrongful harm it causes artists. The question is one of
2950 balance. The law should seek that balance, and that balance will be found
2951 only with time.
2952 </p><p>
2953 Men er ikke krigen bare en krig mot ulovlig deling?  Er ikke angrepsmålet
2954 bare det du kaller type A-deling?
2955 </p><p>
2956 You would think. And we should hope. But so far, it is not. The effect of
2957 the war purportedly on type A sharing alone has been felt far beyond that
2958 one class of sharing. That much is obvious from the Napster case
2959 itself. When Napster told the district court that it had developed a
2960 technology to block the transfer of 99.4 percent of identified infringing
2961 material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4 percent was not
2962 good enough. Napster had to push the infringements "down to
2963 zero."<sup>[<a name="id2611660" href="#ftn.id2611660" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
2964 </p><p>
2965 If 99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing
2966 technologies, not a war on copyright infringement. There is no way to assure
2967 that a p2p system is used 100 percent of the time in compliance with the
2968 law, any more than there is a way to assure that 100 percent of VCRs or 100
2969 percent of Xerox machines or 100 percent of handguns are used in compliance
2970 with the law. Zero tolerance means zero p2p.  The court's ruling means that
2971 we as a society must lose the benefits of p2p, even for the totally legal
2972 and beneficial uses they serve, simply to assure that there are zero
2973 copyright infringements caused by p2p.
2974 </p><p>
2975 Zero tolerance has not been our history. It has not produced the content
2976 industry that we know today. The history of American law has been a process
2977 of balance. As new technologies changed the way content was distributed, the
2978 law adjusted, after some time, to the new technology.  In this adjustment,
2979 the law sought to ensure the legitimate rights of creators while protecting
2980 innovation. Sometimes this has meant more rights for creators. Sometimes
2981 less.
2982 </p><p>
2983 So, as we've seen, when "mechanical reproduction" threatened the interests
2984 of composers, Congress balanced the rights of composers against the
2985 interests of the recording industry. It granted rights to composers, but
2986 also to the recording artists: Composers were to be paid, but at a price set
2987 by Congress. But when radio started broadcasting the recordings made by
2988 these recording artists, and they complained to Congress that their
2989 "creative property" was not being respected (since the radio station did not
2990 have to pay them for the creativity it broadcast), Congress rejected their
2991 claim. An indirect benefit was enough.
2992 </p><p>
2993 Cable TV followed the pattern of record albums. When the courts rejected the
2994 claim that cable broadcasters had to pay for the content they rebroadcast,
2995 Congress responded by giving broadcasters a right to compensation, but at a
2996 level set by the law. It likewise gave cable companies the right to the
2997 content, so long as they paid the statutory price.
2998 </p><p>
2999
3000
3001
3002 This compromise, like the compromise affecting records and player pianos,
3003 served two important goals&#8212;indeed, the two central goals of any
3004 copyright legislation. First, the law assured that new innovators would have
3005 the freedom to develop new ways to deliver content.  Second, the law assured
3006 that copyright holders would be paid for the content that was
3007 distributed. One fear was that if Congress simply required cable TV to pay
3008 copyright holders whatever they demanded for their content, then copyright
3009 holders associated with broadcasters would use their power to stifle this
3010 new technology, cable. But if Congress had permitted cable to use
3011 broadcasters' content for free, then it would have unfairly subsidized
3012 cable. Thus Congress chose a path that would assure
3013 <span class="emphasis"><em>compensation</em></span> without giving the past (broadcasters)
3014 control over the future (cable).
3015 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2611767"></a><p>
3016 In the same year that Congress struck this balance, two major producers and
3017 distributors of film content filed a lawsuit against another technology, the
3018 video tape recorder (VTR, or as we refer to them today, VCRs) that Sony had
3019 produced, the Betamax. Disney's and Universal's claim against Sony was
3020 relatively simple: Sony produced a device, Disney and Universal claimed,
3021 that enabled consumers to engage in copyright infringement. Because the
3022 device that Sony built had a "record" button, the device could be used to
3023 record copyrighted movies and shows. Sony was therefore benefiting from the
3024 copyright infringement of its customers. It should therefore, Disney and
3025 Universal claimed, be partially liable for that infringement.
3026 </p><p>
3027
3028 There was something to Disney's and Universal's claim. Sony did decide to
3029 design its machine to make it very simple to record television shows. It
3030 could have built the machine to block or inhibit any direct copying from a
3031 television broadcast. Or possibly, it could have built the machine to copy
3032 only if there were a special "copy me" signal on the line. It was clear that
3033 there were many television shows that did not grant anyone permission to
3034 copy. Indeed, if anyone had asked, no doubt the majority of shows would not
3035 have authorized copying. And in the face of this obvious preference, Sony
3036 could have designed its system to minimize the opportunity for copyright
3037 infringement. It did not, and for that, Disney and Universal wanted to hold
3038 it responsible for the architecture it chose.
3039 </p><p>
3040 MPAA president Jack Valenti became the studios' most vocal champion. Valenti
3041 called VCRs "tapeworms." He warned, "When there are 20, 30, 40 million of
3042 these VCRs in the land, we will be invaded by millions of `tapeworms,'
3043 eating away at the very heart and essence of the most precious asset the
3044 copyright owner has, his copyright."<sup>[<a name="id2611816" href="#ftn.id2611816" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup>
3045 "One does not have to be trained in sophisticated marketing and creative
3046 judgment," he told Congress, "to understand the devastation on the
3047 after-theater marketplace caused by the hundreds of millions of tapings that
3048 will adversely impact on the future of the creative community in this
3049 country. It is simply a question of basic economics and plain common
3050 sense."<sup>[<a name="id2611832" href="#ftn.id2611832" class="footnote">88</a>]</sup> Indeed, as surveys would later
3051 show, percent of VCR owners had movie libraries of ten videos or
3052 more<sup>[<a name="id2611842" href="#ftn.id2611842" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup> &#8212; a use the Court would
3053 later hold was not "fair." By "allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the
3054 means of an exemption from copyright infringementwithout creating a
3055 mechanism to compensate copyrightowners," Valenti testified, Congress would
3056 "take from the owners the very essence of their property: the exclusive
3057 right to control who may use their work, that is, who may copy it and
3058 thereby profit from its reproduction."<sup>[<a name="id2611750" href="#ftn.id2611750" class="footnote">90</a>]</sup>
3059 </p><p>
3060 It took eight years for this case to be resolved by the Supreme Court. In
3061 the interim, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Hollywood in
3062 its jurisdiction&#8212;leading Judge Alex Kozinski, who sits on that court,
3063 refers to it as the "Hollywood Circuit"&#8212;held that Sony would be liable
3064 for the copyright infringement made possible by its machines. Under the
3065 Ninth Circuit's rule, this totally familiar technology&#8212;which Jack
3066 Valenti had called "the Boston Strangler of the American film industry"
3067 (worse yet, it was a <span class="emphasis"><em>Japanese</em></span> Boston Strangler of the
3068 American film industry)&#8212;was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id2611876" href="#ftn.id2611876" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2611901"></a>
3069 </p><p>
3070
3071 But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit.  And in
3072 its reversal, the Court clearly articulated its understanding of when and
3073 whether courts should intervene in such disputes. As the Court wrote,
3074 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3075 Sound policy, as well as history, supports our consistent deference to
3076 Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for
3077 copyrighted materials. Congress has the constitutional authority and the
3078 institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of
3079 competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new
3080 technology.<sup>[<a name="id2611927" href="#ftn.id2611927" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
3081 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3082 Congress was asked to respond to the Supreme Court's decision.  But as with
3083 the plea of recording artists about radio broadcasts, Congress ignored the
3084 request. Congress was convinced that American film got enough, this "taking"
3085 notwithstanding.  If we put these cases together, a pattern is clear:
3086 </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 "røvet"</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>
3087 In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the way
3088 content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id2612054" href="#ftn.id2612054" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
3089 throughout our history, that change meant that someone got a "free ride" on
3090 someone else's work.
3091 </p><p>
3092
3093 In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these cases did either the courts or
3094 Congress eliminate all free riding. In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these
3095 cases did the courts or Congress insist that the law should assure that the
3096 copyright holder get all the value that his copyright created. In every
3097 case, the copyright owners complained of "piracy." In every case, Congress
3098 acted to recognize some of the legitimacy in the behavior of the "pirates."
3099 In each case, Congress allowed some new technology to benefit from content
3100 made before. It balanced the interests at stake.
3101
3102 </p><p>
3103 When you think across these examples, and the other examples that make up
3104 the first four chapters of this section, this balance makes sense. Was Walt
3105 Disney a pirate? Would doujinshi be better if creators had to ask
3106 permission? Should tools that enable others to capture and spread images as
3107 a way to cultivate or criticize our culture be better regulated? Is it
3108 really right that building a search engine should expose you to $15 million
3109 in damages? Would it have been better if Edison had controlled film? Should
3110 every cover band have to hire a lawyer to get permission to record a song?
3111 </p><p>
3112 We could answer yes to each of these questions, but our tradition has
3113 answered no. In our tradition, as the Supreme Court has stated, copyright
3114 "has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all possible
3115 uses of his work."<sup>[<a name="id2612135" href="#ftn.id2612135" class="footnote">94</a>]</sup> Instead, the
3116 particular uses that the law regulates have been defined by balancing the
3117 good that comes from granting an exclusive right against the burdens such an
3118 exclusive right creates. And this balancing has historically been done
3119 <span class="emphasis"><em>after</em></span> a technology has matured, or settled into the mix
3120 of technologies that facilitate the distribution of content.
3121 </p><p>
3122 We should be doing the same thing today. The technology of the Internet is
3123 changing quickly. The way people connect to the Internet (wires
3124 vs. wireless) is changing very quickly. No doubt the network should not
3125 become a tool for "stealing" from artists. But neither should the law become
3126 a tool to entrench one particular way in which artists (or more accurately,
3127 distributors) get paid. As I describe in some detail in the last chapter of
3128 this book, we should be securing income to artists while we allow the market
3129 to secure the most efficient way to promote and distribute content. This
3130 will require changes in the law, at least in the interim. These changes
3131 should be designed to balance the protection of the law against the strong
3132 public interest that innovation continue.
3133 </p><p>
3134
3135
3136 This is especially true when a new technology enables a vastly superior mode
3137 of distribution. And this p2p has done. P2p technologies can be ideally
3138 efficient in moving content across a widely diverse network.  Left to
3139 develop, they could make the network vastly more efficient.  Yet these
3140 "potential public benefits," as John Schwartz writes in <em class="citetitle">The New
3141 York Times</em>, "could be delayed in the P2P fight."<sup>[<a name="id2612186" href="#ftn.id2612186" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup> Yet when anyone begins to talk about "balance," the
3142 copyright warriors raise a different argument. "All this hand waving about
3143 balance and incentives," they say, "misses a fundamental point. Our
3144 content," the warriors insist, "is our <span class="emphasis"><em>property</em></span>. Why
3145 should we wait for Congress to `rebalance' our property rights? Do you have
3146 to wait before calling the police when your car has been stolen? And why
3147 should Congress deliberate at all about the merits of this theft? Do we ask
3148 whether the car thief had a good use for the car before we arrest him?"
3149 </p><p>
3150 "Det er <span class="emphasis"><em>vår eiendom</em></span>," insisterer krigerne. "og den bør
3151 være beskyttet på samme måte som all annen eiendom er beskyttet."
3152 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2610439" href="#id2610439" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
3153
3154
3155 See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry),
3156 <em class="citetitle">The Recording Industry Commercial Piracy Report 2003</em>,
3157 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
3158 #14</a>. See also Ben Hunt, "Companies Warned on Music Piracy Risk,"
3159 <em class="citetitle">Financial Times</em>, 14 February 2003, 11.
3160 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2610651" href="#id2610651" class="para">71</a>] </sup>
3161
3162 See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism:
3163 <em class="citetitle">Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New
3164 Press, 2003), 10&#8211;13, 209.  The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
3165 Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement obligates member nations to create
3166 administrative and enforcement mechanisms for intellectual property rights,
3167 a costly proposition for developing countries. Additionally, patent rights
3168 may lead to higher prices for staple industries such as agriculture. Critics
3169 of TRIPS question the disparity between burdens imposed upon developing
3170 countries and benefits conferred to industrialized nations. TRIPS does
3171 permit governments to use patents for public, noncommercial uses without
3172 first obtaining the patent holder's permission. Developing nations may be
3173 able to use this to gain the benefits of foreign patents at lower
3174 prices. This is a promising strategy for developing nations within the TRIPS
3175 framework.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2609983"></a>
3176 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2610696" href="#id2610696" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
3177
3178 For an analysis of the economic impact of copying technology, see Stan
3179 Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em> (New York:
3180 Amacom, 2002), 144&#8211;90. "In some instances &#8230; the impact of
3181 piracy on the copyright holder's ability to appropriate the value of the
3182 work will be negligible. One obvious instance is the case where the
3183 individual engaging in pirating would not have purchased an original even if
3184 pirating were not an option." Ibid., 149.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2610660"></a>
3185 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2610948" href="#id2610948" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
3186
3187
3188 <em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
3189 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777).
3190 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2610972" href="#id2610972" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
3191
3192 See Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
3193 Revolutionary National Bestseller That Changed the Way We Do
3194 Business</em> (New York: HarperBusiness, 2000). Professor Christensen
3195 examines why companies that give rise to and dominate a product area are
3196 frequently unable to come up with the most creative, paradigm-shifting uses
3197 for their own products.  This job usually falls to outside innovators, who
3198 reassemble existing technology in inventive ways. For a discussion of
3199 Christensen's ideas, see Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>,
3200 89&#8211;92, 139.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2610705"></a>
3201 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2611014" href="#id2611014" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
3202
3203
3204 See Carolyn Lochhead, "Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood Nightmare,"
3205 <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24 September 2002, A1; "Rock
3206 'n' Roll Suicide," <em class="citetitle">New Scientist</em>, 6 July 2002, 42;
3207 Benny Evangelista, "Napster Names CEO, Secures New Financing,"
3208 <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 23 May 2003, C1; "Napster's
3209 Wake-Up Call," <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24 June 2000, 23; John
3210 Naughton, "Hollywood at War with the Internet" (London)
3211 <em class="citetitle">Times</em>, 26 July 2002, 18.
3212 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2611050" href="#id2611050" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
3213
3214
3215
3216 See Ipsos-Insight, <em class="citetitle">TEMPO: Keeping Pace with Online Music
3217 Distribution</em> (September 2002), reporting that 28 percent of
3218 Americans aged twelve and older have downloaded music off of the Internet
3219 and 30 percent have listened to digital music files stored on their
3220 computers.
3221 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2611078" href="#id2611078" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
3222
3223
3224 Amy Harmon, "Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight," <em class="citetitle">New
3225 York Times</em>, 6 June 2003, A1.
3226 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2611199" href="#id2611199" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
3227
3228 Se Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
3229 148&#8211;49.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2610990"></a>
3230 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2611243" href="#id2611243" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
3231
3232
3233 See Cap Gemini Ernst &amp; Young, <em class="citetitle">Technology Evolution and the
3234 Music Industry's Business Model Crisis</em> (2003), 3. This report
3235 describes the music industry's effort to stigmatize the budding practice of
3236 cassette taping in the 1970s, including an advertising campaign featuring a
3237 cassette-shape skull and the caption "Home taping is killing music." At the
3238 time digital audio tape became a threat, the Office of Technical Assessment
3239 conducted a survey of consumer behavior. In 1988, 40 percent of consumers
3240 older than ten had taped music to a cassette format. U.S.  Congress, Office
3241 of Technology Assessment, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying: Technology
3242 Challenges the Law</em>, OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
3243 Government Printing Office, October 1989), 145&#8211;56.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2610706" href="#id2610706" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
3244
3245
3246 U.S. Congress, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying</em>, 4.
3247 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2611339" href="#id2611339" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
3248
3249
3250 See Recording Industry Association of America, <em class="citetitle">2002 Yearend
3251 Statistics</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #15</a>. A later report
3252 indicates even greater losses. See Recording Industry Association of
3253 America, <em class="citetitle">Some Facts About Music Piracy</em>, 25 June 2003,
3254 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #16</a>:
3255 "In the past four years, unit shipments of recorded music have fallen by 26
3256 percent from 1.16 billion units in to 860 million units in 2002 in the
3257 United States (based on units shipped).  In terms of sales, revenues are
3258 down 14 percent, from $14.6 billion in to $12.6 billion last year (based on
3259 U.S. dollar value of shipments). The music industry worldwide has gone from
3260 a $39 billion industry in 2000 down to a $32 billion industry in 2002 (based
3261 on U.S. dollar value of shipments)."
3262 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2611382" href="#id2611382" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
3263 Jane Black, "Big Music's Broken Record," BusinessWeek online, 13. februar
3264 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
3265 #17</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2611396"></a>
3266 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2611415" href="#id2611415" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
3267
3268
3269 ibid.
3270 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2611439" href="#id2611439" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
3271
3272
3273 By one estimate, 75 percent of the music released by the major labels is no
3274 longer in print. See Online Entertainment and Copyright Law&#8212;Coming
3275 Soon to a Digital Device Near You: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on
3276 the Judiciary, 107th Cong., 1st sess. (3 April 2001) (prepared statement of
3277 the Future of Music Coalition), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #18</a>.
3278 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2611496" href="#id2611496" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
3279
3280
3281 While there are not good estimates of the number of used record stores in
3282 existence, in 2002, there were 7,198 used book dealers in the United States,
3283 an increase of 20 percent since 1993. See Book Hunter Press, <em class="citetitle">The
3284 Quiet Revolution: The Expansion of the Used Book Market</em> (2002),
3285 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
3286 #19</a>. Used records accounted for $260 million in sales in 2002. See
3287 National Association of Recording Merchandisers, "2002 Annual Survey
3288 Results," available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
3289 #20</a>.
3290 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2611660" href="#id2611660" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
3291
3292
3293 See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34- 35
3294 (N.D. Cal., 11 July 2001), nos. MDL-00-1369 MHP, C 99-5183 MHP, available at
3295 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #21</a>. For an account
3296 of the litigation and its toll on Napster, see Joseph Menn, <em class="citetitle">All
3297 the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster</em> (New
3298 York: Crown Business, 2003), 269&#8211;82.
3299 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2611816" href="#id2611816" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
3300
3301
3302 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders): Hearing on S. 1758
3303 Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess.,
3304 459 (1982) (testimony of Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association
3305 of America, Inc.).
3306 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2611832" href="#id2611832" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
3307
3308
3309 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
3310 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2611842" href="#id2611842" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
3311
3312
3313 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Sony
3314 Corp. of America</em>, 480 F. Supp. 429, (C.D. Cal., 1979).
3315 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2611750" href="#id2611750" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
3316
3317
3318 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (testimony of Jack
3319 Valenti).
3320 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2611876" href="#id2611876" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
3321
3322
3323 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Sony
3324 Corp. of America</em>, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th Cir.  1981).
3325 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2611927" href="#id2611927" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
3326
3327
3328 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3329 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984).
3330 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2612054" href="#id2612054" class="para">93</a>] </sup>
3331
3332 These are the most important instances in our history, but there are other
3333 cases as well. The technology of digital audio tape (DAT), for example, was
3334 regulated by Congress to minimize the risk of piracy. The remedy Congress
3335 imposed did burden DAT producers, by taxing tape sales and controlling the
3336 technology of DAT. See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (Title 17 of the
3337 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>), Pub. L. No. 102-563, 106 Stat.
3338 4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. §1001. Again, however, this regulation did not
3339 eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
3340 Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. See also Picker, "From Edison to
3341 the Broadcast Flag," <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em>
3342 70 (2003): 293&#8211;96.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2611682"></a>
3343 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2612135" href="#id2612135" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
3344
3345
3346 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3347 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, (1984).
3348 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2612186" href="#id2612186" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
3349
3350
3351 John Schwartz, "New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software Echoes Past
3352 Efforts," <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 22 September 2003, C3.
3353 </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. "Eiendom"</h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title='"Eiendom"'><div></div><p>
3354
3355
3356
3357 Opphavsretts-krigerne har rett: Opphavsretten er en type eiendom. Den kan
3358 eies og selges, og loven beskytter mot at den blir stjålet. Vanligvis, kan
3359 opphavsrettseieren be om hvilken som helst pris som han ønsker.  Markeder
3360 bestemmer tilbud og etterspørsel som i hvert tilfelle bestemmer prisen hun
3361 kan få.
3362 </p><p>
3363 But in ordinary language, to call a copyright a "property" right is a bit
3364 misleading, for the property of copyright is an odd kind of property.
3365 Indeed, the very idea of property in any idea or any expression is very
3366 odd. I understand what I am taking when I take the picnic table you put in
3367 your backyard. I am taking a thing, the picnic table, and after I take it,
3368 you don't have it. But what am I taking when I take the good
3369 <span class="emphasis"><em>idea</em></span> you had to put a picnic table in the
3370 backyard&#8212;by, for example, going to Sears, buying a table, and putting
3371 it in my backyard? What is the thing I am taking then?
3372 </p><p>
3373 The point is not just about the thingness of picnic tables versus ideas,
3374 though that's an important difference. The point instead is that in the
3375 ordinary case&#8212;indeed, in practically every case except for a narrow
3376 range of exceptions&#8212;ideas released to the world are free. I don't take
3377 anything from you when I copy the way you dress&#8212;though I might seem
3378 weird if I did it every day, and especially weird if you are a
3379 woman. Instead, as Thomas Jefferson said (and as is especially true when I
3380 copy the way someone else dresses), "He who receives an idea from me,
3381 receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his
3382 taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."<sup>[<a name="id2612268" href="#ftn.id2612268" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
3383 </p><p>
3384 The exceptions to free use are ideas and expressions within the reach of the
3385 law of patent and copyright, and a few other domains that I won't discuss
3386 here. Here the law says you can't take my idea or expression without my
3387 permission: The law turns the intangible into property.
3388 </p><p>
3389 But how, and to what extent, and in what form&#8212;the details, in other
3390 words&#8212;matter. To get a good sense of how this practice of turning the
3391 intangible into property emerged, we need to place this "property" in its
3392 proper context.<sup>[<a name="id2612313" href="#ftn.id2612313" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
3393 </p><p>
3394 My strategy in doing this will be the same as my strategy in the preceding
3395 part. I offer four stories to help put the idea of "copyright material is
3396 property" in context. Where did the idea come from? What are its limits? How
3397 does it function in practice? After these stories, the significance of this
3398 true statement&#8212;"copyright material is property"&#8212; will be a bit
3399 more clear, and its implications will be revealed as quite different from
3400 the implications that the copyright warriors would have us draw.
3401 </p><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#founders">6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#recorders">7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#transformers">8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#collectors">9. Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#property-i">10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2612268" href="#id2612268" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
3402
3403
3404 Brev fra Thomas Jefferson til Isaac McPherson (13. august 1813) i
3405 <em class="citetitle">The Writings of Thomas Jefferson</em>, vol. 6 (Andrew
3406 A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, eds., 1903), 330, 333&#8211;34.
3407 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2612313" href="#id2612313" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
3408
3409
3410 As the legal realists taught American law, all property rights are
3411 intangible.  A property right is simply a right that an individual has
3412 against the world to do or not do certain things that may or may not attach
3413 to a physical object. The right itself is intangible, even if the object to
3414 which it is (metaphorically) attached is tangible. See Adam Mossoff, "What
3415 Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together," <em class="citetitle">Arizona Law
3416 Review</em> 45 (2003): 373, 429 n. 241.
3417 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><p>
3418 William Shakespeare skrev <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> i
3419 1595. Skuespillet ble først utgitt i 1597. Det var det ellevte store
3420 skuespillet Shakespeare hadde skrevet. Han fortsatte å skrive skuespill helt
3421 til 1613, og stykkene han skrevhar fortsatt å definere angloamerikansk
3422 kultur siden. Så dypt har verkene av en 1500-talls forfatter sunket inn i
3423 vår kultur at vi ofte ikke engang kjenner kilden. Jeg overhørte en gang noen
3424 som kommentere Kenneth Branaghs utgave av Henry V: "Jeg likte det, men
3425 Shakespeare er så full av klisjeer."
3426 </p><p>
3427
3428 I 1774, nesten 180 år etter at <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> ble
3429 skrevet, mente mange at "opphavsretten" kun tilhørte én eneste utgiver i
3430 London, John Tonson. <sup>[<a name="id2612390" href="#ftn.id2612390" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson var den
3431 mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt "the Conger"<sup>[<a name="id2612420" href="#ftn.id2612420" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup>, som kontrollerte boksalget i England gjennom hele
3432 1700-tallet. The Conger hevdet at de hadde en evigvarende rett over "kopier"
3433 av bøker de hadde fått av forfatterne. Denne evigvarende retten innebar at
3434 ingen andre kunne publisere kopier av disse bøkene. Slik ble prisen på
3435 klassiske bøker holdt oppe; alle konkurrenter som lagde bedre eller
3436 billigere utgaver, ble fjernet.
3437 </p><p>
3438 Men altså, det er noe spennende med året 1774 for alle som vet litt om
3439 opphavsretts-lovgivning. Det mest kjente året for opphavsrett er 1710, da
3440 det britiske parlamentet vedtok den første loven. Denne loven er kjent som
3441 "Statute of Anne" og sa at alle publiserte verk skulle være beskyttet i
3442 fjorten år, en periode som kunne fornyes én gang dersom forfatteren ennå
3443 levde, og at alle verk publisert i eller før 1710 skulle ha en ekstraperiode
3444 på 22 tillegsår.<sup>[<a name="id2612458" href="#ftn.id2612458" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> På grunn av denne
3445 loven, så skulle <em class="citetitle">Rome og Julie</em> ha falt i det fri i
3446 1731. Hvordan kunne da Tonson fortsatt ha kontroll over verket i 1774?
3447 </p><p>
3448 Årsaken var ganske enkelt at engelskmennene ennå ikke hadde bestemt hva
3449 opphavsrett innebar -- faktisk hadde ingen i verden det. På den tiden da
3450 engelskmennene vedtok "Statute of Anne", var det ingen annen lovgivning om
3451 opphavsrett. Den siste loven som regulerte utgivere var lisensieringsloven
3452 av 1662, utløpt i 1695. At loven ga utgiverne monopol over publiseringen,
3453 noe som gjorde det enklere for kronen å kontrollere hva ble publisert. Men
3454 etter at det har utløpt, var det ingen positiv lov som sa at utgiverne hadde
3455 en eksklusiv rett til å trykke bøker.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2612497"></a>
3456 </p><p>
3457 At det ikke fantes noen <span class="emphasis"><em>positiv</em></span> lov, betydde ikke at
3458 det ikke fantes noen lov. Den anglo-amerikanske juridiske tradisjon ser både
3459 til lover skapt av politikere (det lovgivende statsorgen)og til lover
3460 (prejudikater) skapt av domstolene for å bestemme hvordan folket skal
3461 leve. Vi kaller politikernes lover for positiv lov og vi kaller lovene fra
3462 dommerne sedvanerett."Common law" angir bakgrunnen for de lovgivendes
3463 lovgivning; retten til lovgiving, vanligvis kan trumfe at bakgrunnen bare
3464 hvis det går gjennom en lov til å forskyve den. Og så var det virkelige
3465 spørsmålet etter lisensiering lover hadde utløpt om felles lov beskyttet
3466 opphavsretten, uavhengig av lovverket positiv.
3467 </p><p>
3468
3469 Dette spørsmålet var viktig for utgiverne eller "bokselgere," som de ble
3470 kalt, fordi det var økende konkurranse fra utenlandske utgivere, Særlig fra
3471 Skottland hvor publiseringen og eksporten av bøker til England hadde økt
3472 veldig. Denne konkurransen reduserte fortjenesten til "The Conger", som
3473 derfor krevde at parlamentet igjen skulle vedta en lov for å gi dem
3474 eksklusiv kontroll over publisering. Dette kravet resulterte i "Statute of
3475 Anne".
3476 </p><p>
3477 "Statute of Anne" ga forfatteren eller "eieren" av en bok en eksklusiv rett
3478 til å publisere denne boken. Men det var, til bokhandernes forferdelse en
3479 viktig begrensning, nemlig hvor lenge denne retten skulle vare. Etter dette
3480 gikk trykkeretten bort og verket falt i det fri og kunne trykkes av hvem som
3481 helst. Det var ihvertfall det lovgiverne hadde tenkt.
3482 </p><p>
3483 Men nå det mest interessante med dette: Hvorfor ville parlamentet begrense
3484 trykkeretten? Sprøsmålet er ikke hvorfor de bestemte seg for denne perioden,
3485 men hvorfor ville de begrense retten <span class="emphasis"><em>i det hele tatt?</em></span>
3486 </p><p>
3487 Bokhandlerne, og forfatterne som de representerte, hadde et veldig sterkt
3488 krav. Ta <em class="citetitle">romeo og Julie</em> som et eksempel: Skuespillet
3489 ble skrevet av Shakespeare. Det var hans kreativitet som brakte det til
3490 verden. Han krenket ikke noens rett da han skrev dette verket (det er en
3491 kontroversiell påstanden, men det er urelevant), og med sin egen rett skapte
3492 han verket, han gjorde det ikke noe vanskeligere for andre til å lage
3493 skuespill. Så hvorfor skulle loven tillate at noen annen kunne komme og ta
3494 Shakespeares verkuten hans, eller hans arvingers, tillatelse? Hvilke grunner
3495 finnes for å tillate at noen "stjeler" Shakespeares verk?
3496 </p><p>
3497 Svaret er todel. Først må vi se på noe spesielt med oppfatningen av
3498 opphavsrett som fantes på tidspunktet da "Statute of Anne" ble
3499 vedtatt. Deretter må vi se på noe spesielt med bokhandlerne.
3500 </p><p>
3501
3502 Først om opphavsretten. I de siste tre hundre år har vi kommet til å bruke
3503 begrepet "copyright" i stadig videre forstand. Men i 1710 var det ikke så
3504 mye et konsept som det var en bestemt rett. Opphavsretten ble født som et
3505 svært spesifikt sett med begrensninger: den forbød andre å reprodusere en
3506 bok. I 1710 var "kopi-rett" en rett til å bruke en bestemt maskin til å
3507 replikere en bestemt arbeid. Den gikk ikke utover dette svært smale
3508 formålet. Den kontrollerte ikke mer generelt hvordan et verk kunne
3509 <span class="emphasis"><em>brukes</em></span>. Idag inkluderer retten en stor samling av
3510 restriksjoner på andres frihet: den gir forfatteren eksklusiv rett til å
3511 kopiere, eksklusiv rett til å distribuere, eksklusiv rett til å fremføre, og
3512 så videre.
3513 </p><p>
3514 Så selv om f. eks. opphavsretten til Shakespeares verker var evigvarende,
3515 betydde det under den opprinnelige betydningen av begrepet at ingen kunne
3516 trykke Shakespeares arbeid uten tillatelse fra Shakespeares arvinger. Den
3517 ville ikke ha kontrollert noe mer, for eksempel om hvordan verket kunne
3518 fremføres, om verket kunne oversettes eller om Kenneth Branagh ville hatt
3519 lov til å lage filmer. "Kopi-retten" var bare en eksklusiv rett til å
3520 trykke--ikke noe mindre, selvfølgelig, men heller ikke mer.
3521 </p><p>
3522 Selv dnne begrensede retten ble møtt med skepsis av britene. De hadde hatt
3523 en lang og stygg erfaring med "eksklusive rettigheter," spesielt "enerett"
3524 gitt av kronen. Engelskmennene hadde utkjempet en borgerkrig delvis mot
3525 kronens praksis med å dele ut monopoler--spesielt monopoler for verk som
3526 allerede eksisterte. Kong Henrik VIII hadde gitt patent til å trykke Bibelen
3527 og monopol til Darcy for å lage spillkort. Det engelske parlamentet begynte
3528 å kjempe tilbake mot denne makten hos kronen. I 1656 ble "Statute of
3529 Monopolis" vedtatt for å begrense monopolene på patenter for nye
3530 oppfinnelser. Og i 1710 var parlamentet ivrig etter å håndtere det voksende
3531 monopolet på publisering.
3532 </p><p>
3533 Dermed ble "kopi-retten", når den sees på som en monopolrett, en rettighet
3534 som bør være begrenset. (Uansett hvor overbevisende påstanden om at "det er
3535 min eiendom, og jeg skal ha for alltid," prøv hvor overbevisende det er når
3536 men sier "det er mitt monopol, og jeg skal ha det for alltid.") Staten ville
3537 beskytte eneretten, men bare så lenge det gavnet samfunnet. Britene så
3538 skadene særinteresserte kunne skape; de vedtok en lov for å stoppe dem.
3539 </p><p>
3540 Dernest, om bokhandlerne. Det var ikke bare at kopiretten var et
3541 monopol. Det var også et monopol holdt av bokhandlerne. En bokhandler høres
3542 greie og ufarlige ut for oss, men slik var det ikke i syttenhundretallets
3543 England. Medlemmene i "the Conger" ble av en voksende mengde sett på som
3544 monopolister av verste sort - et verktøy for kronens undertrykkelse, de
3545 solgte Englands frihet mot å være garantert en monopolskinntekt. Men
3546 monopolistene ble kvast kritisert: Milton beskrev dem som "gamle
3547 patentholdere og monopolister i bokhandlerkunsten"; de var "menn som derfor
3548 ikke hadde  et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er nødvendig."<sup>[<a name="id2612700" href="#ftn.id2612700" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
3549 </p><p>
3550 Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap,
3551 var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste
3552 Opplysningen viktigheten av utdannelse og kunnskap for alle. idéen om at
3553 kunnskap burde være gratis er et kjennetegn for tiden, og disse kraftige
3554 kommersielle interesser forstyrret denne idéen.
3555 </p><p>
3556 For å balansere denne makten, besluttet Parlamentet å øke konkurransen blant
3557 bokhandlerne, og den enkleste måten å gjøre det på, var å spre mengden av
3558 verdifulle bøker. Parlamentet begrenset derfor begrepet om opphavsrett, og
3559 garantert slik at verdifulle bøker ville bli frie for alle utgiver å
3560 publisere etter en begrenset periode. Slik ble det å gi eksisterende verk en
3561 periode på tjueen år et kompromiss for å bekjempe bokhandlernes
3562 makt. Begrensninger med dato var en indirekte måte å skape konkurranse
3563 mellom utgivere, og slik en skapelse og spredning av kultur.
3564 </p><p>
3565 Når 1731 (1710+21) kom, ble bokhandlerne engstelige. De så konsekvensene av
3566 mer konkurranse, og som alle konkurrenter, likte de det ikke. Først
3567 ignorerte bokhandlere ganske enkelt "Statute of Anne", og fortsatte å kreve
3568 en evigvarende rett til å kontrollere publiseringen. Men i 1735 og 1737 de
3569 prøvde å tvinge Parlamentet til å utvide periodene. Tjueen år var ikke nok,
3570 sa de; de trengte mer tid.
3571 </p><p>
3572 Parlamentet avslo kravene, Som en pamflett sa, i en vending som levere ennå
3573 idag,
3574 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3575 Jeg ser ingen grunn til å gi en utvidet perioden nå som ikke ville kunne gi
3576 utvidelser om igjen og om igjen, så fort de gamle utgår; så dersom dette
3577 lovforslaget blir vedtatt, vil effekten være: at et evig monopol blir skapt,
3578 et stort nederlag for handelen, et angrep mot kunnskapen, ingen fordel for
3579 forfatterne, men en stor avgift for folket; og alt dette kun for å øke
3580 bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<sup>[<a name="id2612777" href="#ftn.id2612777" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
3581 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3582 Etter å ha mislyktes i Parlamentet gikk utgiverne til rettssalen i en rekke
3583 saker. Deres argument var enkelt og direkte: "Statute of Anne" ga
3584 forfatterne en viss beskyttelse gjennom positiv loven, men denne
3585 beskyttelsenvar ikke ment som en erstatning for felles lov. Istedet var de
3586 ment å supplere felles lov. Ifølge sedvanerett var det galt å ta en annen
3587 persons kreative eiendom og bruke den uten hans tillatelse. "Statute of
3588 Anne", hevdet bokhandlere, endret ikke dette faktum. Derfor betydde ikke det
3589 at beskyttelsen gitt av "Statute of Anne" utløp, at beskyttelsen fra
3590 sedvaneretten utløp: Ifølge sedvaneretten hadde de rett til å fordømme
3591 publiseringen av en bok, selv følgelig om "Statute of Anne" sa at de var
3592 falt i det fri. Dette, mente de, var den eneste måten å beskytte
3593 forfatterne.
3594 </p><p>
3595 Dette var et godt argument, og hadde støtte fra flere av den tidens ledende
3596 jurister. Det viste også en ekstraordinær chutzpah. Inntail da, som
3597 jusprofessor Raymond Pattetson har sagt, "var utgiverne &#8230; like
3598 bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam."<sup>[<a name="id2611281" href="#ftn.id2611281" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om
3599 forfatternes rettigheter. Deres bekymring var den monopolske inntekten
3600 forfatterens verk ga.
3601 </p><p>
3602 Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne
3603 kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id2612867" href="#ftn.id2612867" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
3604 </p><p>
3605 Donaldson var en fremmed for Londons "the Conger". Han startet in karriere i
3606 Edinburgh i 1750. Hans forretningsidé var billige kopier av standardverk
3607 falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge "Statute of Anne".<sup>[<a name="id2612889" href="#ftn.id2612889" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldsons forlag vokste og ble "et sentrum for
3608 litterære skotter." "Blant dem," skriver professor Mark Rose, var "den unge
3609 James Boswell som, sammen med sin venn Andrew Erskine, publiserte en hel
3610 antologi av skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson."<sup>[<a name="id2612908" href="#ftn.id2612908" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2612917"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2612923"></a>
3611 </p><p>
3612 Da Londons bokselgere prøvde å få stengt Donaldsons butikk i Skottland, så
3613 flyttet han butikken til London. Her solgte han billige utgaver av "de mest
3614 populære, engelske bøker, i kamp mot sedvanerettens rett til litterær
3615 eiendom." <sup>[<a name="id2612941" href="#ftn.id2612941" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> Bøkene hans var mellom 30%
3616 og 50% billigere enn "the Conger"s, og han baserte sin rett til denne
3617 konkurransen på at bøkene, takket være "Statute of Anne", var falt i det
3618 fri.
3619 </p><p>
3620 Londons bokselgere begynte straks å slå ned mot "pirater" som
3621 Donaldson. Flere tiltak var vellykkede, den viktigste var den tidlig seieren
3622 i kampen mellom <em class="citetitle">Millar</em> og
3623 <em class="citetitle">Taylor</em>.
3624 </p><p>
3625 Millar var en bokhandler som i 1729 hadde kjøpt opp rettighetene til James
3626 Thomsons dikt "The Seasons". Millar hadde da full beskyttelse gjennom
3627 "Statute of Anne", men etter at denne beskyttelsen var uløpt, begynte Robert
3628 Taylor å trykke et konkurrerende bind. Millar gikk til sak, og hevdet han
3629 hadde en evig rett gjennom sedvaneretten, uansett hva "Statute of Anne"
3630 sa.<sup>[<a name="id2612986" href="#ftn.id2612986" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
3631 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield2"></a><p>
3632 Til moderne juristers forbløffelse, var en av, ikke bare datidens, men en av
3633 de største dommere i engelsk historie, Lord Mansfield, enig med
3634 bokhandlerne. Uansett hvilken beskyttelse "Statute of Anne" gav
3635 bokhandlerne, så sa han at den ikke fortrengte noe fra
3636 sedvaneretten. Spørsmålet var hvorvidt sedvaneretten beskyttet forfatterne
3637 mot pirater. Mansfield svar var ja: Sedvaneretten nektet Taylor å
3638 reprodusere Thomsons dikt uten Millars tillatelse. Slik gav sedvaneretten
3639 bokselgerne en evig publiseringsrett til bøker solgt til dem.
3640 </p><p>
3641
3642 Ser man på det som et spørsmål innen abstrakt jus - dersom man resonnere som
3643 om rettferdighet bare var logisk deduksjon fra de første bud - kunne
3644 Mansfields konklusjon gitt mening. Men den overså det Parlamentet hadde
3645 kjempet for i 1710: Hvordan man på best mulig vis kunne innskrenke
3646 utgivernes monopolmakt. Parlamentets strategi hadde vært å kjøpe fred
3647 gjennom å tilby en beskyttelsesperiode også for eksisterende verk, men
3648 perioden måtte være så kort at kulturen ble utsatt for konkurranse innen
3649 rimelig tid. Storbritannia skulle vokse fra den kontrollerte kulturen under
3650 kronen, inn i en fri og åpen kultur.
3651 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2613053"></a><p>
3652 Kampen for å forsvare "Statute of Anne"s begrensninger sluttet uansett ikke
3653 der, for nå kommer Donaldson.
3654 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2613068"></a><p>
3655 Millar døde kort tid etter sin seier. Boet hans solgte rettighetene over
3656 Thomsons dikt til et syndikat av utgivere, deriblant Thomas
3657 Beckett.<sup>[<a name="id2613082" href="#ftn.id2613082" class="footnote">109</a>]</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
3658 uautorisert utgave av Thomsons verk. Etter avgjørelsen i
3659 <em class="citetitle">Millar</em>-saken, gikk Beckett til sak mot
3660 Donaldson. Donaldson tok saken inn for Overhuset, som da fungerte som en
3661 slags høyesterett. I februar 1774 hadde dette organet muligheten til å tolke
3662 Parlamentets mening med utøpsdatoen fra seksti år før.
3663 </p><p>
3664 Rettssaken <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot
3665 <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> fikk en enorm oppmerksomhet i hele
3666 Storbritannia. Donaldsons advokater mente at selv om det før fantes en del
3667 rettigheter i sedvaneretten, så var disse fortrengt av "Statute of
3668 Anne". Etter at "Statute of Anne" var blitt vedtatt, skulle den eneste
3669 lovlige beskyttelse for trykkerett kom derfra. Og derfor, mente de, i tråd
3670 med vilkårene i "Statute of Anne", falle i det fri så fort
3671 beskyttelsesperioden var over.
3672 </p><p>
3673 Overhuset var en merkelig institusjon. Juridiske spørsmål ble presentert for
3674 huset, og ble først stemt over av "juslorder", medlemmer av enspesiell
3675 rettslig gruppe som fungerte nesten slik som justiariusene i vår
3676 Høyesterett. Deretter, etter at "juslordene" hadde stemt, stemte resten av
3677 Overhuset.
3678 </p><p>
3679
3680 Rapportene om juslordene stemmer er uenige. På enkelte punkter ser det ut
3681 som om evigvarende beskyttelse fikk flertall. Men det er ingen tvil om
3682 hvordan resten av Overhuset stemte. Med en majoritet på to mot en (22 mot
3683 11) stemte de ned forslaget om en evig beskyttelse. Uansett hvordan man
3684 hadde tolket sedvaneretten, var nå kopiretten begrenset til en periode, og
3685 etter denne ville verket falle i det fri.
3686 </p><p>
3687 "Å falle i det fri". Før rettssaken <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot
3688 <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> var det ingen klar oppfatning om hva å falle
3689 i det fri innebar. Før 1774 var det jo en allmenn oppfatning om at
3690 kopiretten var evigvarende. Men etter 1774 ble Public Domain født.For første
3691 gang i angloamerikansk historie var den lovlige beskyttelsen av et verk
3692 utgått, og de største verk i engelsk historie - inkludert Shakespeare,
3693 Bacon, Milton, Johnson og Bunyan - var frie.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2613178"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2613184"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2613191"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2613197"></a>
3694 <a class="indexterm" name="id2613203"></a>
3695 </p><p>
3696 Vi kan knapt forestille oss det, men denne avgjørelsen fra Overhuset fyrte
3697 opp under en svært populær og politisk reaksjon. I Skottland, hvor de fleste
3698 piratugiverne hadde holdt til, ble avgjørelsen feiret i gatene. Som
3699 <em class="citetitle">Edinburgh Advertiser</em> skrev "Ingen privatsak har noen
3700 gang fått slik oppmerksomhet fra folket, og ingen sak som har blitt prøvet i
3701 Overhuset har interessert så mange enkeltmennesker." "Stor glede i Edinburgh
3702 etter seieren over litterær eiendom: bål og *illuminations*.<sup>[<a name="id2613232" href="#ftn.id2613232" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
3703 </p><p>
3704 I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i
3705 motsatt retning. <em class="citetitle">Morning Chronicle</em> skrev:
3706 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3707 Gjennom denne avgjørelsen &#8230; er verdier til nesten 200 000 pund, som
3708 er blitt ærlig kjøpt gjennom allment salg, og som i går var eiendom, er nå
3709 redusert til ingenting. Bokselgerne i London og Westminster, mange av dem
3710 har solgt hus og eiendom for å kjøpe kopirettigheter, er med ett ruinerte,
3711 og mange som gjennom mange år har opparbeidet kompetanse for å brødfø
3712 familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="id2612842" href="#ftn.id2612842" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
3713 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3714
3715
3716 Ruinert er en overdrivelse. Men det er ingen overdrivelse å si at endringen
3717 var stor. Vedtaket fra Overhuset betydde at bokhandlerne ikke lenger kunnen
3718 kontrollere hvordan kulturen i England ville vokse og utvikle seg. Kulturen
3719 i England var etter dette <span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span>. Ikke i den betydning at
3720 kopiretten ble ignorert, for utgiverne hadde i en begrenset periode rett
3721 over trykkingen. Og heller ikke i den betydningen at bøker kunne stjeles,
3722 for selv etter at boken var falt i det fri, så måtte den kjøpes. Men
3723 <span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span> i betydningen at kulturen og dens vekst ikke lenger
3724 var kontrollert av en liten gruppe utgivere. Som alle frie markeder, ville
3725 dette markedet vokse og utvikle seg etter tilbud og etterspørsel. Den
3726 engelske kulturen ble nå formet slik flertallet Englands lesere ville at det
3727 skulle formes - gjennom valget av hva de kjøpte og skrev, gjennom valget av
3728 *memes* de gjentok og beundret. Valg i en <span class="emphasis"><em>konkurrerende
3729 sammenheng</em></span>, ikke der hvor valgene var om hvilken kultur som
3730 skulle være tilgjengelig for folket og hvor deres tilgang til den ble styrt
3731 av noen få, på tros av flertallets ønsker.
3732 </p><p>
3733 Til sist, dette var en verden hvor Parlamentet var antimonopolistisk, og
3734 holdt stand mot utgivernes krav. I en verden hvor parlamentet er lett å
3735 påvirke, vil den frie kultur være mindre beskyttet.
3736 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2612390" href="#id2612390" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
3737
3738
3739 Jacob Tonson er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med 1700-tallets litterære
3740 storheter, spesielt John Dryden, og for hans kjekke"ferdige versjoner" av
3741 klassiske verk. I tillegg til <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em>, utga
3742 han en utrolig rekke liste av verk som ennå er hjertet av den engelske
3743 kanon, inkludert de samlede verk av Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, John Milton, og
3744 John Dryden. Se Keith Walker: "Jacob Tonson, Bookseller,"
3745 <em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992): 424-31.
3746 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2612420" href="#id2612420" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
3747
3748
3749 Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3750 Perspective</em> (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968),
3751 151&#8211;52.
3752 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2612458" href="#id2612458" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
3753
3754 Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette
3755 en "opphavsrettslov." Se Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
3756 Copywrongs</em>, 40.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2612468"></a>
3757 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2612700" href="#id2612700" class="para">101</a>] </sup>
3758
3759
3760
3761 Philip Wittenberg, <em class="citetitle">The Protection and Marketing of Literary
3762 Property</em> (New York: J. Messner, Inc., 1937), 31.
3763 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2612777" href="#id2612777" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
3764
3765
3766 A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending in the
3767 House of Commons, for making more effectual an Act in the Eighth Year of the
3768 Reign of Queen Anne, entitled, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by
3769 Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such
3770 Copies, during the Times therein mentioned (London, 1735), in Brief Amici
3771 Curiae of Tyler T. Ochoa et al., 8, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
3772 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618).
3773 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2611281" href="#id2611281" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
3774
3775 Lyman Ray Patterson, "Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use,"
3776 <em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt Law Review</em> 40 (1987): 28. For en
3777 fantastisk overbevisende fortelling, se Vaidhyanathan, 37&#8211;48.
3778 <a class="indexterm" name="id2612430"></a>
3779 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2612867" href="#id2612867" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
3780
3781
3782 For a compelling account, see David Saunders, <em class="citetitle">Authorship and
3783 Copyright</em> (London: Routledge, 1992), 62&#8211;69.
3784 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2612889" href="#id2612889" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
3785
3786
3787 Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
3788 University Press, 1993), 92.
3789 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2612908" href="#id2612908" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
3790
3791
3792 Ibid., 93.
3793 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2612941" href="#id2612941" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
3794
3795
3796 Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3797 Perspective</em>, 167 (quoting Borwell).
3798 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2612986" href="#id2612986" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
3799
3800
3801 Howard B. Abrams, "The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
3802 Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright," <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law
3803 Review</em> 29 (1983): 1152.
3804 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2613082" href="#id2613082" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
3805
3806
3807 Ibid., 1156.
3808 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2613232" href="#id2613232" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
3809
3810
3811 Rose, 97.
3812 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2612842" href="#id2612842" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
3813
3814
3815 ibid.
3816 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="recorders"></a>Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</h2></div></div></div><p>
3817 Jon Else er en filmskaper. Han er mest kjent for sine dokumentarer og har på
3818 ypperlig vis klart å spre sin kunst. Han er også en lærer, som meg selv, og
3819 jeg misunner den lojaliteten og beundringen hans studenter har for ham. (Ved
3820 et uhell møtte jeg to av hans studenter i et middagsselskap og han var deres
3821 Gud.)
3822 </p><p>
3823 Else arbeidet med en dokumentarfilm hvor også jeg var involvert. I en pause
3824 så fortalte han meg om hvordan det kunne være å skape film i dagens Amerika.
3825 </p><p>
3826 I 1990 arbeidet Else med en dokumentar om Wagners Ring Cycle. Fokuset var på
3827 *stagehands* på San Francisco Opera. Stagehands er spesielt morsomt og
3828 fargerikt innslag i en opera. I løpet av forestillingen oppholder de seg
3829 blant publikum og på lysloftet. De er en perfekt kontrast til kunsten på
3830 scenen.<a class="indexterm" name="id2613383"></a>
3831 </p><p>
3832
3833 Under en forestilling, filmet Else noen stagehands som spilte *checkers*. I
3834 et hjørne av rommet stod det et fjernsynsapparat. På fjernsynet, mens
3835 forestillingen pågikk og operakompaniet spilte Wagner, gikk <em class="citetitle">The
3836 Simpsons</em>. Slik Else så det, så hjalp dette tegnefilm-innslaget
3837 med å fange det spesielle med scenen.
3838 </p><p>
3839 Så noen år senere, da han endelig hadde fått ordnet den siste
3840 finansieringen, ville Else skaffe rettigheter til å bruke disse få sekundene
3841 med <em class="citetitle">The Simpson</em>. For disse få sekundene var selvsagt
3842 beskyttet av opphavsretten, og for å bruke beskyttet materiale må man ha
3843 tillatelse fra eieren, dersom det ikke er "rimelig bruk" eller det
3844 foreligger spesielle avtaler.
3845 </p><p>
3846 Else kontaktet <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-skaper Matt Groenings kontor
3847 for å få tillatelse. Og Groening gav ham det. Det var tross alt kun snakk om
3848 fire og et halvt sekund på et lite fjernsyn, bakerst i et hjørne av
3849 rommet. Hvordan kunne det skade? Groening var glad for å få ha det med i
3850 filmen, men han ba Else om å kontakte Gracie Films, firmaet som produserer
3851 programmet.<a class="indexterm" name="id2613445"></a>
3852 </p><p>
3853 Gracie Films sa også at det var greit, men de, slik som Groening, ønsket å
3854 være forsiktige, og ba Else om å kontakte Fox, konsernet som eide Gracie. Og
3855 Else kontaktet Fox og forklarte situasjonen; at det var snakk om et klipp i
3856 hjørnet i bakgrunnen i ett rom i filmen. Matt Groening hadde allerede gitt
3857 sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox.<a class="indexterm" name="id2613465"></a>
3858 </p><p>
3859 Deretter, fortalte Else: "skjedde to ting. Først oppdaget vi &#8230; at
3860 Matt Groening ikke eide sitt eget verk &#8212; ihvertfall at noen [hos Fox]
3861 trodde at han ikke eide sitt eget verk." Som det andre krevde Fox "ti tusen
3862 dollar i lisensavgift for disse fire og et halvt sekundene med &#8230;
3863 fullstendig tilfeldig <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em> som var i et hjørne i
3864 ett opptak."
3865 </p><p>
3866 Ellers var sikker på at det var en feil. Han fikk tak i noen som han trodde
3867 var nestleder for lisensiering, Rebecca Herrera. Han forklarte for henne at
3868 "det må være en feil her &#8230; Vi ber deg om en utdanningssats på dette."
3869 Og de hadde fått utdanningssats, fortalte Herrera. Kort tid etter ringte
3870 Else igjen for å få dette bekreftet.
3871 </p><p>
3872
3873 "Jeg måtte være sikker på at jeg hadde riktige opplysninger foran meg," sa
3874 han. "Ja, du har riktige opplysninger," sa hun. Det ville koste $10 000 å
3875 bruke dette lille klippet av <em class="citetitle">The Simpson</em>, plassert
3876 bakerst i et hjørne i en scene i en dokumentar om Wagners Ring Cycle. Som om
3877 det ikke var nok, forbløffet Herrera Else med å si "Og om du siterer meg,
3878 vil du høre fra våre advokater." En av Herreras assistenter fortalte Else at
3879 "De bryr seg ikke i det heletatt. Alt de vil ha er pengene."
3880 </p><p>
3881 Men Else hadde ikke penger til å kjøpe lisens for klippet. Så å gjenskape
3882 denne delen av virkeligheten, lå langt utenfor hans budsjett. Like før
3883 dokumentaren skulle slippes, redigerte Else inn et annet klipp på
3884 fjernsynet, et klipp fra en av hans andre filmer <em class="citetitle">The Day After
3885 Trinity</em> fra ti år tidligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id2613542"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2613548"></a>
3886 </p><p>
3887 Det er ingen tvil om at noen, enten det er er Matt Groening eller Fox, eier
3888 rettighetene til <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Rettighetene er deres
3889 eiendom. For å bruke beskyttet mteriale, kreves det ofte at men får
3890 tillatelse fra eieren eller eierne. Dersom Else ønsket å bruke
3891 <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em> til noe hvor loven gir verket
3892 beskyttelse, så må han innhente tillatelse fra eieren før han kan bruke
3893 det. Og i et fritt markes er det eieren som bestemmer hvor mye han/hun vil
3894 ta for hvilken som helst bruk (hvor loven krever tillatelse fra eier).
3895 </p><p>
3896 For eksempel "offentlig fremvisning"* av <em class="citetitle">The Simpson</em>
3897 er en form for bruk hvor loven gir eieren kontroll. Dersom du velger ut dine
3898 favorittepisoder, leier en kinosal og selger billetter til "Mine
3899 <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-favoritter", så må du ha tillatelse fra
3900 rettighetsinnhaveren (eieren). Og eieren kan (med rette, slik jeg ser det)
3901 kreve hvor mye han vil; $10ellr $1 000 000. Det er hans rett ifølge loven.
3902 </p><p>
3903 Men når jurister hører denne historien om Jon Else og Fox, så er deres
3904 første tanke "rimelig bruk".<sup>[<a name="id2613606" href="#ftn.id2613606" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Elses bruk
3905 av 4,5 sekunder med et indirekte klipp av en
3906 <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>-episode er et klart eksempel på "rimelig
3907 bruk" av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>&#8212; og "rimelig bruk" krever
3908 ingen tillatelse fra noen.
3909 </p><p>
3910
3911
3912 Så jeg spurte Else om hvorfor han ikke bare stolte på "fair use". Og her er
3913 hans svar:
3914 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3915 <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>-fiaskoen lærte meg om hvor stor avstand det
3916 var mellom det jurister finner urelevant på en abstrakt måte, og hva som er
3917 knusende relevant på en konkret måte for oss som prøver å lage og kringkaste
3918 dokumentarer. Jeg tvilte aldri på at dette helt klart var "rimelig bruk",
3919 men jeg kunne ikke stole på konseptet på noen konkret måte. Og dette er
3920 grunnen:
3921 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
3922
3923
3924 Før våre filmer kan kringkastes, krever nettverket at vi kjøper en "Errors
3925 and Omissions"-forsikring. Den krever en detailjert "visual cue sheet" med
3926 alle kilder og lisens-status på alle scener i filmen. De har et smalt syn på
3927 "fair use", og å påstå at noe er nettopp det kan forsinke, og i verste fall
3928 stoppe, prosessen.
3929 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
3930
3931 Jeg skulle nok aldri ha bedt om Matt Groenings tillatelse. Men jeg visste
3932 (ihvertfall fra rykter) at Fox tidligere hadde brukt å jakte på og stoppe
3933 ulisensiert bruk av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>, på samme måte som
3934 George Lucas var veldig ivrig på å forfølge bruken av <em class="citetitle">Star
3935 Wars</em>. Så jeg bestemte meg for å følge boka, og trodde at vi
3936 kulle få til en gratis, i alle fall rimelig, avtale for fire sekunders bruk
3937 av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Som en dokumentarskaper, arbeidende
3938 på randen av utryddelse, var det siste jeg ønsket en juridisk strid, selv
3939 for å forsvare et prinsipp.
3940 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
3941
3942
3943
3944 Jeg snakket faktisk med en av dine kolleger på Stanford Law School &#8230;
3945 som bekreftet at dette var rimelig bruk. Han bekreftet også at Fox ville
3946 "depose and litigate you to within an inch of your life", uavhengig av
3947 sannheten i mine krav. Han gjorde det klart at alt ville koke ned til hvem
3948 som hadde flest jurister og dypest lommer, jeg eller dem.
3949
3950 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
3951
3952
3953 Spørsmålet om "fair use" dukker om regel opp helt mot slutten av prosjektet,
3954 når vi nærmer oss siste frist og er tomme for penger.
3955 </p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><p>
3956 I teorien betyr "fair use" at du ikke trenger tillatelse. Teorien støtter
3957 derfor den frie kultur og arbeider mot tillatelseskulturen. Men i praksis
3958 fungerer "fair use" helt annerledes. Men de uklare linjene i lovverket, samt
3959 de fryktelige konsekvensene dersom man tar feil, gjør at mange kunstnere
3960 ikke stoler på "fair use". Loven har en svært god hensikt, men praksisen har
3961 ikke fulgt opp.
3962 </p><p>
3963 Dette eksempelet viser hvor langt denne loven har kommet fra sine
3964 syttenhundretalls røtter. Loven som skulle beskytte utgiverne mot
3965 urettferdig piratkonkurranse, hadde utviklet seg til et sverd som slo ned på
3966 _all_ bruk, transformativ* eller ikke.
3967 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2613606" href="#id2613606" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
3968
3969
3970 Ønsker du å lese en flott redegjørelse om hvordan dette er "fair use", og
3971 hvordan advokatene ikke anerkjenner det, så les Richard A. Posner og William
3972 F. Patry, "Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the Wake of
3973 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> " (utkast arkivert hos forfatteren),
3974 University of Chicago Law School, 5. august 2003.
3975 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2613795"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2613801"></a><p>
3976 In 1993, Alex Alben was a lawyer working at Starwave, Inc.  Starwave was an
3977 innovative company founded by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen to develop
3978 digital entertainment. Long before the Internet became popular, Starwave
3979 began investing in new technology for delivering entertainment in
3980 anticipation of the power of networks.
3981 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2613816"></a><p>
3982 Alben had a special interest in new technology. He was intrigued by the
3983 emerging market for CD-ROM technology&#8212;not to distribute film, but to
3984 do things with film that otherwise would be very difficult.  In 1993, he
3985 launched an initiative to develop a product to build retrospectives on the
3986 work of particular actors. The first actor chosen was Clint Eastwood. The
3987 idea was to showcase all of the work of Eastwood, with clips from his films
3988 and interviews with figures important to his career.
3989 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2613825"></a><p>
3990 At that time, Eastwood had made more than fifty films, as an actor and as a
3991 director. Alben began with a series of interviews with Eastwood, asking him
3992 about his career. Because Starwave produced those interviews, it was free to
3993 include them on the CD.
3994 </p><p>
3995
3996
3997 That alone would not have made a very interesting product, so Starwave
3998 wanted to add content from the movies in Eastwood's career: posters,
3999 scripts, and other material relating to the films Eastwood made. Most of his
4000 career was spent at Warner Brothers, and so it was relatively easy to get
4001 permission for that content.
4002 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2613859"></a><p>
4003 Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips. "Our goal was
4004 that we were going to have a clip from every one of Eastwood's films," Alben
4005 told me. It was here that the problem arose. "No one had ever really done
4006 this before," Alben explained. "No one had ever tried to do this in the
4007 context of an artistic look at an actor's career."
4008 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2613874"></a><p>
4009 Alben brought the idea to Michael Slade, the CEO of Starwave.  Slade asked,
4010 "Well, what will it take?"
4011 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2613886"></a><p>
4012 Alben replied, "Well, we're going to have to clear rights from everyone who
4013 appears in these films, and the music and everything else that we want to
4014 use in these film clips." Slade said, "Great! Go for it."<sup>[<a name="id2613898" href="#ftn.id2613898" class="footnote">113</a>]</sup>
4015 </p><p>
4016 The problem was that neither Alben nor Slade had any idea what clearing
4017 those rights would mean. Every actor in each of the films could have a claim
4018 to royalties for the reuse of that film. But CD- ROMs had not been specified
4019 in the contracts for the actors, so there was no clear way to know just what
4020 Starwave was to do.
4021 </p><p>
4022 I asked Alben how he dealt with the problem. With an obvious pride in his
4023 resourcefulness that obscured the obvious bizarreness of his tale, Alben
4024 recounted just what they did:
4025 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4026 So we very mechanically went about looking up the film clips.  We made some
4027 artistic decisions about what film clips to include&#8212;of course we were
4028 going to use the "Make my day" clip from <em class="citetitle">Dirty
4029 Harry</em>. But you then need to get the guy on the ground who's
4030 wiggling under the gun and you need to get his permission.  And then you
4031 have to decide what you are going to pay him.
4032 </p><p>
4033
4034
4035 We decided that it would be fair if we offered them the dayplayer rate for
4036 the right to reuse that performance. We're talking about a clip of less than
4037 a minute, but to reuse that performance in the CD-ROM the rate at the time
4038 was about $600.  So we had to identify the people&#8212;some of them were
4039 hard to identify because in Eastwood movies you can't tell who's the guy
4040 crashing through the glass&#8212;is it the actor or is it the stuntman? And
4041 then we just, we put together a team, my assistant and some others, and we
4042 just started calling people.
4043 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2613958"></a><p>
4044 Some actors were glad to help&#8212;Donald Sutherland, for example, followed
4045 up himself to be sure that the rights had been cleared.  Others were
4046 dumbfounded at their good fortune. Alben would ask, "Hey, can I pay you $600
4047 or maybe if you were in two films, you know, $1,200?" And they would say,
4048 "Are you for real? Hey, I'd love to get $1,200." And some of course were a
4049 bit difficult (estranged ex-wives, in particular). But eventually, Alben and
4050 his team had cleared the rights to this retrospective CD-ROM on Clint
4051 Eastwood's career.
4052 </p><p>
4053 It was one <span class="emphasis"><em>year</em></span> later&#8212;"and even then we weren't
4054 sure whether we were totally in the clear."
4055 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2613995"></a><p>
4056 Alben is proud of his work. The project was the first of its kind and the
4057 only time he knew of that a team had undertaken such a massive project for
4058 the purpose of releasing a retrospective.
4059 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4060 Everyone thought it would be too hard. Everyone just threw up their hands
4061 and said, "Oh, my gosh, a film, it's so many copyrights, there's the music,
4062 there's the screenplay, there's the director, there's the actors." But we
4063 just broke it down. We just put it into its constituent parts and said,
4064 "Okay, there's this many actors, this many directors, &#8230; this many
4065 musicians," and we just went at it very systematically and cleared the
4066 rights.
4067 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4068
4069
4070
4071 And no doubt, the product itself was exceptionally good. Eastwood loved it,
4072 and it sold very well.
4073 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2614031"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2614036"></a><p>
4074 But I pressed Alben about how weird it seems that it would have to take a
4075 year's work simply to clear rights. No doubt Alben had done this
4076 efficiently, but as Peter Drucker has famously quipped, "There is nothing so
4077 useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at
4078 all."<sup>[<a name="id2614050" href="#ftn.id2614050" class="footnote">114</a>]</sup> Did it make sense, I asked Alben,
4079 that this is the way a new work has to be made?
4080 </p><p>
4081 For, as he acknowledged, "very few &#8230; have the time and resources, and
4082 the will to do this," and thus, very few such works would ever be made. Does
4083 it make sense, I asked him, from the standpoint of what anybody really
4084 thought they were ever giving rights for originally, that you would have to
4085 go clear rights for these kinds of clips?
4086 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4087 I don't think so. When an actor renders a performance in a movie, he or she
4088 gets paid very well. &#8230; And then when 30 seconds of that performance
4089 is used in a new product that is a retrospective of somebody's career, I
4090 don't think that that person &#8230; should be compensated for that.
4091 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4092 Or at least, is this <span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> the artist should be
4093 compensated? Would it make sense, I asked, for there to be some kind of
4094 statutory license that someone could pay and be free to make derivative use
4095 of clips like this? Did it really make sense that a follow-on creator would
4096 have to track down every artist, actor, director, musician, and get explicit
4097 permission from each? Wouldn't a lot more be created if the legal part of
4098 the creative process could be made to be more clean?
4099 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4100
4101 Absolutely. I think that if there were some fair-licensing
4102 mechanism&#8212;where you weren't subject to hold-ups and you weren't
4103 subject to estranged former spouses&#8212;you'd see a lot more of this work,
4104 because it wouldn't be so daunting to try to put together a retrospective of
4105 someone's career and meaningfully illustrate it with lots of media from that
4106 person's career. You'd build in a cost as the producer of one of these
4107 things. You'd build in a cost of paying X dollars to the talent that
4108 performed. But it would be a known cost. That's the thing that trips
4109 everybody up and makes this kind of product hard to get off the ground. If
4110 you knew I have a hundred minutes of film in this product and it's going to
4111 cost me X, then you build your budget around it, and you can get investments
4112 and everything else that you need to produce it. But if you say, "Oh, I want
4113 a hundred minutes of something and I have no idea what it's going to cost
4114 me, and a certain number of people are going to hold me up for money," then
4115 it becomes difficult to put one of these things together.
4116 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2614132"></a><p>
4117 Alben worked for a big company. His company was backed by some of the
4118 richest investors in the world. He therefore had authority and access that
4119 the average Web designer would not have. So if it took him a year, how long
4120 would it take someone else? And how much creativity is never made just
4121 because the costs of clearing the rights are so high? These costs are the
4122 burdens of a kind of regulation. Put on a Republican hat for a moment, and
4123 get angry for a bit. The government defines the scope of these rights, and
4124 the scope defined determines how much it's going to cost to negotiate
4125 them. (Remember the idea that land runs to the heavens, and imagine the
4126 pilot purchasing flythrough rights as he negotiates to fly from Los Angeles
4127 to San Francisco.)  These rights might well have once made sense; but as
4128 circumstances change, they make no sense at all. Or at least, a
4129 well-trained, regulationminimizing Republican should look at the rights and
4130 ask, "Does this still make sense?"
4131 </p><p>
4132
4133 I've seen the flash of recognition when people get this point, but only a
4134 few times. The first was at a conference of federal judges in California.
4135 The judges were gathered to discuss the emerging topic of cyber-law. I was
4136 asked to be on the panel. Harvey Saferstein, a well-respected lawyer from an
4137 L.A. firm, introduced the panel with a video that he and a friend, Robert
4138 Fairbank, had produced.
4139 </p><p>
4140 Videoen var en glimrende sammenstilling av filmer fra hver periode i det
4141 tjuende århundret, rammet inn rundt idéen om en episode i TV-serien
4142 <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em>. Utførelsen var perfekt, ned til seksti
4143 minutter stoppeklokken. Dommerne elsket enhver minutt av den.
4144 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2614185"></a><p>
4145 Da lysene kom på, kikket jeg over til min medpaneldeltager, David Nimmer,
4146 kanskje den ledende opphavsrettakademiker og utøver i nasjonen. Han hadde en
4147 forbauset uttrykk i ansiktet sitt, mens han tittet ut over rommet med over
4148 250 godt underholdte dommere. Med en en illevarslende tone, begynte han sin
4149 tale med et spørsmål: "Vet dere hvor mange føderale lover som nettopp brutt
4150 i dette rommet?"
4151 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2614205"></a><p>
4152 For of course, the two brilliantly talented creators who made this film
4153 hadn't done what Alben did. They hadn't spent a year clearing the rights to
4154 these clips; technically, what they had done violated the law.  Of course,
4155 it wasn't as if they or anyone were going to be prosecuted for this
4156 violation (the presence of 250 judges and a gaggle of federal marshals
4157 notwithstanding). But Nimmer was making an important point: A year before
4158 anyone would have heard of the word Napster, and two years before another
4159 member of our panel, David Boies, would defend Napster before the Ninth
4160 Circuit Court of Appeals, Nimmer was trying to get the judges to see that
4161 the law would not be friendly to the capacities that this technology would
4162 enable. Technology means you can now do amazing things easily; but you
4163 couldn't easily do them legally.
4164 </p><p>
4165 We live in a "cut and paste" culture enabled by technology. Anyone building
4166 a presentation knows the extraordinary freedom that the cut and paste
4167 architecture of the Internet created&#8212;in a second you can find just
4168 about any image you want; in another second, you can have it planted in your
4169 presentation.
4170 </p><p>
4171 But presentations are just a tiny beginning. Using the Internet and its
4172 archives, musicians are able to string together mixes of sound never before
4173 imagined; filmmakers are able to build movies out of clips on computers
4174 around the world. An extraordinary site in Sweden takes images of
4175 politicians and blends them with music to create biting political
4176 commentary. A site called Camp Chaos has produced some of the most biting
4177 criticism of the record industry that there is through the mixing of Flash!
4178 and music.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2614233"></a>
4179 </p><p>
4180 All of these creations are technically illegal. Even if the creators wanted
4181 to be "legal," the cost of complying with the law is impossibly
4182 high. Therefore, for the law-abiding sorts, a wealth of creativity is never
4183 made. And for that part that is made, if it doesn't follow the clearance
4184 rules, it doesn't get released.
4185 </p><p>
4186 To some, these stories suggest a solution: Let's alter the mix of rights so
4187 that people are free to build upon our culture. Free to add or mix as they
4188 see fit. We could even make this change without necessarily requiring that
4189 the "free" use be free as in "free beer." Instead, the system could simply
4190 make it easy for follow-on creators to compensate artists without requiring
4191 an army of lawyers to come along: a rule, for example, that says "the
4192 royalty owed the copyright owner of an unregistered work for the derivative
4193 reuse of his work will be a flat 1 percent of net revenues, to be held in
4194 escrow for the copyright owner." Under this rule, the copyright owner could
4195 benefit from some royalty, but he would not have the benefit of a full
4196 property right (meaning the right to name his own price) unless he registers
4197 the work.
4198 </p><p>
4199 Who could possibly object to this? And what reason would there be for
4200 objecting? We're talking about work that is not now being made; which if
4201 made, under this plan, would produce new income for artists.  What reason
4202 would anyone have to oppose it?
4203 </p><p>
4204
4205 In February 2003, DreamWorks studios announced an agreement with Mike Myers,
4206 the comic genius of <em class="citetitle">Saturday Night Live</em> and Austin
4207 Powers. According to the announcement, Myers and Dream-Works would work
4208 together to form a "unique filmmaking pact." Under the agreement, DreamWorks
4209 "will acquire the rights to existing motion picture hits and classics, write
4210 new storylines and&#8212;with the use of stateof-the-art digital
4211 technology&#8212;insert Myers and other actors into the film, thereby
4212 creating an entirely new piece of entertainment."
4213 </p><p>
4214 The announcement called this "film sampling." As Myers explained, "Film
4215 Sampling is an exciting way to put an original spin on existing films and
4216 allow audiences to see old movies in a new light. Rap artists have been
4217 doing this for years with music and now we are able to take that same
4218 concept and apply it to film." Steven Spielberg is quoted as saying, "If
4219 anyone can create a way to bring old films to new audiences, it is Mike."
4220 </p><p>
4221 Spielberg is right. Film sampling by Myers will be brilliant. But if you
4222 don't think about it, you might miss the truly astonishing point about this
4223 announcement. As the vast majority of our film heritage remains under
4224 copyright, the real meaning of the DreamWorks announcement is just this: It
4225 is Mike Myers and only Mike Myers who is free to sample. Any general freedom
4226 to build upon the film archive of our culture, a freedom in other contexts
4227 presumed for us all, is now a privilege reserved for the funny and
4228 famous&#8212;and presumably rich.
4229 </p><p>
4230 This privilege becomes reserved for two sorts of reasons. The first
4231 continues the story of the last chapter: the vagueness of "fair use." Much
4232 of "sampling" should be considered "fair use." But few would rely upon so
4233 weak a doctrine to create. That leads to the second reason that the
4234 privilege is reserved for the few: The costs of negotiating the legal rights
4235 for the creative reuse of content are astronomically high.  These costs
4236 mirror the costs with fair use: You either pay a lawyer to defend your fair
4237 use rights or pay a lawyer to track down permissions so you don't have to
4238 rely upon fair use rights. Either way, the creative process is a process of
4239 paying lawyers&#8212;again a privilege, or perhaps a curse, reserved for the
4240 few.
4241 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2613898" href="#id2613898" class="para">113</a>] </sup>
4242
4243 Technically, the rights that Alben had to clear were mainly those of
4244 publicity&#8212;rights an artist has to control the commercial exploitation
4245 of his image.  But these rights, too, burden "Rip, Mix, Burn" creativity, as
4246 this chapter evinces.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2613827"></a>
4247 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2614050" href="#id2614050" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
4248
4249
4250 U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management,
4251 <em class="citetitle">Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services
4252 Acquisition</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #22</a>.
4253 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere</h2></div></div></div><p>
4254 In April 1996, millions of "bots"&#8212;computer codes designed to "spider,"
4255 or automatically search the Internet and copy content&#8212;began running
4256 across the Net. Page by page, these bots copied Internet-based information
4257 onto a small set of computers located in a basement in San Francisco's
4258 Presidio. Once the bots finished the whole of the Internet, they started
4259 again. Over and over again, once every two months, these bits of code took
4260 copies of the Internet and stored them.
4261 </p><p>
4262 By October 2001, the bots had collected more than five years of copies. And
4263 at a small announcement in Berkeley, California, the archive that these
4264 copies created, the Internet Archive, was opened to the world. Using a
4265 technology called "the Way Back Machine," you could enter a Web page, and
4266 see all of its copies going back to 1996, as well as when those pages
4267 changed.
4268 </p><p>
4269 This is the thing about the Internet that Orwell would have appreciated.  In
4270 the dystopia described in <em class="citetitle">1984</em>, old newspapers were
4271 constantly updated to assure that the current view of the world, approved of
4272 by the government, was not contradicted by previous news reports.
4273 </p><p>
4274
4275
4276 Thousands of workers constantly reedited the past, meaning there was no way
4277 ever to know whether the story you were reading today was the story that was
4278 printed on the date published on the paper.
4279 </p><p>
4280 It's the same with the Internet. If you go to a Web page today, there's no
4281 way for you to know whether the content you are reading is the same as the
4282 content you read before. The page may seem the same, but the content could
4283 easily be different. The Internet is Orwell's library&#8212;constantly
4284 updated, without any reliable memory.
4285 </p><p>
4286 Until the Way Back Machine, at least. With the Way Back Machine, and the
4287 Internet Archive underlying it, you can see what the Internet was. You have
4288 the power to see what you remember. More importantly, perhaps, you also have
4289 the power to find what you don't remember and what others might prefer you
4290 forget.<sup>[<a name="id2614420" href="#ftn.id2614420" class="footnote">115</a>]</sup>
4291 </p><p>
4292 We take it for granted that we can go back to see what we remember
4293 reading. Think about newspapers. If you wanted to study the reaction of your
4294 hometown newspaper to the race riots in Watts in 1965, or to Bull Connor's
4295 water cannon in 1963, you could go to your public library and look at the
4296 newspapers. Those papers probably exist on microfiche. If you're lucky, they
4297 exist in paper, too. Either way, you are free, using a library, to go back
4298 and remember&#8212;not just what it is convenient to remember, but remember
4299 something close to the truth.
4300 </p><p>
4301 It is said that those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat
4302 it. That's not quite correct. We <span class="emphasis"><em>all</em></span> forget
4303 history. The key is whether we have a way to go back to rediscover what we
4304 forget. More directly, the key is whether an objective past can keep us
4305 honest. Libraries help do that, by collecting content and keeping it, for
4306 schoolchildren, for researchers, for grandma. A free society presumes this
4307 knowedge.
4308 </p><p>
4309
4310 The Internet was an exception to this presumption. Until the Internet
4311 Archive, there was no way to go back. The Internet was the quintessentially
4312 transitory medium. And yet, as it becomes more important in forming and
4313 reforming society, it becomes more and more important to maintain in some
4314 historical form. It's just bizarre to think that we have scads of archives
4315 of newspapers from tiny towns around the world, yet there is but one copy of
4316 the Internet&#8212;the one kept by the Internet Archive.
4317 </p><p>
4318 Brewster Kahle is the founder of the Internet Archive. He was a very
4319 successful Internet entrepreneur after he was a successful computer
4320 researcher.  In the 1990s, Kahle decided he had had enough business
4321 success.  It was time to become a different kind of success. So he launched
4322 a series of projects designed to archive human knowledge. The Internet
4323 Archive was just the first of the projects of this Andrew Carnegie of the
4324 Internet. By December of 2002, the archive had over 10 billion pages, and it
4325 was growing at about a billion pages a month.
4326 </p><p>
4327 The Way Back Machine is the largest archive of human knowledge in human
4328 history. At the end of 2002, it held "two hundred and thirty terabytes of
4329 material"&#8212;and was "ten times larger than the Library of Congress." And
4330 this was just the first of the archives that Kahle set out to build. In
4331 addition to the Internet Archive, Kahle has been constructing the Television
4332 Archive. Television, it turns out, is even more ephemeral than the
4333 Internet. While much of twentieth-century culture was constructed through
4334 television, only a tiny proportion of that culture is available for anyone
4335 to see today. Three hours of news are recorded each evening by Vanderbilt
4336 University&#8212;thanks to a specific exemption in the copyright law. That
4337 content is indexed, and is available to scholars for a very low fee. "But
4338 other than that, [television] is almost unavailable," Kahle told me. "If you
4339 were Barbara Walters you could get access to [the archives], but if you are
4340 just a graduate student?" As Kahle put it,
4341 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4342
4343 Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown? Remember
4344 that back and forth surreal experience of a politician interacting with a
4345 fictional television character? If you were a graduate student wanting to
4346 study that, and you wanted to get those original back and forth exchanges
4347 between the two, the <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em> episode that came out
4348 after it &#8230; it would be almost impossible. &#8230; Those materials
4349 are almost unfindable. &#8230;
4350 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4351 Why is that? Why is it that the part of our culture that is recorded in
4352 newspapers remains perpetually accessible, while the part that is recorded
4353 on videotape is not? How is it that we've created a world where researchers
4354 trying to understand the effect of media on nineteenthcentury America will
4355 have an easier time than researchers trying to understand the effect of
4356 media on twentieth-century America?
4357 </p><p>
4358 In part, this is because of the law. Early in American copyright law,
4359 copyright owners were required to deposit copies of their work in
4360 libraries.  These copies were intended both to facilitate the spread of
4361 knowledge and to assure that a copy of the work would be around once the
4362 copyright expired, so that others might access and copy the work.
4363 </p><p>
4364 These rules applied to film as well. But in 1915, the Library of Congress
4365 made an exception for film. Film could be copyrighted so long as such
4366 deposits were made. But the filmmaker was then allowed to borrow back the
4367 deposits&#8212;for an unlimited time at no cost. In 1915 alone, there were
4368 more than 5,475 films deposited and "borrowed back." Thus, when the
4369 copyrights to films expire, there is no copy held by any library. The copy
4370 exists&#8212;if it exists at all&#8212;in the library archive of the film
4371 company.<sup>[<a name="id2614484" href="#ftn.id2614484" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
4372 </p><p>
4373 The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts were
4374 originally not copyrighted&#8212;there was no way to capture the broadcasts,
4375 so there was no fear of "theft." But as technology enabled capturing,
4376 broadcasters relied increasingly upon the law. The law required they make a
4377 copy of each broadcast for the work to be "copyrighted." But those copies
4378 were simply kept by the broadcasters. No library had any right to them; the
4379 government didn't demand them.  The content of this part of American culture
4380 is practically invisible to anyone who would look.
4381 </p><p>
4382
4383 Kahle was eager to correct this. Before September 11, 2001, he and his
4384 allies had started capturing television. They selected twenty stations from
4385 around the world and hit the Record button. After September 11, Kahle,
4386 working with dozens of others, selected twenty stations from around the
4387 world and, beginning October 11, 2001, made their coverage during the week
4388 of September 11 available free on-line.  Anyone could see how news reports
4389 from around the world covered the events of that day.
4390 </p><p>
4391 Kahle had the same idea with film. Working with Rick Prelinger, whose
4392 archive of film includes close to 45,000 "ephemeral films" (meaning films
4393 other than Hollywood movies, films that were never copyrighted), Kahle
4394 established the Movie Archive. Prelinger let Kahle digitize 1,300 films in
4395 this archive and post those films on the Internet to be downloaded for
4396 free. Prelinger's is a for-profit company. It sells copies of these films as
4397 stock footage. What he has discovered is that after he made a significant
4398 chunk available for free, his stock footage sales went up
4399 dramatically. People could easily find the material they wanted to use. Some
4400 downloaded that material and made films on their own. Others purchased
4401 copies to enable other films to be made.  Either way, the archive enabled
4402 access to this important part of our culture.  Want to see a copy of the
4403 "Duck and Cover" film that instructed children how to save themselves in the
4404 middle of nuclear attack? Go to archive.org, and you can download the film
4405 in a few minutes&#8212;for free.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2614590"></a>
4406 </p><p>
4407 Here again, Kahle is providing access to a part of our culture that we
4408 otherwise could not get easily, if at all. It is yet another part of what
4409 defines the twentieth century that we have lost to history. The law doesn't
4410 require these copies to be kept by anyone, or to be deposited in an archive
4411 by anyone. Therefore, there is no simple way to find them.
4412 </p><p>
4413 The key here is access, not price. Kahle wants to enable free access to this
4414 content, but he also wants to enable others to sell access to it. His aim is
4415 to ensure competition in access to this important part of our culture.  Not
4416 during the commercial life of a bit of creative property, but during a
4417 second life that all creative property has&#8212;a noncommercial life.
4418 </p><p>
4419
4420 For here is an idea that we should more clearly recognize. Every bit of
4421 creative property goes through different "lives." In its first life, if the
4422 creator is lucky, the content is sold. In such cases the commercial market
4423 is successful for the creator. The vast majority of creative property
4424 doesn't enjoy such success, but some clearly does. For that content,
4425 commercial life is extremely important. Without this commercial market,
4426 there would be, many argue, much less creativity.
4427 </p><p>
4428 After the commercial life of creative property has ended, our tradition has
4429 always supported a second life as well. A newspaper delivers the news every
4430 day to the doorsteps of America. The very next day, it is used to wrap fish
4431 or to fill boxes with fragile gifts or to build an archive of knowledge
4432 about our history. In this second life, the content can continue to inform
4433 even if that information is no longer sold.
4434 </p><p>
4435 The same has always been true about books. A book goes out of print very
4436 quickly (the average today is after about a year<sup>[<a name="id2614690" href="#ftn.id2614690" class="footnote">117</a>]</sup>). After it is out of print, it can be sold in used book stores
4437 without the copyright owner getting anything and stored in libraries, where
4438 many get to read the book, also for free. Used book stores and libraries are
4439 thus the second life of a book. That second life is extremely important to
4440 the spread and stability of culture.
4441 </p><p>
4442 Yet increasingly, any assumption about a stable second life for creative
4443 property does not hold true with the most important components of popular
4444 culture in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. For
4445 these&#8212;television, movies, music, radio, the Internet&#8212;there is no
4446 guarantee of a second life. For these sorts of culture, it is as if we've
4447 replaced libraries with Barnes &amp; Noble superstores. With this culture,
4448 what's accessible is nothing but what a certain limited market demands.
4449 Beyond that, culture disappears.
4450 </p><p>
4451
4452 For most of the twentieth century, it was economics that made this so. It
4453 would have been insanely expensive to collect and make accessible all
4454 television and film and music: The cost of analog copies is extraordinarily
4455 high. So even though the law in principle would have restricted the ability
4456 of a Brewster Kahle to copy culture generally, the real restriction was
4457 economics. The market made it impossibly difficult to do anything about this
4458 ephemeral culture; the law had little practical effect.
4459 </p><p>
4460 Perhaps the single most important feature of the digital revolution is that
4461 for the first time since the Library of Alexandria, it is feasible to
4462 imagine constructing archives that hold all culture produced or distributed
4463 publicly. Technology makes it possible to imagine an archive of all books
4464 published, and increasingly makes it possible to imagine an archive of all
4465 moving images and sound.
4466 </p><p>
4467 The scale of this potential archive is something we've never imagined
4468 before. The Brewster Kahles of our history have dreamed about it; but we are
4469 for the first time at a point where that dream is possible. As Kahle
4470 describes,
4471 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4472 It looks like there's about two to three million recordings of music.
4473 Ever. There are about a hundred thousand theatrical releases of movies,
4474 &#8230; and about one to two million movies [distributed] during the
4475 twentieth century. There are about twenty-six million different titles of
4476 books. All of these would fit on computers that would fit in this room and
4477 be able to be afforded by a small company.  So we're at a turning point in
4478 our history. Universal access is the goal. And the opportunity of leading a
4479 different life, based on this, is &#8230; thrilling. It could be one of the
4480 things humankind would be most proud of. Up there with the Library of
4481 Alexandria, putting a man on the moon, and the invention of the printing
4482 press.
4483 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4484
4485 Kahle is not the only librarian. The Internet Archive is not the only
4486 archive. But Kahle and the Internet Archive suggest what the future of
4487 libraries or archives could be. <span class="emphasis"><em>When</em></span> the commercial
4488 life of creative property ends, I don't know. But it does. And whenever it
4489 does, Kahle and his archive hint at a world where this knowledge, and
4490 culture, remains perpetually available. Some will draw upon it to understand
4491 it; some to criticize it. Some will use it, as Walt Disney did, to re-create
4492 the past for the future. These technologies promise something that had
4493 become unimaginable for much of our past&#8212;a future
4494 <span class="emphasis"><em>for</em></span> our past. The technology of digital arts could make
4495 the dream of the Library of Alexandria real again.
4496 </p><p>
4497 Technologists have thus removed the economic costs of building such an
4498 archive. But lawyers' costs remain. For as much as we might like to call
4499 these "archives," as warm as the idea of a "library" might seem, the
4500 "content" that is collected in these digital spaces is also someone's
4501 "property." And the law of property restricts the freedoms that Kahle and
4502 others would exercise.
4503 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2614420" href="#id2614420" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
4504
4505
4506 The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the White House
4507 changes its own press releases without notice. A May 13, 2003, press release
4508 stated, "Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." That was later changed,
4509 without notice, to "Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." E-mail from
4510 Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
4511 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2614484" href="#id2614484" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
4512
4513
4514 Doug Herrick, "Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at the
4515 Library of Congress," <em class="citetitle">Film Library Quarterly</em> 13
4516 nos. 2&#8211;3 (1980): 5; Anthony Slide, <em class="citetitle">Nitrate Won't Wait: A
4517 History of Film Preservation in the United States</em> ( Jefferson,
4518 N.C.: McFarland &amp; Co., 1992), 36.
4519 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2614690" href="#id2614690" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
4520
4521
4522 Dave Barns, "Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord, Bar
4523 Owner Starts a New Chapter by Adopting Business," <em class="citetitle">Chicago
4524 Tribune</em>, 5 September 1997, at Metro Lake 1L. Of books published
4525 between 1927 and 1946, only 2.2 percent were in print in 2002. R. Anthony
4526 Reese, "The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of Digital Networks,"
4527 <em class="citetitle">Boston College Law Review</em> 44 (2003): 593 n. 51.
4528 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title='Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</h2></div></div></div><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></div><p>
4529 Jack Valenti has been the president of the Motion Picture Association of
4530 America since 1966. He first came to Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's
4531 administration&#8212;literally. The famous picture of Johnson's swearing-in
4532 on Air Force One after the assassination of President Kennedy has Valenti in
4533 the background. In his almost forty years of running the MPAA, Valenti has
4534 established himself as perhaps the most prominent and effective lobbyist in
4535 Washington.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2614800"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2614853"></a>
4536 </p><p>
4537 The MPAA is the American branch of the international Motion Picture
4538 Association. It was formed in 1922 as a trade association whose goal was to
4539 defend American movies against increasing domestic criticism.  The
4540 organization now represents not only filmmakers but producers and
4541 distributors of entertainment for television, video, and cable. Its board is
4542 made up of the chairmen and presidents of the seven major producers and
4543 distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States:
4544 Walt Disney, Sony Pictures Entertainment, MGM, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth
4545 Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2614872"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2614879"></a>
4546 <a class="indexterm" name="id2614885"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2614891"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2614897"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2614904"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2614910"></a>
4547 </p><p>
4548
4549
4550 Valenti is only the third president of the MPAA. No president before him has
4551 had as much influence over that organization, or over Washington. As a
4552 Texan, Valenti has mastered the single most important political skill of a
4553 Southerner&#8212;the ability to appear simple and slow while hiding a
4554 lightning-fast intellect. To this day, Valenti plays the simple, humble
4555 man. But this Harvard MBA, and author of four books, who finished high
4556 school at the age of fifteen and flew more than fifty combat missions in
4557 World War II, is no Mr. Smith. When Valenti went to Washington, he mastered
4558 the city in a quintessentially Washingtonian way.
4559 </p><p>
4560 In defending artistic liberty and the freedom of speech that our culture
4561 depends upon, the MPAA has done important good. In crafting the MPAA rating
4562 system, it has probably avoided a great deal of speech-regulating harm. But
4563 there is an aspect to the organization's mission that is both the most
4564 radical and the most important. This is the organization's effort,
4565 epitomized in Valenti's every act, to redefine the meaning of "creative
4566 property."
4567 </p><p>
4568 In 1982, Valenti's testimony to Congress captured the strategy perfectly:
4569 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4570 No matter the lengthy arguments made, no matter the charges and the
4571 counter-charges, no matter the tumult and the shouting, reasonable men and
4572 women will keep returning to the fundamental issue, the central theme which
4573 animates this entire debate: <span class="emphasis"><em>Creative property owners must be
4574 accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other property
4575 owners in the nation</em></span>. That is the issue.  That is the
4576 question. And that is the rostrum on which this entire hearing and the
4577 debates to follow must rest.<sup>[<a name="id2614966" href="#ftn.id2614966" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
4578 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4579
4580 The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's
4581 rhetoric, is brilliant and simple and brilliant because simple. The "central
4582 theme" to which "reasonable men and women" will return is this: "Creative
4583 property owners must be accorded the same rights and protections resident in
4584 all other property owners in the nation." There are no second-class
4585 citizens, Valenti might have continued. There should be no second-class
4586 property owners.
4587 </p><p>
4588 This claim has an obvious and powerful intuitive pull. It is stated with
4589 such clarity as to make the idea as obvious as the notion that we use
4590 elections to pick presidents. But in fact, there is no more extreme a claim
4591 made by <span class="emphasis"><em>anyone</em></span> who is serious in this debate than this
4592 claim of Valenti's. Jack Valenti, however sweet and however brilliant, is
4593 perhaps the nation's foremost extremist when it comes to the nature and
4594 scope of "creative property." His views have <span class="emphasis"><em>no</em></span>
4595 reasonable connection to our actual legal tradition, even if the subtle pull
4596 of his Texan charm has slowly redefined that tradition, at least in
4597 Washington.
4598 </p><p>
4599 While "creative property" is certainly "property" in a nerdy and precise
4600 sense that lawyers are trained to understand,<sup>[<a name="id2615018" href="#ftn.id2615018" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case, nor should it be, that "creative
4601 property owners" have been "accorded the same rights and protection resident
4602 in all other property owners." Indeed, if creative property owners were
4603 given the same rights as all other property owners, that would effect a
4604 radical, and radically undesirable, change in our tradition.
4605 </p><p>
4606 Valenti knows this. But he speaks for an industry that cares squat for our
4607 tradition and the values it represents. He speaks for an industry that is
4608 instead fighting to restore the tradition that the British overturned in
4609 1710. In the world that Valenti's changes would create, a powerful few would
4610 exercise powerful control over how our creative culture would develop.
4611 </p><p>
4612
4613 I have two purposes in this chapter. The first is to convince you that,
4614 historically, Valenti's claim is absolutely wrong. The second is to convince
4615 you that it would be terribly wrong for us to reject our history.  We have
4616 always treated rights in creative property differently from the rights
4617 resident in all other property owners. They have never been the same. And
4618 they should never be the same, because, however counterintuitive this may
4619 seem, to make them the same would be to fundamentally weaken the opportunity
4620 for new creators to create.  Creativity depends upon the owners of
4621 creativity having less than perfect control.
4622 </p><p>
4623 Organizations such as the MPAA, whose board includes the most powerful of
4624 the old guard, have little interest, their rhetoric notwithstanding, in
4625 assuring that the new can displace them. No organization does. No person
4626 does. (Ask me about tenure, for example.)  But what's good for the MPAA is
4627 not necessarily good for America. A society that defends the ideals of free
4628 culture must preserve precisely the opportunity for new creativity to
4629 threaten the old.  To get just a hint that there is something fundamentally
4630 wrong in Valenti's argument, we need look no further than the United States
4631 Constitution itself.
4632 </p><p>
4633 The framers of our Constitution loved "property." Indeed, so strongly did
4634 they love property that they built into the Constitution an important
4635 requirement. If the government takes your property&#8212;if it condemns your
4636 house, or acquires a slice of land from your farm&#8212;it is required,
4637 under the Fifth Amendment's "Takings Clause," to pay you "just compensation"
4638 for that taking. The Constitution thus guarantees that property is, in a
4639 certain sense, sacred. It cannot <span class="emphasis"><em>ever</em></span> be taken from the
4640 property owner unless the government pays for the privilege.
4641 </p><p>
4642
4643 Yet the very same Constitution speaks very differently about what Valenti
4644 calls "creative property." In the clause granting Congress the power to
4645 create "creative property," the Constitution <span class="emphasis"><em>requires</em></span>
4646 that after a "limited time," Congress take back the rights that it has
4647 granted and set the "creative property" free to the public domain. Yet when
4648 Congress does this, when the expiration of a copyright term "takes" your
4649 copyright and turns it over to the public domain, Congress does not have any
4650 obligation to pay "just compensation" for this "taking." Instead, the same
4651 Constitution that requires compensation for your land requires that you lose
4652 your "creative property" right without any compensation at all.
4653 </p><p>
4654 The Constitution thus on its face states that these two forms of property
4655 are not to be accorded the same rights. They are plainly to be treated
4656 differently. Valenti is therefore not just asking for a change in our
4657 tradition when he argues that creative-property owners should be accorded
4658 the same rights as every other property-right owner. He is effectively
4659 arguing for a change in our Constitution itself.
4660 </p><p>
4661 Arguing for a change in our Constitution is not necessarily wrong.  There
4662 was much in our original Constitution that was plainly wrong.  The
4663 Constitution of 1789 entrenched slavery; it left senators to be appointed
4664 rather than elected; it made it possible for the electoral college to
4665 produce a tie between the president and his own vice president (as it did in
4666 1800). The framers were no doubt extraordinary, but I would be the first to
4667 admit that they made big mistakes. We have since rejected some of those
4668 mistakes; no doubt there could be others that we should reject as well. So
4669 my argument is not simply that because Jefferson did it, we should, too.
4670 </p><p>
4671 Instead, my argument is that because Jefferson did it, we should at least
4672 try to understand <span class="emphasis"><em>why</em></span>. Why did the framers, fanatical
4673 property types that they were, reject the claim that creative property be
4674 given the same rights as all other property? Why did they require that for
4675 creative property there must be a public domain?
4676 </p><p>
4677 To answer this question, we need to get some perspective on the history of
4678 these "creative property" rights, and the control that they enabled.  Once
4679 we see clearly how differently these rights have been defined, we will be in
4680 a better position to ask the question that should be at the core of this
4681 war: Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> creative property should be protected,
4682 but how. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> we will enforce the rights the law
4683 gives to creative-property owners, but what the particular mix of rights
4684 ought to be. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> artists should be paid, but
4685 whether institutions designed to assure that artists get paid need also
4686 control how culture develops.
4687 </p><p>
4688
4689
4690
4691 To answer these questions, we need a more general way to talk about how
4692 property is protected. More precisely, we need a more general way than the
4693 narrow language of the law allows. In <em class="citetitle">Code and Other Laws of
4694 Cyberspace</em>, I used a simple model to capture this more general
4695 perspective. For any particular right or regulation, this model asks how
4696 four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the
4697 right or regulation. I represented it with this diagram:
4698 </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
4699 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>
4700 At the center of this picture is a regulated dot: the individual or group
4701 that is the target of regulation, or the holder of a right. (In each case
4702 throughout, we can describe this either as regulation or as a right.  For
4703 simplicity's sake, I will speak only of regulations.)  The ovals represent
4704 four ways in which the individual or group might be regulated&#8212; either
4705 constrained or, alternatively, enabled. Law is the most obvious constraint
4706 (to lawyers, at least). It constrains by threatening punishments after the
4707 fact if the rules set in advance are violated. So if, for example, you
4708 willfully infringe Madonna's copyright by copying a song from her latest CD
4709 and posting it on the Web, you can be punished with a $150,000 fine. The
4710 fine is an ex post punishment for violating an ex ante rule. It is imposed
4711 by the state.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2614925"></a>
4712 </p><p>
4713 Norms are a different kind of constraint. They, too, punish an individual
4714 for violating a rule. But the punishment of a norm is imposed by a
4715 community, not (or not only) by the state. There may be no law against
4716 spitting, but that doesn't mean you won't be punished if you spit on the
4717 ground while standing in line at a movie. The punishment might not be harsh,
4718 though depending upon the community, it could easily be more harsh than many
4719 of the punishments imposed by the state. The mark of the difference is not
4720 the severity of the rule, but the source of the enforcement.
4721 </p><p>
4722 The market is a third type of constraint. Its constraint is effected through
4723 conditions: You can do X if you pay Y; you'll be paid M if you do N. These
4724 constraints are obviously not independent of law or norms&#8212;it is
4725 property law that defines what must be bought if it is to be taken legally;
4726 it is norms that say what is appropriately sold. But given a set of norms,
4727 and a background of property and contract law, the market imposes a
4728 simultaneous constraint upon how an individual or group might behave.
4729 </p><p>
4730 Finally, and for the moment, perhaps, most mysteriously,
4731 "architecture"&#8212;the physical world as one finds it&#8212;is a
4732 constraint on behavior.  A fallen bridge might constrain your ability to get
4733 across a river. Railroad tracks might constrain the ability of a community
4734 to integrate its social life. As with the market, architecture does not
4735 effect its constraint through ex post punishments. Instead, also as with the
4736 market, architecture effects its constraint through simultaneous
4737 conditions. These conditions are imposed not by courts enforcing contracts,
4738 or by police punishing theft, but by nature, by "architecture." If a
4739 500-pound boulder blocks your way, it is the law of gravity that enforces
4740 this constraint. If a $500 airplane ticket stands between you and a flight
4741 to New York, it is the market that enforces this constraint.
4742 </p><p>
4743
4744
4745
4746 So the first point about these four modalities of regulation is obvious:
4747 They interact. Restrictions imposed by one might be reinforced by
4748 another. Or restrictions imposed by one might be undermined by another.
4749 </p><p>
4750 The second point follows directly: If we want to understand the effective
4751 freedom that anyone has at a given moment to do any particular thing, we
4752 have to consider how these four modalities interact.  Whether or not there
4753 are other constraints (there may well be; my claim is not about
4754 comprehensiveness), these four are among the most significant, and any
4755 regulator (whether controlling or freeing)  must consider how these four in
4756 particular interact.
4757 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivespeed"></a><p>
4758 So, for example, consider the "freedom" to drive a car at a high speed. That
4759 freedom is in part restricted by laws: speed limits that say how fast you
4760 can drive in particular places at particular times. It is in part restricted
4761 by architecture: speed bumps, for example, slow most rational drivers;
4762 governors in buses, as another example, set the maximum rate at which the
4763 driver can drive. The freedom is in part restricted by the market: Fuel
4764 efficiency drops as speed increases, thus the price of gasoline indirectly
4765 constrains speed. And finally, the norms of a community may or may not
4766 constrain the freedom to speed. Drive at 50 mph by a school in your own
4767 neighborhood and you're likely to be punished by the neighbors. The same
4768 norm wouldn't be as effective in a different town, or at night.
4769 </p><p>
4770
4771 The final point about this simple model should also be fairly clear: While
4772 these four modalities are analytically independent, law has a special role
4773 in affecting the three.<sup>[<a name="id2615349" href="#ftn.id2615349" class="footnote">120</a>]</sup> The law, in
4774 other words, sometimes operates to increase or decrease the constraint of a
4775 particular modality.  Thus, the law might be used to increase taxes on
4776 gasoline, so as to increase the incentives to drive more slowly. The law
4777 might be used to mandate more speed bumps, so as to increase the difficulty
4778 of driving rapidly. The law might be used to fund ads that stigmatize
4779 reckless driving. Or the law might be used to require that other laws be
4780 more strict&#8212;a federal requirement that states decrease the speed
4781 limit, for example&#8212;so as to decrease the attractiveness of fast
4782 driving.
4783 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2615369"></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"><p>
4784 These constraints can thus change, and they can be changed. To understand
4785 the effective protection of liberty or protection of property at any
4786 particular moment, we must track these changes over time. A restriction
4787 imposed by one modality might be erased by another. A freedom enabled by one
4788 modality might be displaced by another.<sup>[<a name="id2615413" href="#ftn.id2615413" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
4789 </p><div class="section" title="Hvorfor Hollywood har rett"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="hollywood"></a>Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</h2></div></div></div><p>
4790 The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just how,
4791 Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress and the
4792 courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that rallying makes
4793 sense.
4794 </p><p>
4795 Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the Internet:
4796 </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"><p>
4797
4798
4799 There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
4800 limits the ability to copy and share content, by imposing penalties on those
4801 who copy and share content. Those penalties are reinforced by technologies
4802 that make it hard to copy and share content (architecture) and expensive to
4803 copy and share content (market). Finally, those penalties are mitigated by
4804 norms we all recognize&#8212;kids, for example, taping other kids'
4805 records. These uses of copyrighted material may well be infringement, but
4806 the norms of our society (before the Internet, at least) had no problem with
4807 this form of infringement.
4808 </p><p>
4809 Enter the Internet, or, more precisely, technologies such as MP3s and p2p
4810 sharing. Now the constraint of architecture changes dramatically, as does
4811 the constraint of the market. And as both the market and architecture relax
4812 the regulation of copyright, norms pile on. The happy balance (for the
4813 warriors, at least) of life before the Internet becomes an effective state
4814 of anarchy after the Internet.
4815 </p><p>
4816
4817 Thus the sense of, and justification for, the warriors' response.
4818 Technology has changed, the warriors say, and the effect of this change,
4819 when ramified through the market and norms, is that a balance of protection
4820 for the copyright owners' rights has been lost. This is Iraq after the fall
4821 of Saddam, but this time no government is justifying the looting that
4822 results.
4823 </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>
4824 Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the
4825 warriors. Indeed, in a "White Paper" prepared by the Commerce Department
4826 (one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in 1995, this mix of
4827 regulatory modalities had already been identified and the strategy to
4828 respond already mapped. In response to the changes the Internet had
4829 effected, the White Paper argued (1) Congress should strengthen intellectual
4830 property law, (2) businesses should adopt innovative marketing techniques,
4831 (3) technologists should push to develop code to protect copyrighted
4832 material, and (4) educators should educate kids to better protect copyright.
4833 </p><p>
4834
4835 This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed&#8212;if it was to
4836 preserve the particular balance that existed before the change induced by
4837 the Internet. And it's just what we should expect the content industry to
4838 push for. It is as American as apple pie to consider the happy life you have
4839 as an entitlement, and to look to the law to protect it if something comes
4840 along to change that happy life. Homeowners living in a flood plain have no
4841 hesitation appealing to the government to rebuild (and rebuild again) when a
4842 flood (architecture) wipes away their property (law). Farmers have no
4843 hesitation appealing to the government to bail them out when a virus
4844 (architecture) devastates their crop. Unions have no hesitation appealing to
4845 the government to bail them out when imports (market) wipe out the
4846 U.S. steel industry.
4847 </p><p>
4848 Thus, there's nothing wrong or surprising in the content industry's campaign
4849 to protect itself from the harmful consequences of a technological
4850 innovation. And I would be the last person to argue that the changing
4851 technology of the Internet has not had a profound effect on the content
4852 industry's way of doing business, or as John Seely Brown describes it, its
4853 "architecture of revenue."
4854 </p><p>
4855 But just because a particular interest asks for government support, it
4856 doesn't follow that support should be granted. And just because technology
4857 has weakened a particular way of doing business, it doesn't follow that the
4858 government should intervene to support that old way of doing
4859 business. Kodak, for example, has lost perhaps as much as 20 percent of
4860 their traditional film market to the emerging technologies of digital
4861 cameras.<sup>[<a name="id2615610" href="#ftn.id2615610" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
4862 government should ban digital cameras just to support Kodak? Highways have
4863 weakened the freight business for railroads. Does anyone think we should ban
4864 trucks from roads <span class="emphasis"><em>for the purpose of</em></span> protecting the
4865 railroads? Closer to the subject of this book, remote channel changers have
4866 weakened the "stickiness" of television advertising (if a boring commercial
4867 comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf ), and it may well be that
4868 this change has weakened the television advertising market. But does anyone
4869 believe we should regulate remotes to reinforce commercial television?
4870 (Maybe by limiting them to function only once a second, or to switch to only
4871 ten channels within an hour?)
4872 </p><p>
4873 The obvious answer to these obviously rhetorical questions is no.  In a free
4874 society, with a free market, supported by free enterprise and free trade,
4875 the government's role is not to support one way of doing business against
4876 others. Its role is not to pick winners and protect them against loss. If
4877 the government did this generally, then we would never have any progress. As
4878 Microsoft chairman Bill Gates wrote in 1991, in a memo criticizing software
4879 patents, "established companies have an interest in excluding future
4880 competitors."<sup>[<a name="id2615660" href="#ftn.id2615660" class="footnote">123</a>]</sup> And relative to a
4881 startup, established companies also have the means. (Think RCA and FM
4882 radio.) A world in which competitors with new ideas must fight not only the
4883 market but also the government is a world in which competitors with new
4884 ideas will not succeed. It is a world of stasis and increasingly
4885 concentrated stagnation. It is the Soviet Union under Brezhnev.
4886 <a class="indexterm" name="id2615679"></a>
4887 </p><p>
4888 Thus, while it is understandable for industries threatened with new
4889 technologies that change the way they do business to look to the government
4890 for protection, it is the special duty of policy makers to guarantee that
4891 that protection not become a deterrent to progress. It is the duty of policy
4892 makers, in other words, to assure that the changes they create, in response
4893 to the request of those hurt by changing technology, are changes that
4894 preserve the incentives and opportunities for innovation and change.
4895 </p><p>
4896 In the context of laws regulating speech&#8212;which include, obviously,
4897 copyright law&#8212;that duty is even stronger. When the industry
4898 complaining about changing technologies is asking Congress to respond in a
4899 way that burdens speech and creativity, policy makers should be especially
4900 wary of the request. It is always a bad deal for the government to get into
4901 the business of regulating speech markets. The risks and dangers of that
4902 game are precisely why our framers created the First Amendment to our
4903 Constitution: "Congress shall make no law &#8230; abridging the freedom of
4904 speech." So when Congress is being asked to pass laws that would "abridge"
4905 the freedom of speech, it should ask&#8212; carefully&#8212;whether such
4906 regulation is justified.
4907 </p><p>
4908
4909 My argument just now, however, has nothing to do with whether the changes
4910 that are being pushed by the copyright warriors are "justified." My argument
4911 is about their effect. For before we get to the question of justification, a
4912 hard question that depends a great deal upon your values, we should first
4913 ask whether we understand the effect of the changes the content industry
4914 wants.
4915 </p><p>
4916 Her kommer metaforen som vil forklare argumentet.
4917 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxddt"></a><p>
4918 In 1873, the chemical DDT was first synthesized. In 1948, Swiss chemist Paul
4919 Hermann Müller won the Nobel Prize for his work demonstrating the
4920 insecticidal properties of DDT. By the 1950s, the insecticide was widely
4921 used around the world to kill disease-carrying pests. It was also used to
4922 increase farm production.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2615756"></a>
4923 </p><p>
4924 No one doubts that killing disease-carrying pests or increasing crop
4925 production is a good thing. No one doubts that the work of Müller was
4926 important and valuable and probably saved lives, possibly millions.
4927 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2615774"></a><p>
4928 But in 1962, Rachel Carson published <em class="citetitle">Silent Spring</em>,
4929 which argued that DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having
4930 unintended environmental consequences. Birds were losing the ability to
4931 reproduce.  Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2615790"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2615796"></a>
4932 </p><p>
4933 No one set out to destroy the environment. Paul Müller certainly did not aim
4934 to harm any birds. But the effort to solve one set of problems produced
4935 another set which, in the view of some, was far worse than the problems that
4936 were originally attacked. Or more accurately, the problems DDT caused were
4937 worse than the problems it solved, at least when considering the other, more
4938 environmentally friendly ways to solve the problems that DDT was meant to
4939 solve.
4940 </p><p>
4941
4942 It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James Boyle
4943 appeals when he argues that we need an "environmentalism" for
4944 culture.<sup>[<a name="id2615825" href="#ftn.id2615825" class="footnote">124</a>]</sup> His point, and the point I
4945 want to develop in the balance of this chapter, is not that the aims of
4946 copyright are flawed. Or that authors should not be paid for their work. Or
4947 that music should be given away "for free." The point is that some of the
4948 ways in which we might protect authors will have unintended consequences for
4949 the cultural environment, much like DDT had for the natural environment. And
4950 just as criticism of DDT is not an endorsement of malaria or an attack on
4951 farmers, so, too, is criticism of one particular set of regulations
4952 protecting copyright not an endorsement of anarchy or an attack on authors.
4953 It is an environment of creativity that we seek, and we should be aware of
4954 our actions' effects on the environment.
4955 </p><p>
4956 My argument, in the balance of this chapter, tries to map exactly this
4957 effect. No doubt the technology of the Internet has had a dramatic effect on
4958 the ability of copyright owners to protect their content. But there should
4959 also be little doubt that when you add together the changes in copyright law
4960 over time, plus the change in technology that the Internet is undergoing
4961 just now, the net effect of these changes will not be only that copyrighted
4962 work is effectively protected. Also, and generally missed, the net effect of
4963 this massive increase in protection will be devastating to the environment
4964 for creativity.
4965 </p><p>
4966 In a line: To kill a gnat, we are spraying DDT with consequences for free
4967 culture that will be far more devastating than that this gnat will be lost.
4968 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2615880"></a></div><div class="section" title="Opphav"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="beginnings"></a>Opphav</h2></div></div></div><p>
4969 America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
4970 English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of "creative
4971 property" rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English aim to
4972 avoid overly powerful publishers.
4973 </p><p>
4974 The power to establish "creative property" rights is granted to Congress in
4975 a way that, for our Constitution, at least, is very odd. Article I, section
4976 8, clause 8 of our Constitution states that:
4977 </p><p>
4978
4979 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
4980 by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
4981 to their respective Writings and Discoveries.  We can call this the
4982 "Progress Clause," for notice what this clause does not say. It does not say
4983 Congress has the power to grant "creative property rights." It says that
4984 Congress has the power <span class="emphasis"><em>to promote progress</em></span>. The grant
4985 of power is its purpose, and its purpose is a public one, not the purpose of
4986 enriching publishers, nor even primarily the purpose of rewarding authors.
4987 </p><p>
4988 The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw in
4989 chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">6</a>, the
4990 English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a few would not
4991 exercise disproportionate control over culture by exercising
4992 disproportionate control over publishing. We can assume the framers followed
4993 the English for a similar purpose. Indeed, unlike the English, the framers
4994 reinforced that objective, by requiring that copyrights extend "to Authors"
4995 only.
4996 </p><p>
4997 The design of the Progress Clause reflects something about the
4998 Constitution's design in general. To avoid a problem, the framers built
4999 structure. To prevent the concentrated power of publishers, they built a
5000 structure that kept copyrights away from publishers and kept them short. To
5001 prevent the concentrated power of a church, they banned the federal
5002 government from establishing a church. To prevent concentrating power in the
5003 federal government, they built structures to reinforce the power of the
5004 states&#8212;including the Senate, whose members were at the time selected
5005 by the states, and an electoral college, also selected by the states, to
5006 select the president. In each case, a <span class="emphasis"><em>structure</em></span> built
5007 checks and balances into the constitutional frame, structured to prevent
5008 otherwise inevitable concentrations of power.
5009 </p><p>
5010 I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call "copyright"
5011 today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond anything they ever
5012 considered. To begin to understand what they did, we need to put our
5013 "copyright" in context: We need to see how it has changed in the 210 years
5014 since they first struck its design.
5015 </p><p>
5016
5017 Some of these changes come from the law: some in light of changes in
5018 technology, and some in light of changes in technology given a particular
5019 concentration of market power. In terms of our model, we started here:
5020 </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>
5021 Vi kommer til å ende opp her:
5022 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1442"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.6. "Opphavsrett" 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>
5023
5024 La meg forklare hvordan.
5025
5026 </p></div><div class="section" title="Loven: Varighet"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawduration"></a>Loven: Varighet</h2></div></div></div><p>
5027 When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it faced
5028 the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that the English
5029 had confronted in 1774. Many states had passed laws protecting creative
5030 property, and some believed that these laws simply supplemented common law
5031 rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="id2616038" href="#ftn.id2616038" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
5032 domain in the United States in 1790. If copyrights were protected by the
5033 common law, then there was no simple way to know whether a work published in
5034 the United States was controlled or free. Just as in England, this lingering
5035 uncertainty would make it hard for publishers to rely upon a public domain
5036 to reprint and distribute works.
5037 </p><p>
5038 That uncertainty ended after Congress passed legislation granting
5039 copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law, federal
5040 protections for copyrighted works displaced any state law protections.  Just
5041 as in England the Statute of Anne eventually meant that the copyrights for
5042 all English works expired, a federal statute meant that any state copyrights
5043 expired as well.
5044 </p><p>
5045 In 1790, Congress enacted the first copyright law. It created a federal
5046 copyright and secured that copyright for fourteen years. If the author was
5047 alive at the end of that fourteen years, then he could opt to renew the
5048 copyright for another fourteen years. If he did not renew the copyright, his
5049 work passed into the public domain.
5050 </p><p>
5051 Selv om det ble skapt mange verker i USA i de første 10 årene til
5052 republikken, så ble kun 5 prosent av verkene registrert under det føderale
5053 opphavsrettsregimet.  Av alle verker skapt i USA både før 1790 og fra 1790
5054 fram til 1800, så ble 95 prosent øyeblikkelig allemannseie (public
5055 domain). Resten ble allemannseie etter maksimalt 20 år, og som oftest etter
5056 14 år.<sup>[<a name="id2616104" href="#ftn.id2616104" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
5057 </p><p>
5058
5059 Dette fornyelsessystemet var en avgjørende del av det amerikanske systemet
5060 for opphavsrett.  Det sikret at maksimal vernetid i opphavsretten bare ble
5061 gitt til verker der det var ønsket. Etter den første perioden på fjorten år,
5062 hvis forfatteren ikke så verdien av å fornye sin opphavsrett, var det heller
5063 ikke verdt det for samfunnet å håndheve opphavsretten.
5064 </p><p>
5065 Fourteen years may not seem long to us, but for the vast majority of
5066 copyright owners at that time, it was long enough: Only a small minority of
5067 them renewed their copyright after fourteen years; the balance allowed their
5068 work to pass into the public domain.<sup>[<a name="id2616170" href="#ftn.id2616170" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
5069 </p><p>
5070 Even today, this structure would make sense. Most creative work has an
5071 actual commercial life of just a couple of years. Most books fall out of
5072 print after one year.<sup>[<a name="id2616199" href="#ftn.id2616199" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
5073 happens, the used books are traded free of copyright regulation. Thus the
5074 books are no longer <span class="emphasis"><em>effectively</em></span> controlled by
5075 copyright. The only practical commercial use of the books at that time is to
5076 sell the books as used books; that use&#8212;because it does not involve
5077 publication&#8212;is effectively free.
5078 </p><p>
5079 In the first hundred years of the Republic, the term of copyright was
5080 changed once. In 1831, the term was increased from a maximum of 28 years to
5081 a maximum of 42 by increasing the initial term of copyright from 14 years to
5082 28 years. In the next fifty years of the Republic, the term increased once
5083 again. In 1909, Congress extended the renewal term of 14 years to 28 years,
5084 setting a maximum term of 56 years.
5085 </p><p>
5086 Then, beginning in 1962, Congress started a practice that has defined
5087 copyright law since. Eleven times in the last forty years, Congress has
5088 extended the terms of existing copyrights; twice in those forty years,
5089 Congress extended the term of future copyrights. Initially, the extensions
5090 of existing copyrights were short, a mere one to two years.  In 1976,
5091 Congress extended all existing copyrights by nineteen years.  And in 1998,
5092 in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Congress extended the term
5093 of existing and future copyrights by twenty years.
5094 </p><p>
5095
5096 The effect of these extensions is simply to toll, or delay, the passing of
5097 works into the public domain. This latest extension means that the public
5098 domain will have been tolled for thirty-nine out of fifty-five years, or 70
5099 percent of the time since 1962. Thus, in the twenty years after the Sonny
5100 Bono Act, while one million patents will pass into the public domain, zero
5101 copyrights will pass into the public domain by virtue of the expiration of a
5102 copyright term.
5103 </p><p>
5104 The effect of these extensions has been exacerbated by another,
5105 little-noticed change in the copyright law. Remember I said that the framers
5106 established a two-part copyright regime, requiring a copyright owner to
5107 renew his copyright after an initial term. The requirement of renewal meant
5108 that works that no longer needed copyright protection would pass more
5109 quickly into the public domain. The works remaining under protection would
5110 be those that had some continuing commercial value.
5111 </p><p>
5112 The United States abandoned this sensible system in 1976. For all works
5113 created after 1978, there was only one copyright term&#8212;the maximum
5114 term. For "natural" authors, that term was life plus fifty years. For
5115 corporations, the term was seventy-five years. Then, in 1992, Congress
5116 abandoned the renewal requirement for all works created before 1978. All
5117 works still under copyright would be accorded the maximum term then
5118 available. After the Sonny Bono Act, that term was ninety-five years.
5119 </p><p>
5120 This change meant that American law no longer had an automatic way to assure
5121 that works that were no longer exploited passed into the public domain. And
5122 indeed, after these changes, it is unclear whether it is even possible to
5123 put works into the public domain. The public domain is orphaned by these
5124 changes in copyright law. Despite the requirement that terms be "limited,"
5125 we have no evidence that anything will limit them.
5126 </p><p>
5127 The effect of these changes on the average duration of copyright is
5128 dramatic. In 1973, more than 85 percent of copyright owners failed to renew
5129 their copyright. That meant that the average term of copyright in 1973 was
5130 just 32.2 years. Because of the elimination of the renewal requirement, the
5131 average term of copyright is now the maximum term.  In thirty years, then,
5132 the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.<sup>[<a name="id2616294" href="#ftn.id2616294" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
5133 </p></div><div class="section" title="Loven: Virkeområde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawscope"></a>Loven: Virkeområde</h2></div></div></div><p>
5134 The "scope" of a copyright is the range of rights granted by the law.  The
5135 scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those changes are not
5136 necessarily bad. But we should understand the extent of the changes if we're
5137 to keep this debate in context.
5138 </p><p>
5139 In 1790, that scope was very narrow. Copyright covered only "maps, charts,
5140 and books." That means it didn't cover, for example, music or
5141 architecture. More significantly, the right granted by a copyright gave the
5142 author the exclusive right to "publish" copyrighted works. That means
5143 someone else violated the copyright only if he republished the work without
5144 the copyright owner's permission. Finally, the right granted by a copyright
5145 was an exclusive right to that particular book. The right did not extend to
5146 what lawyers call "derivative works." It would not, therefore, interfere
5147 with the right of someone other than the author to translate a copyrighted
5148 book, or to adapt the story to a different form (such as a drama based on a
5149 published book).
5150 </p><p>
5151 This, too, has changed dramatically. While the contours of copyright today
5152 are extremely hard to describe simply, in general terms, the right covers
5153 practically any creative work that is reduced to a tangible form. It covers
5154 music as well as architecture, drama as well as computer programs. It gives
5155 the copyright owner of that creative work not only the exclusive right to
5156 "publish" the work, but also the exclusive right of control over any
5157 "copies" of that work. And most significant for our purposes here, the right
5158 gives the copyright owner control over not only his or her particular work,
5159 but also any "derivative work" that might grow out of the original work. In
5160 this way, the right covers more creative work, protects the creative work
5161 more broadly, and protects works that are based in a significant way on the
5162 initial creative work.
5163 </p><p>
5164
5165 At the same time that the scope of copyright has expanded, procedural
5166 limitations on the right have been relaxed. I've already described the
5167 complete removal of the renewal requirement in 1992. In addition to the
5168 renewal requirement, for most of the history of American copyright law,
5169 there was a requirement that a work be registered before it could receive
5170 the protection of a copyright. There was also a requirement that any
5171 copyrighted work be marked either with that famous © or the word
5172 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>. And for most of the history of American
5173 copyright law, there was a requirement that works be deposited with the
5174 government before a copyright could be secured.
5175 </p><p>
5176 The reason for the registration requirement was the sensible understanding
5177 that for most works, no copyright was required. Again, in the first ten
5178 years of the Republic, 95 percent of works eligible for copyright were never
5179 copyrighted. Thus, the rule reflected the norm: Most works apparently didn't
5180 need copyright, so registration narrowed the regulation of the law to the
5181 few that did. The same reasoning justified the requirement that a work be
5182 marked as copyrighted&#8212;that way it was easy to know whether a copyright
5183 was being claimed. The requirement that works be deposited was to assure
5184 that after the copyright expired, there would be a copy of the work
5185 somewhere so that it could be copied by others without locating the original
5186 author.
5187 </p><p>
5188 All of these "formalities" were abolished in the American system when we
5189 decided to follow European copyright law. There is no requirement that you
5190 register a work to get a copyright; the copyright now is automatic; the
5191 copyright exists whether or not you mark your work with a ©; and the
5192 copyright exists whether or not you actually make a copy available for
5193 others to copy.
5194 </p><p>
5195 Vurder et praktisk eksempel for å forstå omfanget av disse forskjellene.
5196 </p><p>
5197 If, in 1790, you wrote a book and you were one of the 5 percent who actually
5198 copyrighted that book, then the copyright law protected you against another
5199 publisher's taking your book and republishing it without your
5200 permission. The aim of the act was to regulate publishers so as to prevent
5201 that kind of unfair competition. In 1790, there were 174 publishers in the
5202 United States.<sup>[<a name="id2616418" href="#ftn.id2616418" class="footnote">130</a>]</sup> The Copyright Act was
5203 thus a tiny regulation of a tiny proportion of a tiny part of the creative
5204 market in the United States&#8212;publishers.
5205 </p><p>
5206
5207
5208 The act left other creators totally unregulated. If I copied your poem by
5209 hand, over and over again, as a way to learn it by heart, my act was totally
5210 unregulated by the 1790 act. If I took your novel and made a play based upon
5211 it, or if I translated it or abridged it, none of those activities were
5212 regulated by the original copyright act. These creative activities remained
5213 free, while the activities of publishers were restrained.
5214 </p><p>
5215 Today the story is very different: If you write a book, your book is
5216 automatically protected. Indeed, not just your book. Every e-mail, every
5217 note to your spouse, every doodle, <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> creative act
5218 that's reduced to a tangible form&#8212;all of this is automatically
5219 copyrighted.  There is no need to register or mark your work. The protection
5220 follows the creation, not the steps you take to protect it.
5221 </p><p>
5222 That protection gives you the right (subject to a narrow range of fair use
5223 exceptions) to control how others copy the work, whether they copy it to
5224 republish it or to share an excerpt.
5225 </p><p>
5226 That much is the obvious part. Any system of copyright would control
5227 competing publishing. But there's a second part to the copyright of today
5228 that is not at all obvious. This is the protection of "derivative rights."
5229 If you write a book, no one can make a movie out of your book without
5230 permission. No one can translate it without permission.  CliffsNotes can't
5231 make an abridgment unless permission is granted. All of these derivative
5232 uses of your original work are controlled by the copyright holder. The
5233 copyright, in other words, is now not just an exclusive right to your
5234 writings, but an exclusive right to your writings and a large proportion of
5235 the writings inspired by them.
5236 </p><p>
5237 It is this derivative right that would seem most bizarre to our framers,
5238 though it has become second nature to us. Initially, this expansion was
5239 created to deal with obvious evasions of a narrower copyright.  If I write a
5240 book, can you change one word and then claim a copyright in a new and
5241 different book? Obviously that would make a joke of the copyright, so the
5242 law was properly expanded to include those slight modifications as well as
5243 the verbatim original work.
5244 </p><p>
5245
5246 In preventing that joke, the law created an astonishing power within a free
5247 culture&#8212;at least, it's astonishing when you understand that the law
5248 applies not just to the commercial publisher but to anyone with a
5249 computer. I understand the wrong in duplicating and selling someone else's
5250 work. But whatever <span class="emphasis"><em>that</em></span> wrong is, transforming someone
5251 else's work is a different wrong. Some view transformation as no wrong at
5252 all&#8212;they believe that our law, as the framers penned it, should not
5253 protect derivative rights at all.<sup>[<a name="id2616507" href="#ftn.id2616507" class="footnote">131</a>]</sup>
5254 Whether or not you go that far, it seems plain that whatever wrong is
5255 involved is fundamentally different from the wrong of direct piracy.
5256 </p><p>
5257 Yet copyright law treats these two different wrongs in the same way. I can
5258 go to court and get an injunction against your pirating my book. I can go to
5259 court and get an injunction against your transformative use of my
5260 book.<sup>[<a name="id2616554" href="#ftn.id2616554" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
5261 creative work are treated the same.
5262 </p><p>
5263 This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should you be
5264 able to write a movie that takes my story and makes money from it without
5265 paying me or crediting me? Or if Disney creates a creature called "Mickey
5266 Mouse," why should you be able to make Mickey Mouse toys and be the one to
5267 trade on the value that Disney originally created?
5268 </p><p>
5269 These are good arguments, and, in general, my point is not that the
5270 derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower: simply to
5271 make clear that this expansion is a significant change from the rights
5272 originally granted.
5273 </p></div><div class="section" title="Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawreach"></a>Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</h2></div></div></div><p>
5274 Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
5275 copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users, and
5276 authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making copies,
5277 and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id2616604" href="#ftn.id2616604" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
5278 </p><p>
5279
5280
5281 "Copies." That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for
5282 <span class="emphasis"><em>copy</em></span>right law to regulate. But as with Jack Valenti's
5283 argument at the start of this chapter, that "creative property" deserves the
5284 "same rights" as all other property, it is the <span class="emphasis"><em>obvious</em></span>
5285 that we need to be most careful about. For while it may be obvious that in
5286 the world before the Internet, copies were the obvious trigger for copyright
5287 law, upon reflection, it should be obvious that in the world with the
5288 Internet, copies should <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span> be the trigger for
5289 copyright law. More precisely, they should not <span class="emphasis"><em>always</em></span>
5290 be the trigger for copyright law.
5291 </p><p>
5292 This is perhaps the central claim of this book, so let me take this very
5293 slowly so that the point is not easily missed. My claim is that the Internet
5294 should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which the law of
5295 copyright automatically applies,<sup>[<a name="id2616665" href="#ftn.id2616665" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
5296 because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never
5297 contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright
5298 law.
5299 </p><p>
5300 We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely empty
5301 circle.
5302 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1521"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.7. Alle potensielle bruk av en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1521.png" alt="Alle potensielle bruk av en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5303
5304
5305 Think about a book in real space, and imagine this circle to represent all
5306 its potential <span class="emphasis"><em>uses</em></span>. Most of these uses are unregulated
5307 by copyright law, because the uses don't create a copy. If you read a book,
5308 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you give someone the book,
5309 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you resell a book, that act
5310 is not regulated (copyright law expressly states that after the first sale
5311 of a book, the copyright owner can impose no further conditions on the
5312 disposition of the book). If you sleep on the book or use it to hold up a
5313 lamp or let your puppy chew it up, those acts are not regulated by copyright
5314 law, because those acts do not make a copy.
5315 </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>
5316 Obviously, however, some uses of a copyrighted book are regulated by
5317 copyright law. Republishing the book, for example, makes a copy. It is
5318 therefore regulated by copyright law. Indeed, this particular use stands at
5319 the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work. It is the
5320 paradigmatic use properly regulated by copyright regulation (see first
5321 diagram on next page).
5322 </p><p>
5323 Til slutt er det en tynn skive av ellers regulert kopierings-bruk som
5324 forblir uregluert på grunn av at loven anser dette som "rimelig bruk".
5325 </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
5326 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>
5327 These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law treats as
5328 unregulated because public policy demands that they remain unregulated.  You
5329 are free to quote from this book, even in a review that is quite negative,
5330 without my permission, even though that quoting makes a copy. That copy
5331 would ordinarily give the copyright owner the exclusive right to say whether
5332 the copy is allowed or not, but the law denies the owner any exclusive right
5333 over such "fair uses" for public policy (and possibly First Amendment)
5334 reasons.
5335 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1542"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.10. Uregulert kopiering anses som "rimelig bruk".</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
5336 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>
5337
5338
5339 In real space, then, the possible uses of a book are divided into three
5340 sorts: (1) unregulated uses, (2) regulated uses, and (3) regulated uses that
5341 are nonetheless deemed "fair" regardless of the copyright owner's views.
5342 </p><p>
5343 Enter the Internet&#8212;a distributed, digital network where every use of a
5344 copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id2616611" href="#ftn.id2616611" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
5345 because of this single, arbitrary feature of the design of a digital
5346 network, the scope of category 1 changes dramatically. Uses that before were
5347 presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated. No longer is
5348 there a set of presumptively unregulated uses that define a freedom
5349 associated with a copyrighted work. Instead, each use is now subject to the
5350 copyright, because each use also makes a copy&#8212;category 1 gets sucked
5351 into category 2. And those who would defend the unregulated uses of
5352 copyrighted work must look exclusively to category 3, fair uses, to bear the
5353 burden of this shift.
5354 </p><p>
5355
5356 So let's be very specific to make this general point clear. Before the
5357 Internet, if you purchased a book and read it ten times, there would be no
5358 plausible <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>-related argument that the copyright
5359 owner could make to control that use of her book. Copyright law would have
5360 nothing to say about whether you read the book once, ten times, or every
5361 night before you went to bed. None of those instances of
5362 use&#8212;reading&#8212; could be regulated by copyright law because none of
5363 those uses produced a copy.
5364 </p><p>
5365 But the same book as an e-book is effectively governed by a different set of
5366 rules. Now if the copyright owner says you may read the book only once or
5367 only once a month, then <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright law</em></span> would aid the
5368 copyright owner in exercising this degree of control, because of the
5369 accidental feature of copyright law that triggers its application upon there
5370 being a copy. Now if you read the book ten times and the license says you
5371 may read it only five times, then whenever you read the book (or any portion
5372 of it) beyond the fifth time, you are making a copy of the book contrary to
5373 the copyright owner's wish.
5374 </p><p>
5375 There are some people who think this makes perfect sense. My aim just now is
5376 not to argue about whether it makes sense or not. My aim is only to make
5377 clear the change. Once you see this point, a few other points also become
5378 clear:
5379 </p><p>
5380 First, making category 1 disappear is not anything any policy maker ever
5381 intended. Congress did not think through the collapse of the presumptively
5382 unregulated uses of copyrighted works. There is no evidence at all that
5383 policy makers had this idea in mind when they allowed our policy here to
5384 shift. Unregulated uses were an important part of free culture before the
5385 Internet.
5386 </p><p>
5387 Second, this shift is especially troubling in the context of transformative
5388 uses of creative content. Again, we can all understand the wrong in
5389 commercial piracy. But the law now purports to regulate
5390 <span class="emphasis"><em>any</em></span> transformation you make of creative work using a
5391 machine. "Copy and paste" and "cut and paste" become crimes. Tinkering with
5392 a story and releasing it to others exposes the tinkerer to at least a
5393 requirement of justification.  However troubling the expansion with respect
5394 to copying a particular work, it is extraordinarily troubling with respect
5395 to transformative uses of creative work.
5396 </p><p>
5397
5398 Third, this shift from category 1 to category 2 puts an extraordinary burden
5399 on category 3 ("fair use") that fair use never before had to bear.  If a
5400 copyright owner now tried to control how many times I could read a book
5401 on-line, the natural response would be to argue that this is a violation of
5402 my fair use rights. But there has never been any litigation about whether I
5403 have a fair use right to read, because before the Internet, reading did not
5404 trigger the application of copyright law and hence the need for a fair use
5405 defense. The right to read was effectively protected before because reading
5406 was not regulated.
5407 </p><p>
5408 This point about fair use is totally ignored, even by advocates for free
5409 culture. We have been cornered into arguing that our rights depend upon fair
5410 use&#8212;never even addressing the earlier question about the expansion in
5411 effective regulation. A thin protection grounded in fair use makes sense
5412 when the vast majority of uses are <span class="emphasis"><em>unregulated</em></span>. But
5413 when everything becomes presumptively regulated, then the protections of
5414 fair use are not enough.
5415 </p><p>
5416 The case of Video Pipeline is a good example. Video Pipeline was in the
5417 business of making "trailer" advertisements for movies available to video
5418 stores. The video stores displayed the trailers as a way to sell
5419 videos. Video Pipeline got the trailers from the film distributors, put the
5420 trailers on tape, and sold the tapes to the retail stores.
5421 </p><p>
5422 The company did this for about fifteen years. Then, in 1997, it began to
5423 think about the Internet as another way to distribute these previews.  The
5424 idea was to expand their "selling by sampling" technique by giving on-line
5425 stores the same ability to enable "browsing." Just as in a bookstore you can
5426 read a few pages of a book before you buy the book, so, too, you would be
5427 able to sample a bit from the movie on-line before you bought it.
5428 </p><p>
5429
5430 In 1998, Video Pipeline informed Disney and other film distributors that it
5431 intended to distribute the trailers through the Internet (rather than
5432 sending the tapes) to distributors of their videos. Two years later, Disney
5433 told Video Pipeline to stop. The owner of Video Pipeline asked Disney to
5434 talk about the matter&#8212;he had built a business on distributing this
5435 content as a way to help sell Disney films; he had customers who depended
5436 upon his delivering this content. Disney would agree to talk only if Video
5437 Pipeline stopped the distribution immediately.  Video Pipeline thought it
5438 was within their "fair use" rights to distribute the clips as they had. So
5439 they filed a lawsuit to ask the court to declare that these rights were in
5440 fact their rights.
5441 </p><p>
5442 Disney countersued&#8212;for $100 million in damages. Those damages were
5443 predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had "willfully infringed" on
5444 Disney's copyright. When a court makes a finding of willful infringement, it
5445 can award damages not on the basis of the actual harm to the copyright
5446 owner, but on the basis of an amount set in the statute. Because Video
5447 Pipeline had distributed seven hundred clips of Disney movies to enable
5448 video stores to sell copies of those movies, Disney was now suing Video
5449 Pipeline for $100 million.
5450 </p><p>
5451 Disney has the right to control its property, of course. But the video
5452 stores that were selling Disney's films also had some sort of right to be
5453 able to sell the films that they had bought from Disney. Disney's claim in
5454 court was that the stores were allowed to sell the films and they were
5455 permitted to list the titles of the films they were selling, but they were
5456 not allowed to show clips of the films as a way of selling them without
5457 Disney's permission.
5458 </p><p>
5459 Now, you might think this is a close case, and I think the courts would
5460 consider it a close case. My point here is to map the change that gives
5461 Disney this power. Before the Internet, Disney couldn't really control how
5462 people got access to their content. Once a video was in the marketplace, the
5463 "first-sale doctrine" would free the seller to use the video as he wished,
5464 including showing portions of it in order to engender sales of the entire
5465 movie video. But with the Internet, it becomes possible for Disney to
5466 centralize control over access to this content. Because each use of the
5467 Internet produces a copy, use on the Internet becomes subject to the
5468 copyright owner's control. The technology expands the scope of effective
5469 control, because the technology builds a copy into every transaction.
5470 </p><p>
5471
5472
5473 No doubt, a potential is not yet an abuse, and so the potential for control
5474 is not yet the abuse of control. Barnes &amp; Noble has the right to say you
5475 can't touch a book in their store; property law gives them that right.  But
5476 the market effectively protects against that abuse. If Barnes &amp; Noble
5477 banned browsing, then consumers would choose other bookstores.  Competition
5478 protects against the extremes. And it may well be (my argument so far does
5479 not even question this) that competition would prevent any similar danger
5480 when it comes to copyright. Sure, publishers exercising the rights that
5481 authors have assigned to them might try to regulate how many times you read
5482 a book, or try to stop you from sharing the book with anyone. But in a
5483 competitive market such as the book market, the dangers of this happening
5484 are quite slight.
5485 </p><p>
5486 Again, my aim so far is simply to map the changes that this changed
5487 architecture enables. Enabling technology to enforce the control of
5488 copyright means that the control of copyright is no longer defined by
5489 balanced policy. The control of copyright is simply what private owners
5490 choose. In some contexts, at least, that fact is harmless. But in some
5491 contexts it is a recipe for disaster.
5492 </p></div><div class="section" title="Arkitektur og lov: Makt"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawforce"></a>Arkitektur og lov: Makt</h2></div></div></div><p>
5493 The disappearance of unregulated uses would be change enough, but a second
5494 important change brought about by the Internet magnifies its
5495 significance. This second change does not affect the reach of copyright
5496 regulation; it affects how such regulation is enforced.
5497 </p><p>
5498 In the world before digital technology, it was generally the law that
5499 controlled whether and how someone was regulated by copyright law.  The law,
5500 meaning a court, meaning a judge: In the end, it was a human, trained in the
5501 tradition of the law and cognizant of the balances that tradition embraced,
5502 who said whether and how the law would restrict your freedom.
5503 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2617137"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
5504 Det er en berømt historie om en kamp mellom Marx-brødrene (the Marx
5505 Brothers) og Warner Brothers.  Marx-brødrene planla å lage en parodi av
5506 <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>. Warner Brothers protesterte.  De skrev et
5507 ufint brev til Marx-brødrene og advarte dem om at det ville få seriøse
5508 juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.<sup>[<a name="id2617184" href="#ftn.id2617184" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
5509 </p><p>
5510 Dette fikk Marx-brødrene til å svare tilbake med samme mynt.  De advarte
5511 Warner Brothers om at Marx-brødrene "var brødre lenge før dere var
5512 det".<sup>[<a name="id2617206" href="#ftn.id2617206" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> Marx-brødrene eide derfor ordet
5513 <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>, og hvis Warner Brothers insisterte på å
5514 forsøke å kontrollere <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>, så ville
5515 Marx-brødrene insistere på kontroll over <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>.
5516 </p><p>
5517 Det var en absurd og hul trussel, selvfølgelig, fordi Warner Brothers, på
5518 samme måte som Marx-brødrene, visste at ingen domstol noensinne ville
5519 håndheve et slikt dumt krav. Denne ekstremismen var irrelevant for de ekte
5520 friheter som alle (inkludert Warner Brothers) nøt godt av.
5521 </p><p>
5522 On the Internet, however, there is no check on silly rules, because on the
5523 Internet, increasingly, rules are enforced not by a human but by a machine:
5524 Increasingly, the rules of copyright law, as interpreted by the copyright
5525 owner, get built into the technology that delivers copyrighted content. It
5526 is code, rather than law, that rules. And the problem with code regulations
5527 is that, unlike law, code has no shame. Code would not get the humor of the
5528 Marx Brothers. The consequence of that is not at all funny.
5529 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2617264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2617272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
5530 La oss se på livet til min Adobe eBook Reader.
5531 </p><p>
5532 En ebok er en bok levert i elektronisk form.  En Adobe eBook er ikke en bok
5533 som Adobe har publisert.  Adobe produserer kun programvaren som utgivere
5534 bruker å levere e-bøker.  Den bidrar med teknologien, og utgiveren leverer
5535 innholdet ved hjelp av teknologien.
5536 </p><p>
5537 On the next page is a picture of an old version of my Adobe eBook Reader.
5538 </p><p>
5539
5540 As you can see, I have a small collection of e-books within this e-book
5541 library. Some of these books reproduce content that is in the public domain:
5542 <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, for example, is in the public domain.
5543 Some of them reproduce content that is not in the public domain: My own book
5544 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> is not yet within the public
5545 domain.  Consider <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> first. If you click on
5546 my e-book copy of <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, you'll see a fancy
5547 cover, and then a button at the bottom called Permissions.
5548 </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>
5549 If you click on the Permissions button, you'll see a list of the permissions
5550 that the publisher purports to grant with this book.
5551 </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>
5552
5553
5554 According to my eBook Reader, I have the permission to copy to the clipboard
5555 of the computer ten text selections every ten days. (So far, I've copied no
5556 text to the clipboard.)  I also have the permission to print ten pages from
5557 the book every ten days. Lastly, I have the permission to use the Read Aloud
5558 button to hear <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> read aloud through the
5559 computer.
5560 </p><p>
5561 Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen):
5562 Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em>  <a class="indexterm" name="id2617396"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2617402"></a>
5563 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.14. E-bok av Aristoteles "Politikk"</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>
5564 According to its permissions, no printing or copying is permitted at
5565 all. But fortunately, you can use the Read Aloud button to hear the book.
5566 </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>
5567 Finally (and most embarrassingly), here are the permissions for the original
5568 e-book version of my last book, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>:
5569 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1631"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.16. List of the permissions for "The Future of Ideas".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1631.png" alt='List of the permissions for "The Future of Ideas".'></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5570 Ingen kopiering, ingen utskrift, og våg ikke å prøve å lytte til denne
5571 boken!
5572 </p><p>
5573 Now, the Adobe eBook Reader calls these controls "permissions"&#8212; as if
5574 the publisher has the power to control how you use these works.  For works
5575 under copyright, the copyright owner certainly does have the power&#8212;up
5576 to the limits of the copyright law. But for work not under copyright, there
5577 is no such copyright power.<sup>[<a name="id2617482" href="#ftn.id2617482" class="footnote">138</a>]</sup> When my
5578 e-book of <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> says I have the permission to
5579 copy only ten text selections into the memory every ten days, what that
5580 really means is that the eBook Reader has enabled the publisher to control
5581 how I use the book on my computer, far beyond the control that the law would
5582 enable.
5583 </p><p>
5584 The control comes instead from the code&#8212;from the technology within
5585 which the e-book "lives." Though the e-book says that these are permissions,
5586 they are not the sort of "permissions" that most of us deal with. When a
5587 teenager gets "permission" to stay out till midnight, she knows (unless
5588 she's Cinderella) that she can stay out till 2 A.M., but will suffer a
5589 punishment if she's caught. But when the Adobe eBook Reader says I have the
5590 permission to make ten copies of the text into the computer's memory, that
5591 means that after I've made ten copies, the computer will not make any
5592 more. The same with the printing restrictions: After ten pages, the eBook
5593 Reader will not print any more pages.  It's the same with the silly
5594 restriction that says that you can't use the Read Aloud button to read my
5595 book aloud&#8212;it's not that the company will sue you if you do; instead,
5596 if you push the Read Aloud button with my book, the machine simply won't
5597 read aloud.
5598 </p><p>
5599
5600 These are <span class="emphasis"><em>controls</em></span>, not permissions. Imagine a world
5601 where the Marx Brothers sold word processing software that, when you tried
5602 to type "Warner Brothers," erased "Brothers" from the sentence.
5603 <a class="indexterm" name="id2617537"></a>
5604 </p><p>
5605 This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright
5606 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> as copyright <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span>. The
5607 controls over access to content will not be controls that are ratified by
5608 courts; the controls over access to content will be controls that are coded
5609 by programmers. And whereas the controls that are built into the law are
5610 always to be checked by a judge, the controls that are built into the
5611 technology have no similar built-in check.
5612 </p><p>
5613 How significant is this? Isn't it always possible to get around the controls
5614 built into the technology? Software used to be sold with technologies that
5615 limited the ability of users to copy the software, but those were trivial
5616 protections to defeat. Why won't it be trivial to defeat these protections
5617 as well?
5618 </p><p>
5619 We've only scratched the surface of this story. Return to the Adobe eBook
5620 Reader.
5621 </p><p>
5622 Early in the life of the Adobe eBook Reader, Adobe suffered a public
5623 relations nightmare. Among the books that you could download for free on the
5624 Adobe site was a copy of <em class="citetitle">Alice's Adventures in
5625 Wonderland</em>.  This wonderful book is in the public domain. Yet
5626 when you clicked on Permissions for that book, you got the following report:
5627 <a class="indexterm" name="id2617588"></a>
5628 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1641"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.17. List of the permissions for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1641.png" alt="List of the permissions for &quot;Alice's Adventures in Wonderland&quot;."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5629
5630
5631 Here was a public domain children's book that you were not allowed to copy,
5632 not allowed to lend, not allowed to give, and, as the "permissions"
5633 indicated, not allowed to "read aloud"!
5634 </p><p>
5635 The public relations nightmare attached to that final permission.  For the
5636 text did not say that you were not permitted to use the Read Aloud button;
5637 it said you did not have the permission to read the book aloud. That led
5638 some people to think that Adobe was restricting the right of parents, for
5639 example, to read the book to their children, which seemed, to say the least,
5640 absurd.
5641 </p><p>
5642 Adobe responded quickly that it was absurd to think that it was trying to
5643 restrict the right to read a book aloud. Obviously it was only restricting
5644 the ability to use the Read Aloud button to have the book read aloud. But
5645 the question Adobe never did answer is this: Would Adobe thus agree that a
5646 consumer was free to use software to hack around the restrictions built into
5647 the eBook Reader? If some company (call it Elcomsoft) developed a program to
5648 disable the technological protection built into an Adobe eBook so that a
5649 blind person, say, could use a computer to read the book aloud, would Adobe
5650 agree that such a use of an eBook Reader was fair? Adobe didn't answer
5651 because the answer, however absurd it might seem, is no.
5652 </p><p>
5653 The point is not to blame Adobe. Indeed, Adobe is among the most innovative
5654 companies developing strategies to balance open access to content with
5655 incentives for companies to innovate. But Adobe's technology enables
5656 control, and Adobe has an incentive to defend this control.  That incentive
5657 is understandable, yet what it creates is often crazy.
5658 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2617655"></a><p>
5659 To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite story
5660 of mine that makes the same point.
5661 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo"></a><p>
5662 Consider the robotic dog made by Sony named "Aibo." The Aibo learns tricks,
5663 cuddles, and follows you around. It eats only electricity and that doesn't
5664 leave that much of a mess (at least in your house).
5665 </p><p>
5666
5667 The Aibo is expensive and popular. Fans from around the world have set up
5668 clubs to trade stories. One fan in particular set up a Web site to enable
5669 information about the Aibo dog to be shared. This fan set up aibopet.com
5670 (and aibohack.com, but that resolves to the same site), and on that site he
5671 provided information about how to teach an Aibo to do tricks in addition to
5672 the ones Sony had taught it.
5673 </p><p>
5674 "Teach" here has a special meaning. Aibos are just cute computers.  You
5675 teach a computer how to do something by programming it differently.  So to
5676 say that aibopet.com was giving information about how to teach the dog to do
5677 new tricks is just to say that aibopet.com was giving information to users
5678 of the Aibo pet about how to hack their computer "dog" to make it do new
5679 tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
5680 </p><p>
5681 If you're not a programmer or don't know many programmers, the word
5682 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> has a particularly unfriendly
5683 connotation. Nonprogrammers hack bushes or weeds. Nonprogrammers in horror
5684 movies do even worse. But to programmers, or coders, as I call them,
5685 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> is a much more positive
5686 term. <em class="citetitle">Hack</em> just means code that enables the program
5687 to do something it wasn't originally intended or enabled to do. If you buy a
5688 new printer for an old computer, you might find the old computer doesn't
5689 run, or "drive," the printer. If you discovered that, you'd later be happy
5690 to discover a hack on the Net by someone who has written a driver to enable
5691 the computer to drive the printer you just bought.
5692 </p><p>
5693 Some hacks are easy. Some are unbelievably hard. Hackers as a community like
5694 to challenge themselves and others with increasingly difficult
5695 tasks. There's a certain respect that goes with the talent to hack
5696 well. There's a well-deserved respect that goes with the talent to hack
5697 ethically.
5698 </p><p>
5699 The Aibo fan was displaying a bit of both when he hacked the program and
5700 offered to the world a bit of code that would enable the Aibo to dance
5701 jazz. The dog wasn't programmed to dance jazz. It was a clever bit of
5702 tinkering that turned the dog into a more talented creature than Sony had
5703 built.
5704 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2617750"></a><p>
5705
5706 I've told this story in many contexts, both inside and outside the United
5707 States. Once I was asked by a puzzled member of the audience, is it
5708 permissible for a dog to dance jazz in the United States? We forget that
5709 stories about the backcountry still flow across much of the world. So let's
5710 just be clear before we continue: It's not a crime anywhere (anymore) to
5711 dance jazz. Nor is it a crime to teach your dog to dance jazz. Nor should it
5712 be a crime (though we don't have a lot to go on here) to teach your robot
5713 dog to dance jazz. Dancing jazz is a completely legal activity. One imagines
5714 that the owner of aibopet.com thought, <span class="emphasis"><em>What possible problem could
5715 there be with teaching a robot dog to dance?</em></span>
5716 </p><p>
5717 Let's put the dog to sleep for a minute, and turn to a pony show&#8212; not
5718 literally a pony show, but rather a paper that a Princeton academic named Ed
5719 Felten prepared for a conference. This Princeton academic is well known and
5720 respected. He was hired by the government in the Microsoft case to test
5721 Microsoft's claims about what could and could not be done with its own
5722 code. In that trial, he demonstrated both his brilliance and his
5723 coolness. Under heavy badgering by Microsoft lawyers, Ed Felten stood his
5724 ground. He was not about to be bullied into being silent about something he
5725 knew very well.
5726 </p><p>
5727 But Felten's bravery was really tested in April 2001.<sup>[<a name="id2617796" href="#ftn.id2617796" class="footnote">139</a>]</sup> He and a group of colleagues were working on a
5728 paper to be submitted at conference.  The paper was intended to describe the
5729 weakness in an encryption system being developed by the Secure Digital Music
5730 Initiative as a technique to control the distribution of music.
5731 </p><p>
5732 The SDMI coalition had as its goal a technology to enable content owners to
5733 exercise much better control over their content than the Internet, as it
5734 originally stood, granted them. Using encryption, SDMI hoped to develop a
5735 standard that would allow the content owner to say "this music cannot be
5736 copied," and have a computer respect that command.  The technology was to be
5737 part of a "trusted system" of control that would get content owners to trust
5738 the system of the Internet much more.
5739 </p><p>
5740 When SDMI thought it was close to a standard, it set up a competition.  In
5741 exchange for providing contestants with the code to an SDMI-encrypted bit of
5742 content, contestants were to try to crack it and, if they did, report the
5743 problems to the consortium.
5744 </p><p>
5745
5746
5747 Felten and his team figured out the encryption system quickly. He and the
5748 team saw the weakness of this system as a type: Many encryption systems
5749 would suffer the same weakness, and Felten and his team thought it
5750 worthwhile to point this out to those who study encryption.
5751 </p><p>
5752 Let's review just what Felten was doing. Again, this is the United
5753 States. We have a principle of free speech. We have this principle not just
5754 because it is the law, but also because it is a really great idea. A
5755 strongly protected tradition of free speech is likely to encourage a wide
5756 range of criticism. That criticism is likely, in turn, to improve the
5757 systems or people or ideas criticized.
5758 </p><p>
5759 What Felten and his colleagues were doing was publishing a paper describing
5760 the weakness in a technology. They were not spreading free music, or
5761 building and deploying this technology. The paper was an academic essay,
5762 unintelligible to most people. But it clearly showed the weakness in the
5763 SDMI system, and why SDMI would not, as presently constituted, succeed.
5764 </p><p>
5765 What links these two, aibopet.com and Felten, is the letters they then
5766 received. Aibopet.com received a letter from Sony about the aibopet.com
5767 hack. Though a jazz-dancing dog is perfectly legal, Sony wrote:
5768 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5769 Your site contains information providing the means to circumvent AIBO-ware's
5770 copy protection protocol constituting a violation of the anti-circumvention
5771 provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
5772 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5773 And though an academic paper describing the weakness in a system of
5774 encryption should also be perfectly legal, Felten received a letter from an
5775 RIAA lawyer that read:
5776 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5777
5778 Any disclosure of information gained from participating in the Public
5779 Challenge would be outside the scope of activities permitted by the
5780 Agreement and could subject you and your research team to actions under the
5781 Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA").
5782 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5783 In both cases, this weirdly Orwellian law was invoked to control the spread
5784 of information. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act made spreading such
5785 information an offense.
5786 </p><p>
5787 The DMCA was enacted as a response to copyright owners' first fear about
5788 cyberspace. The fear was that copyright control was effectively dead; the
5789 response was to find technologies that might compensate.  These new
5790 technologies would be copyright protection technologies&#8212; technologies
5791 to control the replication and distribution of copyrighted material. They
5792 were designed as <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> to modify the original
5793 <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> of the Internet, to reestablish some protection
5794 for copyright owners.
5795 </p><p>
5796 The DMCA was a bit of law intended to back up the protection of this code
5797 designed to protect copyrighted material. It was, we could say,
5798 <span class="emphasis"><em>legal code</em></span> intended to buttress <span class="emphasis"><em>software
5799 code</em></span> which itself was intended to support the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal
5800 code of copyright</em></span>.
5801 </p><p>
5802 But the DMCA was not designed merely to protect copyrighted works to the
5803 extent copyright law protected them. Its protection, that is, did not end at
5804 the line that copyright law drew. The DMCA regulated devices that were
5805 designed to circumvent copyright protection measures. It was designed to ban
5806 those devices, whether or not the use of the copyrighted material made
5807 possible by that circumvention would have been a copyright violation.
5808 </p><p>
5809
5810 Aibopet.com and Felten make the point. The Aibo hack circumvented a
5811 copyright protection system for the purpose of enabling the dog to dance
5812 jazz. That enablement no doubt involved the use of copyrighted material. But
5813 as aibopet.com's site was noncommercial, and the use did not enable
5814 subsequent copyright infringements, there's no doubt that aibopet.com's hack
5815 was fair use of Sony's copyrighted material. Yet fair use is not a defense
5816 to the DMCA. The question is not whether the use of the copyrighted material
5817 was a copyright violation. The question is whether a copyright protection
5818 system was circumvented.
5819 </p><p>
5820 The threat against Felten was more attenuated, but it followed the same line
5821 of reasoning. By publishing a paper describing how a copyright protection
5822 system could be circumvented, the RIAA lawyer suggested, Felten himself was
5823 distributing a circumvention technology.  Thus, even though he was not
5824 himself infringing anyone's copyright, his academic paper was enabling
5825 others to infringe others' copyright.
5826 </p><p>
5827 The bizarreness of these arguments is captured in a cartoon drawn in 1981 by
5828 Paul Conrad. At that time, a court in California had held that the VCR could
5829 be banned because it was a copyright-infringing technology: It enabled
5830 consumers to copy films without the permission of the copyright owner. No
5831 doubt there were uses of the technology that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka
5832 "<em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>," for example, had testified in that case
5833 that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.
5834 <a class="indexterm" name="id2618029"></a>
5835 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5836 Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
5837 "Neighborhood" at hours when some children cannot use it. I think that it's
5838 a real service to families to be able to record such programs and show them
5839 at appropriate times. I have always felt that with the advent of all of this
5840 new technology that allows people to tape the "Neighborhood" off-the-air,
5841 and I'm speaking for the "Neighborhood" because that's what I produce, that
5842 they then become much more active in the programming of their family's
5843 television life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by
5844 others. My whole approach in broadcasting has always been "You are an
5845 important person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions."
5846 Maybe I'm going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a
5847 person to be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy
5848 way, is important.<sup>[<a name="id2618055" href="#ftn.id2618055" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
5849 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5850
5851
5852 Even though there were uses that were legal, because there were some uses
5853 that were illegal, the court held the companies producing the VCR
5854 responsible.
5855 </p><p>
5856 This led Conrad to draw the cartoon below, which we can adopt to the DMCA.
5857 <a class="indexterm" name="id2618089"></a>
5858 </p><p>
5859 No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
5860 </p><p>
5861 The anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA target copyright circumvention
5862 technologies. Circumvention technologies can be used for different
5863 ends. They can be used, for example, to enable massive pirating of
5864 copyrighted material&#8212;a bad end. Or they can be used to enable the use
5865 of particular copyrighted materials in ways that would be considered fair
5866 use&#8212;a good end.
5867 </p><p>
5868
5869 A handgun can be used to shoot a police officer or a child. Most would agree
5870 such a use is bad. Or a handgun can be used for target practice or to
5871 protect against an intruder. At least some would say that such a use would
5872 be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good and bad uses.
5873 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1711"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1711.png" alt="VCR/handgun cartoon."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5874 The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world where guns
5875 are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and circumvention
5876 technologies) are illegal. Flash: <span class="emphasis"><em>No one ever died from copyright
5877 circumvention</em></span>. Yet the law bans circumvention technologies
5878 absolutely, despite the potential that they might do some good, but permits
5879 guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2618147"></a>
5880 </p><p>
5881 The Aibo and RIAA examples demonstrate how copyright owners are changing the
5882 balance that copyright law grants. Using code, copyright owners restrict
5883 fair use; using the DMCA, they punish those who would attempt to evade the
5884 restrictions on fair use that they impose through code. Technology becomes a
5885 means by which fair use can be erased; the law of the DMCA backs up that
5886 erasing.
5887 </p><p>
5888 This is how <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> becomes <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span>. The
5889 controls built into the technology of copy and access protection become
5890 rules the violation of which is also a violation of the law. In this way,
5891 the code extends the law&#8212;increasing its regulation, even if the
5892 subject it regulates (activities that would otherwise plainly constitute
5893 fair use) is beyond the reach of the law. Code becomes law; code extends the
5894 law; code thus extends the control that copyright owners effect&#8212;at
5895 least for those copyright holders with the lawyers who can write the nasty
5896 letters that Felten and aibopet.com received.
5897 </p><p>
5898 There is one final aspect of the interaction between architecture and law
5899 that contributes to the force of copyright's regulation. This is the ease
5900 with which infringements of the law can be detected. For contrary to the
5901 rhetoric common at the birth of cyberspace that on the Internet, no one
5902 knows you're a dog, increasingly, given changing technologies deployed on
5903 the Internet, it is easy to find the dog who committed a legal wrong. The
5904 technologies of the Internet are open to snoops as well as sharers, and the
5905 snoops are increasingly good at tracking down the identity of those who
5906 violate the rules.
5907 </p><p>
5908
5909
5910 For example, imagine you were part of a <em class="citetitle">Star Trek</em> fan
5911 club. You gathered every month to share trivia, and maybe to enact a kind of
5912 fan fiction about the show. One person would play Spock, another, Captain
5913 Kirk. The characters would begin with a plot from a real story, then simply
5914 continue it.<sup>[<a name="id2618208" href="#ftn.id2618208" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
5915 </p><p>
5916 Before the Internet, this was, in effect, a totally unregulated activity.
5917 No matter what happened inside your club room, you would never be interfered
5918 with by the copyright police. You were free in that space to do as you
5919 wished with this part of our culture. You were allowed to build on it as you
5920 wished without fear of legal control.
5921 </p><p>
5922 But if you moved your club onto the Internet, and made it generally
5923 available for others to join, the story would be very different. Bots
5924 scouring the Net for trademark and copyright infringement would quickly find
5925 your site. Your posting of fan fiction, depending upon the ownership of the
5926 series that you're depicting, could well inspire a lawyer's threat. And
5927 ignoring the lawyer's threat would be extremely costly indeed.  The law of
5928 copyright is extremely efficient. The penalties are severe, and the process
5929 is quick.
5930 </p><p>
5931 This change in the effective force of the law is caused by a change in the
5932 ease with which the law can be enforced. That change too shifts the law's
5933 balance radically. It is as if your car transmitted the speed at which you
5934 traveled at every moment that you drove; that would be just one step before
5935 the state started issuing tickets based upon the data you transmitted. That
5936 is, in effect, what is happening here.
5937 </p></div><div class="section" title="Marked: Konsentrasjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="marketconcentration"></a>Marked: Konsentrasjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
5938
5939 So copyright's duration has increased dramatically&#8212;tripled in the past
5940 thirty years. And copyright's scope has increased as well&#8212;from
5941 regulating only publishers to now regulating just about everyone. And
5942 copyright's reach has changed, as every action becomes a copy and hence
5943 presumptively regulated. And as technologists find better ways to control
5944 the use of content, and as copyright is increasingly enforced through
5945 technology, copyright's force changes, too. Misuse is easier to find and
5946 easier to control. This regulation of the creative process, which began as a
5947 tiny regulation governing a tiny part of the market for creative work, has
5948 become the single most important regulator of creativity there is. It is a
5949 massive expansion in the scope of the government's control over innovation
5950 and creativity; it would be totally unrecognizable to those who gave birth
5951 to copyright's control.
5952 </p><p>
5953 Still, in my view, all of these changes would not matter much if it weren't
5954 for one more change that we must also consider. This is a change that is in
5955 some sense the most familiar, though its significance and scope are not well
5956 understood. It is the one that creates precisely the reason to be concerned
5957 about all the other changes I have described.
5958 </p><p>
5959 This is the change in the concentration and integration of the media.  In
5960 the past twenty years, the nature of media ownership has undergone a radical
5961 alteration, caused by changes in legal rules governing the media.  Before
5962 this change happened, the different forms of media were owned by separate
5963 media companies. Now, the media is increasingly owned by only a few
5964 companies. Indeed, after the changes that the FCC announced in June 2003,
5965 most expect that within a few years, we will live in a world where just
5966 three companies control more than percent of the media.
5967 </p><p>
5968 Det er her to sorter endringer: omfanget av konsentrasjon, og dens natur.
5969 </p><p>
5970 Changes in scope are the easier ones to describe. As Senator John McCain
5971 summarized the data produced in the FCC's review of media ownership, "five
5972 companies control 85 percent of our media sources."<sup>[<a name="id2618317" href="#ftn.id2618317" class="footnote">142</a>]</sup> The five recording labels of Universal Music Group,
5973 BMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group, and EMI control 84.8
5974 percent of the U.S. music market.<sup>[<a name="id2618329" href="#ftn.id2618329" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The
5975 "five largest cable companies pipe programming to 74 percent of the cable
5976 subscribers nationwide."<sup>[<a name="id2618342" href="#ftn.id2618342" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2618352"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2618358"></a>
5977 <a class="indexterm" name="id2618364"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2618370"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2618376"></a>
5978 </p><p>
5979
5980 The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation, the
5981 nation's largest radio broadcasting conglomerate owned fewer than
5982 seventy-five stations. Today <span class="emphasis"><em>one</em></span> company owns more than
5983 1,200 stations.  During that period of consolidation, the total number of
5984 radio owners dropped by 34 percent. Today, in most markets, the two largest
5985 broadcasters control 74 percent of that market's revenues. Overall, just
5986 four companies control 90 percent of the nation's radio advertising
5987 revenues.
5988 </p><p>
5989 Newspaper ownership is becoming more concentrated as well.  Today, there are
5990 six hundred fewer daily newspapers in the United States than there were
5991 eighty years ago, and ten companies control half of the nation's
5992 circulation. There are twenty major newspaper publishers in the United
5993 States. The top ten film studios receive 99 percent of all film revenue. The
5994 ten largest cable companies account for 85 percent of all cable
5995 revenue. This is a market far from the free press the framers sought to
5996 protect. Indeed, it is a market that is quite well protected&#8212; by the
5997 market.
5998 </p><p>
5999 Concentration in size alone is one thing. The more invidious change is in
6000 the nature of that concentration. As author James Fallows put it in a recent
6001 article about Rupert Murdoch, <a class="indexterm" name="id2618418"></a>
6002 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6003 Murdoch's companies now constitute a production system unmatched in its
6004 integration. They supply content&#8212;Fox movies &#8230; Fox TV shows
6005 &#8230; Fox-controlled sports broadcasts, plus newspapers and books. They
6006 sell the content to the public and to advertisers&#8212;in newspapers, on
6007 the broadcast network, on the cable channels. And they operate the physical
6008 distribution system through which the content reaches the
6009 customers. Murdoch's satellite systems now distribute News Corp. content in
6010 Europe and Asia; if Murdoch becomes DirecTV's largest single owner, that
6011 system will serve the same function in the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2618433" href="#ftn.id2618433" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
6012 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6013 The pattern with Murdoch is the pattern of modern media. Not just large
6014 companies owning many radio stations, but a few companies owning as many
6015 outlets of media as possible. A picture describes this pattern better than a
6016 thousand words could do:
6017 </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>
6018
6019
6020 Betyr denne konsentrasjonen noe?  Påvirker det hva som blir laget, eller hva
6021 som blir distribuert?  Eller er det bare en mer effektiv måte å produsere og
6022 distribuere innhold?
6023 </p><p>
6024 Mitt syn var at konsentrasjonen ikke betød noe.  Jeg tenkte det ikke var noe
6025 mer enn en mer effektiv finansiell struktur.  Men nå, etter å ha lest og
6026 hørt på en haug av skapere prøve å overbevise meg om det motsatte, har jeg
6027 begynt å endre mening.
6028 </p><p>
6029 Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen
6030 er viktig.
6031 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2618513"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2618519"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2618525"></a><p>
6032 I 1969 laget Norman Lear en polit for <em class="citetitle">All in the
6033 Family</em>.  Han tok piloten til ABC, og nettverket likte det ikke.
6034 Da sa til Lear at det var for på kanten.  Gjør det om igjen. Lear lagde
6035 piloten på nytt, mer på kanten enn den første.  ABC ble fra seg.  Du får
6036 ikke med deg poenget, fortalte de Lear.  Vi vil ha det mindre på kanten,
6037 ikke mer.
6038 </p><p>
6039 I stedet for å føye seg, to Lear ganske enkelt serien sin til noen andre.
6040 CBS var glad for å ha seriene, og ABC kunne ikke stoppe Lear fra å gå til
6041 andre.  Opphavsretten som Lear hadde sikret uavhengighet fra
6042 nettverk-kontroll.<sup>[<a name="id2618558" href="#ftn.id2618558" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
6043 </p><p>
6044
6045
6046
6047 The network did not control those copyrights because the law forbade the
6048 networks from controlling the content they syndicated. The law required a
6049 separation between the networks and the content producers; that separation
6050 would guarantee Lear freedom. And as late as 1992, because of these rules,
6051 the vast majority of prime time television&#8212;75 percent of it&#8212;was
6052 "independent" of the networks.
6053 </p><p>
6054 In 1994, the FCC abandoned the rules that required this independence.  After
6055 that change, the networks quickly changed the balance.  In 1985, there were
6056 twenty-five independent television production studios; in 2002, only five
6057 independent television studios remained. "In 1992, only 15 percent of new
6058 series were produced for a network by a company it controlled. Last year,
6059 the percentage of shows produced by controlled companies more than
6060 quintupled to 77 percent." "In 1992, 16 new series were produced
6061 independently of conglomerate control, last year there was one."<sup>[<a name="id2618588" href="#ftn.id2618588" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of prime time television was
6062 owned by the networks that ran it. "In the ten-year period between 1992 and
6063 2002, the number of prime time television hours per week produced by network
6064 studios increased over 200%, whereas the number of prime time television
6065 hours per week produced by independent studios decreased 63%."<sup>[<a name="id2618631" href="#ftn.id2618631" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
6066 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2618639"></a><p>
6067 Today, another Norman Lear with another <em class="citetitle">All in the
6068 Family</em> would find that he had the choice either to make the show
6069 less edgy or to be fired: The content of any show developed for a network is
6070 increasingly owned by the network.
6071 </p><p>
6072 While the number of channels has increased dramatically, the ownership of
6073 those channels has narrowed to an ever smaller and smaller few. As Barry
6074 Diller said to Bill Moyers, <a class="indexterm" name="id2618660"></a>
6075 <a class="indexterm" name="id2618667"></a>
6076 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6077 Well, if you have companies that produce, that finance, that air on their
6078 channel and then distribute worldwide everything that goes through their
6079 controlled distribution system, then what you get is fewer and fewer actual
6080 voices participating in the process. [We u]sed to have dozens and dozens of
6081 thriving independent production companies producing television programs. Now
6082 you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="id2618685" href="#ftn.id2618685" class="footnote">149</a>]</sup>
6083 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6084 This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of such large
6085 and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous.  Increasingly
6086 safe. Increasingly sterile. The product of news shows from networks like
6087 this is increasingly tailored to the message the network wants to
6088 convey. This is not the communist party, though from the inside, it must
6089 feel a bit like the communist party. No one can question without risk of
6090 consequence&#8212;not necessarily banishment to Siberia, but punishment
6091 nonetheless. Independent, critical, different views are quashed. This is not
6092 the environment for a democracy.
6093 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2618709"></a><p>
6094 Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
6095 affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the "Innovator's
6096 Dilemma": the fact that large traditional firms find it rational to ignore
6097 new, breakthrough technologies that compete with their core business.  The
6098 same analysis could help explain why large, traditional media companies
6099 would find it rational to ignore new cultural trends.<sup>[<a name="id2618737" href="#ftn.id2618737" class="footnote">150</a>]</sup> Lumbering giants not only don't, but should not,
6100 sprint. Yet if the field is only open to the giants, there will be far too
6101 little sprinting.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2618766"></a>
6102 </p><p>
6103 I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media market to say
6104 with certainty what concentration and integration will do. The efficiencies
6105 are important, and the effect on culture is hard to measure.
6106 </p><p>
6107 But there is a quintessentially obvious example that does strongly suggest
6108 the concern.
6109 </p><p>
6110 In addition to the copyright wars, we're in the middle of the drug
6111 wars. Government policy is strongly directed against the drug cartels;
6112 criminal and civil courts are filled with the consequences of this battle.
6113 </p><p>
6114
6115 Let me hereby disqualify myself from any possible appointment to any
6116 position in government by saying I believe this war is a profound mistake. I
6117 am not pro drugs. Indeed, I come from a family once wrecked by
6118 drugs&#8212;though the drugs that wrecked my family were all quite legal. I
6119 believe this war is a profound mistake because the collateral damage from it
6120 is so great as to make waging the war insane.  When you add together the
6121 burdens on the criminal justice system, the desperation of generations of
6122 kids whose only real economic opportunities are as drug warriors, the
6123 queering of constitutional protections because of the constant surveillance
6124 this war requires, and, most profoundly, the total destruction of the legal
6125 systems of many South American nations because of the power of the local
6126 drug cartels, I find it impossible to believe that the marginal benefit in
6127 reduced drug consumption by Americans could possibly outweigh these costs.
6128 </p><p>
6129 You may not be convinced. That's fine. We live in a democracy, and it is
6130 through votes that we are to choose policy. But to do that, we depend
6131 fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about these issues.
6132 </p><p>
6133 Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched a
6134 media campaign as part of the "war on drugs." The campaign produced scores
6135 of short film clips about issues related to illegal drugs. In one series
6136 (the Nick and Norm series) two men are in a bar, discussing the idea of
6137 legalizing drugs as a way to avoid some of the collateral damage from the
6138 war. One advances an argument in favor of drug legalization. The other
6139 responds in a powerful and effective way against the argument of the
6140 first. In the end, the first guy changes his mind (hey, it's
6141 television). The plug at the end is a damning attack on the pro-legalization
6142 campaign.
6143 </p><p>
6144 Fair enough. It's a good ad. Not terribly misleading. It delivers its
6145 message well. It's a fair and reasonable message.
6146 </p><p>
6147 But let's say you think it is a wrong message, and you'd like to run a
6148 countercommercial. Say you want to run a series of ads that try to
6149 demonstrate the extraordinary collateral harm that comes from the drug
6150 war. Can you do it?
6151 </p><p>
6152
6153 Well, obviously, these ads cost lots of money. Assume you raise the
6154 money. Assume a group of concerned citizens donates all the money in the
6155 world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your message will be
6156 heard then?
6157 </p><p>
6158 No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
6159 "controversial" ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
6160 uncontroversial; ads disagreeing with the government are controversial.
6161 This selectivity might be thought inconsistent with the First Amendment, but
6162 the Supreme Court has held that stations have the right to choose what they
6163 run. Thus, the major channels of commercial media will refuse one side of a
6164 crucial debate the opportunity to present its case.  And the courts will
6165 defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.<sup>[<a name="id2618868" href="#ftn.id2618868" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
6166 </p><p>
6167 I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well&#8212;if we lived in a
6168 media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the media throws
6169 that condition into doubt. If a handful of companies control access to the
6170 media, and that handful of companies gets to decide which political
6171 positions it will allow to be promoted on its channels, then in an obvious
6172 and important way, concentration matters. You might like the positions the
6173 handful of companies selects. But you should not like a world in which a
6174 mere few get to decide which issues the rest of us get to know about.
6175 </p></div><div class="section" title="Sammen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="together"></a>Sammen</h2></div></div></div><p>
6176 There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the copyright
6177 warriors that the government should "protect my property." In the abstract,
6178 it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No sane sort who is
6179 not an anarchist could disagree.
6180 </p><p>
6181
6182 But when we see how dramatically this "property" has changed&#8212; when we
6183 recognize how it might now interact with both technology and markets to mean
6184 that the effective constraint on the liberty to cultivate our culture is
6185 dramatically different&#8212;the claim begins to seem less innocent and
6186 obvious. Given (1) the power of technology to supplement the law's control,
6187 and (2) the power of concentrated markets to weaken the opportunity for
6188 dissent, if strictly enforcing the massively expanded "property" rights
6189 granted by copyright fundamentally changes the freedom within this culture
6190 to cultivate and build upon our past, then we have to ask whether this
6191 property should be redefined.
6192 </p><p>
6193 Not starkly. Or absolutely. My point is not that we should abolish copyright
6194 or go back to the eighteenth century. That would be a total mistake,
6195 disastrous for the most important creative enterprises within our culture
6196 today.
6197 </p><p>
6198 But there is a space between zero and one, Internet culture
6199 notwithstanding.  And these massive shifts in the effective power of
6200 copyright regulation, tied to increased concentration of the content
6201 industry and resting in the hands of technology that will increasingly
6202 enable control over the use of culture, should drive us to consider whether
6203 another adjustment is called for. Not an adjustment that increases
6204 copyright's power. Not an adjustment that increases its term. Rather, an
6205 adjustment to restore the balance that has traditionally defined copyright's
6206 regulation&#8212;a weakening of that regulation, to strengthen creativity.
6207 </p><p>
6208 Copyright law has not been a rock of Gibraltar. It's not a set of constant
6209 commitments that, for some mysterious reason, teenagers and geeks now
6210 flout. Instead, copyright power has grown dramatically in a short period of
6211 time, as the technologies of distribution and creation have changed and as
6212 lobbyists have pushed for more control by copyright holders. Changes in the
6213 past in response to changes in technology suggest that we may well need
6214 similar changes in the future. And these changes have to be
6215 <span class="emphasis"><em>reductions</em></span> in the scope of copyright, in response to
6216 the extraordinary increase in control that technology and the market enable.
6217 </p><p>
6218
6219 For the single point that is lost in this war on pirates is a point that we
6220 see only after surveying the range of these changes. When you add together
6221 the effect of changing law, concentrated markets, and changing technology,
6222 together they produce an astonishing conclusion: <span class="emphasis"><em>Never in our
6223 history have fewer had a legal right to control more of the development of
6224 our culture than now</em></span>.
6225 </p><p>
6226 Not when copyrights were perpetual, for when copyrights were perpetual, they
6227 affected only that precise creative work. Not when only publishers had the
6228 tools to publish, for the market then was much more diverse. Not when there
6229 were only three television networks, for even then, newspapers, film
6230 studios, radio stations, and publishers were independent of the
6231 networks. <span class="emphasis"><em>Never</em></span> has copyright protected such a wide
6232 range of rights, against as broad a range of actors, for a term that was
6233 remotely as long. This form of regulation&#8212;a tiny regulation of a tiny
6234 part of the creative energy of a nation at the founding&#8212;is now a
6235 massive regulation of the overall creative process. Law plus technology plus
6236 the market now interact to turn this historically benign regulation into the
6237 most significant regulation of culture that our free society has
6238 known.<sup>[<a name="id2619072" href="#ftn.id2619072" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
6239 </p><p>
6240 This has been a long chapter. Its point can now be briefly stated.
6241 </p><p>
6242 At the start of this book, I distinguished between commercial and
6243 noncommercial culture. In the course of this chapter, I have distinguished
6244 between copying a work and transforming it. We can now combine these two
6245 distinctions and draw a clear map of the changes that copyright law has
6246 undergone.  In 1790, the law looked like this:
6247 </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>
6248
6249 The act of publishing a map, chart, and book was regulated by copyright
6250 law. Nothing else was. Transformations were free. And as copyright attached
6251 only with registration, and only those who intended to benefit commercially
6252 would register, copying through publishing of noncommercial work was also
6253 free.
6254 </p><p>
6255 På slutten av det nittende århundre hadde loven blitt endret til dette:
6256 </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>
6257 Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law&#8212;if published,
6258 which again, given the economics of publishing at the time, means if offered
6259 commercially. But noncommercial publishing and transformation were still
6260 essentially free.
6261 </p><p>
6262 In 1909 the law changed to regulate copies, not publishing, and after this
6263 change, the scope of the law was tied to technology. As the technology of
6264 copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law expanded.  Thus by 1975,
6265 as photocopying machines became more common, we could say the law began to
6266 look like this:
6267 </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>
6268 The law was interpreted to reach noncommercial copying through, say, copy
6269 machines, but still much of copying outside of the commercial market
6270 remained free. But the consequence of the emergence of digital technologies,
6271 especially in the context of a digital network, means that the law now looks
6272 like this:
6273 </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>
6274
6275 Every realm is governed by copyright law, whereas before most creativity was
6276 not. The law now regulates the full range of creativity&#8212; commercial or
6277 not, transformative or not&#8212;with the same rules designed to regulate
6278 commercial publishers.
6279 </p><p>
6280 Obviously, copyright law is not the enemy. The enemy is regulation that does
6281 no good. So the question that we should be asking just now is whether
6282 extending the regulations of copyright law into each of these domains
6283 actually does any good.
6284 </p><p>
6285 I have no doubt that it does good in regulating commercial copying.  But I
6286 also have no doubt that it does more harm than good when regulating (as it
6287 regulates just now) noncommercial copying and, especially, noncommercial
6288 transformation. And increasingly, for the reasons sketched especially in
6289 chapters <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a> and
6290 <a class="xref" href="#transformers" title="Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere">8</a>, one might
6291 well wonder whether it does more harm than good for commercial
6292 transformation.  More commercial transformative work would be created if
6293 derivative rights were more sharply restricted.
6294 </p><p>
6295 The issue is therefore not simply whether copyright is property. Of course
6296 copyright is a kind of "property," and of course, as with any property, the
6297 state ought to protect it. But first impressions notwithstanding,
6298 historically, this property right (as with all property rights<sup>[<a name="id2619422" href="#ftn.id2619422" class="footnote">153</a>]</sup>)  has been crafted to balance the important need to
6299 give authors and artists incentives with the equally important need to
6300 assure access to creative work. This balance has always been struck in light
6301 of new technologies.  And for almost half of our tradition, the "copyright"
6302 did not control <span class="emphasis"><em>at all</em></span> the freedom of others to build
6303 upon or transform a creative work. American culture was born free, and for
6304 almost 180 years our country consistently protected a vibrant and rich free
6305 culture.
6306 </p><p>
6307
6308 We achieved that free culture because our law respected important limits on
6309 the scope of the interests protected by "property." The very birth of
6310 "copyright" as a statutory right recognized those limits, by granting
6311 copyright owners protection for a limited time only (the story of chapter
6312 6). The tradition of "fair use" is animated by a similar concern that is
6313 increasingly under strain as the costs of exercising any fair use right
6314 become unavoidably high (the story of chapter 7). Adding statutory rights
6315 where markets might stifle innovation is another familiar limit on the
6316 property right that copyright is (chapter 8). And granting archives and
6317 libraries a broad freedom to collect, claims of property notwithstanding, is
6318 a crucial part of guaranteeing the soul of a culture (chapter 9). Free
6319 cultures, like free markets, are built with property. But the nature of the
6320 property that builds a free culture is very different from the extremist
6321 vision that dominates the debate today.
6322 </p><p>
6323 Free culture is increasingly the casualty in this war on piracy. In response
6324 to a real, if not yet quantified, threat that the technologies of the
6325 Internet present to twentieth-century business models for producing and
6326 distributing culture, the law and technology are being transformed in a way
6327 that will undermine our tradition of free culture. The property right that
6328 is copyright is no longer the balanced right that it was, or was intended to
6329 be. The property right that is copyright has become unbalanced, tilted
6330 toward an extreme. The opportunity to create and transform becomes weakened
6331 in a world in which creation requires permission and creativity must check
6332 with a lawyer.
6333 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2614966" href="#id2614966" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
6334
6335
6336 Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearings on H.R. 4783, H.R.  4794,
6337 H.R. 4808, H.R. 5250, H.R. 5488, and H.R. 5705 Before the Subcommittee on
6338 Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the Committee
6339 on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, 97th Cong., 2nd
6340 sess. (1982): 65 (testimony of Jack Valenti).
6341 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2615018" href="#id2615018" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
6342
6343
6344 Lawyers speak of "property" not as an absolute thing, but as a bundle of
6345 rights that are sometimes associated with a particular object. Thus, my
6346 "property right" to my car gives me the right to exclusive use, but not the
6347 right to drive at 150 miles an hour. For the best effort to connect the
6348 ordinary meaning of "property" to "lawyer talk," see Bruce Ackerman,
6349 <em class="citetitle">Private Property and the Constitution</em> (New Haven:
6350 Yale University Press, 1977), 26&#8211;27.
6351 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2615349" href="#id2615349" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
6352
6353
6354 By describing the way law affects the other three modalities, I don't mean
6355 to suggest that the other three don't affect law. Obviously, they do. Law's
6356 only distinction is that it alone speaks as if it has a right
6357 self-consciously to change the other three. The right of the other three is
6358 more timidly expressed.  See Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other
6359 Laws of Cyberspace</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90&#8211;95;
6360 Lawrence Lessig, "The New Chicago School," <em class="citetitle">Journal of Legal
6361 Studies</em>, June 1998.
6362 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2615413" href="#id2615413" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
6363
6364 Some people object to this way of talking about "liberty." They object
6365 because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at any
6366 particular moment are constraints imposed exclusively by the government. For
6367 instance, if a storm destroys a bridge, these people think it is meaningless
6368 to say that one's liberty has been restrained. A bridge has washed out, and
6369 it's harder to get from one place to another. To talk about this as a loss
6370 of freedom, they say, is to confuse the stuff of politics with the vagaries
6371 of ordinary life.  I don't mean to deny the value in this narrower view,
6372 which depends upon the context of the inquiry. I do, however, mean to argue
6373 against any insistence that this narrower view is the only proper view of
6374 liberty. As I argued in <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, we come from a long
6375 tradition of political thought with a broader focus than the narrow question
6376 of what the government did when.  John Stuart Mill defended freedom of
6377 speech, for example, from the tyranny of narrow minds, not from the fear of
6378 government prosecution; John Stuart Mill, <em class="citetitle">On Liberty</em>
6379 (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co., 1978), 19.  John R. Commons famously
6380 defended the economic freedom of labor from constraints imposed by the
6381 market; John R. Commons, "The Right to Work," in Malcom Rutherford and
6382 Warren J. Samuels, eds., <em class="citetitle">John R. Commons: Selected
6383 Essays</em> (London: Routledge: 1997), 62. The Americans with
6384 Disabilities Act increases the liberty of people with physical disabilities
6385 by changing the architecture of certain public places, thereby making access
6386 to those places easier; 42 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>,
6387 section 12101 (2000).  Each of these interventions to change existing
6388 conditions changes the liberty of a particular group. The effect of those
6389 interventions should be accounted for in order to understand the effective
6390 liberty that each of these groups might face.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2615461"></a>
6391 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2615610" href="#id2615610" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
6392
6393
6394 See Geoffrey Smith, "Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a Bridge?"
6395 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
6396 analysis of Kodak's place in the market, see Chana R. Schoenberger, "Can
6397 Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?" Forbes.com, 6 October 2003, available at
6398 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #24</a>.
6399 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2615660" href="#id2615660" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
6400
6401
6402 Fred Warshofsky, <em class="citetitle">The Patent Wars</em> (New York: Wiley,
6403 1994), 170&#8211;71.
6404 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2615825" href="#id2615825" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
6405
6406
6407 Se for eksempel James Boyle, "A Politics of Intellectual Property:
6408 Environmentalism for the Net?" <em class="citetitle">Duke Law Journal</em> 47
6409 (1997): 87.
6410 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2616038" href="#id2616038" class="para">125</a>] </sup>
6411
6412 William W. Crosskey, <em class="citetitle">Politics and the Constitution in the History
6413 of the United States</em> (London: Cambridge University Press, 1953),
6414 vol. 1, 485&#8211;86: "extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the supreme
6415 Law of the Land,' <span class="emphasis"><em>the perpetual rights which authors had, or were
6416 supposed by some to have, under the Common Law</em></span>" (emphasis
6417 added).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2616054"></a>
6418 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2616104" href="#id2616104" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
6419
6420
6421 Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790 to
6422 1799, only 556 copyright registrations were filed; John Tebbel, <em class="citetitle">A
6423 History of Book Publishing in the United States</em>, vol. 1,
6424 <em class="citetitle">The Creation of an Industry, 1630&#8211;1865</em> (New
6425 York: Bowker, 1972), 141. Of the 21,000 imprints recorded before 1790, only
6426 twelve were copyrighted under the 1790 act; William J. Maher,
6427 <em class="citetitle">Copyright Term, Retrospective Extension and the Copyright Law of
6428 1790 in Historical Context</em>, 7&#8211;10 (2002), available at
6429 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #25</a>.  Thus, the
6430 overwhelming majority of works fell immediately into the public domain. Even
6431 those works that were copyrighted fell into the public domain quickly,
6432 because the term of copyright was short. The initial term of copyright was
6433 fourteen years, with the option of renewal for an additional fourteen
6434 years. Copyright Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2616170" href="#id2616170" class="para">127</a>] </sup>
6435
6436
6437 Few copyright holders ever chose to renew their copyrights. For instance, of
6438 the 25,006 copyrights registered in 1883, only 894 were renewed in 1910. For
6439 a year-by-year analysis of copyright renewal rates, see Barbara A. Ringer,
6440 "Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright," <em class="citetitle">Studies on
6441 Copyright</em>, vol. 1 (New York: Practicing Law Institute, 1963),
6442 618. For a more recent and comprehensive analysis, see William M. Landes and
6443 Richard A.  Posner, "Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,"
6444 <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 471,
6445 498&#8211;501, and accompanying figures.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2616199" href="#id2616199" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
6446
6447
6448 Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2616294" href="#id2616294" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
6449
6450
6451 These statistics are understated. Between the years 1910 and 1962 (the first
6452 year the renewal term was extended), the average term was never more than
6453 thirty-two years, and averaged thirty years. See Landes and Posner,
6454 "Indefinitely Renewable Copyright," loc. cit.
6455 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2616418" href="#id2616418" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
6456
6457
6458 See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, "Poets, Pirates, and the Creation of
6459 American Literature," 29 <em class="citetitle">New York University Journal of
6460 International Law and Politics</em> 255 (1997), and James Gilraeth,
6461 ed., Federal Copyright Records, 1790&#8211;1800 (U.S. G.P.O., 1987).
6462
6463 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2616507" href="#id2616507" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
6464
6465 Jonathan Zittrain, "The Copyright Cage," <em class="citetitle">Legal
6466 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="id2616535"></a>
6467 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2616554" href="#id2616554" class="para">132</a>] </sup>
6468
6469
6470 Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument about
6471 the difference that copyright law should draw (from the perspective of the
6472 First Amendment) between mere "copies" and derivative works. See Jed
6473 Rubenfeld, "The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's Constitutionality,"
6474 <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 112 (2002): 1&#8211;60 (see
6475 especially pp. 53&#8211;59).
6476 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2616604" href="#id2616604" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
6477
6478
6479 This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly
6480 regulates more than "copies"&#8212;a public performance of a copyrighted
6481 song, for example, is regulated even though performance per se doesn't make
6482 a copy; 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 106(4). And it
6483 certainly sometimes doesn't regulate a "copy"; 17 <em class="citetitle">United States
6484 Code</em>, section 112(a). But the presumption under the existing law
6485 (which regulates "copies;" 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>,
6486 section 102) is that if there is a copy, there is a right.
6487 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2616665" href="#id2616665" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
6488
6489
6490 Thus, my argument is not that in each place that copyright law extends, we
6491 should repeal it. It is instead that we should have a good argument for its
6492 extending where it does, and should not determine its reach on the basis of
6493 arbitrary and automatic changes caused by technology.
6494 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2616611" href="#id2616611" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
6495
6496
6497 I don't mean "nature" in the sense that it couldn't be different, but rather
6498 that its present instantiation entails a copy. Optical networks need not
6499 make copies of content they transmit, and a digital network could be
6500 designed to delete anything it copies so that the same number of copies
6501 remain.
6502 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2617184" href="#id2617184" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
6503
6504
6505 Se David Lange, "Recognizing the Public Domain," <em class="citetitle">Law and
6506 Contemporary Problems</em> 44 (1981): 172&#8211;73.
6507 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2617206" href="#id2617206" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
6508
6509 Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
6510 Copywrongs</em>, 1&#8211;3.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2617196"></a>
6511 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2617482" href="#id2617482" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
6512
6513
6514 In principle, a contract might impose a requirement on me. I might, for
6515 example, buy a book from you that includes a contract that says I will read
6516 it only three times, or that I promise to read it three times. But that
6517 obligation (and the limits for creating that obligation) would come from the
6518 contract, not from copyright law, and the obligations of contract would not
6519 necessarily pass to anyone who subsequently acquired the book.
6520 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2617796" href="#id2617796" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
6521
6522 See Pamela Samuelson, "Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to Science,"
6523 <em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan I. Koerner, "Play
6524 Dead: Sony Muzzles the Techies Who Teach a Robot Dog New Tricks,"
6525 <em class="citetitle">American Prospect</em>, January 2002; "Court Dismisses
6526 Computer Scientists' Challenge to DMCA," <em class="citetitle">Intellectual Property
6527 Litigation Reporter</em>, 11 December 2001; Bill Holland, "Copyright
6528 Act Raising Free-Speech Concerns," <em class="citetitle">Billboard</em>, May
6529 2001; Janelle Brown, "Is the RIAA Running Scared?" Salon.com, April 2001;
6530 Electronic Frontier Foundation, "Frequently Asked Questions about
6531 <em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
6532 Legal Case," available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6533 #27</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2617833"></a>
6534 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2618055" href="#id2618055" class="para">140</a>] </sup>
6535
6536
6537 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corporation of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal
6538 City Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers
6539 never changed his view about the VCR. See James Lardner, <em class="citetitle">Fast
6540 Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR</em>
6541 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 270&#8211;71.
6542 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2618208" href="#id2618208" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
6543
6544
6545 For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, "Legal Fictions,
6546 Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law," <em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los
6547 Angeles Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17 (1997): 651.
6548 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2618317" href="#id2618317" class="para">142</a>] </sup>
6549
6550
6551 FCC Oversight: Hearing Before the Senate Commerce, Science and
6552 Transportation Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (22 May 2003)  (statement
6553 of Senator John McCain).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2618329" href="#id2618329" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
6554
6555
6556 Lynette Holloway, "Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to Slide,"
6557 <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
6558 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2618342" href="#id2618342" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
6559
6560
6561 Molly Ivins, "Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped," <em class="citetitle">Charleston
6562 Gazette</em>, 31 May 2003.
6563 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2618433" href="#id2618433" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
6564
6565 James Fallows, "The Age of Murdoch," <em class="citetitle">Atlantic Monthly</em>
6566 (September 2003): 89.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2618449"></a>
6567 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2618558" href="#id2618558" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
6568
6569
6570 Leonard Hill, "The Axis of Access," remarks before Weidenbaum Center Forum,
6571 "Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry," St. Louis, Missouri, 3 April
6572 2003 (transcript of prepared remarks available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #28</a>; for the Lear story,
6573 not included in the prepared remarks, see <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #29</a>).
6574 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2618588" href="#id2618588" class="para">147</a>] </sup>
6575
6576
6577 NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media
6578 Ownership Before the Senate Commerce Committee, 108th Cong., 1st
6579 sess. (2003) (testimony of Gene Kimmelman on behalf of Consumers Union and
6580 the Consumer Federation of America), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #30</a>. Kimmelman quotes
6581 Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West, in her Remarks
6582 at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia, 27 February 2003.
6583 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2618631" href="#id2618631" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
6584
6585
6586 ibid.
6587 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2618685" href="#id2618685" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
6588
6589
6590 "Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation," <em class="citetitle">Now with Bill
6591 Moyers</em>, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, redigert avskrift
6592 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6593 #31</a>.
6594 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2618737" href="#id2618737" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
6595
6596
6597 Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
6598 Revolutionary National Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do
6599 Business</em> (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press,
6600 1997). Christensen acknowledges that the idea was first suggested by Dean
6601 Kim Clark. See Kim B. Clark, "The Interaction of Design Hierarchies and
6602 Market Concepts in Technological Evolution," <em class="citetitle">Research
6603 Policy</em> 14 (1985): 235&#8211;51. For a more recent study, see
6604 Richard Foster and Sarah Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">Creative Destruction: Why
6605 Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market&#8212;and How to
6606 Successfully Transform Them</em> (New York: Currency/Doubleday,
6607 2001).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2618868" href="#id2618868" class="para">151</a>] </sup>
6608
6609 The Marijuana Policy Project, in February 2003, sought to place ads that
6610 directly responded to the Nick and Norm series on stations within the
6611 Washington, D.C., area. Comcast rejected the ads as "against [their]
6612 policy." The local NBC affiliate, WRC, rejected the ads without reviewing
6613 them. The local ABC affiliate, WJOA, originally agreed to run the ads and
6614 accepted payment to do so, but later decided not to run the ads and returned
6615 the collected fees. Interview with Neal Levine, 15 October 2003.  These
6616 restrictions are, of course, not limited to drug policy. See, for example,
6617 Nat Ives, "On the Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet with Rejection
6618 from TV Networks," <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 13 March 2003,
6619 C4.  Outside of election-related air time there is very little that the FCC
6620 or the courts are willing to do to even the playing field. For a general
6621 overview, see Rhonda Brown, "Ad Hoc Access: The Regulation of Editorial
6622 Advertising on Television and Radio," <em class="citetitle">Yale Law and Policy
6623 Review</em> 6 (1988): 449&#8211;79, and for a more recent summary of
6624 the stance of the FCC and the courts, see <em class="citetitle">Radio-Television News
6625 Directors Association</em> v. <em class="citetitle">FCC</em>, 184 F. 3d
6626 872 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as
6627 the networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San Francisco
6628 transit authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni diesel
6629 buses. Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, "Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni
6630 Rejects Ad," 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
6631 the criticism was "too controversial." <a class="indexterm" name="id2618916"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2618924"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2618931"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2618937"></a>
6632 <a class="indexterm" name="id2618943"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2618950"></a>
6633 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2619072" href="#id2619072" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
6634
6635 Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende poeng i hans "fire kapitulasjoner" for
6636 opphavsrettsloven i den digitale tidsalder. Se Vaidhyanathan, 159&#8211;60.
6637 <a class="indexterm" name="id2618894"></a>
6638 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2619422" href="#id2619422" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
6639
6640 It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist movement
6641 to demonstrate that all property rights are always crafted to balance public
6642 and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, "The Disintegration of Property,"
6643 in <em class="citetitle">Nomos XXII: Property</em>, J. Roland Pennock and John
6644 W.  Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press, 1980).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2619434"></a>
6645 </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="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#chimera">11. Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#harms">12. Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 11. Kapittel elleve: Chimera"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>Kapittel 11. Kapittel elleve: Chimera</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxchimera"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwells"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtcotb"></a><p>
6646 In a well-known short story by H. G. Wells, a mountain climber named Nunez
6647 trips (literally, down an ice slope) into an unknown and isolated valley in
6648 the Peruvian Andes.<sup>[<a name="id2619561" href="#ftn.id2619561" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is
6649 extraordinarily beautiful, with "sweet water, pasture, an even climate,
6650 slopes of rich brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an excellent
6651 fruit." But the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this as an
6652 opportunity. "In the Country of the Blind," he tells himself, "the One-Eyed
6653 Man is King." So he resolves to live with the villagers to explore life as a
6654 king.
6655 </p><p>
6656 Things don't go quite as he planned. He tries to explain the idea of sight
6657 to the villagers. They don't understand. He tells them they are "blind."
6658 They don't have the word <em class="citetitle">blind</em>. They think he's just
6659 thick.  Indeed, as they increasingly notice the things he can't do (hear the
6660 sound of grass being stepped on, for example), they increasingly try to
6661 control him. He, in turn, becomes increasingly frustrated. "`You don't
6662 understand,' he cried, in a voice that was meant to be great and resolute,
6663 and which broke. `You are blind and I can see. Leave me alone!'"
6664 </p><p>
6665
6666
6667 The villagers don't leave him alone. Nor do they see (so to speak) the
6668 virtue of his special power. Not even the ultimate target of his affection,
6669 a young woman who to him seems "the most beautiful thing in the whole of
6670 creation," understands the beauty of sight. Nunez's description of what he
6671 sees "seemed to her the most poetical of fancies, and she listened to his
6672 description of the stars and the mountains and her own sweet white-lit
6673 beauty as though it was a guilty indulgence." "She did not believe," Wells
6674 tells us, and "she could only half understand, but she was mysteriously
6675 delighted."
6676 </p><p>
6677 When Nunez announces his desire to marry his "mysteriously delighted" love,
6678 the father and the village object. "You see, my dear," her father instructs,
6679 "he's an idiot. He has delusions. He can't do anything right." They take
6680 Nunez to the village doctor.
6681 </p><p>
6682 After a careful examination, the doctor gives his opinion. "His brain is
6683 affected," he reports.
6684 </p><p>
6685 "What affects it?" the father asks.  "Those queer things that are called the
6686 eyes &#8230; are diseased &#8230; in such a way as to affect his brain."
6687 </p><p>
6688 The doctor continues: "I think I may say with reasonable certainty that in
6689 order to cure him completely, all that we need to do is a simple and easy
6690 surgical operation&#8212;namely, to remove these irritant bodies [the
6691 eyes]."
6692 </p><p>
6693
6694 "Thank Heaven for science!" says the father to the doctor. They inform Nunez
6695 of this condition necessary for him to be allowed his bride.  (You'll have
6696 to read the original to learn what happens in the end. I believe in free
6697 culture, but never in giving away the end of a story.)  It sometimes happens
6698 that the eggs of twins fuse in the mother's womb. That fusion produces a
6699 "chimera." A chimera is a single creature with two sets of DNA. The DNA in
6700 the blood, for example, might be different from the DNA of the skin. This
6701 possibility is an underused plot for murder mysteries. "But the DNA shows
6702 with 100 percent certainty that she was not the person whose blood was at
6703 the scene. &#8230;"
6704 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2619656"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2619664"></a><p>
6705 Before I had read about chimeras, I would have said they were impossible.  A
6706 single person can't have two sets of DNA. The very idea of DNA is that it is
6707 the code of an individual. Yet in fact, not only can two individuals have
6708 the same set of DNA (identical twins), but one person can have two different
6709 sets of DNA (a chimera). Our understanding of a "person" should reflect this
6710 reality.
6711 </p><p>
6712 The more I work to understand the current struggle over copyright and
6713 culture, which I've sometimes called unfairly, and sometimes not unfairly
6714 enough, "the copyright wars," the more I think we're dealing with a
6715 chimera. For example, in the battle over the question "What is p2p file
6716 sharing?" both sides have it right, and both sides have it wrong.  One side
6717 says, "File sharing is just like two kids taping each others'
6718 records&#8212;the sort of thing we've been doing for the last thirty years
6719 without any question at all." That's true, at least in part. When I tell my
6720 best friend to try out a new CD that I've bought, but rather than just send
6721 the CD, I point him to my p2p server, that is, in all relevant respects,
6722 just like what every executive in every recording company no doubt did as a
6723 kid: sharing music.
6724 </p><p>
6725 But the description is also false in part. For when my p2p server is on a
6726 p2p network through which anyone can get access to my music, then sure, my
6727 friends can get access, but it stretches the meaning of "friends" beyond
6728 recognition to say "my ten thousand best friends" can get access. Whether or
6729 not sharing my music with my best friend is what "we have always been
6730 allowed to do," we have not always been allowed to share music with "our ten
6731 thousand best friends."
6732 </p><p>
6733 Likewise, when the other side says, "File sharing is just like walking into
6734 a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out with it,"
6735 that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett (finally) releases a
6736 new album, rather than buying it, I go to Kazaa and find a free copy to
6737 take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2619690"></a>
6738 </p><p>
6739
6740
6741
6742 But it is not quite stealing from Tower. After all, when I take a CD from
6743 Tower Records, Tower has one less CD to sell. And when I take a CD from
6744 Tower Records, I get a bit of plastic and a cover, and something to show on
6745 my shelves. (And, while we're at it, we could also note that when I take a
6746 CD from Tower Records, the maximum fine that might be imposed on me, under
6747 California law, at least, is $1,000.  According to the RIAA, by contrast, if
6748 I download a ten-song CD, I'm liable for $1,500,000 in damages.)
6749 </p><p>
6750 The point is not that it is as neither side describes. The point is that it
6751 is both&#8212;both as the RIAA describes it and as Kazaa describes it. It is
6752 a chimera. And rather than simply denying what the other side asserts, we
6753 need to begin to think about how we should respond to this chimera. What
6754 rules should govern it?
6755 </p><p>
6756 We could respond by simply pretending that it is not a chimera. We could,
6757 with the RIAA, decide that every act of file sharing should be a felony. We
6758 could prosecute families for millions of dollars in damages just because
6759 file sharing occurred on a family computer. And we can get universities to
6760 monitor all computer traffic to make sure that no computer is used to commit
6761 this crime. These responses might be extreme, but each of them has either
6762 been proposed or actually implemented.<sup>[<a name="id2619760" href="#ftn.id2619760" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
6763
6764 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2619852"></a><p>
6765 Alternatively, we could respond to file sharing the way many kids act as
6766 though we've responded. We could totally legalize it. Let there be no
6767 copyright liability, either civil or criminal, for making copyrighted
6768 content available on the Net. Make file sharing like gossip: regulated, if
6769 at all, by social norms but not by law.
6770 </p><p>
6771 Either response is possible. I think either would be a mistake.  Rather than
6772 embrace one of these two extremes, we should embrace something that
6773 recognizes the truth in both. And while I end this book with a sketch of a
6774 system that does just that, my aim in the next chapter is to show just how
6775 awful it would be for us to adopt the zero-tolerance extreme. I believe
6776 <span class="emphasis"><em>either</em></span> extreme would be worse than a reasonable
6777 alternative.  But I believe the zero-tolerance solution would be the worse
6778 of the two extremes.
6779 </p><p>
6780
6781
6782
6783 Yet zero tolerance is increasingly our government's policy. In the middle of
6784 the chaos that the Internet has created, an extraordinary land grab is
6785 occurring. The law and technology are being shifted to give content holders
6786 a kind of control over our culture that they have never had before. And in
6787 this extremism, many an opportunity for new innovation and new creativity
6788 will be lost.
6789 </p><p>
6790 I'm not talking about the opportunities for kids to "steal" music. My focus
6791 instead is the commercial and cultural innovation that this war will also
6792 kill. We have never seen the power to innovate spread so broadly among our
6793 citizens, and we have just begun to see the innovation that this power will
6794 unleash. Yet the Internet has already seen the passing of one cycle of
6795 innovation around technologies to distribute content. The law is responsible
6796 for this passing. As the vice president for global public policy at one of
6797 these new innovators, eMusic.com, put it when criticizing the DMCA's added
6798 protection for copyrighted material,
6799 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6800 eMusic opposes music piracy. We are a distributor of copyrighted material,
6801 and we want to protect those rights.
6802 </p><p>
6803 But building a technology fortress that locks in the clout of the major
6804 labels is by no means the only way to protect copyright interests, nor is it
6805 necessarily the best. It is simply too early to answer that question. Market
6806 forces operating naturally may very well produce a totally different
6807 industry model.
6808 </p><p>
6809 This is a critical point. The choices that industry sectors make with
6810 respect to these systems will in many ways directly shape the market for
6811 digital media and the manner in which digital media are distributed. This in
6812 turn will directly influence the options that are available to consumers,
6813 both in terms of the ease with which they will be able to access digital
6814 media and the equipment that they will require to do so. Poor choices made
6815 this early in the game will retard the growth of this market, hurting
6816 everyone's interests.<sup>[<a name="id2619937" href="#ftn.id2619937" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
6817 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6818 In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of "the
6819 major labels." Its position on these matters has now changed.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2619960"></a>
6820 </p><p>
6821 Reversing our tradition of tolerance now will not merely quash piracy. It
6822 will sacrifice values that are important to this culture, and will kill
6823 opportunities that could be extraordinarily valuable.
6824 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2619561" href="#id2619561" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
6825
6826
6827 H. G. Wells, "The Country of the Blind" (1904, 1911). See H. G. Wells,
6828 <em class="citetitle">The Country of the Blind and Other Stories</em>, Michael
6829 Sherborne, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).
6830 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2619760" href="#id2619760" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
6831
6832 For an excellent summary, see the report prepared by GartnerG2 and the
6833 Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, "Copyright
6834 and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World," 27 June 2003, available at
6835 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #33</a>. Reps. John
6836 Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) have introduced a bill
6837 that would treat unauthorized on-line copying as a felony offense with
6838 punishments ranging as high as five years imprisonment; see Jon Healey,
6839 "House Bill Aims to Up Stakes on Piracy," <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
6840 Times</em>, 17 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #34</a>. Civil penalties are
6841 currently set at $150,000 per copied song. For a recent (and unsuccessful)
6842 legal challenge to the RIAA's demand that an ISP reveal the identity of a
6843 user accused of sharing more than 600 songs through a family computer, see
6844 <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Verizon Internet Services (In
6845 re. Verizon Internet Services)</em>, 240 F.  Supp. 2d 24
6846 (D.D.C. 2003). Such a user could face liability ranging as high as $90
6847 million. Such astronomical figures furnish the RIAA with a powerful arsenal
6848 in its prosecution of file sharers. Settlements ranging from $12,000 to
6849 $17,500 for four students accused of heavy file sharing on university
6850 networks must have seemed a mere pittance next to the $98 billion the RIAA
6851 could seek should the matter proceed to court. See Elizabeth Young,
6852 "Downloading Could Lead to Fines," redandblack.com, August 2003, available
6853 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #35</a>. For an
6854 example of the RIAA's targeting of student file sharing, and of the
6855 subpoenas issued to universities to reveal student file-sharer identities,
6856 see James Collins, "RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to Name Students,"
6857 <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 8 August 2003, D3, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #36</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2619835"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2619844"></a>
6858 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2619937" href="#id2619937" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
6859
6860
6861 WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
6862 Entertainment on the Internet and Other Media: Hearing Before the
6863 Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, House
6864 Committee on Commerce, 106th Cong. 29 (1999) (statement of Peter Harter,
6865 vice president, Global Public Policy and Standards, EMusic.com), available
6866 in LEXIS, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony File.  </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 12. Kapittel tolv: Skader"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="harms"></a>Kapittel 12. Kapittel tolv: Skader</h2></div></div></div><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></div><p>
6867 To fight "piracy," to protect "property," the content industry has launched
6868 a war. Lobbying and lots of campaign contributions have now brought the
6869 government into this war. As with any war, this one will have both direct
6870 and collateral damage. As with any war of prohibition, these damages will be
6871 suffered most by our own people.
6872 </p><p>
6873 My aim so far has been to describe the consequences of this war, in
6874 particular, the consequences for "free culture." But my aim now is to extend
6875 this description of consequences into an argument. Is this war justified?
6876 </p><p>
6877 In my view, it is not. There is no good reason why this time, for the first
6878 time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the power of
6879 the property called "intellectual property" is at its greatest in our
6880 history.
6881 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2620009"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2620016"></a><p>
6882 Yet "common sense" does not see it this way. Common sense is still on the
6883 side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme claims of control
6884 in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical rejection of "piracy"
6885 still has play.
6886 </p><p>
6887
6888
6889 There will be many consequences of continuing this war. I want to describe
6890 just three. All three might be said to be unintended. I am quite confident
6891 the third is unintended. I'm less sure about the first two. The first two
6892 protect modern RCAs, but there is no Howard Armstrong in the wings to fight
6893 today's monopolists of culture.
6894 </p><div class="section" title="Constraining Creators"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="constrain"></a>Constraining Creators</h2></div></div></div><p>
6895 In the next ten years we will see an explosion of digital technologies.
6896 These technologies will enable almost anyone to capture and share
6897 content. Capturing and sharing content, of course, is what humans have done
6898 since the dawn of man. It is how we learn and communicate. But capturing and
6899 sharing through digital technology is different. The fidelity and power are
6900 different. You could send an e-mail telling someone about a joke you saw on
6901 Comedy Central, or you could send the clip. You could write an essay about
6902 the inconsistencies in the arguments of the politician you most love to
6903 hate, or you could make a short film that puts statement against
6904 statement. You could write a poem to express your love, or you could weave
6905 together a string&#8212;a mash-up&#8212; of songs from your favorite artists
6906 in a collage and make it available on the Net.
6907 </p><p>
6908 This digital "capturing and sharing" is in part an extension of the
6909 capturing and sharing that has always been integral to our culture, and in
6910 part it is something new. It is continuous with the Kodak, but it explodes
6911 the boundaries of Kodak-like technologies. The technology of digital
6912 "capturing and sharing" promises a world of extraordinarily diverse
6913 creativity that can be easily and broadly shared. And as that creativity is
6914 applied to democracy, it will enable a broad range of citizens to use
6915 technology to express and criticize and contribute to the culture all
6916 around.
6917 </p><p>
6918
6919 Teknologien har dermed gitt oss en mulighet til å gjøre noe med kultur som
6920 bare har vært mulig for enkeltpersoner i små grupper, isolert fra andre
6921 grupper. Forestill deg en gammel mann som forteller en historie til en
6922 samling med naboer i en liten landsby.  Forestill deg så den samme
6923 historiefortellingen utvidet til å nå over hele verden.
6924 </p><p>
6925 Yet all this is possible only if the activity is presumptively legal. In the
6926 current regime of legal regulation, it is not. Forget file sharing for a
6927 moment. Think about your favorite amazing sites on the Net. Web sites that
6928 offer plot summaries from forgotten television shows; sites that catalog
6929 cartoons from the 1960s; sites that mix images and sound to criticize
6930 politicians or businesses; sites that gather newspaper articles on remote
6931 topics of science or culture. There is a vast amount of creative work spread
6932 across the Internet. But as the law is currently crafted, this work is
6933 presumptively illegal.
6934 </p><p>
6935 That presumption will increasingly chill creativity, as the examples of
6936 extreme penalties for vague infringements continue to proliferate. It is
6937 impossible to get a clear sense of what's allowed and what's not, and at the
6938 same time, the penalties for crossing the line are astonishingly harsh.  The
6939 four students who were threatened by the RIAA ( Jesse Jordan of chapter 3
6940 was just one) were threatened with a $98 billion lawsuit for building search
6941 engines that permitted songs to be copied. Yet World-Com&#8212;which
6942 defrauded investors of $11 billion, resulting in a loss to investors in
6943 market capitalization of over $200 billion&#8212;received a fine of a mere
6944 $750 million.<sup>[<a name="id2620131" href="#ftn.id2620131" class="footnote">157</a>]</sup> And under legislation
6945 being pushed in Congress right now, a doctor who negligently removes the
6946 wrong leg in an operation would be liable for no more than $250,000 in
6947 damages for pain and suffering.<sup>[<a name="id2620167" href="#ftn.id2620167" class="footnote">158</a>]</sup> Can
6948 common sense recognize the absurdity in a world where the maximum fine for
6949 downloading two songs off the Internet is more than the fine for a doctor's
6950 negligently butchering a patient? <a class="indexterm" name="id2620204"></a>
6951 </p><p>
6952 The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high
6953 penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never
6954 be exercised, or never be exercised in the open. We drive this creative
6955 process underground by branding the modern-day Walt Disneys "pirates." We
6956 make it impossible for businesses to rely upon a public domain, because the
6957 boundaries of the public domain are designed to be unclear. It never pays to
6958 do anything except pay for the right to create, and hence only those who can
6959 pay are allowed to create. As was the case in the Soviet Union, though for
6960 very different reasons, we will begin to see a world of underground
6961 art&#8212;not because the message is necessarily political, or because the
6962 subject is controversial, but because the very act of creating the art is
6963 legally fraught. Already, exhibits of "illegal art" tour the United
6964 States.<sup>[<a name="id2619743" href="#ftn.id2619743" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In what does their "illegality"
6965 consist? In the act of mixing the culture around us with an expression that
6966 is critical or reflective.
6967 </p><p>
6968 Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the changing
6969 law. I described that change in detail in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>10</a>. But an even bigger part has to do with
6970 the increasing ease with which infractions can be tracked. As users of
6971 file-sharing systems discovered in 2002, it is a trivial matter for
6972 copyright owners to get courts to order Internet service providers to reveal
6973 who has what content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a
6974 list of the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that
6975 anyone could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
6976 </p><p>
6977 Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether his painting
6978 infringed on someone else's work; but the modern-day painter, using the
6979 tools of Photoshop, sharing content on the Web, must worry all the
6980 time. Images are all around, but the only safe images to use in the act of
6981 creation are those purchased from Corbis or another image farm. And in
6982 purchasing, censoring happens. There is a free market in pencils; we needn't
6983 worry about its effect on creativity. But there is a highly regulated,
6984 monopolized market in cultural icons; the right to cultivate and transform
6985 them is not similarly free.
6986 </p><p>
6987 Lawyers rarely see this because lawyers are rarely empirical. As I described
6988 in chapter <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, in
6989 response to the story about documentary filmmaker Jon Else, I have been
6990 lectured again and again by lawyers who insist Else's use was fair use, and
6991 hence I am wrong to say that the law regulates such a use.
6992 </p><p>
6993
6994
6995
6996 But fair use in America simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend
6997 your right to create. And as lawyers love to forget, our system for
6998 defending rights such as fair use is astonishingly bad&#8212;in practically
6999 every context, but especially here. It costs too much, it delivers too
7000 slowly, and what it delivers often has little connection to the justice
7001 underlying the claim. The legal system may be tolerable for the very rich.
7002 For everyone else, it is an embarrassment to a tradition that prides itself
7003 on the rule of law.
7004 </p><p>
7005 Judges and lawyers can tell themselves that fair use provides adequate
7006 "breathing room" between regulation by the law and the access the law should
7007 allow. But it is a measure of how out of touch our legal system has become
7008 that anyone actually believes this. The rules that publishers impose upon
7009 writers, the rules that film distributors impose upon filmmakers, the rules
7010 that newspapers impose upon journalists&#8212; these are the real laws
7011 governing creativity. And these rules have little relationship to the "law"
7012 with which judges comfort themselves.
7013 </p><p>
7014 For in a world that threatens $150,000 for a single willful infringement of
7015 a copyright, and which demands tens of thousands of dollars to even defend
7016 against a copyright infringement claim, and which would never return to the
7017 wrongfully accused defendant anything of the costs she suffered to defend
7018 her right to speak&#8212;in that world, the astonishingly broad regulations
7019 that pass under the name "copyright" silence speech and creativity. And in
7020 that world, it takes a studied blindness for people to continue to believe
7021 they live in a culture that is free.
7022 </p><p>
7023 As Jed Horovitz, the businessman behind Video Pipeline, said to me,
7024 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7025
7026 We're losing [creative] opportunities right and left. Creative people are
7027 being forced not to express themselves. Thoughts are not being
7028 expressed. And while a lot of stuff may [still] be created, it still won't
7029 get distributed. Even if the stuff gets made &#8230; you're not going to
7030 get it distributed in the mainstream media unless you've got a little note
7031 from a lawyer saying, "This has been cleared." You're not even going to get
7032 it on PBS without that kind of permission. That's the point at which they
7033 control it.
7034 </p></blockquote></div></div><div class="section" title="Constraining Innovators"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="innovators"></a>Constraining Innovators</h2></div></div></div><p>
7035 The story of the last section was a crunchy-lefty story&#8212;creativity
7036 quashed, artists who can't speak, yada yada yada. Maybe that doesn't get you
7037 going. Maybe you think there's enough weird art out there, and enough
7038 expression that is critical of what seems to be just about everything.  And
7039 if you think that, you might think there's little in this story to worry
7040 you.
7041 </p><p>
7042 But there's an aspect of this story that is not lefty in any sense.  Indeed,
7043 it is an aspect that could be written by the most extreme promarket
7044 ideologue. And if you're one of these sorts (and a special one at that, 188
7045 pages into a book like this), then you can see this other aspect by
7046 substituting "free market" every place I've spoken of "free culture." The
7047 point is the same, even if the interests affecting culture are more
7048 fundamental.
7049 </p><p>
7050 The charge I've been making about the regulation of culture is the same
7051 charge free marketers make about regulating markets. Everyone, of course,
7052 concedes that some regulation of markets is necessary&#8212;at a minimum, we
7053 need rules of property and contract, and courts to enforce both. Likewise,
7054 in this culture debate, everyone concedes that at least some framework of
7055 copyright is also required. But both perspectives vehemently insist that
7056 just because some regulation is good, it doesn't follow that more regulation
7057 is better. And both perspectives are constantly attuned to the ways in which
7058 regulation simply enables the powerful industries of today to protect
7059 themselves against the competitors of tomorrow.
7060 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2620399"></a><p>
7061
7062 This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy
7063 that I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>10</a>. The consequence of this massive threat of liability
7064 tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is that innovators who want to
7065 innovate in this space can safely innovate only if they have the sign-off
7066 from last generation's dominant industries.  That lesson has been taught
7067 through a series of cases that were designed and executed to teach venture
7068 capitalists a lesson. That lesson&#8212;what former Napster CEO Hank Barry
7069 calls a "nuclear pall" that has fallen over the Valley&#8212;has been
7070 learned.
7071 </p><p>
7072 Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in
7073 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> and which has progressed in a way
7074 that even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
7075 </p><p>
7076 In 1997, Michael Roberts launched a company called MP3.com.  MP3.com was
7077 keen to remake the music business. Their goal was not just to facilitate new
7078 ways to get access to content. Their goal was also to facilitate new ways to
7079 create content. Unlike the major labels, MP3.com offered creators a venue to
7080 distribute their creativity, without demanding an exclusive engagement from
7081 the creators.
7082 </p><p>
7083 To make this system work, however, MP3.com needed a reliable way to
7084 recommend music to its users. The idea behind this alternative was to
7085 leverage the revealed preferences of music listeners to recommend new
7086 artists. If you like Lyle Lovett, you're likely to enjoy Bonnie Raitt. And
7087 so on.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2620468"></a>
7088 </p><p>
7089 This idea required a simple way to gather data about user preferences.
7090 MP3.com came up with an extraordinarily clever way to gather this preference
7091 data. In January 2000, the company launched a service called
7092 my.mp3.com. Using software provided by MP3.com, a user would sign into an
7093 account and then insert into her computer a CD. The software would identify
7094 the CD, and then give the user access to that content.  So, for example, if
7095 you inserted a CD by Jill Sobule, then wherever you were&#8212;at work or at
7096 home&#8212;you could get access to that music once you signed into your
7097 account. The system was therefore a kind of music-lockbox.
7098 </p><p>
7099
7100 No doubt some could use this system to illegally copy content. But that
7101 opportunity existed with or without MP3.com. The aim of the my.mp3.com
7102 service was to give users access to their own content, and as a by-product,
7103 by seeing the content they already owned, to discover the kind of content
7104 the users liked.
7105 </p><p>
7106 To make this system function, however, MP3.com needed to copy 50,000 CDs to
7107 a server. (In principle, it could have been the user who uploaded the music,
7108 but that would have taken a great deal of time, and would have produced a
7109 product of questionable quality.) It therefore purchased 50,000 CDs from a
7110 store, and started the process of making copies of those CDs. Again, it
7111 would not serve the content from those copies to anyone except those who
7112 authenticated that they had a copy of the CD they wanted to access. So while
7113 this was 50,000 copies, it was 50,000 copies directed at giving customers
7114 something they had already bought.
7115 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxvivendiuniversal"></a><p>
7116 Nine days after MP3.com launched its service, the five major labels, headed
7117 by the RIAA, brought a lawsuit against MP3.com. MP3.com settled with four of
7118 the five. Nine months later, a federal judge found MP3.com to have been
7119 guilty of willful infringement with respect to the fifth. Applying the law
7120 as it is, the judge imposed a fine against MP3.com of $118 million. MP3.com
7121 then settled with the remaining plaintiff, Vivendi Universal, paying over
7122 $54 million. Vivendi purchased MP3.com just about a year later.
7123 </p><p>
7124 Den delen av historien har jeg fortalt før.  Nå kommer konklusjonen.
7125 </p><p>
7126 After Vivendi purchased MP3.com, Vivendi turned around and filed a
7127 malpractice lawsuit against the lawyers who had advised it that they had a
7128 good faith claim that the service they wanted to offer would be considered
7129 legal under copyright law. This lawsuit alleged that it should have been
7130 obvious that the courts would find this behavior illegal; therefore, this
7131 lawsuit sought to punish any lawyer who had dared to suggest that the law
7132 was less restrictive than the labels demanded.
7133 </p><p>
7134
7135 Den åpenbare hensikten med dette søksmålet (som ble avsluttet med et forlik
7136 for et uspesifisert beløp like etter at saken ikke lenger fikk
7137 pressedekning), var å sende en melding som ikke kan misforstås til advokater
7138 som gir råd til klienter på dette området: Det er ikke bare dine klienter
7139 som får lide hvis innholdsindustrien retter sine våpen mot dem.  Det får
7140 også du.  Så de av dere som tror loven burde være mindre restriktiv bør
7141 innse at et slikt syn på loven vil koste deg og ditt firma dyrt.
7142 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2620572"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2620580"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2620586"></a><p>
7143 This strategy is not just limited to the lawyers. In April 2003, Universal
7144 and EMI brought a lawsuit against Hummer Winblad, the venture capital firm
7145 (VC) that had funded Napster at a certain stage of its development, its
7146 cofounder ( John Hummer), and general partner (Hank Barry).<sup>[<a name="id2620599" href="#ftn.id2620599" class="footnote">160</a>]</sup> The claim here, as well, was that the VC should
7147 have recognized the right of the content industry to control how the
7148 industry should develop. They should be held personally liable for funding a
7149 company whose business turned out to be beyond the law. Here again, the aim
7150 of the lawsuit is transparent: Any VC now recognizes that if you fund a
7151 company whose business is not approved of by the dinosaurs, you are at risk
7152 not just in the marketplace, but in the courtroom as well.  Your investment
7153 buys you not only a company, it also buys you a lawsuit.  So extreme has the
7154 environment become that even car manufacturers are afraid of technologies
7155 that touch content. In an article in <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>,
7156 Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW: <a class="indexterm" name="id2620639"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2620645"></a>
7157 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2620654"></a><p>
7158 I asked why, with all the storage capacity and computer power in the car,
7159 there was no way to play MP3 files. I was told that BMW engineers in Germany
7160 had rigged a new vehicle to play MP3s via the car's built-in sound system,
7161 but that the company's marketing and legal departments weren't comfortable
7162 with pushing this forward for release stateside. Even today, no new cars are
7163 sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. &#8230; <sup>[<a name="id2620362" href="#ftn.id2620362" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
7164 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7165 Dette er verden til mafiaen&#8212;fylt med "penger eller livet"-trusler, som
7166 ikke er regulert av domstolene men av trusler som loven gir
7167 rettighetsinnehaver mulighet til å komme med. Det er et system som åpenbart
7168 og nødvendigvis vil kvele ny innovasjon. Det er vanskelig nok å starte et
7169 selskap. Det blir helt umulig hvis selskapet er stadig truet av søksmål.
7170 </p><p>
7171
7172
7173
7174 The point is not that businesses should have a right to start illegal
7175 enterprises. The point is the definition of "illegal." The law is a mess of
7176 uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply to new
7177 technologies. Yet by reversing our tradition of judicial deference, and by
7178 embracing the astonishingly high penalties that copyright law imposes, that
7179 uncertainty now yields a reality which is far more conservative than is
7180 right. If the law imposed the death penalty for parking tickets, we'd not
7181 only have fewer parking tickets, we'd also have much less driving. The same
7182 principle applies to innovation. If innovation is constantly checked by this
7183 uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation
7184 and much less creativity.
7185 </p><p>
7186 The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
7187 use. Whatever the "real" law is, realism about the effect of law in both
7188 contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation will
7189 systematically stifle creativity and innovation. It will protect some
7190 industries and some creators, but it will harm industry and creativity
7191 generally. Free market and free culture depend upon vibrant competition.
7192 Yet the effect of the law today is to stifle just this kind of competition.
7193 The effect is to produce an overregulated culture, just as the effect of too
7194 much control in the market is to produce an overregulatedregulated market.
7195 </p><p>
7196
7197 The building of a permission culture, rather than a free culture, is the
7198 first important way in which the changes I have described will burden
7199 innovation. A permission culture means a lawyer's culture&#8212;a culture in
7200 which the ability to create requires a call to your lawyer. Again, I am not
7201 antilawyer, at least when they're kept in their proper place. I am certainly
7202 not antilaw. But our profession has lost the sense of its limits. And
7203 leaders in our profession have lost an appreciation of the high costs that
7204 our profession imposes upon others. The inefficiency of the law is an
7205 embarrassment to our tradition. And while I believe our profession should
7206 therefore do everything it can to make the law more efficient, it should at
7207 least do everything it can to limit the reach of the law where the law is
7208 not doing any good. The transaction costs buried within a permission culture
7209 are enough to bury a wide range of creativity.  Someone needs to do a lot of
7210 justifying to justify that result.  The uncertainty of the law is one burden
7211 on innovation. There is a second burden that operates more directly. This is
7212 the effort by many in the content industry to use the law to directly
7213 regulate the technology of the Internet so that it better protects their
7214 content.
7215 </p><p>
7216 The motivation for this response is obvious. The Internet enables the
7217 efficient spread of content. That efficiency is a feature of the Internet's
7218 design. But from the perspective of the content industry, this feature is a
7219 "bug." The efficient spread of content means that content distributors have
7220 a harder time controlling the distribution of content.  One obvious response
7221 to this efficiency is thus to make the Internet less efficient. If the
7222 Internet enables "piracy," then, this response says, we should break the
7223 kneecaps of the Internet.
7224 </p><p>
7225 The examples of this form of legislation are many. At the urging of the
7226 content industry, some in Congress have threatened legislation that would
7227 require computers to determine whether the content they access is protected
7228 or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<sup>[<a name="id2620804" href="#ftn.id2620804" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
7229 explore a mandatory "broadcast flag" that would be required on any device
7230 capable of transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and that would
7231 disable the copying of any content that is marked with a broadcast
7232 flag. Other members of Congress have proposed immunizing content providers
7233 from liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt down
7234 copyright violators and disable their machines.<sup>[<a name="id2620827" href="#ftn.id2620827" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
7235 </p><p>
7236
7237 In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the code, why
7238 not regulate the code to remove the problem. But any regulation of technical
7239 infrastructure will always be tuned to the particular technology of the
7240 day. It will impose significant burdens and costs on the technology, but
7241 will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly those requirements.
7242 </p><p>
7243 In March 2002, a broad coalition of technology companies, led by Intel,
7244 tried to get Congress to see the harm that such legislation would
7245 impose.<sup>[<a name="id2620851" href="#ftn.id2620851" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
7246 not that copyright should not be protected. Instead, they argued, any
7247 protection should not do more harm than good.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2620862"></a>
7248 </p><p>
7249 There is one more obvious way in which this war has harmed
7250 innovation&#8212;again, a story that will be quite familiar to the free
7251 market crowd.
7252 </p><p>
7253 Copyright may be property, but like all property, it is also a form of
7254 regulation. It is a regulation that benefits some and harms others.  When
7255 done right, it benefits creators and harms leeches. When done wrong, it is
7256 regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
7257 </p><p>
7258 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>10</a>, despite this feature of copyright as regulation, and
7259 subject to important qualifications outlined by Jessica Litman in her book
7260 <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em>,<sup>[<a name="id2620896" href="#ftn.id2620896" class="footnote">165</a>]</sup> overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10
7261 details, when new technologies have come along, Congress has struck a
7262 balance to assure that the new is protected from the old. Compulsory, or
7263 statutory, licenses have been one part of that strategy. Free use (as in the
7264 case of the VCR) has been another.
7265 </p><p>
7266 But that pattern of deference to new technologies has now changed with the
7267 rise of the Internet. Rather than striking a balance between the claims of a
7268 new technology and the legitimate rights of content creators, both the
7269 courts and Congress have imposed legal restrictions that will have the
7270 effect of smothering the new to benefit the old.
7271 </p><p>
7272 The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<sup>[<a name="id2620932" href="#ftn.id2620932" class="footnote">166</a>]</sup> It has been mirrored in the responses threatened
7273 and actually implemented by Congress. I won't catalog all of those responses
7274 here.<sup>[<a name="id2620967" href="#ftn.id2620967" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
7275 captures the flavor of them all. This is the story of the demise of Internet
7276 radio.
7277 </p><p>
7278
7279
7280 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title='Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: "Pirater"'>4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording artist
7281 doesn't get paid for that "radio performance" unless he or she is also the
7282 composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had recorded a version of "Happy
7283 Birthday"&#8212;to memorialize her famous performance before President
7284 Kennedy at Madison Square Garden&#8212; then whenever that recording was
7285 played on the radio, the current copyright owners of "Happy Birthday" would
7286 get some money, whereas Marilyn Monroe would not.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2621017"></a>
7287 </p><p>
7288 The reasoning behind this balance struck by Congress makes some sense. The
7289 justification was that radio was a kind of advertising. The recording artist
7290 thus benefited because by playing her music, the radio station was making it
7291 more likely that her records would be purchased.  Thus, the recording artist
7292 got something, even if only indirectly.  Probably this reasoning had less to
7293 do with the result than with the power of radio stations: Their lobbyists
7294 were quite good at stopping any efforts to get Congress to require
7295 compensation to the recording artists.
7296 </p><p>
7297 Enter Internet radio. Like regular radio, Internet radio is a technology to
7298 stream content from a broadcaster to a listener. The broadcast travels
7299 across the Internet, not across the ether of radio spectrum.  Thus, I can
7300 "tune in" to an Internet radio station in Berlin while sitting in San
7301 Francisco, even though there's no way for me to tune in to a regular radio
7302 station much beyond the San Francisco metropolitan area.
7303 </p><p>
7304 This feature of the architecture of Internet radio means that there are
7305 potentially an unlimited number of radio stations that a user could tune in
7306 to using her computer, whereas under the existing architecture for broadcast
7307 radio, there is an obvious limit to the number of broadcasters and clear
7308 broadcast frequencies. Internet radio could therefore be more competitive
7309 than regular radio; it could provide a wider range of selections. And
7310 because the potential audience for Internet radio is the whole world, niche
7311 stations could easily develop and market their content to a relatively large
7312 number of users worldwide. According to some estimates, more than eighty
7313 million users worldwide have tuned in to this new form of radio.
7314 </p><p>
7315
7316
7317
7318 Internet radio is thus to radio what FM was to AM. It is an improvement
7319 potentially vastly more significant than the FM improvement over AM, since
7320 not only is the technology better, so, too, is the competition. Indeed,
7321 there is a direct parallel between the fight to establish FM radio and the
7322 fight to protect Internet radio. As one author describes Howard Armstrong's
7323 struggle to enable FM radio,
7324 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7325 An almost unlimited number of FM stations was possible in the shortwaves,
7326 thus ending the unnatural restrictions imposed on radio in the crowded
7327 longwaves. If FM were freely developed, the number of stations would be
7328 limited only by economics and competition rather than by technical
7329 restrictions. &#8230; Armstrong likened the situation that had grown up in
7330 radio to that following the invention of the printing press, when
7331 governments and ruling interests attempted to control this new instrument of
7332 mass communications by imposing restrictive licenses on it. This tyranny was
7333 broken only when it became possible for men freely to acquire printing
7334 presses and freely to run them. FM in this sense was as great an invention
7335 as the printing presses, for it gave radio the opportunity to strike off its
7336 shackles.<sup>[<a name="id2620670" href="#ftn.id2620670" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
7337 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7338 This potential for FM radio was never realized&#8212;not because Armstrong
7339 was wrong about the technology, but because he underestimated the power of
7340 "vested interests, habits, customs and legislation"<sup>[<a name="id2620872" href="#ftn.id2620872" class="footnote">169</a>]</sup> to retard the growth of this competing technology.
7341 </p><p>
7342 Now the very same claim could be made about Internet radio. For again, there
7343 is no technical limitation that could restrict the number of Internet radio
7344 stations. The only restrictions on Internet radio are those imposed by the
7345 law. Copyright law is one such law. So the first question we should ask is,
7346 what copyright rules would govern Internet radio?
7347 </p><p>
7348
7349 But here the power of the lobbyists is reversed. Internet radio is a new
7350 industry. The recording artists, on the other hand, have a very powerful
7351 lobby, the RIAA. Thus when Congress considered the phenomenon of Internet
7352 radio in 1995, the lobbyists had primed Congress to adopt a different rule
7353 for Internet radio than the rule that applies to terrestrial radio. While
7354 terrestrial radio does not have to pay our hypothetical Marilyn Monroe when
7355 it plays her hypothetical recording of "Happy Birthday" on the air,
7356 <span class="emphasis"><em>Internet radio does</em></span>. Not only is the law not neutral
7357 toward Internet radio&#8212;the law actually burdens Internet radio more
7358 than it burdens terrestrial radio.
7359 </p><p>
7360 This financial burden is not slight. As Harvard law professor William Fisher
7361 estimates, if an Internet radio station distributed adfree popular music to
7362 (on average) ten thousand listeners, twenty-four hours a day, the total
7363 artist fees that radio station would owe would be over $1 million a
7364 year.<sup>[<a name="id2621161" href="#ftn.id2621161" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
7365 broadcasting the same content would pay no equivalent fee.
7366 </p><p>
7367 The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were
7368 proposed, an Internet radio station (but not a terrestrial radio station)
7369 would have to collect the following data from <span class="emphasis"><em>every listening
7370 transaction</em></span>:
7371 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
7372 navn på tjenesten,
7373 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7374 kanalen til programmet (AM/FM-stasjoner bruker stasjons-ID);
7375 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7376 type program (fra arkivet/i løkke/direkte);
7377 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7378 dato for sending;
7379 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7380 tidspunkt for sending;
7381 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7382 tidssone til opprinnelsen for sending;
7383 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7384 numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program;
7385 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7386 varigheten av sending (til nærmeste sekund):
7387 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7388 lydinnspilling-tittel;
7389 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7390 ISRC-kode for opptaket;
7391 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7392 release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of
7393 compilation albums, the release year of the album and copy- right date of
7394 the track;
7395 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7396 spillende plateartist;
7397 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7398 tittel på album i butikker;
7399 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7400 plateselskap;
7401 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7402 UPC-koden for albumet i butikker;
7403 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7404 katalognummer;
7405 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7406 informasjon om opphavsrettsinnehaver;
7407 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7408 musikksjanger for kanal eller programmet (stasjonsformat);
7409 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7410 navn på tjenesten eller selskap;
7411 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7412 kanal eller program;
7413 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7414 date and time that the user logged in (in the user's time zone);
7415 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7416 date and time that the user logged out (in the user's time zone);
7417 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7418 time zone where the signal was received (user);
7419 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7420 unik bruker-identifikator;
7421 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7422 landet til brukeren som mottok sendingene.
7423 </p></li></ol></div><p>
7424 The Librarian of Congress eventually suspended these reporting requirements,
7425 pending further study. And he also changed the original rates set by the
7426 arbitration panel charged with setting rates. But the basic difference
7427 between Internet radio and terrestrial radio remains: Internet radio has to
7428 pay a <span class="emphasis"><em>type of copyright fee</em></span> that terrestrial radio does
7429 not.
7430 </p><p>
7431 Why? What justifies this difference? Was there any study of the economic
7432 consequences from Internet radio that would justify these differences? Was
7433 the motive to protect artists against piracy?
7434 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2621376"></a><p>
7435 In a rare bit of candor, one RIAA expert admitted what seemed obvious to
7436 everyone at the time. As Alex Alben, vice president for Public Policy at
7437 Real Networks, told me,
7438 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7439
7440 The RIAA, which was representing the record labels, presented some testimony
7441 about what they thought a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, and
7442 it was much higher. It was ten times higher than what radio stations pay to
7443 perform the same songs for the same period of time. And so the attorneys
7444 representing the webcasters asked the RIAA, &#8230; "How do you come up
7445 with a rate that's so much higher? Why is it worth more than radio? Because
7446 here we have hundreds of thousands of webcasters who want to pay, and that
7447 should establish the market rate, and if you set the rate so high, you're
7448 going to drive the small webcasters out of business. &#8230;"
7449 </p><p>
7450 And the RIAA experts said, "Well, we don't really model this as an industry
7451 with thousands of webcasters, <span class="emphasis"><em>we think it should be an industry
7452 with, you know, five or seven big players who can pay a high rate and it's a
7453 stable, predictable market</em></span>." (Emphasis added.)
7454 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7455 Translation: The aim is to use the law to eliminate competition, so that
7456 this platform of potentially immense competition, which would cause the
7457 diversity and range of content available to explode, would not cause pain to
7458 the dinosaurs of old. There is no one, on either the right or the left, who
7459 should endorse this use of the law. And yet there is practically no one, on
7460 either the right or the left, who is doing anything effective to prevent it.
7461 </p></div><div class="section" title="Corrupting Citizens"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="corruptingcitizens"></a>Corrupting Citizens</h2></div></div></div><p>
7462 Overregulation stifles creativity. It smothers innovation. It gives
7463 dinosaurs a veto over the future. It wastes the extraordinary opportunity
7464 for a democratic creativity that digital technology enables.
7465 </p><p>
7466 In addition to these important harms, there is one more that was important
7467 to our forebears, but seems forgotten today. Overregulation corrupts
7468 citizens and weakens the rule of law.
7469 </p><p>
7470
7471 The war that is being waged today is a war of prohibition. As with every war
7472 of prohibition, it is targeted against the behavior of a very large number
7473 of citizens. According to <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, 43
7474 million Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<sup>[<a name="id2621464" href="#ftn.id2621464" class="footnote">171</a>]</sup> According to the RIAA, the behavior of those 43 million Americans
7475 is a felony. We thus have a set of rules that transform 20 percent of
7476 America into criminals. As the RIAA launches lawsuits against not only the
7477 Napsters and Kazaas of the world, but against students building search
7478 engines, and increasingly against ordinary users downloading content, the
7479 technologies for sharing will advance to further protect and hide illegal
7480 use. It is an arms race or a civil war, with the extremes of one side
7481 inviting a more extreme response by the other.
7482 </p><p>
7483 The content industry's tactics exploit the failings of the American legal
7484 system. When the RIAA brought suit against Jesse Jordan, it knew that in
7485 Jordan it had found a scapegoat, not a defendant. The threat of having to
7486 pay either all the money in the world in damages ($15,000,000) or almost all
7487 the money in the world to defend against paying all the money in the world
7488 in damages ($250,000 in legal fees)  led Jordan to choose to pay all the
7489 money he had in the world ($12,000) to make the suit go away. The same
7490 strategy animates the RIAA's suits against individual users. In September
7491 2003, the RIAA sued 261 individuals&#8212;including a twelve-year-old girl
7492 living in public housing and a seventy-year-old man who had no idea what
7493 file sharing was.<sup>[<a name="id2621151" href="#ftn.id2621151" class="footnote">172</a>]</sup> As these scapegoats
7494 discovered, it will always cost more to defend against these suits than it
7495 would cost to simply settle. (The twelve year old, for example, like Jesse
7496 Jordan, paid her life savings of $2,000 to settle the case.) Our law is an
7497 awful system for defending rights. It is an embarrassment to our
7498 tradition. And the consequence of our law as it is, is that those with the
7499 power can use the law to quash any rights they oppose.
7500 </p><p>
7501 Wars of prohibition are nothing new in America. This one is just something
7502 more extreme than anything we've seen before. We experimented with alcohol
7503 prohibition, at a time when the per capita consumption of alcohol was 1.5
7504 gallons per capita per year. The war against drinking initially reduced that
7505 consumption to just 30 percent of its preprohibition levels, but by the end
7506 of prohibition, consumption was up to 70 percent of the preprohibition
7507 level. Americans were drinking just about as much, but now, a vast number
7508 were criminals.<sup>[<a name="id2621538" href="#ftn.id2621538" class="footnote">173</a>]</sup> We have launched a war
7509 on drugs aimed at reducing the consumption of regulated narcotics that 7
7510 percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.<sup>[<a name="id2621552" href="#ftn.id2621552" class="footnote">174</a>]</sup> That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in 1979 of 14 percent of
7511 the population. We regulate automobiles to the point where the vast majority
7512 of Americans violate the law every day. We run such a complex tax system
7513 that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.<sup>[<a name="id2621568" href="#ftn.id2621568" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our "free society," but an
7514 endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated within our society. And as a
7515 result, a huge proportion of Americans regularly violate at least some law.
7516 <a class="indexterm" name="id2621584"></a>
7517 </p><p>
7518 This state of affairs is not without consequence. It is a particularly
7519 salient issue for teachers like me, whose job it is to teach law students
7520 about the importance of "ethics." As my colleague Charlie Nesson told a
7521 class at Stanford, each year law schools admit thousands of students who
7522 have illegally downloaded music, illegally consumed alcohol and sometimes
7523 drugs, illegally worked without paying taxes, illegally driven cars. These
7524 are kids for whom behaving illegally is increasingly the norm. And then we,
7525 as law professors, are supposed to teach them how to behave
7526 ethically&#8212;how to say no to bribes, or keep client funds separate, or
7527 honor a demand to disclose a document that will mean that your case is
7528 over. Generations of Americans&#8212;more significantly in some parts of
7529 America than in others, but still, everywhere in America today&#8212;can't
7530 live their lives both normally and legally, since "normally" entails a
7531 certain degree of illegality.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2621504"></a>
7532 </p><p>
7533 The response to this general illegality is either to enforce the law more
7534 severely or to change the law. We, as a society, have to learn how to make
7535 that choice more rationally. Whether a law makes sense depends, in part, at
7536 least, upon whether the costs of the law, both intended and collateral,
7537 outweigh the benefits. If the costs, intended and collateral, do outweigh
7538 the benefits, then the law ought to be changed.  Alternatively, if the costs
7539 of the existing system are much greater than the costs of an alternative,
7540 then we have a good reason to consider the alternative.
7541 </p><p>
7542
7543
7544
7545 My point is not the idiotic one: Just because people violate a law, we
7546 should therefore repeal it. Obviously, we could reduce murder statistics
7547 dramatically by legalizing murder on Wednesdays and Fridays. But that
7548 wouldn't make any sense, since murder is wrong every day of the week. A
7549 society is right to ban murder always and everywhere.
7550 </p><p>
7551 My point is instead one that democracies understood for generations, but
7552 that we recently have learned to forget. The rule of law depends upon people
7553 obeying the law. The more often, and more repeatedly, we as citizens
7554 experience violating the law, the less we respect the law. Obviously, in
7555 most cases, the important issue is the law, not respect for the law. I don't
7556 care whether the rapist respects the law or not; I want to catch and
7557 incarcerate the rapist. But I do care whether my students respect the
7558 law. And I do care if the rules of law sow increasing disrespect because of
7559 the extreme of regulation they impose.  Twenty million Americans have come
7560 of age since the Internet introduced this different idea of "sharing." We
7561 need to be able to call these twenty million Americans "citizens," not
7562 "felons."
7563 </p><p>
7564 When at least forty-three million citizens download content from the
7565 Internet, and when they use tools to combine that content in ways
7566 unauthorized by copyright holders, the first question we should be asking is
7567 not how best to involve the FBI. The first question should be whether this
7568 particular prohibition is really necessary in order to achieve the proper
7569 ends that copyright law serves. Is there another way to assure that artists
7570 get paid without transforming forty-three million Americans into felons?
7571 Does it make sense if there are other ways to assure that artists get paid
7572 without transforming America into a nation of felons?
7573 </p><p>
7574 This abstract point can be made more clear with a particular example.
7575 </p><p>
7576
7577 We all own CDs. Many of us still own phonograph records. These pieces of
7578 plastic encode music that in a certain sense we have bought.  The law
7579 protects our right to buy and sell that plastic: It is not a copyright
7580 infringement for me to sell all my classical records at a used record store
7581 and buy jazz records to replace them. That "use" of the recordings is free.
7582 </p><p>
7583 But as the MP3 craze has demonstrated, there is another use of phonograph
7584 records that is effectively free. Because these recordings were made without
7585 copy-protection technologies, I am "free" to copy, or "rip," music from my
7586 records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed, Apple Corporation went so far as
7587 to suggest that "freedom" was a right: In a series of commercials, Apple
7588 endorsed the "Rip, Mix, Burn" capacities of digital technologies.
7589 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2621710"></a><p>
7590 This "use" of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a large process
7591 at home of ripping all of my and my wife's CDs, and storing them in one
7592 archive. Then, using Apple's iTunes, or a wonderful program called
7593 Andromeda, we can build different play lists of our music: Bach, Baroque,
7594 Love Songs, Love Songs of Significant Others&#8212;the potential is
7595 endless. And by reducing the costs of mixing play lists, these technologies
7596 help build a creativity with play lists that is itself independently
7597 valuable. Compilations of songs are creative and meaningful in their own
7598 right.
7599 </p><p>
7600 This use is enabled by unprotected media&#8212;either CDs or records.  But
7601 unprotected media also enable file sharing. File sharing threatens (or so
7602 the content industry believes) the ability of creators to earn a fair return
7603 from their creativity. And thus, many are beginning to experiment with
7604 technologies to eliminate unprotected media. These technologies, for
7605 example, would enable CDs that could not be ripped. Or they might enable spy
7606 programs to identify ripped content on people's machines.
7607 </p><p>
7608
7609 If these technologies took off, then the building of large archives of your
7610 own music would become quite difficult. You might hang in hacker circles,
7611 and get technology to disable the technologies that protect the
7612 content. Trading in those technologies is illegal, but maybe that doesn't
7613 bother you much. In any case, for the vast majority of people, these
7614 protection technologies would effectively destroy the archiving use of
7615 CDs. The technology, in other words, would force us all back to the world
7616 where we either listened to music by manipulating pieces of plastic or were
7617 part of a massively complex "digital rights management" system.
7618 </p><p>
7619 If the only way to assure that artists get paid were the elimination of the
7620 ability to freely move content, then these technologies to interfere with
7621 the freedom to move content would be justifiable. But what if there were
7622 another way to assure that artists are paid, without locking down any
7623 content? What if, in other words, a different system could assure
7624 compensation to artists while also preserving the freedom to move content
7625 easily?
7626 </p><p>
7627 My point just now is not to prove that there is such a system. I offer a
7628 version of such a system in the last chapter of this book. For now, the only
7629 point is the relatively uncontroversial one: If a different system achieved
7630 the same legitimate objectives that the existing copyright system achieved,
7631 but left consumers and creators much more free, then we'd have a very good
7632 reason to pursue this alternative&#8212;namely, freedom.  The choice, in
7633 other words, would not be between property and piracy; the choice would be
7634 between different property systems and the freedoms each allowed.
7635 </p><p>
7636 I believe there is a way to assure that artists are paid without turning
7637 forty-three million Americans into felons. But the salient feature of this
7638 alternative is that it would lead to a very different market for producing
7639 and distributing creativity. The dominant few, who today control the vast
7640 majority of the distribution of content in the world, would no longer
7641 exercise this extreme of control. Rather, they would go the way of the
7642 horse-drawn buggy.
7643 </p><p>
7644 Except that this generation's buggy manufacturers have already saddled
7645 Congress, and are riding the law to protect themselves against this new form
7646 of competition. For them the choice is between fortythree million Americans
7647 as criminals and their own survival.
7648 </p><p>
7649 It is understandable why they choose as they do. It is not understandable
7650 why we as a democracy continue to choose as we do. Jack Valenti is charming;
7651 but not so charming as to justify giving up a tradition as deep and
7652 important as our tradition of free culture.  There's one more aspect to this
7653 corruption that is particularly important to civil liberties, and follows
7654 directly from any war of prohibition.  As Electronic Frontier Foundation
7655 attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the "collateral damage" that
7656 "arises whenever you turn a very large percentage of the population into
7657 criminals." This is the collateral damage to civil liberties generally.
7658 <a class="indexterm" name="id2621815"></a>
7659 </p><p>
7660 "Hvis du kan behandle noen som en antatt lovbryter," forklarer von Lohmann,
7661 <a class="indexterm" name="id2621828"></a>
7662 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7663 then all of a sudden a lot of basic civil liberty protections evaporate to
7664 one degree or another. &#8230; If you're a copyright infringer, how can you
7665 hope to have any privacy rights? If you're a copyright infringer, how can
7666 you hope to be secure against seizures of your computer? How can you hope to
7667 continue to receive Internet access? &#8230; Our sensibilities change as
7668 soon as we think, "Oh, well, but that person's a criminal, a lawbreaker."
7669 Well, what this campaign against file sharing has done is turn a remarkable
7670 percentage of the American Internet-using population into "lawbreakers."
7671 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7672 And the consequence of this transformation of the American public into
7673 criminals is that it becomes trivial, as a matter of due process, to
7674 effectively erase much of the privacy most would presume.
7675 </p><p>
7676 Users of the Internet began to see this generally in 2003 as the RIAA
7677 launched its campaign to force Internet service providers to turn over the
7678 names of customers who the RIAA believed were violating copyright
7679 law. Verizon fought that demand and lost. With a simple request to a judge,
7680 and without any notice to the customer at all, the identity of an Internet
7681 user is revealed.
7682 </p><p>
7683
7684 The RIAA then expanded this campaign, by announcing a general strategy to
7685 sue individual users of the Internet who are alleged to have downloaded
7686 copyrighted music from file-sharing systems. But as we've seen, the
7687 potential damages from these suits are astronomical: If a family's computer
7688 is used to download a single CD's worth of music, the family could be liable
7689 for $2 million in damages. That didn't stop the RIAA from suing a number of
7690 these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.<sup>[<a name="id2621880" href="#ftn.id2621880" class="footnote">176</a>]</sup>
7691
7692 </p><p>
7693 Even this understates the espionage that is being waged by the RIAA. A
7694 report from CNN late last summer described a strategy the RIAA had adopted
7695 to track Napster users.<sup>[<a name="id2621920" href="#ftn.id2621920" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> Using a
7696 sophisticated hashing algorithm, the RIAA took what is in effect a
7697 fingerprint of every song in the Napster catalog. Any copy of one of those
7698 MP3s will have the same "fingerprint."
7699 </p><p>
7700 So imagine the following not-implausible scenario: Imagine a friend gives a
7701 CD to your daughter&#8212;a collection of songs just like the cassettes you
7702 used to make as a kid. You don't know, and neither does your daughter, where
7703 these songs came from. But she copies these songs onto her computer. She
7704 then takes her computer to college and connects it to a college network, and
7705 if the college network is "cooperating" with the RIAA's espionage, and she
7706 hasn't properly protected her content from the network (do you know how to
7707 do that yourself ?), then the RIAA will be able to identify your daughter as
7708 a "criminal." And under the rules that universities are beginning to
7709 deploy,<sup>[<a name="id2621778" href="#ftn.id2621778" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> your daughter can lose the
7710 right to use the university's computer network.  She can, in some cases, be
7711 expelled.
7712 </p><p>
7713 Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire a
7714 lawyer for her (at $300 per hour, if you're lucky), and she can plead that
7715 she didn't know anything about the source of the songs or that they came
7716 from Napster. And it may well be that the university believes her. But the
7717 university might not believe her. It might treat this "contraband" as
7718 presumptive of guilt. And as any number of college students have already
7719 learned, our presumptions about innocence disappear in the middle of wars of
7720 prohibition. This war is no different.  Says von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id2622014"></a>
7721 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7722 So when we're talking about numbers like forty to sixty million Americans
7723 that are essentially copyright infringers, you create a situation where the
7724 civil liberties of those people are very much in peril in a general
7725 matter. [I don't] think [there is any] analog where you could randomly
7726 choose any person off the street and be confident that they were committing
7727 an unlawful act that could put them on the hook for potential felony
7728 liability or hundreds of millions of dollars of civil liability. Certainly
7729 we all speed, but speeding isn't the kind of an act for which we routinely
7730 forfeit civil liberties. Some people use drugs, and I think that's the
7731 closest analog, [but] many have noted that the war against drugs has eroded
7732 all of our civil liberties because it's treated so many Americans as
7733 criminals. Well, I think it's fair to say that file sharing is an order of
7734 magnitude larger number of Americans than drug use. &#8230; If forty to
7735 sixty million Americans have become lawbreakers, then we're really on a
7736 slippery slope to lose a lot of civil liberties for all forty to sixty
7737 million of them.
7738 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7739 When forty to sixty million Americans are considered "criminals" under the
7740 law, and when the law could achieve the same objective&#8212; securing
7741 rights to authors&#8212;without these millions being considered "criminals,"
7742 who is the villain? Americans or the law? Which is American, a constant war
7743 on our own people or a concerted effort through our democracy to change our
7744 law?
7745 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2620131" href="#id2620131" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
7746
7747 See Lynne W. Jeter, <em class="citetitle">Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at
7748 WorldCom</em> (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley &amp; Sons, 2003), 176, 204;
7749 for details of the settlement, see MCI press release, "MCI Wins
7750 U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement" (7 July 2003), available at
7751 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #37</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2620154"></a>
7752 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2620167" href="#id2620167" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
7753  The bill, modeled after California's tort reform model, was passed in the
7754 House of Representatives but defeated in a Senate vote in July 2003. For an
7755 overview, see Tanya Albert, "Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be Back,' Say
7756 Tort Reformers," amednews.com, 28 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #38</a>, and "Senate Turns Back
7757 Malpractice Caps," CBSNews.com, 9 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #39</a>. President Bush has
7758 continued to urge tort reform in recent months.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2620191"></a>
7759 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2619743" href="#id2619743" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
7760
7761
7762
7763 Se Danit Lidor, "Artists Just Wanna Be Free," <em class="citetitle">Wired</em>,
7764 7. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #40</a>. For en oversikt over
7765 utstillingen, se <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7766 #41</a>.
7767 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2620599" href="#id2620599" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
7768
7769
7770 See Joseph Menn, "Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor," <em class="citetitle">Los
7771 Angeles Times</em>, 23 April 2003. For a parallel argument about the
7772 effects on innovation in the distribution of music, see Janelle Brown, "The
7773 Music Revolution Will Not Be Digitized," Salon.com, 1 June 2001, available
7774 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #42</a>.  See also
7775 Jon Healey, "Online Music Services Besieged," <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
7776 Times</em>, 28 May 2001.
7777 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2620362" href="#id2620362" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
7778
7779 Rafe Needleman, "Driving in Cars with MP3s," <em class="citetitle">Business
7780 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
7781 Al-Ubaydli takknemlig mot for dette eksemplet.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2620687"></a>
7782 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2620804" href="#id2620804" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
7783
7784 "Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World," GartnerG2 and the
7785 Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School (2003),
7786 33&#8211;35, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7787 #44</a>.
7788 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2620827" href="#id2620827" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
7789
7790
7791 GartnerG2, 26&#8211;27.
7792 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2620851" href="#id2620851" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
7793
7794
7795 See David McGuire, "Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy," Newsbytes, February
7796 2002 (Entertainment).
7797 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2620896" href="#id2620896" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
7798
7799 Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
7800 Prometheus Books, 2001).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2620904"></a>
7801 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2620932" href="#id2620932" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
7802
7803
7804 The only circuit court exception is found in <em class="citetitle">Recording Industry
7805 Association of America (RIAA)</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Diamond Multimedia
7806 Systems</em>, 180 F. 3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999). There the court of
7807 appeals for the Ninth Circuit reasoned that makers of a portable MP3 player
7808 were not liable for contributory copyright infringement for a device that is
7809 unable to record or redistribute music (a device whose only copying function
7810 is to render portable a music file already stored on a user's hard drive).
7811 At the district court level, the only exception is found in
7812 <em class="citetitle">Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,
7813 Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Grokster, Ltd</em>., 259 F. Supp. 2d
7814 1029 (C.D.  Cal., 2003), where the court found the link between the
7815 distributor and any given user's conduct too attenuated to make the
7816 distributor liable for contributory or vicarious infringement liability.
7817 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2620967" href="#id2620967" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
7818
7819 For example, in July 2002, Representative Howard Berman introduced the
7820 Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize
7821 copyright holders from liability for damage done to computers when the
7822 copyright holders use technology to stop copyright infringement. In August
7823 2002, Representative Billy Tauzin introduced a bill to mandate that
7824 technologies capable of rebroadcasting digital copies of films broadcast on
7825 TV (i.e., computers) respect a "broadcast flag" that would disable copying
7826 of that content. And in March of the same year, Senator Fritz Hollings
7827 introduced the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act,
7828 which mandated copyright protection technology in all digital media
7829 devices. See GartnerG2, "Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster
7830 World," 27 June 2003, 33&#8211;34, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2620975"></a>
7831 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2620670" href="#id2620670" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
7832
7833
7834 Lessing, 239.
7835 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2620872" href="#id2620872" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
7836
7837
7838 Ibid., 229.
7839 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2621161" href="#id2621161" class="para">170</a>] </sup>
7840
7841 This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright Arbitration
7842 Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an example offered by
7843 Professor William Fisher. Conference Proceedings, iLaw (Stanford), 3 July
7844 2003, on file with author. Professors Fisher and Zittrain submitted
7845 testimony in the CARP proceeding that was ultimately rejected.  See Jonathan
7846 Zittrain, Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral
7847 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
7848 analysis making a similar point, see Randal C. Picker, "Copyright as Entry
7849 Policy: The Case of Digital Distribution," <em class="citetitle">Antitrust
7850 Bulletin</em> (Summer/Fall 2002): 461: "This was not confusion, these
7851 are just old-fashioned entry barriers. Analog radio stations are protected
7852 from digital entrants, reducing entry in radio and diversity. Yes, this is
7853 done in the name of getting royalties to copyright holders, but, absent the
7854 play of powerful interests, that could have been done in a media-neutral
7855 way." <a class="indexterm" name="id2621190"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2621199"></a>
7856 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2621464" href="#id2621464" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
7857
7858 Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, "The Music Downloading Deluge," Pew Internet
7859 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
7860 American Life Project reported that 37 million Americans had downloaded
7861 music files from the Internet by early 2001.
7862 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2621151" href="#id2621151" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
7863
7864
7865 Alex Pham, "The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA Case,"
7866 <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 10 September 2003, Business.
7867 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2621538" href="#id2621538" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
7868
7869
7870 Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, "Alcohol Consumption During
7871 Prohibition," <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81, no. 2
7872 (1991): 242.
7873 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2621552" href="#id2621552" class="para">174</a>] </sup>
7874
7875
7876 National Drug Control Policy: Hearing Before the House Government Reform
7877 Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (5 March 2003) (statement of John
7878 P. Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy).
7879 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2621568" href="#id2621568" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
7880
7881
7882 See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, "Tax Compliance,"
7883 <em class="citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature</em> 36 (1998): 818 (survey
7884 of compliance literature).
7885 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2621880" href="#id2621880" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
7886
7887
7888 See Frank Ahrens, "RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in
7889 Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants," <em class="citetitle">Washington
7890 Post</em>, 10 September 2003, E1; Chris Cobbs, "Worried Parents Pull
7891 Plug on File `Stealing'; With the Music Industry Cracking Down on File
7892 Swapping, Parents are Yanking Software from Home PCs to Avoid Being Sued,"
7893 <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 30 August 2003, C1;
7894 Jefferson Graham, "Recording Industry Sues Parents," <em class="citetitle">USA
7895 Today</em>, 15 September 2003, 4D; John Schwartz, "She Says She's No
7896 Music Pirate. No Snoop Fan, Either," <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>,
7897 25 September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, "Is Brianna a Criminal?"
7898 <em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
7899 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2621920" href="#id2621920" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
7900
7901
7902 See "Revealed: How RIAA Tracks Downloaders: Music Industry Discloses Some
7903 Methods Used," CNN.com, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #47</a>.
7904 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2621778" href="#id2621778" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
7905
7906
7907 See Jeff Adler, "Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not Penitent,"
7908 <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 18 May 2003, City Weekly, 1; Frank
7909 Ahrens, "Four Students Sued over Music Sites; Industry Group Targets File
7910 Sharing at Colleges," <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 4 April 2003,
7911 E1; Elizabeth Armstrong, "Students `Rip, Mix, Burn' at Their Own Risk,"
7912 <em class="citetitle">Christian Science Monitor</em>, 2 September 2003, 20;
7913 Robert Becker and Angela Rozas, "Music Pirate Hunt Turns to Loyola; Two
7914 Students Names Are Handed Over; Lawsuit Possible," <em class="citetitle">Chicago
7915 Tribune</em>, 16 July 2003, 1C; Beth Cox, "RIAA Trains Antipiracy
7916 Guns on Universities," <em class="citetitle">Internet News</em>, 30 January
7917 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7918 #48</a>; Benny Evangelista, "Download Warning 101: Freshman Orientation
7919 This Fall to Include Record Industry Warnings Against File Sharing,"
7920 <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 11 August 2003, E11; "Raid,
7921 Letters Are Weapons at Universities," <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 26
7922 September 2000, 3D.
7923 </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>
7924 Så her er bildet: Du står på siden av veien. Bilen din er på brann. Du er
7925 sint og opprørt fordi du delvis bidro til å starte brannen. Nå vet du ikke
7926 hvordan du slokker den.  Ved siden av deg er en bøtte, fylt med
7927 bensin. Bensin vil åpenbart ikke slukke brannen.
7928 </p><p>
7929 Mens du tenker over situasjonen, kommer noen andre forbi.  I panikk griper
7930 hun bøtta, og før du har hatt sjansen til å be henne stoppe&#8212;eller før
7931 hun forstår hvorfor hun bør stoppe&#8212;er bøtten i svevet.  Bensinen er på
7932 tur mot den brennende bilen.  Og brannen som bensinen kommer til å fyre opp
7933 vil straks sette fyr på alt i omgivelsene.
7934 </p><p>
7935 En krig om opphavsrett pågår over alt&#8212; og vi fokuserer alle på feil
7936 ting.  Det er ingen tvil om at dagens teknologier truer eksisterende
7937 virksomheter.  Uten tvil kan de true artister.  Men teknologier endrer seg.
7938 Industrien og teknologer har en rekke måter å bruke teknologi til å beskytte
7939 dem selv mot dagens trusler på Internet.  Dette er en brann som overlatt til
7940 seg selv vil brenne ut.
7941 </p><p>
7942
7943
7944 Likevel er ikke besluttningstagere villig til å la denne brannen i fred.
7945 Ladet med masse penger fra lobbyister er de lystne på å gå i mellom for å
7946 fjerne problemet slik de oppfatter det.  Men problemet slik de oppfatter det
7947 er ikke den reelle trusselen som denne kulturen står med ansiktet mot.  For
7948 mens vi ser på denne lille brannen i hjørnet er det en massiv endring i
7949 hvordan kultur blir skapt som pågår over alt.
7950 </p><p>
7951 På en eller annen måte må vi klare å snu oppmerksomheten mot dette mer
7952 viktige og fundametale problemet.  Vi må finne en måte å unngå å helle
7953 bensin på denne brannen.
7954 </p><p>
7955 Vi har ikke funne denne måten ennå.  Istedet synes vi å være fanget i en
7956 enklere og sort-hvit tenkning.  Uansett hvor mange folk som presser på for å
7957 gjøre rammen for debatten litt bredere, er det dette enkle sort-hvit-synet
7958 som består.  Vi kjører sakte forbi og stirrer på brannen når vi i stedet
7959 burde holde øynene på veien.
7960 </p><p>
7961 Denne utfordringen har vært livet mitt de siste årene.  Det har også vært
7962 min falitt.  I de to neste kapittlene, beskriver jeg en liten innsats, så
7963 langt uten suksess, på å finne en måte å endre fokus på denne debatten.  Vi
7964 må forstå disse mislyktede forsøkene hvis vi skal forstå hva som kreves for
7965 å lykkes.
7966 </p><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#eldred">13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter"><a href="#eldred-ii">14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred"></a>Kapittel 13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred</h2></div></div></div><p>
7967 In 1995, a father was frustrated that his daughters didn't seem to like
7968 Hawthorne. No doubt there was more than one such father, but at least one
7969 did something about it. Eric Eldred, a retired computer programmer living in
7970 New Hampshire, decided to put Hawthorne on the Web. An electronic version,
7971 Eldred thought, with links to pictures and explanatory text, would make this
7972 nineteenth-century author's work come alive.
7973 </p><p>
7974 It didn't work&#8212;at least for his daughters. They didn't find Hawthorne
7975 any more interesting than before. But Eldred's experiment gave birth to a
7976 hobby, and his hobby begat a cause: Eldred would build a library of public
7977 domain works by scanning these works and making them available for free.
7978 </p><p>
7979
7980 Eldred's library was not simply a copy of certain public domain works,
7981 though even a copy would have been of great value to people across the world
7982 who can't get access to printed versions of these works. Instead, Eldred was
7983 producing derivative works from these public domain works. Just as Disney
7984 turned Grimm into stories more accessible to the twentieth century, Eldred
7985 transformed Hawthorne, and many others, into a form more
7986 accessible&#8212;technically accessible&#8212;today.
7987 </p><p>
7988 Eldred's freedom to do this with Hawthorne's work grew from the same source
7989 as Disney's. Hawthorne's <em class="citetitle">Scarlet Letter</em> had passed
7990 into the public domain in 1907. It was free for anyone to take without the
7991 permission of the Hawthorne estate or anyone else. Some, such as Dover Press
7992 and Penguin Classics, take works from the public domain and produce printed
7993 editions, which they sell in bookstores across the country. Others, such as
7994 Disney, take these stories and turn them into animated cartoons, sometimes
7995 successfully (<em class="citetitle">Cinderella</em>), sometimes not
7996 (<em class="citetitle">The Hunchback of Notre Dame</em>, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
7997 Planet</em>). These are all commercial publications of public domain
7998 works.
7999 </p><p>
8000 The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of public
8001 domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally thousands of
8002 others. Hundreds of thousands from across the world have discovered this
8003 platform of expression and now use it to share works that are, by law, free
8004 for the taking. This has produced what we might call the "noncommercial
8005 publishing industry," which before the Internet was limited to people with
8006 large egos or with political or social causes. But with the Internet, it
8007 includes a wide range of individuals and groups dedicated to spreading
8008 culture generally.<sup>[<a name="id2622267" href="#ftn.id2622267" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
8009 </p><p>
8010 As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In 1998, Robert Frost's collection
8011 of poems <em class="citetitle">New Hampshire</em> was slated to pass into the
8012 public domain. Eldred wanted to post that collection in his free public
8013 library.  But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>10</a>, in 1998, for the
8014 eleventh time in forty years, Congress extended the terms of existing
8015 copyrights&#8212;this time by twenty years. Eldred would not be free to add
8016 any works more recent than 1923 to his collection until 2019.  Indeed, no
8017 copyrighted work would pass into the public domain until that year (and not
8018 even then, if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, in the same
8019 period, more than 1 million patents will pass into the public domain.
8020 </p><p>
8021
8022
8023 This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), enacted in
8024 memory of the congressman and former musician Sonny Bono, who, his widow,
8025 Mary Bono, says, believed that "copyrights should be forever."<sup>[<a name="id2622321" href="#ftn.id2622321" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
8026
8027 </p><p>
8028 Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
8029 civil disobedience. In a series of interviews, Eldred announced that he
8030 would publish as planned, CTEA notwithstanding. But because of a second law
8031 passed in 1998, the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act, his act of publishing
8032 would make Eldred a felon&#8212;whether or not anyone complained. This was a
8033 dangerous strategy for a disabled programmer to undertake.
8034 </p><p>
8035 It was here that I became involved in Eldred's battle. I was a
8036 constitutional scholar whose first passion was constitutional
8037 interpretation.  And though constitutional law courses never focus upon the
8038 Progress Clause of the Constitution, it had always struck me as importantly
8039 different. As you know, the Constitution says,
8040 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
8041 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science &#8230; by
8042 securing for limited Times to Authors &#8230; exclusive Right to their
8043 &#8230; Writings. &#8230;
8044 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8045 As I've described, this clause is unique within the power-granting clause of
8046 Article I, section 8 of our Constitution. Every other clause granting power
8047 to Congress simply says Congress has the power to do something&#8212;for
8048 example, to regulate "commerce among the several states" or "declare War."
8049 But here, the "something" is something quite specific&#8212;to "promote
8050 &#8230; Progress"&#8212;through means that are also specific&#8212; by
8051 "securing" "exclusive Rights" (i.e., copyrights) "for limited Times."
8052 </p><p>
8053 In the past forty years, Congress has gotten into the practice of extending
8054 existing terms of copyright protection. What puzzled me about this was, if
8055 Congress has the power to extend existing terms, then the Constitution's
8056 requirement that terms be "limited" will have no practical effect. If every
8057 time a copyright is about to expire, Congress has the power to extend its
8058 term, then Congress can achieve what the Constitution plainly
8059 forbids&#8212;perpetual terms "on the installment plan," as Professor Peter
8060 Jaszi so nicely put it.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2622346"></a>
8061 </p><p>
8062 As an academic, my first response was to hit the books. I remember sitting
8063 late at the office, scouring on-line databases for any serious consideration
8064 of the question. No one had ever challenged Congress's practice of extending
8065 existing terms. That failure may in part be why Congress seemed so
8066 untroubled in its habit. That, and the fact that the practice had become so
8067 lucrative for Congress. Congress knows that copyright owners will be willing
8068 to pay a great deal of money to see their copyright terms extended. And so
8069 Congress is quite happy to keep this gravy train going.
8070 </p><p>
8071 For this is the core of the corruption in our present system of
8072 government. "Corruption" not in the sense that representatives are bribed.
8073 Rather, "corruption" in the sense that the system induces the beneficiaries
8074 of Congress's acts to raise and give money to Congress to induce it to
8075 act. There's only so much time; there's only so much Congress can do. Why
8076 not limit its actions to those things it must do&#8212;and those things that
8077 pay? Extending copyright terms pays.
8078 </p><p>
8079 If that's not obvious to you, consider the following: Say you're one of the
8080 very few lucky copyright owners whose copyright continues to make money one
8081 hundred years after it was created. The Estate of Robert Frost is a good
8082 example. Frost died in 1963. His poetry continues to be extraordinarily
8083 valuable. Thus the Robert Frost estate benefits greatly from any extension
8084 of copyright, since no publisher would pay the estate any money if the poems
8085 Frost wrote could be published by anyone for free.
8086 </p><p>
8087 So imagine the Robert Frost estate is earning $100,000 a year from three of
8088 Frost's poems. And imagine the copyright for those poems is about to
8089 expire. You sit on the board of the Robert Frost estate.  Your financial
8090 adviser comes to your board meeting with a very grim report:
8091 </p><p>
8092
8093 "Next year," the adviser announces, "our copyrights in works A, B, and C
8094 will expire. That means that after next year, we will no longer be receiving
8095 the annual royalty check of $100,000 from the publishers of those works.
8096 </p><p>
8097 "There's a proposal in Congress, however," she continues, "that could change
8098 this. A few congressmen are floating a bill to extend the terms of copyright
8099 by twenty years. That bill would be extraordinarily valuable to us. So we
8100 should hope this bill passes."
8101 </p><p>
8102 "Hope?" a fellow board member says. "Can't we be doing something about it?"
8103 </p><p>
8104 "Well, obviously, yes," the adviser responds. "We could contribute to the
8105 campaigns of a number of representatives to try to assure that they support
8106 the bill."
8107 </p><p>
8108 You hate politics. You hate contributing to campaigns. So you want to know
8109 whether this disgusting practice is worth it. "How much would we get if this
8110 extension were passed?" you ask the adviser. "How much is it worth?"
8111 </p><p>
8112 "Well," the adviser says, "if you're confident that you will continue to get
8113 at least $100,000 a year from these copyrights, and you use the `discount
8114 rate' that we use to evaluate estate investments (6 percent), then this law
8115 would be worth $1,146,000 to the estate."
8116 </p><p>
8117 You're a bit shocked by the number, but you quickly come to the correct
8118 conclusion:
8119 </p><p>
8120 "So you're saying it would be worth it for us to pay more than $1,000,000 in
8121 campaign contributions if we were confident those contributions would assure
8122 that the bill was passed?"
8123 </p><p>
8124 "Absolutely," the adviser responds. "It is worth it to you to contribute up
8125 to the `present value' of the income you expect from these copyrights. Which
8126 for us means over $1,000,000."
8127 </p><p>
8128
8129 You quickly get the point&#8212;you as the member of the board and, I trust,
8130 you the reader. Each time copyrights are about to expire, every beneficiary
8131 in the position of the Robert Frost estate faces the same choice: If they
8132 can contribute to get a law passed to extend copyrights, they will benefit
8133 greatly from that extension. And so each time copyrights are about to
8134 expire, there is a massive amount of lobbying to get the copyright term
8135 extended.
8136 </p><p>
8137 Thus a congressional perpetual motion machine: So long as legislation can be
8138 bought (albeit indirectly), there will be all the incentive in the world to
8139 buy further extensions of copyright.
8140 </p><p>
8141 In the lobbying that led to the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term
8142 Extension Act, this "theory" about incentives was proved real. Ten of the
8143 thirteen original sponsors of the act in the House received the maximum
8144 contribution from Disney's political action committee; in the Senate, eight
8145 of the twelve sponsors received contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2622532" href="#ftn.id2622532" class="footnote">181</a>]</sup> The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent over $1.5 million
8146 lobbying in the 1998 election cycle. They paid out more than $200,000 in
8147 campaign contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2622547" href="#ftn.id2622547" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is
8148 estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to reelection campaigns in
8149 the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id2622562" href="#ftn.id2622562" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
8150
8151 </p><p>
8152 Constitutional law is not oblivious to the obvious. Or at least, it need not
8153 be. So when I was considering Eldred's complaint, this reality about the
8154 never-ending incentives to increase the copyright term was central to my
8155 thinking. In my view, a pragmatic court committed to interpreting and
8156 applying the Constitution of our framers would see that if Congress has the
8157 power to extend existing terms, then there would be no effective
8158 constitutional requirement that terms be "limited." If they could extend it
8159 once, they would extend it again and again and again.
8160 </p><p>
8161
8162 It was also my judgment that <span class="emphasis"><em>this</em></span> Supreme Court would
8163 not allow Congress to extend existing terms. As anyone close to the Supreme
8164 Court's work knows, this Court has increasingly restricted the power of
8165 Congress when it has viewed Congress's actions as exceeding the power
8166 granted to it by the Constitution. Among constitutional scholars, the most
8167 famous example of this trend was the Supreme Court's decision in 1995 to
8168 strike down a law that banned the possession of guns near schools.
8169 </p><p>
8170 Since 1937, the Supreme Court had interpreted Congress's granted powers very
8171 broadly; so, while the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate
8172 only "commerce among the several states" (aka "interstate commerce"), the
8173 Supreme Court had interpreted that power to include the power to regulate
8174 any activity that merely affected interstate commerce.
8175 </p><p>
8176 As the economy grew, this standard increasingly meant that there was no
8177 limit to Congress's power to regulate, since just about every activity, when
8178 considered on a national scale, affects interstate commerce.  A Constitution
8179 designed to limit Congress's power was instead interpreted to impose no
8180 limit.
8181 </p><p>
8182 The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed that in
8183 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The
8184 government had argued that possessing guns near schools affected interstate
8185 commerce. Guns near schools increase crime, crime lowers property values,
8186 and so on. In the oral argument, the Chief Justice asked the government
8187 whether there was any activity that would not affect interstate commerce
8188 under the reasoning the government advanced. The government said there was
8189 not; if Congress says an activity affects interstate commerce, then that
8190 activity affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court, the government
8191 said, was not in the position to second-guess Congress.
8192 </p><p>
8193 "We pause to consider the implications of the government's arguments," the
8194 Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id2622651" href="#ftn.id2622651" class="footnote">184</a>]</sup> If anything
8195 Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be considered interstate
8196 commerce, then there would be no limit to Congress's power. The decision in
8197 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> was reaffirmed five years later in
8198 <em class="citetitle">United States</em>
8199 v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<sup>[<a name="id2622678" href="#ftn.id2622678" class="footnote">185</a>]</sup>
8200 </p><p>
8201
8202 If a principle were at work here, then it should apply to the Progress
8203 Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<sup>[<a name="id2622698" href="#ftn.id2622698" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
8204 And if it is applied to the Progress Clause, the principle should yield the
8205 conclusion that Congress can't extend an existing term. If Congress could
8206 extend an existing term, then there would be no "stopping point" to
8207 Congress's power over terms, though the Constitution expressly states that
8208 there is such a limit. Thus, the same principle applied to the power to
8209 grant copyrights should entail that Congress is not allowed to extend the
8210 term of existing copyrights.
8211 </p><p>
8212 <span class="emphasis"><em>If</em></span>, that is, the principle announced in
8213 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for a principle.  Many believed the
8214 decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for politics&#8212;a
8215 conservative Supreme Court, which believed in states' rights, using its
8216 power over Congress to advance its own personal political preferences. But I
8217 rejected that view of the Supreme Court's decision. Indeed, shortly after
8218 the decision, I wrote an article demonstrating the "fidelity" in such an
8219 interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that the Supreme Court decides
8220 cases based upon its politics struck me as extraordinarily boring.  I was
8221 not going to devote my life to teaching constitutional law if these nine
8222 Justices were going to be petty politicians.
8223 </p><p>
8224 Now let's pause for a moment to make sure we understand what the argument in
8225 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was not about. By insisting on the
8226 Constitution's limits to copyright, obviously Eldred was not endorsing
8227 piracy.  Indeed, in an obvious sense, he was fighting a kind of
8228 piracy&#8212;piracy of the public domain. When Robert Frost wrote his work
8229 and when Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse, the maximum copyright term was
8230 just fifty-six years. Because of interim changes, Frost and Disney had
8231 already enjoyed a seventy-five-year monopoly for their work. They had gotten
8232 the benefit of the bargain that the Constitution envisions: In exchange for
8233 a monopoly protected for fifty-six years, they created new work. But now
8234 these entities were using their power&#8212;expressed through the power of
8235 lobbyists' money&#8212;to get another twenty-year dollop of monopoly. That
8236 twenty-year dollop would be taken from the public domain. Eric Eldred was
8237 fighting a piracy that affects us all.
8238 </p><p>
8239 Some people view the public domain with contempt. In their brief before the
8240 Supreme Court, the Nashville Songwriters Association wrote that the public
8241 domain is nothing more than "legal piracy."<sup>[<a name="id2622778" href="#ftn.id2622778" class="footnote">187</a>]</sup> But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in our
8242 constitutional system, our law requires it. Some may not like the
8243 Constitution's requirements, but that doesn't make the Constitution a
8244 pirate's charter.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2622802"></a>
8245 </p><p>
8246 As we've seen, our constitutional system requires limits on copyright as a
8247 way to assure that copyright holders do not too heavily influence the
8248 development and distribution of our culture. Yet, as Eric Eldred discovered,
8249 we have set up a system that assures that copyright terms will be repeatedly
8250 extended, and extended, and extended. We have created the perfect storm for
8251 the public domain. Copyrights have not expired, and will not expire, so long
8252 as Congress is free to be bought to extend them again.
8253 </p><p>
8254 It is valuable copyrights that are responsible for terms being extended.
8255 Mickey Mouse and "Rhapsody in Blue." These works are too valuable for
8256 copyright owners to ignore. But the real harm to our society from copyright
8257 extensions is not that Mickey Mouse remains Disney's.  Forget Mickey
8258 Mouse. Forget Robert Frost. Forget all the works from the 1920s and 1930s
8259 that have continuing commercial value. The real harm of term extension comes
8260 not from these famous works. The real harm is to the works that are not
8261 famous, not commercially exploited, and no longer available as a result.
8262 </p><p>
8263 If you look at the work created in the first twenty years (1923 to 1942)
8264 affected by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 2 percent of that
8265 work has any continuing commercial value. It was the copyright holders for
8266 that 2 percent who pushed the CTEA through.  But the law and its effect were
8267 not limited to that 2 percent. The law extended the terms of copyright
8268 generally.<sup>[<a name="id2622844" href="#ftn.id2622844" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
8269
8270 </p><p>
8271
8272 Think practically about the consequence of this extension&#8212;practically,
8273 as a businessperson, and not as a lawyer eager for more legal work. In 1930,
8274 10,047 books were published. In 2000, 174 of those books were still in
8275 print. Let's say you were Brewster Kahle, and you wanted to make available
8276 to the world in your iArchive project the remaining 9,873. What would you
8277 have to do?
8278 </p><p>
8279 Well, first, you'd have to determine which of the 9,873 books were still
8280 under copyright. That requires going to a library (these data are not
8281 on-line) and paging through tomes of books, cross-checking the titles and
8282 authors of the 9,873 books with the copyright registration and renewal
8283 records for works published in 1930. That will produce a list of books still
8284 under copyright.
8285 </p><p>
8286 Then for the books still under copyright, you would need to locate the
8287 current copyright owners. How would you do that?
8288 </p><p>
8289 Most people think that there must be a list of these copyright owners
8290 somewhere. Practical people think this way. How could there be thousands and
8291 thousands of government monopolies without there being at least a list?
8292 </p><p>
8293 But there is no list. There may be a name from 1930, and then in 1959, of
8294 the person who registered the copyright. But just think practically about
8295 how impossibly difficult it would be to track down thousands of such
8296 records&#8212;especially since the person who registered is not necessarily
8297 the current owner. And we're just talking about 1930!
8298 </p><p>
8299 "But there isn't a list of who owns property generally," the apologists for
8300 the system respond. "Why should there be a list of copyright owners?"
8301 </p><p>
8302 Well, actually, if you think about it, there <span class="emphasis"><em>are</em></span> plenty
8303 of lists of who owns what property. Think about deeds on houses, or titles
8304 to cars.  And where there isn't a list, the code of real space is pretty
8305 good at suggesting who the owner of a bit of property is. (A swing set in
8306 your backyard is probably yours.) So formally or informally, we have a
8307 pretty good way to know who owns what tangible property.
8308 </p><p>
8309
8310 So: You walk down a street and see a house. You can know who owns the house
8311 by looking it up in the courthouse registry. If you see a car, there is
8312 ordinarily a license plate that will link the owner to the car. If you see a
8313 bunch of children's toys sitting on the front lawn of a house, it's fairly
8314 easy to determine who owns the toys. And if you happen to see a baseball
8315 lying in a gutter on the side of the road, look around for a second for some
8316 kids playing ball. If you don't see any kids, then okay: Here's a bit of
8317 property whose owner we can't easily determine. It is the exception that
8318 proves the rule: that we ordinarily know quite well who owns what property.
8319 </p><p>
8320 Compare this story to intangible property. You go into a library.  The
8321 library owns the books. But who owns the copyrights? As I've already
8322 described, there's no list of copyright owners. There are authors' names, of
8323 course, but their copyrights could have been assigned, or passed down in an
8324 estate like Grandma's old jewelry. To know who owns what, you would have to
8325 hire a private detective. The bottom line: The owner cannot easily be
8326 located. And in a regime like ours, in which it is a felony to use such
8327 property without the property owner's permission, the property isn't going
8328 to be used.
8329 </p><p>
8330 The consequence with respect to old books is that they won't be digitized,
8331 and hence will simply rot away on shelves. But the consequence for other
8332 creative works is much more dire.
8333 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2622966"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2622972"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2622979"></a><p>
8334 Consider the story of Michael Agee, chairman of Hal Roach Studios, which
8335 owns the copyrights for the Laurel and Hardy films. Agee is a direct
8336 beneficiary of the Bono Act. The Laurel and Hardy films were made between
8337 1921 and 1951. Only one of these films, <em class="citetitle">The Lucky
8338 Dog</em>, is currently out of copyright. But for the CTEA, films made
8339 after 1923 would have begun entering the public domain. Because Agee
8340 controls the exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal
8341 of money. According to one estimate, "Roach has sold about 60,000
8342 videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent films."<sup>[<a name="id2623000" href="#ftn.id2623000" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2623017"></a>
8343 </p><p>
8344 Yet Agee opposed the CTEA. His reasons demonstrate a rare virtue in this
8345 culture: selflessness. He argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that
8346 the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act will, if left standing, destroy
8347 a whole generation of American film.
8348 </p><p>
8349
8350 His argument is straightforward. A tiny fraction of this work has any
8351 continuing commercial value. The rest&#8212;to the extent it survives at
8352 all&#8212;sits in vaults gathering dust. It may be that some of this work
8353 not now commercially valuable will be deemed to be valuable by the owners of
8354 the vaults. For this to occur, however, the commercial benefit from the work
8355 must exceed the costs of making the work available for distribution.
8356 </p><p>
8357 We can't know the benefits, but we do know a lot about the costs.  For most
8358 of the history of film, the costs of restoring film were very high; digital
8359 technology has lowered these costs substantially. While it cost more than
8360 $10,000 to restore a ninety-minute black-and-white film in 1993, it can now
8361 cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.<sup>[<a name="id2623054" href="#ftn.id2623054" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
8362
8363 </p><p>
8364 Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most important.
8365 Lawyers, too, are a cost, and increasingly, a very important one. In
8366 addition to preserving the film, a distributor needs to secure the rights.
8367 And to secure the rights for a film that is under copyright, you need to
8368 locate the copyright owner.
8369 </p><p>
8370 Or more accurately, <span class="emphasis"><em>owners</em></span>. As we've seen, there isn't
8371 only a single copyright associated with a film; there are many. There isn't
8372 a single person whom you can contact about those copyrights; there are as
8373 many as can hold the rights, which turns out to be an extremely large
8374 number. Thus the costs of clearing the rights to these films is
8375 exceptionally high.
8376 </p><p>
8377 "But can't you just restore the film, distribute it, and then pay the
8378 copyright owner when she shows up?" Sure, if you want to commit a
8379 felony. And even if you're not worried about committing a felony, when she
8380 does show up, she'll have the right to sue you for all the profits you have
8381 made. So, if you're successful, you can be fairly confident you'll be
8382 getting a call from someone's lawyer. And if you're not successful, you
8383 won't make enough to cover the costs of your own lawyer. Either way, you
8384 have to talk to a lawyer. And as is too often the case, saying you have to
8385 talk to a lawyer is the same as saying you won't make any money.
8386 </p><p>
8387
8388 For some films, the benefit of releasing the film may well exceed these
8389 costs. But for the vast majority of them, there is no way the benefit would
8390 outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old films, Agee
8391 argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until the copyright
8392 expires.
8393 </p><p>
8394 But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will have
8395 expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and nitrate stock
8396 dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal canisters in which
8397 they are now stored will be filled with nothing more than dust.
8398 </p><p>
8399 Of all the creative work produced by humans anywhere, a tiny fraction has
8400 continuing commercial value. For that tiny fraction, the copyright is a
8401 crucially important legal device. For that tiny fraction, the copyright
8402 creates incentives to produce and distribute the creative work. For that
8403 tiny fraction, the copyright acts as an "engine of free expression."
8404 </p><p>
8405 But even for that tiny fraction, the actual time during which the creative
8406 work has a commercial life is extremely short. As I've indicated, most books
8407 go out of print within one year. The same is true of music and
8408 film. Commercial culture is sharklike. It must keep moving.  And when a
8409 creative work falls out of favor with the commercial distributors, the
8410 commercial life ends.
8411 </p><p>
8412 Yet that doesn't mean the life of the creative work ends. We don't keep
8413 libraries of books in order to compete with Barnes &amp; Noble, and we don't
8414 have archives of films because we expect people to choose between spending
8415 Friday night watching new movies and spending Friday night watching a 1930
8416 news documentary. The noncommercial life of culture is important and
8417 valuable&#8212;for entertainment but also, and more importantly, for
8418 knowledge. To understand who we are, and where we came from, and how we have
8419 made the mistakes that we have, we need to have access to this history.
8420 </p><p>
8421
8422 Copyrights in this context do not drive an engine of free expression.  In
8423 this context, there is no need for an exclusive right. Copyrights in this
8424 context do no good.
8425 </p><p>
8426 Yet, for most of our history, they also did little harm. For most of our
8427 history, when a work ended its commercial life, there was no
8428 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright-related use</em></span> that would be inhibited by an
8429 exclusive right.  When a book went out of print, you could not buy it from a
8430 publisher.  But you could still buy it from a used book store, and when a
8431 used book store sells it, in America, at least, there is no need to pay the
8432 copyright owner anything. Thus, the ordinary use of a book after its
8433 commercial life ended was a use that was independent of copyright law.
8434 </p><p>
8435 The same was effectively true of film. Because the costs of restoring a
8436 film&#8212;the real economic costs, not the lawyer costs&#8212;were so high,
8437 it was never at all feasible to preserve or restore film. Like the remains
8438 of a great dinner, when it's over, it's over. Once a film passed out of its
8439 commercial life, it may have been archived for a bit, but that was the end
8440 of its life so long as the market didn't have more to offer.
8441 </p><p>
8442 In other words, though copyright has been relatively short for most of our
8443 history, long copyrights wouldn't have mattered for the works that lost
8444 their commercial value. Long copyrights for these works would not have
8445 interfered with anything.
8446 </p><p>
8447 But this situation has now changed.
8448 </p><p>
8449 One crucially important consequence of the emergence of digital technologies
8450 is to enable the archive that Brewster Kahle dreams of.  Digital
8451 technologies now make it possible to preserve and give access to all sorts
8452 of knowledge. Once a book goes out of print, we can now imagine digitizing
8453 it and making it available to everyone, forever. Once a film goes out of
8454 distribution, we could digitize it and make it available to everyone,
8455 forever. Digital technologies give new life to copyrighted material after it
8456 passes out of its commercial life. It is now possible to preserve and assure
8457 universal access to this knowledge and culture, whereas before it was not.
8458 </p><p>
8459
8460
8461 And now copyright law does get in the way. Every step of producing this
8462 digital archive of our culture infringes on the exclusive right of
8463 copyright. To digitize a book is to copy it. To do that requires permission
8464 of the copyright owner. The same with music, film, or any other aspect of
8465 our culture protected by copyright. The effort to make these things
8466 available to history, or to researchers, or to those who just want to
8467 explore, is now inhibited by a set of rules that were written for a
8468 radically different context.
8469 </p><p>
8470 Here is the core of the harm that comes from extending terms: Now that
8471 technology enables us to rebuild the library of Alexandria, the law gets in
8472 the way. And it doesn't get in the way for any useful
8473 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span> purpose, for the purpose of copyright is to
8474 enable the commercial market that spreads culture. No, we are talking about
8475 culture after it has lived its commercial life. In this context, copyright
8476 is serving no purpose <span class="emphasis"><em>at all</em></span> related to the spread of
8477 knowledge. In this context, copyright is not an engine of free
8478 expression. Copyright is a brake.
8479 </p><p>
8480 You may well ask, "But if digital technologies lower the costs for Brewster
8481 Kahle, then they will lower the costs for Random House, too.  So won't
8482 Random House do as well as Brewster Kahle in spreading culture widely?"
8483 </p><p>
8484 Maybe. Someday. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that
8485 publishers would be as complete as libraries. If Barnes &amp; Noble offered
8486 to lend books from its stores for a low price, would that eliminate the need
8487 for libraries? Only if you think that the only role of a library is to serve
8488 what "the market" would demand. But if you think the role of a library is
8489 bigger than this&#8212;if you think its role is to archive culture, whether
8490 there's a demand for any particular bit of that culture or not&#8212;then we
8491 can't count on the commercial market to do our library work for us.
8492 </p><p>
8493 I would be the first to agree that it should do as much as it can: We should
8494 rely upon the market as much as possible to spread and enable culture. My
8495 message is absolutely not antimarket. But where we see the market is not
8496 doing the job, then we should allow nonmarket forces the freedom to fill the
8497 gaps. As one researcher calculated for American culture, 94 percent of the
8498 films, books, and music produced between and 1946 is not commercially
8499 available. However much you love the commercial market, if access is a
8500 value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.<sup>[<a name="id2623284" href="#ftn.id2623284" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
8501
8502 </p><p>
8503 In January 1999, we filed a lawsuit on Eric Eldred's behalf in federal
8504 district court in Washington, D.C., asking the court to declare the Sonny
8505 Bono Copyright Term Extension Act unconstitutional. The two central claims
8506 that we made were (1) that extending existing terms violated the
8507 Constitution's "limited Times" requirement, and (2) that extending terms by
8508 another twenty years violated the First Amendment.
8509 </p><p>
8510 The district court dismissed our claims without even hearing an argument.  A
8511 panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also dismissed our
8512 claims, though after hearing an extensive argument. But that decision at
8513 least had a dissent, by one of the most conservative judges on that
8514 court. That dissent gave our claims life.
8515 </p><p>
8516 Judge David Sentelle said the CTEA violated the requirement that copyrights
8517 be for "limited Times" only. His argument was as elegant as it was simple:
8518 If Congress can extend existing terms, then there is no "stopping point" to
8519 Congress's power under the Copyright Clause. The power to extend existing
8520 terms means Congress is not required to grant terms that are "limited."
8521 Thus, Judge Sentelle argued, the court had to interpret the term "limited
8522 Times" to give it meaning. And the best interpretation, Judge Sentelle
8523 argued, would be to deny Congress the power to extend existing terms.
8524 </p><p>
8525 We asked the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as a whole to hear the
8526 case. Cases are ordinarily heard in panels of three, except for important
8527 cases or cases that raise issues specific to the circuit as a whole, where
8528 the court will sit "en banc" to hear the case.
8529 </p><p>
8530
8531 The Court of Appeals rejected our request to hear the case en banc.  This
8532 time, Judge Sentelle was joined by the most liberal member of the
8533 D.C. Circuit, Judge David Tatel. Both the most conservative and the most
8534 liberal judges in the D.C. Circuit believed Congress had overstepped its
8535 bounds.
8536 </p><p>
8537 It was here that most expected Eldred v. Ashcroft would die, for the Supreme
8538 Court rarely reviews any decision by a court of appeals. (It hears about one
8539 hundred cases a year, out of more than five thousand appeals.) And it
8540 practically never reviews a decision that upholds a statute when no other
8541 court has yet reviewed the statute.
8542 </p><p>
8543 But in February 2002, the Supreme Court surprised the world by granting our
8544 petition to review the D.C. Circuit opinion. Argument was set for October of
8545 2002. The summer would be spent writing briefs and preparing for argument.
8546 </p><p>
8547 It is over a year later as I write these words. It is still astonishingly
8548 hard. If you know anything at all about this story, you know that we lost
8549 the appeal. And if you know something more than just the minimum, you
8550 probably think there was no way this case could have been won. After our
8551 defeat, I received literally thousands of missives by well-wishers and
8552 supporters, thanking me for my work on behalf of this noble but doomed
8553 cause. And none from this pile was more significant to me than the e-mail
8554 from my client, Eric Eldred.
8555 </p><p>
8556 Men min klient og disse vennene tok feil. Denne saken kunne vært vunnet. Det
8557 burde ha vært vunnet.  Og uansett hvor hardt jeg prøver å fortelle den
8558 historien til meg selv, kan jeg aldri unnslippe troen på at det er min feil
8559 at vi ikke vant.
8560 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2623403"></a><p>
8561
8562 Feil ble gjort tidlig, skjønt den ble først åpenbart på slutten. Vår sak
8563 hadde støtte hos en ekstraordinær advokat, Geoffrey Stewart, helt fra
8564 starten, og hos advokatfirmaet hadde han flyttet til, Jones, Day, Reavis og
8565 Pogue. Jones Day mottok mye press fra sine opphavsrettsbeskyttende klienter
8566 på grunn av sin støtte til oss.  De ignorert dette presset (noe veldig få
8567 advokatfirmaer noen sinne ville gjøre), og ga alt de hadde gjennom hele
8568 saken.
8569 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2623426"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2623432"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2623439"></a><p>
8570 Det var tre viktige advokater på saken fra Jones DaY. Geoff Stewart var den
8571 først, men siden ble Dan Bromberg og Don Ayer ganske involvert. Bromberg og
8572 Ayer spesielt hadde en felles oppfatning om hvordan denne saken ville bli
8573 vunnet: vi ville bare vinne, fortalte de gjentatte ganger til meg, hvis vi
8574 få problemet til å virke "viktig" for Høyesterett. Det måtte synes som om
8575 dramatisk skade ble gjort til ytringsfriheten og fri kultur, ellers ville de
8576 aldri stemt mot "de mektigste mediaselskapene i verden".
8577 </p><p>
8578 I hate this view of the law. Of course I thought the Sonny Bono Act was a
8579 dramatic harm to free speech and free culture. Of course I still think it
8580 is. But the idea that the Supreme Court decides the law based on how
8581 important they believe the issues are is just wrong. It might be "right" as
8582 in "true," I thought, but it is "wrong" as in "it just shouldn't be that
8583 way." As I believed that any faithful interpretation of what the framers of
8584 our Constitution did would yield the conclusion that the CTEA was
8585 unconstitutional, and as I believed that any faithful interpretation of what
8586 the First Amendment means would yield the conclusion that the power to
8587 extend existing copyright terms is unconstitutional, I was not persuaded
8588 that we had to sell our case like soap.  Just as a law that bans the
8589 swastika is unconstitutional not because the Court likes Nazis but because
8590 such a law would violate the Constitution, so too, in my view, would the
8591 Court decide whether Congress's law was constitutional based on the
8592 Constitution, not based on whether they liked the values that the framers
8593 put in the Constitution.
8594 </p><p>
8595 In any case, I thought, the Court must already see the danger and the harm
8596 caused by this sort of law. Why else would they grant review? There was no
8597 reason to hear the case in the Supreme Court if they weren't convinced that
8598 this regulation was harmful. So in my view, we didn't need to persuade them
8599 that this law was bad, we needed to show why it was unconstitutional.
8600 </p><p>
8601
8602 There was one way, however, in which I felt politics would matter and in
8603 which I thought a response was appropriate. I was convinced that the Court
8604 would not hear our arguments if it thought these were just the arguments of
8605 a group of lefty loons. This Supreme Court was not about to launch into a
8606 new field of judicial review if it seemed that this field of review was
8607 simply the preference of a small political minority.  Although my focus in
8608 the case was not to demonstrate how bad the Sonny Bono Act was but to
8609 demonstrate that it was unconstitutional, my hope was to make this argument
8610 against a background of briefs that covered the full range of political
8611 views. To show that this claim against the CTEA was grounded in
8612 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> and not politics, then, we tried to gather the
8613 widest range of credible critics&#8212;credible not because they were rich
8614 and famous, but because they, in the aggregate, demonstrated that this law
8615 was unconstitutional regardless of one's politics.
8616 </p><p>
8617 The first step happened all by itself. Phyllis Schlafly's organization,
8618 Eagle Forum, had been an opponent of the CTEA from the very beginning.
8619 Mrs. Schlafly viewed the CTEA as a sellout by Congress. In November 1998,
8620 she wrote a stinging editorial attacking the Republican Congress for
8621 allowing the law to pass. As she wrote, "Do you sometimes wonder why bills
8622 that create a financial windfall to narrow special interests slide easily
8623 through the intricate legislative process, while bills that benefit the
8624 general public seem to get bogged down?" The answer, as the editorial
8625 documented, was the power of money.  Schlafly enumerated Disney's
8626 contributions to the key players on the committees. It was money, not
8627 justice, that gave Mickey Mouse twenty more years in Disney's control,
8628 Schlafly argued.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2623532"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2623538"></a>
8629 </p><p>
8630 In the Court of Appeals, Eagle Forum was eager to file a brief supporting
8631 our position. Their brief made the argument that became the core claim in
8632 the Supreme Court: If Congress can extend the term of existing copyrights,
8633 there is no limit to Congress's power to set terms.  That strong
8634 conservative argument persuaded a strong conservative judge, Judge Sentelle.
8635 </p><p>
8636 In the Supreme Court, the briefs on our side were about as diverse as it
8637 gets. They included an extraordinary historical brief by the Free Software
8638 Foundation (home of the GNU project that made GNU/ Linux possible). They
8639 included a powerful brief about the costs of uncertainty by Intel. There
8640 were two law professors' briefs, one by copyright scholars and one by First
8641 Amendment scholars. There was an exhaustive and uncontroverted brief by the
8642 world's experts in the history of the Progress Clause. And of course, there
8643 was a new brief by Eagle Forum, repeating and strengthening its arguments.
8644 <a class="indexterm" name="id2623567"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2623576"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2623582"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2623588"></a>
8645 </p><p>
8646 Those briefs framed a legal argument. Then to support the legal argument,
8647 there were a number of powerful briefs by libraries and archives, including
8648 the Internet Archive, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the
8649 National Writers Union.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2623602"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2623609"></a>
8650 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2623616"></a><p>
8651 But two briefs captured the policy argument best. One made the argument I've
8652 already described: A brief by Hal Roach Studios argued that unless the law
8653 was struck, a whole generation of American film would disappear. The other
8654 made the economic argument absolutely clear.
8655 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2623630"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2623637"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2623643"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2623649"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2623655"></a><p>
8656 This economists' brief was signed by seventeen economists, including five
8657 Nobel Prize winners, including Ronald Coase, James Buchanan, Milton
8658 Friedman, Kenneth Arrow, and George Akerlof. The economists, as the list of
8659 Nobel winners demonstrates, spanned the political spectrum. Their
8660 conclusions were powerful: There was no plausible claim that extending the
8661 terms of existing copyrights would do anything to increase incentives to
8662 create. Such extensions were nothing more than "rent-seeking"&#8212;the
8663 fancy term economists use to describe special-interest legislation gone
8664 wild.
8665 </p><p>
8666 The same effort at balance was reflected in the legal team we gathered to
8667 write our briefs in the case. The Jones Day lawyers had been with us from
8668 the start. But when the case got to the Supreme Court, we added three
8669 lawyers to help us frame this argument to this Court: Alan Morrison, a
8670 lawyer from Public Citizen, a Washington group that had made constitutional
8671 history with a series of seminal victories in the Supreme Court defending
8672 individual rights; my colleague and dean, Kathleen Sullivan, who had argued
8673 many cases in the Court, and who had advised us early on about a First
8674 Amendment strategy; and finally, former solicitor general Charles Fried.
8675 <a class="indexterm" name="id2623666"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2623697"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2623704"></a>
8676 </p><p>
8677 Fried was a special victory for our side. Every other former solicitor
8678 general was hired by the other side to defend Congress's power to give media
8679 companies the special favor of extended copyright terms. Fried was the only
8680 one who turned down that lucrative assignment to stand up for something he
8681 believed in. He had been Ronald Reagan's chief lawyer in the Supreme
8682 Court. He had helped craft the line of cases that limited Congress's power
8683 in the context of the Commerce Clause. And while he had argued many
8684 positions in the Supreme Court that I personally disagreed with, his joining
8685 the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2623724"></a>
8686 </p><p>
8687 The government, in defending the statute, had its collection of friends, as
8688 well. Significantly, however, none of these "friends" included historians or
8689 economists. The briefs on the other side of the case were written
8690 exclusively by major media companies, congressmen, and copyright holders.
8691 </p><p>
8692 The media companies were not surprising. They had the most to gain from the
8693 law. The congressmen were not surprising either&#8212;they were defending
8694 their power and, indirectly, the gravy train of contributions such power
8695 induced. And of course it was not surprising that the copyright holders
8696 would defend the idea that they should continue to have the right to control
8697 who did what with content they wanted to control.
8698 </p><p>
8699 Dr. Seuss's representatives, for example, argued that it was better for the
8700 Dr. Seuss estate to control what happened to Dr. Seuss's work&#8212; better
8701 than allowing it to fall into the public domain&#8212;because if this
8702 creativity were in the public domain, then people could use it to "glorify
8703 drugs or to create pornography."<sup>[<a name="id2623754" href="#ftn.id2623754" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That
8704 was also the motive of the Gershwin estate, which defended its "protection"
8705 of the work of George Gershwin. They refuse, for example, to license
8706 <em class="citetitle">Porgy and Bess</em> to anyone who refuses to use African
8707 Americans in the cast.<sup>[<a name="id2623779" href="#ftn.id2623779" class="footnote">193</a>]</sup> That's their
8708 view of how this part of American culture should be controlled, and they
8709 wanted this law to help them effect that control.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2623793"></a>
8710 </p><p>
8711 This argument made clear a theme that is rarely noticed in this debate.
8712 When Congress decides to extend the term of existing copyrights, Congress is
8713 making a choice about which speakers it will favor.  Famous and beloved
8714 copyright owners, such as the Gershwin estate and Dr. Seuss, come to
8715 Congress and say, "Give us twenty years to control the speech about these
8716 icons of American culture. We'll do better with them than anyone else."
8717 Congress of course likes to reward the popular and famous by giving them
8718 what they want. But when Congress gives people an exclusive right to speak
8719 in a certain way, that's just what the First Amendment is traditionally
8720 meant to block.
8721 </p><p>
8722 We argued as much in a final brief. Not only would upholding the CTEA mean
8723 that there was no limit to the power of Congress to extend
8724 copyrights&#8212;extensions that would further concentrate the market; it
8725 would also mean that there was no limit to Congress's power to play
8726 favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak.  Between
8727 February and October, there was little I did beyond preparing for this
8728 case. Early on, as I said, I set the strategy.
8729 </p><p>
8730 The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we called
8731 "the Conservatives." The other we called "the Rest." The Conservatives
8732 included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O'Connor, Justice Scalia, Justice
8733 Kennedy, and Justice Thomas. These five had been the most consistent in
8734 limiting Congress's power. They were the five who had supported the
8735 <em class="citetitle">Lopez/Morrison</em> line of cases that said that an
8736 enumerated power had to be interpreted to assure that Congress's powers had
8737 limits.
8738 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2623843"></a><p>
8739
8740 The Rest were the four Justices who had strongly opposed limits on
8741 Congress's power. These four&#8212;Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice
8742 Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer&#8212;had repeatedly argued that the
8743 Constitution gives Congress broad discretion to decide how best to implement
8744 its powers. In case after case, these justices had argued that the Court's
8745 role should be one of deference. Though the votes of these four justices
8746 were the votes that I personally had most consistently agreed with, they
8747 were also the votes that we were least likely to get.
8748 </p><p>
8749 In particular, the least likely was Justice Ginsburg's. In addition to her
8750 general view about deference to Congress (except where issues of gender are
8751 involved), she had been particularly deferential in the context of
8752 intellectual property protections. She and her daughter (an excellent and
8753 well-known intellectual property scholar) were cut from the same
8754 intellectual property cloth. We expected she would agree with the writings
8755 of her daughter: that Congress had the power in this context to do as it
8756 wished, even if what Congress wished made little sense.
8757 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2623877"></a><p>
8758 Close behind Justice Ginsburg were two justices whom we also viewed as
8759 unlikely allies, though possible surprises. Justice Souter strongly favored
8760 deference to Congress, as did Justice Breyer. But both were also very
8761 sensitive to free speech concerns. And as we strongly believed, there was a
8762 very important free speech argument against these retrospective extensions.
8763 </p><p>
8764 The only vote we could be confident about was that of Justice
8765 Stevens. History will record Justice Stevens as one of the greatest judges
8766 on this Court. His votes are consistently eclectic, which just means that no
8767 simple ideology explains where he will stand. But he had consistently argued
8768 for limits in the context of intellectual property generally. We were fairly
8769 confident he would recognize limits here.
8770 </p><p>
8771 This analysis of "the Rest" showed most clearly where our focus had to be:
8772 on the Conservatives. To win this case, we had to crack open these five and
8773 get at least a majority to go our way. Thus, the single overriding argument
8774 that animated our claim rested on the Conservatives' most important
8775 jurisprudential innovation&#8212;the argument that Judge Sentelle had relied
8776 upon in the Court of Appeals, that Congress's power must be interpreted so
8777 that its enumerated powers have limits.
8778 </p><p>
8779
8780 This then was the core of our strategy&#8212;a strategy for which I am
8781 responsible. We would get the Court to see that just as with the
8782 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, under the government's argument here,
8783 Congress would always have unlimited power to extend existing terms. If
8784 anything was plain about Congress's power under the Progress Clause, it was
8785 that this power was supposed to be "limited." Our aim would be to get the
8786 Court to reconcile <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> with
8787 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>: If Congress's power to regulate commerce was
8788 limited, then so, too, must Congress's power to regulate copyright be
8789 limited.
8790 </p><p>
8791 The argument on the government's side came down to this: Congress has done
8792 it before. It should be allowed to do it again. The government claimed that
8793 from the very beginning, Congress has been extending the term of existing
8794 copyrights. So, the government argued, the Court should not now say that
8795 practice is unconstitutional.
8796 </p><p>
8797 There was some truth to the government's claim, but not much. We certainly
8798 agreed that Congress had extended existing terms in and in 1909. And of
8799 course, in 1962, Congress began extending existing terms
8800 regularly&#8212;eleven times in forty years.
8801 </p><p>
8802
8803 But this "consistency" should be kept in perspective. Congress extended
8804 existing terms once in the first hundred years of the Republic.  It then
8805 extended existing terms once again in the next fifty. Those rare extensions
8806 are in contrast to the now regular practice of extending existing
8807 terms. Whatever restraint Congress had had in the past, that restraint was
8808 now gone. Congress was now in a cycle of extensions; there was no reason to
8809 expect that cycle would end. This Court had not hesitated to intervene where
8810 Congress was in a similar cycle of extension.  There was no reason it
8811 couldn't intervene here.  Oral argument was scheduled for the first week in
8812 October. I arrived in D.C. two weeks before the argument. During those two
8813 weeks, I was repeatedly "mooted" by lawyers who had volunteered to help in
8814 the case. Such "moots" are basically practice rounds, where wannabe justices
8815 fire questions at wannabe winners.
8816 </p><p>
8817 I was convinced that to win, I had to keep the Court focused on a single
8818 point: that if this extension is permitted, then there is no limit to the
8819 power to set terms. Going with the government would mean that terms would be
8820 effectively unlimited; going with us would give Congress a clear line to
8821 follow: Don't extend existing terms. The moots were an effective practice; I
8822 found ways to take every question back to this central idea.
8823 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2623990"></a><p>
8824 One moot was before the lawyers at Jones Day. Don Ayer was the skeptic. He
8825 had served in the Reagan Justice Department with Solicitor General Charles
8826 Fried. He had argued many cases before the Supreme Court. And in his review
8827 of the moot, he let his concern speak: <a class="indexterm" name="id2624003"></a>
8828 </p><p>
8829 "I'm just afraid that unless they really see the harm, they won't be willing
8830 to upset this practice that the government says has been a consistent
8831 practice for two hundred years. You have to make them see the
8832 harm&#8212;passionately get them to see the harm. For if they don't see
8833 that, then we haven't any chance of winning."
8834 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2624012"></a><p>
8835
8836 He may have argued many cases before this Court, I thought, but he didn't
8837 understand its soul. As a clerk, I had seen the Justices do the right
8838 thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it was right. As a law
8839 professor, I had spent my life teaching my students that this Court does the
8840 right thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it is right. As I
8841 listened to Ayer's plea for passion in pressing politics, I understood his
8842 point, and I rejected it. Our argument was right. That was enough.  Let the
8843 politicians learn to see that it was also good.  The night before the
8844 argument, a line of people began to form in front of the Supreme Court. The
8845 case had become a focus of the press and of the movement to free
8846 culture. Hundreds stood in line for the chance to see the
8847 proceedings. Scores spent the night on the Supreme Court steps so that they
8848 would be assured a seat.
8849 </p><p>
8850 Not everyone has to wait in line. People who know the Justices can ask for
8851 seats they control. (I asked Justice Scalia's chambers for seats for my
8852 parents, for example.) Members of the Supreme Court bar can get a seat in a
8853 special section reserved for them. And senators and congressmen have a
8854 special place where they get to sit, too. And finally, of course, the press
8855 has a gallery, as do clerks working for the Justices on the Court. As we
8856 entered that morning, there was no place that was not taken. This was an
8857 argument about intellectual property law, yet the halls were filled. As I
8858 walked in to take my seat at the front of the Court, I saw my parents
8859 sitting on the left. As I sat down at the table, I saw Jack Valenti sitting
8860 in the special section ordinarily reserved for family of the Justices.
8861 </p><p>
8862 When the Chief Justice called me to begin my argument, I began where I
8863 intended to stay: on the question of the limits on Congress's power. This
8864 was a case about enumerated powers, I said, and whether those enumerated
8865 powers had any limit.
8866 </p><p>
8867 Justice O'Connor stopped me within one minute of my opening.  The history
8868 was bothering her.
8869 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
8870 justice o'connor: Congress has extended the term so often through the years,
8871 and if you are right, don't we run the risk of upsetting previous extensions
8872 of time? I mean, this seems to be a practice that began with the very first
8873 act.
8874 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8875 She was quite willing to concede "that this flies directly in the face of
8876 what the framers had in mind." But my response again and again was to
8877 emphasize limits on Congress's power.
8878 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
8879
8880 mr. lessig: Well, if it flies in the face of what the framers had in mind,
8881 then the question is, is there a way of interpreting their words that gives
8882 effect to what they had in mind, and the answer is yes.
8883 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8884 There were two points in this argument when I should have seen where the
8885 Court was going. The first was a question by Justice Kennedy, who observed,
8886 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
8887 justice kennedy: Well, I suppose implicit in the argument that the '76 act,
8888 too, should have been declared void, and that we might leave it alone
8889 because of the disruption, is that for all these years the act has impeded
8890 progress in science and the useful arts.  I just don't see any empirical
8891 evidence for that.
8892 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8893 Here follows my clear mistake. Like a professor correcting a student, I
8894 answered,
8895 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
8896 mr. lessig: Justice, we are not making an empirical claim at all.  Nothing
8897 in our Copyright Clause claim hangs upon the empirical assertion about
8898 impeding progress. Our only argument is this is a structural limit necessary
8899 to assure that what would be an effectively perpetual term not be permitted
8900 under the copyright laws.
8901 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2624153"></a><p>
8902 That was a correct answer, but it wasn't the right answer. The right answer
8903 was instead that there was an obvious and profound harm. Any number of
8904 briefs had been written about it. He wanted to hear it. And here was the
8905 place Don Ayer's advice should have mattered. This was a softball; my answer
8906 was a swing and a miss.
8907 </p><p>
8908 The second came from the Chief, for whom the whole case had been
8909 crafted. For the Chief Justice had crafted the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
8910 ruling, and we hoped that he would see this case as its second cousin.
8911 </p><p>
8912
8913 It was clear a second into his question that he wasn't at all sympathetic.
8914 To him, we were a bunch of anarchists. As he asked:
8915
8916
8917 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
8918 chief justice: Well, but you want more than that. You want the right to copy
8919 verbatim other people's books, don't you?
8920 </p><p>
8921 mr. lessig: We want the right to copy verbatim works that should be in the
8922 public domain and would be in the public domain but for a statute that
8923 cannot be justified under ordinary First Amendment analysis or under a
8924 proper reading of the limits built into the Copyright Clause.
8925 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8926 Things went better for us when the government gave its argument; for now the
8927 Court picked up on the core of our claim. As Justice Scalia asked Solicitor
8928 General Olson,
8929 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
8930 justice scalia: You say that the functional equivalent of an unlimited time
8931 would be a violation [of the Constitution], but that's precisely the
8932 argument that's being made by petitioners here, that a limited time which is
8933 extendable is the functional equivalent of an unlimited time.
8934 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8935 When Olson was finished, it was my turn to give a closing rebuttal.  Olson's
8936 flailing had revived my anger. But my anger still was directed to the
8937 academic, not the practical. The government was arguing as if this were the
8938 first case ever to consider limits on Congress's Copyright and Patent Clause
8939 power. Ever the professor and not the advocate, I closed by pointing out the
8940 long history of the Court imposing limits on Congress's power in the name of
8941 the Copyright and Patent Clause&#8212; indeed, the very first case striking
8942 a law of Congress as exceeding a specific enumerated power was based upon
8943 the Copyright and Patent Clause. All true. But it wasn't going to move the
8944 Court to my side.
8945 </p><p>
8946
8947 As I left the court that day, I knew there were a hundred points I wished I
8948 could remake. There were a hundred questions I wished I had answered
8949 differently. But one way of thinking about this case left me optimistic.
8950 </p><p>
8951 The government had been asked over and over again, what is the limit? Over
8952 and over again, it had answered there is no limit. This was precisely the
8953 answer I wanted the Court to hear. For I could not imagine how the Court
8954 could understand that the government believed Congress's power was unlimited
8955 under the terms of the Copyright Clause, and sustain the government's
8956 argument. The solicitor general had made my argument for me. No matter how
8957 often I tried, I could not understand how the Court could find that
8958 Congress's power under the Commerce Clause was limited, but under the
8959 Copyright Clause, unlimited. In those rare moments when I let myself believe
8960 that we may have prevailed, it was because I felt this Court&#8212;in
8961 particular, the Conservatives&#8212;would feel itself constrained by the
8962 rule of law that it had established elsewhere.
8963 </p><p>
8964 The morning of January 15, 2003, I was five minutes late to the office and
8965 missed the 7:00 A.M. call from the Supreme Court clerk. Listening to the
8966 message, I could tell in an instant that she had bad news to report.The
8967 Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Seven
8968 justices had voted in the majority. There were two dissents.
8969 </p><p>
8970 A few seconds later, the opinions arrived by e-mail. I took the phone off
8971 the hook, posted an announcement to our blog, and sat down to see where I
8972 had been wrong in my reasoning.
8973 </p><p>
8974 My <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. Here was a case that pitted all the money
8975 in the world against <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. And here was the last
8976 naïve law professor, scouring the pages, looking for reasoning.
8977 </p><p>
8978 I first scoured the opinion, looking for how the Court would distinguish the
8979 principle in this case from the principle in
8980 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The argument was nowhere to be found. The case
8981 was not even cited. The argument that was the core argument of our case did
8982 not even appear in the Court's opinion.
8983 </p><p>
8984
8985
8986
8987 Justice Ginsburg simply ignored the enumerated powers argument.  Consistent
8988 with her view that Congress's power was not limited generally, she had found
8989 Congress's power not limited here.
8990 </p><p>
8991 Her opinion was perfectly reasonable&#8212;for her, and for Justice
8992 Souter. Neither believes in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. It would be too
8993 much to expect them to write an opinion that recognized, much less
8994 explained, the doctrine they had worked so hard to defeat.
8995 </p><p>
8996 But as I realized what had happened, I couldn't quite believe what I was
8997 reading. I had said there was no way this Court could reconcile limited
8998 powers with the Commerce Clause and unlimited powers with the Progress
8999 Clause. It had never even occurred to me that they could reconcile the two
9000 simply <span class="emphasis"><em>by not addressing the argument</em></span>. There was no
9001 inconsistency because they would not talk about the two together.  There was
9002 therefore no principle that followed from the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
9003 case: In that context, Congress's power would be limited, but in this
9004 context it would not.
9005 </p><p>
9006 Yet by what right did they get to choose which of the framers' values they
9007 would respect? By what right did they&#8212;the silent five&#8212;get to
9008 select the part of the Constitution they would enforce based on the values
9009 they thought important? We were right back to the argument that I said I
9010 hated at the start: I had failed to convince them that the issue here was
9011 important, and I had failed to recognize that however much I might hate a
9012 system in which the Court gets to pick the constitutional values that it
9013 will respect, that is the system we have.
9014 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2624344"></a><p>
9015 Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote very strong dissents. Stevens's opinion
9016 was crafted internal to the law: He argued that the tradition of
9017 intellectual property law should not support this unjustified extension of
9018 terms. He based his argument on a parallel analysis that had governed in the
9019 context of patents (so had we). But the rest of the Court discounted the
9020 parallel&#8212;without explaining how the very same words in the Progress
9021 Clause could come to mean totally different things depending upon whether
9022 the words were about patents or copyrights.  The Court let Justice Stevens's
9023 charge go unanswered.
9024 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2624363"></a><p>
9025
9026
9027 Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever written, was
9028 external to the Constitution. He argued that the term of copyrights has
9029 become so long as to be effectively unlimited. We had said that under the
9030 current term, a copyright gave an author 99.8 percent of the value of a
9031 perpetual term. Breyer said we were wrong, that the actual number was
9032 99.9997 percent of a perpetual term. Either way, the point was clear: If the
9033 Constitution said a term had to be "limited," and the existing term was so
9034 long as to be effectively unlimited, then it was unconstitutional.
9035 </p><p>
9036 These two justices understood all the arguments we had made. But because
9037 neither believed in the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, neither was
9038 willing to push it as a reason to reject this extension. The case was
9039 decided without anyone having addressed the argument that we had carried
9040 from Judge Sentelle. It was <em class="citetitle">Hamlet</em> without the
9041 Prince.
9042 </p><p>
9043 Defeat brings depression. They say it is a sign of health when depression
9044 gives way to anger. My anger came quickly, but it didn't cure the
9045 depression. This anger was of two sorts.
9046 </p><p>
9047 It was first anger with the five "Conservatives." It would have been one
9048 thing for them to have explained why the principle of
9049 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> didn't apply in this case. That wouldn't have
9050 been a very convincing argument, I don't believe, having read it made by
9051 others, and having tried to make it myself. But it at least would have been
9052 an act of integrity.  These justices in particular have repeatedly said that
9053 the proper mode of interpreting the Constitution is "originalism"&#8212;to
9054 first understand the framers' text, interpreted in their context, in light
9055 of the structure of the Constitution. That method had produced
9056 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> and many other "originalist" rulings. Where was
9057 their "originalism" now?
9058 </p><p>
9059
9060 Here, they had joined an opinion that never once tried to explain what the
9061 framers had meant by crafting the Progress Clause as they did; they joined
9062 an opinion that never once tried to explain how the structure of that clause
9063 would affect the interpretation of Congress's power. And they joined an
9064 opinion that didn't even try to explain why this grant of power could be
9065 unlimited, whereas the Commerce Clause would be limited. In short, they had
9066 joined an opinion that did not apply to, and was inconsistent with, their
9067 own method for interpreting the Constitution. This opinion may well have
9068 yielded a result that they liked. It did not produce a reason that was
9069 consistent with their own principles.
9070 </p><p>
9071 My anger with the Conservatives quickly yielded to anger with myself.  For I
9072 had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with a view of the law as
9073 it is.
9074 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2624462"></a><p>
9075 Most lawyers, and most law professors, have little patience for idealism
9076 about courts in general and this Supreme Court in particular.  Most have a
9077 much more pragmatic view. When Don Ayer said that this case would be won
9078 based on whether I could convince the Justices that the framers' values were
9079 important, I fought the idea, because I didn't want to believe that that is
9080 how this Court decides. I insisted on arguing this case as if it were a
9081 simple application of a set of principles.  I had an argument that followed
9082 in logic. I didn't need to waste my time showing it should also follow in
9083 popularity.
9084 </p><p>
9085
9086 As I read back over the transcript from that argument in October, I can see
9087 a hundred places where the answers could have taken the conversation in
9088 different directions, where the truth about the harm that this unchecked
9089 power will cause could have been made clear to this Court. Justice Kennedy
9090 in good faith wanted to be shown. I, idiotically, corrected his
9091 question. Justice Souter in good faith wanted to be shown the First
9092 Amendment harms. I, like a math teacher, reframed the question to make the
9093 logical point. I had shown them how they could strike this law of Congress
9094 if they wanted to. There were a hundred places where I could have helped
9095 them want to, yet my stubbornness, my refusal to give in, stopped me. I have
9096 stood before hundreds of audiences trying to persuade; I have used passion
9097 in that effort to persuade; but I refused to stand before this audience and
9098 try to persuade with the passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis
9099 on which a court should decide the issue.
9100 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2624504"></a><p>
9101 Would it have been different if I had argued it differently? Would it have
9102 been different if Don Ayer had argued it? Or Charles Fried? Or Kathleen
9103 Sullivan? <a class="indexterm" name="id2624515"></a>
9104 </p><p>
9105 My friends huddled around me to insist it would not. The Court was not
9106 ready, my friends insisted. This was a loss that was destined. It would take
9107 a great deal more to show our society why our framers were right. And when
9108 we do that, we will be able to show that Court.
9109 </p><p>
9110 Maybe, but I doubt it. These Justices have no financial interest in doing
9111 anything except the right thing. They are not lobbied. They have little
9112 reason to resist doing right. I can't help but think that if I had stepped
9113 down from this pretty picture of dispassionate justice, I could have
9114 persuaded.
9115 </p><p>
9116 And even if I couldn't, then that doesn't excuse what happened in
9117 January. For at the start of this case, one of America's leading
9118 intellectual property professors stated publicly that my bringing this case
9119 was a mistake. "The Court is not ready," Peter Jaszi said; this issue should
9120 not be raised until it is.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2624546"></a>
9121 </p><p>
9122
9123 After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly,
9124 that he was wrong. But if indeed that Court could not have been persuaded,
9125 then that is all the evidence that's needed to know that here again Peter
9126 was right. Either I was not ready to argue this case in a way that would do
9127 some good or they were not ready to hear this case in a way that would do
9128 some good. Either way, the decision to bring this case&#8212;a decision I
9129 had made four years before&#8212;was wrong.  While the reaction to the Sonny
9130 Bono Act itself was almost unanimously negative, the reaction to the Court's
9131 decision was mixed.  No one, at least in the press, tried to say that
9132 extending the term of copyright was a good idea. We had won that battle over
9133 ideas. Where the decision was praised, it was praised by papers that had
9134 been skeptical of the Court's activism in other cases. Deference was a good
9135 thing, even if it left standing a silly law. But where the decision was
9136 attacked, it was attacked because it left standing a silly and harmful
9137 law. <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> wrote in its editorial,
9138 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9139 In effect, the Supreme Court's decision makes it likely that we are seeing
9140 the beginning of the end of public domain and the birth of copyright
9141 perpetuity. The public domain has been a grand experiment, one that should
9142 not be allowed to die. The ability to draw freely on the entire creative
9143 output of humanity is one of the reasons we live in a time of such fruitful
9144 creative ferment.
9145 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9146 The best responses were in the cartoons. There was a gaggle of hilarious
9147 images&#8212;of Mickey in jail and the like. The best, from my view of the
9148 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 "powerful and wealthy" line is a bit unfair. But
9149 the punch in the face felt exactly like that.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2624606"></a>
9150 </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="id2624627"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
9151 The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the quote from
9152 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>. That "grand experiment" we call
9153 the "public domain" is over? When I can make light of it, I think, "Honey, I
9154 shrunk the Constitution." But I can rarely make light of it. We had in our
9155 Constitution a commitment to free culture. In the case that I fathered, the
9156 Supreme Court effectively renounced that commitment. A better lawyer would
9157 have made them see differently.
9158 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2622267" href="#id2622267" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
9159
9160
9161 There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to describe, but
9162 it's a strong one. One phenomenon that the Internet created was a world of
9163 noncommercial pornographers&#8212;people who were distributing porn but were
9164 not making money directly or indirectly from that distribution.  Such a
9165 class didn't exist before the Internet came into being because the costs of
9166 distributing porn were so high. Yet this new class of distributors got
9167 special attention in the Supreme Court, when the Court struck down the
9168 Communications Decency Act of 1996. It was partly because of the burden on
9169 noncommercial speakers that the statute was found to exceed Congress's
9170 power. The same point could have been made about noncommercial publishers
9171 after the advent of the Internet. The Eric Eldreds of the world before the
9172 Internet were extremely few. Yet one would think it at least as important to
9173 protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2622321" href="#id2622321" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
9174
9175
9176 The full text is: "Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright protection to
9177 last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the
9178 Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our
9179 copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is
9180 also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last forever less one
9181 day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress," 144
9182 Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
9183 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2622532" href="#id2622532" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
9184
9185 Associated Press, "Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey Mouse
9186 Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years,"
9187 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17. oktober 1998, 22.
9188 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2622547" href="#id2622547" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
9189
9190 Se Nick Brown, "Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information Age,"
9191 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
9192 #49</a>.
9193 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2622562" href="#id2622562" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
9194
9195
9196 Alan K. Ota, "Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars,"
9197 <em class="citetitle">Congressional Quarterly This Week</em>, 8. august 1990,
9198 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
9199 #50</a>.
9200 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2622651" href="#id2622651" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
9201
9202 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>, 514
9203 U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
9204 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2622678" href="#id2622678" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
9205
9206
9207 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>, 529
9208 U.S. 598 (2000).
9209 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2622698" href="#id2622698" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
9210
9211
9212 If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle carries
9213 from one enumerated power to another. The animating point in the context of
9214 the Commerce Clause was that the interpretation offered by the government
9215 would allow the government unending power to regulate commerce&#8212;the
9216 limitation to interstate commerce notwithstanding. The same point is true in
9217 the context of the Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's
9218 interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate
9219 copyrights&#8212;the limitation to "limited times" notwithstanding.
9220 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2622778" href="#id2622778" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
9221
9222
9223 Brief of the Nashville Songwriters Association,
9224 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.
9225 186 (2003) (No. 01-618), n.10, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #51</a>.
9226 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2622844" href="#id2622844" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
9227
9228 The figure of 2 percent is an extrapolation from the study by the
9229 Congressional Research Service, in light of the estimated renewal
9230 ranges. See Brief of Petitioners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9231 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 7, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #52</a>.
9232 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2623000" href="#id2623000" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
9233
9234
9235 See David G. Savage, "High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright Law,"
9236 <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 6 October 2002; David Streitfeld,
9237 "Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today
9238 on Striking Down Copyright Extension," <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel
9239 Tribune</em>, 9 October 2002.
9240 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2623054" href="#id2623054" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
9241
9242
9243 Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae Supporting the
9244 Petitoners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9245 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01- 618),
9246 12. See also Brief of Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of Petitioners by the
9247 Internet Archive, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9248 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #53</a>.
9249 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2623284" href="#id2623284" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
9250
9251
9252 Jason Schultz, "The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory," 20 December
9253 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
9254 #54</a>.
9255 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2623754" href="#id2623754" class="para">192</a>] </sup>
9256
9257
9258 Brief of Amici Dr. Seuss Enterprise et al., <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9259 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.  (2003) (No. 01-618), 19.
9260 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2623779" href="#id2623779" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
9261
9262
9263 Dinitia Smith, "Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse Joins
9264 the Fray," <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March 1998, B7.
9265 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred-ii"></a>Kapittel 14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</h2></div></div></div><p>
9266 The day <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was decided, fate would have it that I
9267 was to travel to Washington, D.C. (The day the rehearing petition in
9268 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was denied&#8212;meaning the case was really
9269 finally over&#8212;fate would have it that I was giving a speech to
9270 technologists at Disney World.)  This was a particularly long flight to my
9271 least favorite city. The drive into the city from Dulles was delayed because
9272 of traffic, so I opened up my computer and wrote an op-ed piece.
9273 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2624670"></a><p>
9274 It was an act of contrition. During the whole of the flight from San
9275 Francisco to Washington, I had heard over and over again in my head the same
9276 advice from Don Ayer: You need to make them see why it is important. And
9277 alternating with that command was the question of Justice Kennedy: "For all
9278 these years the act has impeded progress in science and the useful arts. I
9279 just don't see any empirical evidence for that." And so, having failed in
9280 the argument of constitutional principle, finally, I turned to an argument
9281 of politics.
9282 </p><p>
9283
9284 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> published the piece. In it, I
9285 proposed a simple fix: Fifty years after a work has been published, the
9286 copyright owner would be required to register the work and pay a small
9287 fee. If he paid the fee, he got the benefit of the full term of
9288 copyright. If he did not, the work passed into the public domain.
9289 </p><p>
9290 We called this the Eldred Act, but that was just to give it a name.  Eric
9291 Eldred was kind enough to let his name be used once again, but as he said
9292 early on, it won't get passed unless it has another name.
9293 </p><p>
9294 Or another two names. For depending upon your perspective, this is either
9295 the "Public Domain Enhancement Act" or the "Copyright Term Deregulation
9296 Act." Either way, the essence of the idea is clear and obvious: Remove
9297 copyright where it is doing nothing except blocking access and the spread of
9298 knowledge. Leave it for as long as Congress allows for those works where its
9299 worth is at least $1. But for everything else, let the content go.
9300 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2624726"></a><p>
9301 The reaction to this idea was amazingly strong. Steve Forbes endorsed it in
9302 an editorial. I received an avalanche of e-mail and letters expressing
9303 support. When you focus the issue on lost creativity, people can see the
9304 copyright system makes no sense. As a good Republican might say, here
9305 government regulation is simply getting in the way of innovation and
9306 creativity. And as a good Democrat might say, here the government is
9307 blocking access and the spread of knowledge for no good reason. Indeed,
9308 there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans on this
9309 issue. Anyone can recognize the stupid harm of the present system.
9310 </p><p>
9311 Indeed, many recognized the obvious benefit of the registration
9312 requirement.  For one of the hardest things about the current system for
9313 people who want to license content is that there is no obvious place to look
9314 for the current copyright owners. Since registration is not required, since
9315 marking content is not required, since no formality at all is required, it
9316 is often impossibly hard to locate copyright owners to ask permission to use
9317 or license their work. This system would lower these costs, by establishing
9318 at least one registry where copyright owners could be identified.
9319 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2624760"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2624766"></a><p>
9320
9321 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>10</a>, formalities in copyright law were removed in 1976,
9322 when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal requirement
9323 before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id2624783" href="#ftn.id2624783" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The
9324 Europeans are said to view copyright as a "natural right." Natural rights
9325 don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the Anglo-American tradition
9326 that required copyright owners to follow form if their rights were to be
9327 protected, did not, the Europeans thought, properly respect the dignity of
9328 the author. My right as a creator turns on my creativity, not upon the
9329 special favor of the government.
9330 </p><p>
9331 That's great rhetoric. It sounds wonderfully romantic. But it is absurd
9332 copyright policy. It is absurd especially for authors, because a world
9333 without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread "Walt Disney
9334 creativity" is destroyed when there is no simple way to know what's
9335 protected and what's not.
9336 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2624832"></a><p>
9337 The fight against formalities achieved its first real victory in Berlin in
9338 1908. International copyright lawyers amended the Berne Convention in 1908,
9339 to require copyright terms of life plus fifty years, as well as the
9340 abolition of copyright formalities. The formalities were hated because the
9341 stories of inadvertent loss were increasingly common. It was as if a Charles
9342 Dickens character ran all copyright offices, and the failure to dot an
9343 <em class="citetitle">i</em> or cross a <em class="citetitle">t</em> resulted in the
9344 loss of widows' only income.
9345 </p><p>
9346 These complaints were real and sensible. And the strictness of the
9347 formalities, especially in the United States, was absurd. The law should
9348 always have ways of forgiving innocent mistakes. There is no reason
9349 copyright law couldn't, as well. Rather than abandoning formalities totally,
9350 the response in Berlin should have been to embrace a more equitable system
9351 of registration.
9352 </p><p>
9353 Even that would have been resisted, however, because registration in the
9354 nineteenth and twentieth centuries was still expensive. It was also a
9355 hassle. The abolishment of formalities promised not only to save the
9356 starving widows, but also to lighten an unnecessary regulatory burden
9357 imposed upon creators.
9358 </p><p>
9359
9360 In addition to the practical complaint of authors in 1908, there was a moral
9361 claim as well. There was no reason that creative property should be a
9362 second-class form of property. If a carpenter builds a table, his rights
9363 over the table don't depend upon filing a form with the government.  He has
9364 a property right over the table "naturally," and he can assert that right
9365 against anyone who would steal the table, whether or not he has informed the
9366 government of his ownership of the table.
9367 </p><p>
9368 This argument is correct, but its implications are misleading. For the
9369 argument in favor of formalities does not depend upon creative property
9370 being second-class property. The argument in favor of formalities turns upon
9371 the special problems that creative property presents.  The law of
9372 formalities responds to the special physics of creative property, to assure
9373 that it can be efficiently and fairly spread.
9374 </p><p>
9375 No one thinks, for example, that land is second-class property just because
9376 you have to register a deed with a court if your sale of land is to be
9377 effective. And few would think a car is second-class property just because
9378 you must register the car with the state and tag it with a license.  In both
9379 of those cases, everyone sees that there is an important reason to secure
9380 registration&#8212;both because it makes the markets more efficient and
9381 because it better secures the rights of the owner. Without a registration
9382 system for land, landowners would perpetually have to guard their
9383 property. With registration, they can simply point the police to a
9384 deed. Without a registration system for cars, auto theft would be much
9385 easier. With a registration system, the thief has a high burden to sell a
9386 stolen car. A slight burden is placed on the property owner, but those
9387 burdens produce a much better system of protection for property generally.
9388 </p><p>
9389 It is similarly special physics that makes formalities important in
9390 copyright law. Unlike a carpenter's table, there's nothing in nature that
9391 makes it relatively obvious who might own a particular bit of creative
9392 property. A recording of Lyle Lovett's latest album can exist in a billion
9393 places without anything necessarily linking it back to a particular
9394 owner. And like a car, there's no way to buy and sell creative property with
9395 confidence unless there is some simple way to authenticate who is the author
9396 and what rights he has. Simple transactions are destroyed in a world without
9397 formalities. Complex, expensive, <span class="emphasis"><em>lawyer</em></span> transactions
9398 take their place.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2624934"></a>
9399 </p><p>
9400 This was the understanding of the problem with the Sonny Bono Act that we
9401 tried to demonstrate to the Court. This was the part it didn't "get."
9402 Because we live in a system without formalities, there is no way easily to
9403 build upon or use culture from our past. If copyright terms were, as Justice
9404 Story said they would be, "short," then this wouldn't matter much. For
9405 fourteen years, under the framers' system, a work would be presumptively
9406 controlled. After fourteen years, it would be presumptively uncontrolled.
9407 </p><p>
9408 But now that copyrights can be just about a century long, the inability to
9409 know what is protected and what is not protected becomes a huge and obvious
9410 burden on the creative process. If the only way a library can offer an
9411 Internet exhibit about the New Deal is to hire a lawyer to clear the rights
9412 to every image and sound, then the copyright system is burdening creativity
9413 in a way that has never been seen before <span class="emphasis"><em>because there are no
9414 formalities</em></span>.
9415 </p><p>
9416 The Eldred Act was designed to respond to exactly this problem. If it is
9417 worth $1 to you, then register your work and you can get the longer
9418 term. Others will know how to contact you and, therefore, how to get your
9419 permission if they want to use your work. And you will get the benefit of an
9420 extended copyright term.
9421 </p><p>
9422 If it isn't worth it to you to register to get the benefit of an extended
9423 term, then it shouldn't be worth it for the government to defend your
9424 monopoly over that work either. The work should pass into the public domain
9425 where anyone can copy it, or build archives with it, or create a movie based
9426 on it. It should become free if it is not worth $1 to you.
9427 </p><p>
9428 Noen bekymrer seg over byrden på forfattere. Gjør ikke byrden med å
9429 registrere verket at beløpet $1 egentlig er misvisende?  Er ikke
9430 ekstraarbeidet verdt mer enn $1? Er ikke dette det virkelige problemet med
9431 registrering?
9432 </p><p>
9433
9434 It is. The hassle is terrible. The system that exists now is awful. I
9435 completely agree that the Copyright Office has done a terrible job (no doubt
9436 because they are terribly funded) in enabling simple and cheap
9437 registrations. Any real solution to the problem of formalities must address
9438 the real problem of <span class="emphasis"><em>governments</em></span> standing at the core of
9439 any system of formalities. In this book, I offer such a solution. That
9440 solution essentially remakes the Copyright Office. For now, assume it was
9441 Amazon that ran the registration system. Assume it was one-click
9442 registration.  The Eldred Act would propose a simple, one-click registration
9443 fifty years after a work was published. Based upon historical data, that
9444 system would move up to 98 percent of commercial work, commercial work that
9445 no longer had a commercial life, into the public domain within fifty
9446 years. What do you think?
9447 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2625021"></a><p>
9448 Da Steve Forbes støttet idéen, begynte enkelte i Washington å følge
9449 med. Mange kontaktet meg med tips til representanter som kan være villig til
9450 å introdusere en Eldred-lov. og jeg hadde noen få som foreslo direkte at de
9451 kan være villige til å ta det første skrittet.
9452 </p><p>
9453 En representant, Zoe Lofgren fra California, gikk så langt som å få
9454 lovforslaget utarbeidet. Utkastet løste noen problemer med internasjonal
9455 lov. Det påla de enklest mulige forutsetninger på innehaverne av
9456 opphavsretter. I mai 2003 så det ut som om loven skulle være introdusert.
9457 16. mai, postet jeg på Eldred Act-bloggen, "vi er nære".  Det oppstod en
9458 generell reaksjon i blogg-samfunnet om at noe godt kunne skje her.
9459 <a class="indexterm" name="id2625054"></a>
9460 </p><p>
9461 But at this stage, the lobbyists began to intervene. Jack Valenti and the
9462 MPAA general counsel came to the congresswoman's office to give the view of
9463 the MPAA. Aided by his lawyer, as Valenti told me, Valenti informed the
9464 congresswoman that the MPAA would oppose the Eldred Act. The reasons are
9465 embarrassingly thin. More importantly, their thinness shows something clear
9466 about what this debate is really about.
9467 </p><p>
9468
9469 The MPAA argued first that Congress had "firmly rejected the central concept
9470 in the proposed bill"&#8212;that copyrights be renewed. That was true, but
9471 irrelevant, as Congress's "firm rejection" had occurred long before the
9472 Internet made subsequent uses much more likely.  Second, they argued that
9473 the proposal would harm poor copyright owners&#8212;apparently those who
9474 could not afford the $1 fee. Third, they argued that Congress had determined
9475 that extending a copyright term would encourage restoration work. Maybe in
9476 the case of the small percentage of work covered by copyright law that is
9477 still commercially valuable, but again this was irrelevant, as the proposal
9478 would not cut off the extended term unless the $1 fee was not paid. Fourth,
9479 the MPAA argued that the bill would impose "enormous" costs, since a
9480 registration system is not free. True enough, but those costs are certainly
9481 less than the costs of clearing the rights for a copyright whose owner is
9482 not known. Fifth, they worried about the risks if the copyright to a story
9483 underlying a film were to pass into the public domain. But what risk is
9484 that? If it is in the public domain, then the film is a valid derivative
9485 use.
9486 </p><p>
9487 Finally, the MPAA argued that existing law enabled copyright owners to do
9488 this if they wanted. But the whole point is that there are thousands of
9489 copyright owners who don't even know they have a copyright to give. Whether
9490 they are free to give away their copyright or not&#8212;a controversial
9491 claim in any case&#8212;unless they know about a copyright, they're not
9492 likely to.
9493 </p><p>
9494 At the beginning of this book, I told two stories about the law reacting to
9495 changes in technology. In the one, common sense prevailed.  In the other,
9496 common sense was delayed. The difference between the two stories was the
9497 power of the opposition&#8212;the power of the side that fought to defend
9498 the status quo. In both cases, a new technology threatened old
9499 interests. But in only one case did those interest's have the power to
9500 protect themselves against this new competitive threat.
9501 </p><p>
9502 Jeg brukte disse to tilfellene som en måte å ramme inn krigen som denne
9503 boken har handlet om.  For her er det også en ny teknologi som tvinger loven
9504 til å reagere.  Og her bør vi også spørre, er loven i tråd med eller i strid
9505 med sunn fornuft.  Hvis sunn fornuft støtter loven, hva forklarer denne
9506 sunne fornuften?
9507 </p><p>
9508
9509
9510
9511 When the issue is piracy, it is right for the law to back the copyright
9512 owners. The commercial piracy that I described is wrong and harmful, and the
9513 law should work to eliminate it. When the issue is p2p sharing, it is easy
9514 to understand why the law backs the owners still: Much of this sharing is
9515 wrong, even if much is harmless. When the issue is copyright terms for the
9516 Mickey Mouses of the world, it is possible still to understand why the law
9517 favors Hollywood: Most people don't recognize the reasons for limiting
9518 copyright terms; it is thus still possible to see good faith within the
9519 resistance.
9520 </p><p>
9521 But when the copyright owners oppose a proposal such as the Eldred Act,
9522 then, finally, there is an example that lays bare the naked selfinterest
9523 driving this war. This act would free an extraordinary range of content that
9524 is otherwise unused. It wouldn't interfere with any copyright owner's desire
9525 to exercise continued control over his content. It would simply liberate
9526 what Kevin Kelly calls the "Dark Content" that fills archives around the
9527 world. So when the warriors oppose a change like this, we should ask one
9528 simple question: <a class="indexterm" name="id2625159"></a>
9529 </p><p>
9530 Hva ønsker denne industrien egentlig?
9531 </p><p>
9532 With very little effort, the warriors could protect their content. So the
9533 effort to block something like the Eldred Act is not really about protecting
9534 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> content. The effort to block the Eldred Act is an
9535 effort to assure that nothing more passes into the public domain. It is
9536 another step to assure that the public domain will never compete, that there
9537 will be no use of content that is not commercially controlled, and that
9538 there will be no commercial use of content that doesn't require
9539 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> permission first.
9540 </p><p>
9541 The opposition to the Eldred Act reveals how extreme the other side is. The
9542 most powerful and sexy and well loved of lobbies really has as its aim not
9543 the protection of "property" but the rejection of a tradition.  Their aim is
9544 not simply to protect what is theirs. <span class="emphasis"><em>Their aim is to assure that
9545 all there is is what is theirs</em></span>.
9546 </p><p>
9547
9548 It is not hard to understand why the warriors take this view. It is not hard
9549 to see why it would benefit them if the competition of the public domain
9550 tied to the Internet could somehow be quashed. Just as RCA feared the
9551 competition of FM, they fear the competition of a public domain connected to
9552 a public that now has the means to create with it and to share its own
9553 creation.
9554 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2625213"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2625219"></a><p>
9555 Det som er vanskelig å forstå er hvorfor folket innehar dette synet. Det er
9556 som om loven gjorde at flymaskiner tok seg inn på annen manns eiendom.  MPAA
9557 står side om side med Causbyene og krever at deres fjerne og ubrukelige
9558 eierrettigheter blir respektert, slik at disse fjerne og glemte
9559 opphavsrettsinnehaverne kan blokkere fremgangen til andre.
9560 </p><p>
9561 All this seems to follow easily from this untroubled acceptance of the
9562 "property" in intellectual property. Common sense supports it, and so long
9563 as it does, the assaults will rain down upon the technologies of the
9564 Internet. The consequence will be an increasing "permission society." The
9565 past can be cultivated only if you can identify the owner and gain
9566 permission to build upon his work. The future will be controlled by this
9567 dead (and often unfindable) hand of the past.
9568 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2624783" href="#id2624783" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
9569
9570
9571 Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright
9572 legislation sometimes made protection depend upon compliance with
9573 formalities such as registration, deposit, and affixation of notice of the
9574 author's claim of copyright. However, starting with the 1908 act, every text
9575 of the Convention has provided that "the enjoyment and the exercise" of
9576 rights guaranteed by the Convention "shall not be subject to any formality."
9577 The prohibition against formalities is presently embodied in Article 5(2) of
9578 the Paris Text of the Berne Convention. Many countries continue to impose
9579 some form of deposit or registration requirement, albeit not as a condition
9580 of copyright. French law, for example, requires the deposit of copies of
9581 works in national repositories, principally the National Museum.  Copies of
9582 books published in the United Kingdom must be deposited in the British
9583 Library. The German Copyright Act provides for a Registrar of Authors where
9584 the author's true name can be filed in the case of anonymous or pseudonymous
9585 works. Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">International Intellectual Property Law,
9586 Cases and Materials</em> (New York: Foundation Press, 2001),
9587 153&#8211;54.  </p></div></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 15. Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>Kapittel 15. Konklusjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
9588 Det er mer enn trettifem millioner mennesker over hele verden med
9589 AIDS-viruset. Tjuefem millioner av dem bor i Afrika sør for Sahara.  Sytten
9590 millioner har allerede dødd.  Sytten millioner afrikanere er prosentvis
9591 proporsjonalt med syv millioner amerikanere.  Viktigere er det at dette er
9592 17 millioner afrikanere.
9593 </p><p>
9594 Det finnes ingen kur for AIDS, men det finnes medisiner som kan hemme
9595 sykdommens utvikling.  Disse antiretrovirale terapiene er fortsatt
9596 eksperimentelle, men de har hatt en dramatisk effekt allerede.  I USA øker
9597 AIDS-pasienter som regelmessig tar en cocktail av disse medisinene sin
9598 levealder med ti til tjue år. For noen gjøre medisinene sykdommen nesten
9599 usynlig.
9600 </p><p>
9601 Disse medisinene er dyre.  Da de ble først introdusert i USA, kostet de
9602 mellom $10 000 og $15 000 pr. person hvert år.  I dag koster noen av dem $25
9603 000 pr. år.  Med disse prisene har, selvfølgelig, ingen afrikansk stat  råd
9604 til medisinen for det store flertall av sine innbyggere: $15 000 er tredve
9605 ganger brutto nasjonalprodukt pr. innbygger i Zimbabwe.  Med slike priser er
9606 disse medisinene fullstendig utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id2625308" href="#ftn.id2625308" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
9607 </p><p>
9608
9609
9610 Disse prisene er ikke høye fordi ingrediensene til medisinene er dyre.
9611 Disse prisene er høye fordi medisinene er beskyttet av patenter.
9612 Farmasiselskapene som produserer disse livreddende blandingene nyter minst
9613 tjue års monopol på sine oppfinnelser.  De bruker denne monopolmakten til å
9614 hente ut så mye de kan fra markedet.  Ved hjelp av denne makten holder de
9615 prisene høye.
9616 </p><p>
9617 Det er mange som er skeptiske til patenter, spesielt patenter på
9618 medisiner. Det er ikke jeg. Faktisk av alle forskningsområder som kan være
9619 støttet av patenter, er forskning på medisiner, etter min mening, det
9620 klareste tilfelle der patenter er nødvendig. Patenter gir et farmasøytiske
9621 firma en viss forsikring om at hvis det lykkes i å finne opp et nytt
9622 medikament som kan behandle en sykdom, vil det kunne tjene tilbake
9623 investeringen og mer til. Dette ber sosialt et ekstremt verdifullt
9624 insentiv. Jeg er den siste personen som vil argumentere for at loven skal
9625 avskaffe dette, i det minste uten andre endringer.
9626 </p><p>
9627 Men det er én ting å støtte patenter, selv patenter på medisiner. Det er en
9628 annen ting å avgjøre hvordan en best skal håndtere en krise. Og i det
9629 afrikanske ledere begynte å erkjenne ødeleggelsen AIDS brakte, begynte de å
9630 se etter måter å importere HIV-medisiner til kostnader betydelig under
9631 markedspris.
9632 </p><p>
9633 I 1997 forsøkte Sør-Afrika seg på en tilnærming.  Landet vedtok en lov som
9634 tillot import av patenterte medisiner som hadde blitt produsert og solgt i
9635 en annen nasjons marked med godkjenning fra patenteieren.  For eksempel,
9636 hvis medisinen var solgt i India, så kunne den bli importert inn til Afrika
9637 fra India.  Dette kalles "parallellimport" og er generelt tillatt i
9638 internasjonal handelslovgivning, og spesifikt tillatt i den europeiske
9639 union.<sup>[<a name="id2625385" href="#ftn.id2625385" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
9640 </p><p>
9641 Men USA var imot lovendringen.  Og de nøyde seg ikke med å være imot. Som
9642 International Intellectual Property Association karakteriserte det,
9643 "Myndighetene i USA presset Sør-Afrika &#8230; til å ikke tillate tvungen
9644 lisensiering eller parallellimport"<sup>[<a name="id2622372" href="#ftn.id2622372" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup>
9645 Gjennom kontoret til USAs handelsrepresentant (USTR), ba myndighetene
9646 Sør-Afrika om å endre loven&#8212;og for å legge press bak den
9647 forespørselen, listet USTR i 1998 opp Sør-Afrika som et land som burde
9648 vurderes for handelsrestriksjoner.  Samme år gikk mer enn førti
9649 farmasiselskaper til retten for å utfordre myndighetenes handlinger. USA
9650 fikk selskap av andre myndigheter fra EU.  Deres påstand, og påstanden til
9651 farmasiselskapene, var at Sør-Afrika brøt sine internasjonale forpliktelser
9652 ved å diskriminere mot en bestemt type patenter&#8212;farmasøytiske
9653 patenter.  Kravet fra disse myndighetene, med USA i spissen, var at
9654 Sør-Afrika skulle respektere disse patentene på samme måte som alle andre
9655 patenter, uavhengig av eventuell effekt på behandlingen av AIDS i
9656 Sør-Afrika.<sup>[<a name="id2625451" href="#ftn.id2625451" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
9657 </p><p>
9658 Vi bør sette intervensjonen til USA i sammenheng.  Det er ingen tvil om at
9659 patenter ikke er den viktigste årsaken til at Afrikanere ikke har tilgang
9660 til medisiner.  Fattigdom og den totale mangel på effektivt helsevesen betyr
9661 mer. Men uansett om patenter er en viktigste grunnen eller ikke, så har
9662 prisen på medisiner en effekt på etterspørselen, og patenter påvirker
9663 prisen. Så uansett, massiv eller marginal, så var det en effekt av våre
9664 myndigheters intervensjon for å stoppe flyten av medisiner inn til Afrika.
9665 </p><p>
9666 Ved å stoppe flyten av HIV-behandling til Afrika, sikret ikke myndighetene i
9667 USA medisiner til USA borgere. Dette er ikke som hvete (hvis de spise det så
9668 kan ikke vi spise det). Det som USA i effekt intervenerte for å stoppe, var
9669 flyten av kunnskap: Informasjon om hvordan en kan ta kjemikalier som finnes
9670 i Afrika og gjøre disse kjemikaliene om til medisiner som kan redde 15 til
9671 30 millioner liv.
9672 </p><p>
9673 Intervensjonen fra USA ville heller ikke beskytte fortjenesten til
9674 medisinselskapene i USA&#8212; i hvert fall ikke betydelig.  Det var jo ikke
9675 slik at disse landene hadde mulighet til å kjøpe medisinene til de prisene
9676 som medisinselskapene forlangte.  Igjen var afrikanerne for fattige til å ha
9677 råd til disse medisinene til de tilbudte prisene.  Å blokkere for
9678 parallellimport av disse medisinene ville ikke øke salget til de amerikanske
9679 selskapene betydelig.
9680 </p><p>
9681 I stedet var argumentet til fordel for restriksjoner på denne flyten av
9682 informasjon, som var nødvendig for å redde millioner av liv, et argument om
9683 eiendoms ukrenkelighet.<sup>[<a name="id2625545" href="#ftn.id2625545" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup>  Det var på
9684 grunn av at "intellektuell eiendom" ville bli krenket at disse medisinene
9685 ikke skulle flomme inn til Afrika.  Det var prinsippet om viktigheten av
9686 "intellektuell eiendom" som fikk disse myndighetsaktørene til å intervenere
9687 mot Sør-Afrikas mottiltak mot AIDS.
9688 </p><p>
9689 La oss ta et skritt tilbake for et øyeblikk.  En gang om tredve år vil våre
9690 barn se tilbake på oss og spørre, hvordan kunne vi la dette skje?  Hvordan
9691 kunne vi tillate å gjennomføre en politikk hvis direkte kostnad var få 15
9692 til 30 millioner afrikanere til å dø raskere, og hvis eneste virkelige
9693 fordel var å opprettholde "ukrenkeligheten" til en idé?  Hva slags
9694 berettigelse kan noen sinne eksistere for en politikk som resulterer i så
9695 mange døde?  Hva slags galskap er det egentlig som tillater at så mange dør
9696 for slik en abstraksjon?
9697 </p><p>
9698 Noen skylder på farmasiselskapene.  Det gjør ikke jeg.  De er selskaper, og
9699 deres ledere er lovpålagt å tjene penger for selskapene.  De presser på for
9700 en bestemt patentpolitikk, ikke på grunn av idealer, men fordi det er dette
9701 som gjør at de tjener mest penger.  Og dette gjør kun at de tjener mest
9702 penger på grunn av en slags korrupsjon i vårt politiske system&#8212; en
9703 korrupsjon som farmasiselskapene helt klart ikke er ansvarlige for.
9704 </p><p>
9705 Denne korrupsjonen er våre egne politikeres manglende integritet.  For
9706 medisinprodusentene ville elske&#8212;sier de selv, og jeg tror dem &#8212;
9707 å selge sine medisiner så billig som de kan til land i Afrika og andre
9708 steder. Det er utfordringer de må løse å sikre at medisinene ikke kommer
9709 tilbake til USA, men dette er bare teknologiske utfordring. De kan bli
9710 overvunnet.
9711 </p><p>
9712
9713 Et annet problem kan derimot ikke løses. Det er frykten for at en politiker
9714 som skal vise seg og kaller inn lederne hos medisinprodusentene til høring i
9715 senatet eller representantenes hus og spør, "hvordan har det seg at du kan
9716 selge HIV-medisinen i Afrika for bare $1 pr. pille, mens samme pille koster
9717 en amerikansker $1500?" Da det ikke finnes et "kjapt svar" på det
9718 spørsmålet, ville effekten bli regulering av priser i Amerika.
9719 Medisinprodusentene unngår dermed denne spiralen ved å sikre at det første
9720 steget ikke tas.  De forsterker idéen om at eierrettigheter skal være
9721 ukrenkelige.  De legger seg på en rasjonell strategi i en irrasjonell
9722 omgivelse, med den utilsiktede konsekvens at kanskje millioner dør.  Og den
9723 rasjonelle strategien rammes dermed inn ved hjel av dette
9724 ideal&#8212;helligheten til en idé som kalles "immaterielle rettigheter".
9725 </p><p>
9726 Så når du konfronteres av ditt barns sunne fornuft, hva vil du si?  Når den
9727 sunne fornuften hos en generasjon endelig gjør opprør mot hva vi har gjort,
9728 hvordan vil vi rettferdiggjøre det?  Hva er argumentet?
9729 </p><p>
9730 En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk støtte til
9731 patentsystemet uten å måtte nå alle overalt på nøyaktig samme måte. På samme
9732 måte som en fornuftig opphavsrettspolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk
9733 støtte til et opphavsretts-system uten å måtte regulere spredningen av
9734 kultur perfekt og for alltid.  En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for
9735 og gi sterk støtte til et patentsystem uten å måtte blokkere spredning av
9736 medisiner til et land som uansett ikke er rikt nok til å ha råd til
9737 markedsprisen.  En fornuftig politikk kan en dermed si kunne være en
9738 balansert politikk.  For det meste av vår historie har både opphavsrett- og
9739 patentpolitikken i denne forstand vært balansert.
9740 </p><p>
9741
9742 Men vi som kultur har mistet denne følelsen for balanse.  Vi har mistet det
9743 kritiske blikket som hjelper oss til å se forskjellen mellom sannhet og
9744 ekstremisme.  En slags eiendomsfundamentalisme, uten grunnlag i vår
9745 tradisjon, hersker nå i vår kultur&#8212;sært, og med konsekvenser mer
9746 alvorlig for spredningen av idéer og kultur enn nesten enhver annen politisk
9747 enkeltavgjørelse vi som demokrati kan fatte.  En enkel idé blender oss, og
9748 under dekke av mørket skjer mye som de fleste av oss ville avvist hvis vi
9749 hadde fulgt med.  Så ukritisk aksepterer vi idéen om eierskap til idéer at
9750 vi ikke engang legger merke til hvor uhyrlig det er å nekte tilgang til
9751 idéer for et folk som dør uten dem.  Så ukritisk aksepterer vi idéen om
9752 eiendom til kulturen at vi ikke engang stiller spørsmål ved når kontrollen
9753 over denne eiendommen fjerner vår evne, som folk, til å utvikle vår kultur
9754 demokratisk.  Blindhet blir vår sunne fornuft, og utfordringen for enhver
9755 som vil gjenvinne retten til å dyrke vår kultur er å finne en måte å få
9756 denne sunne fornuften til å åpne sine øyne.
9757 </p><p>
9758 Så langt sover sunn fornuft.  Det er intet opprør.  Sunn fornuft ser ennå
9759 ikke hva det er å gjøre opprør mot.  Ekstremismen som nå dominerer denne
9760 debatten resonerer med idéer som virker naturlige, og resonansen er
9761 forsterket av våre moderne RCA-ene.  De fører en frenetisk krig for å
9762 bekjempe "piratvirksomhet" og knuser kreativitetskultur.  De forsvarer idéen
9763 om "kreativt eierskap", mens de endrer ekte skapere til moderne
9764 leilendinger.  De blir fornærmet av idéen om at rettigheter skulle være
9765 balanserte, selv om hver av hovedaktørene i denne innholdskrigen selv hadde
9766 fordeler av et mer balansert ideal.  Hykleriet rår.  Men i en by som
9767 Washington blir ikke hykleriet en gang lagt merke til.  Mektige lobbyister,
9768 kompliserte problemer og MTV-oppmerksomhetsspenn gir en "perfekt storm" for
9769 fri kultur.
9770 </p><p>
9771 I august 2003 brøt en kamp ut i USA om en avgjørelse fra World Intellectual
9772 Property Organiation om å avlyse et møte.<sup>[<a name="id2625670" href="#ftn.id2625670" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke med interressenter hadde WIPO
9773 bestemt å avholde et møte for å diskutere "åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter
9774 for å skape goder for felleskapet".  Disse prosjektene som hadde lyktes i å
9775 produsere goder for fellesskapet uten å basere seg eksklusivt på bruken av
9776 proprietære immaterielle rettigheter.  Eksempler inkluderer internettet og
9777 verdensveven, begge som ble utviklet på grunnlag av protokoller i
9778 allemannseie.  Det hadde med en begynnende trend for å støtte åpne
9779 akademiske tidsskrifter, og inkluderte Public Library of Science-prosjektet
9780 som jeg beskriver i etterordet.  Det inkluderte et prosjekt for a utvikle
9781 enkeltnukleotidforskjeller (SNPs), som er antatt å få stor betydning i
9782 biomedisinsk forskning.  (Dette ideelle prosjektet besto av et konsortium av
9783 Wellcome Trust og farmasøytiske og teknologiske selskaper, inkludert
9784 Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb,
9785 Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola, Novartis, Pfizer, og
9786 Searle.)  Det inkluderte Globalt posisjonssystem (GPS) som Ronald Reagen
9787 frigjorde tidlig på 1980-tallet.  Og det inkluderte "åpen kildekode og fri
9788 programvare". <a class="indexterm" name="id2625847"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2625856"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2625862"></a>
9789 </p><p>
9790 Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles
9791 perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell
9792 ekstremisme. I stedet, hos alle disse, ble immaterielle rettigheter
9793 balansert med avtaler om å holde tilgang åpen, eller for å legge
9794 begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
9795 </p><p>
9796 Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen
9797 ideell.<sup>[<a name="id2625887" href="#ftn.id2625887" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
9798 både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker.  De involverte i hovedsak
9799 vitenskapen, men fra mange perspektiver.  Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for
9800 denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som
9801 drev med immaterielle rettighetsspørsmål.
9802 </p><p>
9803
9804 Faktisk fikk jeg en gang offentlig kjeft for å ikke anerkjenne dette faktum
9805 om WIPO.  I februar 2003 leverte jeg et hovedinnlegg på en forberedende
9806 konferanse for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).  På en
9807 pressekonferanse før innlegget, ble jeg spurt hva jeg skulle snakke om.  Jeg
9808 svarte at jeg skulle snakke litt om viktigheten av balanse rundt
9809 immaterielle verdier for utviklingen av informasjonssamfunnet.  Ordstyreren
9810 på arrangementet avbrøt meg da brått for å informere meg og journalistene
9811 tilstede at ingen spørsmål rundt immaterielle verdier ville bli diskutert av
9812 WSIS, da slike spørsmål kun skulle diskuteres i WIPO.  I innlegget jeg hadde
9813 forberedt var temaet om immaterielle verdier en forholdvis liten del av det
9814 hele.  Men etter denne forbløffende uttalelsen, gjorde jeg immaterielle
9815 verdier til hovedfokus for mitt innlegg.  Det var ikke mulig å snakke om et
9816 "informasjonssamfunn" uten at en også snakket om andelen av informasjon og
9817 kultur som ikke er vernet av opphavsretten.  Mitt innlegg gjorde ikke min
9818 overivrige moderator veldig glad.  Og hun hadde uten tvil rett i at omfanget
9819 til vern av immaterielle rettigheter normalt hørte inn under WIPO.  Men
9820 etter mitt syn, kunne det ikke bli for mye diskusjon om hvor mye
9821 immaterielle rettigheter som trengs, siden etter mitt syn, hadde selve ideen
9822 om en balanse rundt immaterielle rettigheter hadde gått tapt.
9823 </p><p>
9824 Så uansett om WSIS kan diskutere balanse i intellektuell eiendom eller ikke,
9825 så hadde jeg trodd det var tatt for gitt at WIPO kunne og burde.  Og dermed
9826 møtet om "åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape fellesgoder" virker å
9827 passe perfekt for WIPOs agenda.
9828 </p><p>
9829 Men det er ett prosjekt i listen som er svært kontroversielt, i hvert fall
9830 blant lobbyister. Dette prosjektet er "åpen kildekode og fri
9831 programvare". Microsoft spesielt er skeptisk til diskusjon om emnet. Fra
9832 deres perspektiv, ville en konferanse for å diskutere åpen kildekode og fri
9833 programvare være som en konferanse for å diskutere Apples operativsystem.
9834 Både åpen kildekode og fri programvare konkurrerer med Microsofts
9835 programvare.  Og internasjonalt har mange myndigheter begynt å utforske krav
9836 om at de skal bruke åpen kildekode eller fri programvare, i stedet for
9837 "proprietær programvare," til sine egne interne behov.
9838 </p><p>
9839 Jeg mener ikke å gå inn i den debatten her.  Det er viktig kun for å gjøre
9840 det klart at skillet ikke er mellom kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell
9841 programvare.  Det er mange viktige selskaper som er fundamentalt avhengig av
9842 fri programvare, der IBM er den mest fremtredende.  IBM har i stadig større
9843 grad skiftet sitt fokus til GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, det mest berømte
9844 biten av "fri programvare"&#8212;og IBM er helt klart en kommersiell
9845 aktør. Dermed er det å støtte "fri programvare" ikke å motsette seg
9846 kommersielle aktører.  Det er i stedet å støtte en måte å drive
9847 programvareutvikling som er forskjellig fra Microsofts.<sup>[<a name="id2625728" href="#ftn.id2625728" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2626040"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2626047"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2626053"></a>
9848 <a class="indexterm" name="id2626059"></a>
9849 </p><p>
9850
9851 Mer viktig for våre formål, er at å støtte "åpen kildekode og fri
9852 programvare" ikke er å motsette seg opphavsrett. "Åpen kildekode og fri
9853 programvare" er ikke programvare uten opphavsrettslig vern. Istedet, på
9854 samme måte som programvare fra Microsoft, insisterer opphavsrettsinnehaverne
9855 av fri programvare ganske sterkt at vilkårene i deres programvarelisens blir
9856 respektert av de som tar i bruk fri programvare.  Vilkårene i den lisensen
9857 er uten tvil forskjellig fra vilkårene i en proprietær programvarelisens.
9858 For eksempel krever fri programvare lisensiert med den generelle offentlige
9859 lisensen (GPL), at kildekoden for programvare gjøres tilgjengelig for alle
9860 som endrer og videredistribuerer programvaren.  Men dette kravet er kun
9861 effektivt hvis opphavsrett råder over programvare.  Hvis opphavsretten ikke
9862 råder over programvare, så kunne ikke fri programvare pålegge slike krav på
9863 de som tar i bruk programvaren.  Den er dermed like avhengig av
9864 opphavsrettsloven som Microsoft.
9865 </p><p>
9866 Det er dermed forståelig at Microsoft, som utviklere av proprietær
9867 programvare, gikk imot et slikt WIPO-møte, og like fullt forståelig at de
9868 bruker sine lobbyister til å få USAs myndigheter til å gå imot møtet.  Og
9869 ganske riktig, det er akkurat dette som i følge rapporter hadde skjedd.  I
9870 følge Jonathan Krim i <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, lyktes
9871 Microsofts lobbyister i å få USAs myndigheter til å legge ned veto mot et
9872 slikt møte.<sup>[<a name="id2626123" href="#ftn.id2626123" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
9873 møtet avlyst.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2626138"></a>
9874 </p><p>
9875 Jeg klandrer ikke Microsoft for å gjøre det de kan for å fremme sine egne
9876 interesser i samsvar med loven. Og lobbyvirksomhet mot myndighetene er
9877 åpenbart i samsvar med loven. Det er ikke noe overraskende her med deres
9878 lobbyvirksomhet, og ikke veldig overraskende at den mektigste
9879 programvareprodusenten i USA har lyktes med sin lobbyvirksomhet.
9880 </p><p>
9881 Det som var overraskende var USAs regjerings begrunnelse for å være imot
9882 møtet.  Igjen, sitert av Krim, forklarte Lois Boland, direktør for
9883 internasjonale forbindelser ved USAs patent og varemerkekontor, at
9884 "programvare med åpen kildekode går imot til formålet til WIPO, som er å
9885 fremme immaterielle rettigheter.".  Hun skal i følge sitatet ha sagt, "Å
9886 holde et møte som har som formål å fraskrive seg eller frafalle slike
9887 rettigheter synes for oss å være i strid med formålene til WIPO."
9888 </p><p>
9889 Disse utsagnene er forbløffende på flere nivåer.
9890 </p><p>
9891 For det første er de ganske enkelt ikke riktige.  Som jeg beskrev, er det
9892 meste av åpen kildekode og fri programvare fundamentalt avhengig av den
9893 immaterielle retten kalt "opphavsrett".  Uten den vil begrensningene
9894 definert av disse lisensene ikke fungere. Dermed er det å si at de "går
9895 imot" formålet om å fremme immaterielle rettigheter å avsløre en
9896 ekstraordinær mangel på forståelse&#8212;den type feil som er tilgivelig hos
9897 en førsteårs jusstudent, men pinlig fra en høyt plassert statstjenestemann
9898 som håndterer utfordringer rundt immaterielle rettigheter.
9899 </p><p>
9900 For det andre, hvem har noen gang hevdet at WIPOs eksklusive mål var å
9901 "fremme" immaterielle rettigheter maksimalt?  Som jeg fikk kjeft om på den
9902 forberedende konferansen til WSIS, skal WIPO vurdere ikke bare hvordan best
9903 beskytte immaterielle rettigheter, men også hva som er den beste balansen
9904 rundt immaterielle rettigheter.  Som enhver økonom og advokat vet, er det
9905 vanskelige spørsmålet i immaterielle rettighetsjuss å finne den balansen.
9906 Men at det skulle være en grense, trodde jeg, var ubestridt.  Man ønsker å
9907 spørre Ms. Boland om generelle medisiner (medisiner basert på medisiner med
9908 patenter som er utløpt) i strid med WIPOs oppdrag?  Svekker allemannseie
9909 immaterielle rettigheter?  Ville det vært bedre om internettets protokoller
9910 hadde vært patentert?
9911 </p><p>
9912 For det tredje, selv om en tror at formålet med WIPO var å maksimere
9913 immaterielle rettigheter, så innehas immaterielle rettigheter, i vår
9914 tradisjon, av individer og selskaper.  De får bestemme hva som skal gjøres
9915 med disse rettighetene, igjen fordi det er <span class="emphasis"><em>de</em></span> som eier
9916 rettighetene. Hvis de ønsker å "frafalle" eller "frasi" seg sine
9917 rettigheter, så er det helt etter boka i vår tradisjon.  Når Bill Gates gir
9918 bort mer enn $20 milliarder til gode formål, så er ikke det uforenelig med
9919 målene til eiendomssystemet.  Det er heller tvert i mot, akkurat hva
9920 eiendomssysstemet er ment å oppnå, at individer har retten til å bestemme
9921 hva de vil gjøre med <span class="emphasis"><em>sin</em></span> eiendom.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2626267"></a>
9922 </p><p>
9923
9924 Når Ms. Boland sier at det er noe galt med et møte "som har som sitt formål
9925 å fraskrive eller frafalle slike rettigheter", så sier hun at WIPO har en
9926 interesse i å påvirke valgene til enkeltpersoner som eier immaterielle
9927 rettigheter.  At på en eller annen WIPOs oppdrag bør være å stoppe individer
9928 fra å "fraskrive" eller "frafalle" seg sine immaterielle rettigheter.  At
9929 interessen til WIPO ikke bare er  maksimale immaterielle rettigheter, men
9930 også at de skal utøves på den mest ekstreme og restriktive mulig måten.
9931 </p><p>
9932 Det er en historie om akkurat et slikt eierskapssystem som er velkjent i den
9933 anglo-amerikansk tradisjon.  Det kalles "føydalisme". Under føydalismen var
9934 eiendommer ikke bare kontrollert av et relativt lite antall individer og
9935 aktører.  Men det føydale systemet hadde en sterk interesse i å sikre at
9936 landeier i systemet ikke svekke føydalismen ved å frigjøre folkene og
9937 eiendomene som de kontrollerte til det frie markedet.  Føydalismen var
9938 avhengig av maksimal kontroll og konsentrasjon.  Det sloss mot enhver frihet
9939 som kunne forstyrre denne kontrollen.
9940 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2626307"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2626314"></a><p>
9941 Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
9942 vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2626326" href="#ftn.id2626326" class="footnote">204</a>]</sup>
9943 Vi kommer til å få et informasjonssamfunn.  Så mye er sikkert.  Vårt eneste
9944 valg nå er hvorvidt dette informasjonssamfunnet skal være
9945 <span class="emphasis"><em>fritt</em></span> eller <span class="emphasis"><em>føydalt</em></span>.  Trenden er
9946 mot det føydale.
9947 </p><p>
9948 Da denne bataljen brøt ut, blogget jeg om dette.  En heftig debatt brøt ut i
9949 kommentarfeltet.  Ms. Boland hadde en rekke støttespillere som forsøkte å
9950 vise hvorfor hennes kommentarer ga mening.  Men det var spesielt en
9951 kommentar som gjorde meg trist.  En anonym kommentator skrev,
9952 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9953
9954 George, du misforstår Lessig: Han snakker bare om verden slik den burde være
9955 ("målet til WIPO, og målet til enhver regjering, bør være å fremme den
9956 riktige balansen for immaterielle rettigheter, ikke bare å fremme
9957 immaterielle rettigheter"), ikke som den er.  Hvis vi snakket om verden slik
9958 den er, så har naturligvis Boland ikke sagt noe galt.  Men i verden slik
9959 Lessig vil at den skal være, er det åpenbart at hun har sagt noe galt.  En
9960 må alltid være oppmerksom på forskjellen mellom Lessigs og vår verden.
9961 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9962 Jeg gikk glipp av ironien først gangen jeg leste den. Jeg lese den raskt og
9963 trodde forfatteren støttet idéen om at det våre myndigheter burde gjøre var
9964 å søke balanse. (Min kritikk av Ms Boland, selvfølgelig, var ikke om
9965 hvorvidt hun søkte balanse eller ikke; min kritikk var at hennes kommentarer
9966 avslørte en feil kun en førsteårs jusstudent burde kunne gjøre. Jeg har noen
9967 illusjon om ekstremismen hos våre myndigheter, uansett om de er
9968 republikanere eller demokrater. Min eneste tilsynelatende illusjon er
9969 hvorvidt våre myndigheter bør snakke sant eller ikke.)
9970 </p><p>
9971 Det var derimot åpenbart at den som postet meldingen ikke støttet idéen.  I
9972 stedet latterliggjorde forfatteren selve idéen om at i den virkelig verden
9973 skulle "målet" til myndighetene være "å fremme den riktige balanse" for
9974 immaterielle rettigheter.  Det var åpenbart tåpelig for ham.  Og det
9975 avslørte åpenbart, trodde han, min egen tåpelige utopisme.  "Typisk for en
9976 akademiker", kunne forfatteren like gjerne ha fortsatt.
9977 </p><p>
9978 Jeg forstår kritikken av akademisk utopisme.  Jeg mener også at utopisme er
9979 tåpelig, og jeg vil være blant de første til å gjøre narr av de absurde
9980 urealistiske idealer til akademikere gjennom historien (og ikke bare i vårt
9981 eget lands historie).
9982 </p><p>
9983 Men når det har blitt dumt å anta at rollen til våre myndigheter bør være å
9984 "oppnå balanse", da kan du regne meg blant de dumme, for det betyr at dette
9985 faktisk har blitt ganske seriøst.  Hvis det bør være åpenbart for alle at
9986 myndighetene ikke søker å oppnå balanse, at myndighetene ganske enkelt et
9987 verktøy for de mektigste lobbyistene, at ideen om å forvente bedre av
9988 myndighetene er absurd, at ideen om å kreve at myndighetene snakker sant og
9989 ikke lyver bare er naiv, hva har da vi, det mektigste demokratiet i verden,
9990 blitt?
9991 </p><p>
9992
9993 Det kan være galskap å forvente at en mektig myndigshetsperson skal si
9994 sannheten. Det kan være galskap å tro at myndighetenes politikk skal gjøre
9995 mer enn å tjene de mektigste interesser. Det kan være galskap å argumentere
9996 for å bevare en tradisjon som har vært en del av vår tradisjon for
9997 mesteparten av vår historie&#8212;fri kultur.
9998 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2626451"></a><p>
9999 Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger.  Snart. Det finnes
10000 øyeblikk av håp i denne kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte
10001 mindre strenge eierskapsregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere
10002 medieeierskap, dannet det seg en en ekstraordinær koalisjon på tvers av
10003 partiene for å bekjempe endringen. For kanskje første gang i historien
10004 organiserte interesser så forskjellige som NRA, ACLU, moveon.org, William
10005 Safire, Ted Turner og Codepink Women for Piece seg for å protestere på denne
10006 endringen i FCC-reglene.  Så mange som 700 000 brev ble sendt til FCC med
10007 krav om flere høringer og et annet resultat.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2626472"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2626479"></a>
10008 </p><p>
10009 Disse protestene stoppet ikke FCC, men like etter stemte en bred koalisjon i
10010 senatet for å reversere avgjørelsen i FCC. De fiendtlige høringene som ledet
10011 til avstemmingen avslørte hvor mektig denne bevegelsen hadde blitt.  Det var
10012 ingen betydningsfull støtte for FCCs avgjørelse, mens det var bred og
10013 vedvarende støtte for å bekjempe ytterligere konsentrasjon i media.
10014 </p><p>
10015 Men selv denne bevegelsen går glipp av en viktig brikke i puslespillet.  Å
10016 være stor er ikke ille i seg selv. Frihet er ikke truet bare på grunn av at
10017 noen blir veldig rik, eller på grunn av at det bare er en håndfull store
10018 aktører.  Den dårlige kvaliteten til Big Macs eller Quartar Punders betyr
10019 ikke at du ikke kan få en god hamburger andre steder.
10020 </p><p>
10021 Faren med mediekonsentrasjon kommer ikke fra selve konsentrasjonen, men
10022 kommer fra føydalismen som denne konsentrasjonen fører til når den kobles
10023 til endringer i opphavsretten. Det er ikke kun at det er noen mektige
10024 selskaper som styrer en stadig voksende andel av mediene. Det er at denne
10025 konsentrasjonen kan påkalle en like oppsvulmet rekke
10026 rettigheter&#8212;eiendomsrettigheter i en historisk ekstrem form&#8212;som
10027 gjør størrelsen ille.
10028 </p><p>
10029 Det er derfor betydningsfullt at så mange vil kjempe for å kreve konkurranse
10030 og økt mangfold. Likevel, hvis kampanjen blir forstått til å kun gjelde
10031 størrelse, så er ikke det veldig overraskende. Vi amerikanere har en lang
10032 historie med å slåss mot "stort", klokt eller ikke. At vi kan være motivert
10033 til å slåss mot "store" igjen ikke noe nytt.
10034 </p><p>
10035 Det ville vært noe nytt, og noe veldig viktig, hvis like mange kan være med
10036 på en kampanje for å bekjempe økende ekstremisme bygget inn i idéen om
10037 "intellektuell eiendom".  Ikke fordi balanse er fremmed for vår
10038 tradisjon. Jeg argumenterer for at balanse er vår tradisjon.  Men fordi
10039 evnen til å tenke kritisk på omfanget av alt som kalles "eiendom" ikke er
10040 lenger er godt trent i denne tradisjonen.
10041 </p><p>
10042 Hvis vi var Akilles, så ville dette være vår hæl. Dette ville være stedet
10043 for våre tragedie.
10044 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2626571"></a><p>
10045 Mens jeg skriver disse avsluttende ordene, er nyhetene fylt med historier om
10046 at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre individer.<sup>[<a name="id2626584" href="#ftn.id2626584" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup>  Eminem har nettopp blitt saksøkt for å ha "samplet" noen andres
10047 musikk.<sup>[<a name="id2626630" href="#ftn.id2626630" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup>  Historien om hvordan Bob Dylan
10048 har "stjålet" fra en japansk forfatter har nettopp gått verden
10049 over.<sup>[<a name="id2626648" href="#ftn.id2626648" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup>  En på innsiden i
10050 Hollywood&#8212;som insisterer på at han må forbli anonym&#8212;rapporterer
10051 "en utrolig samtale med disse studiofolkene.  De har fantastisk [gammelt]
10052 innhold som de ville elske å bruke, men det kan de ikke på grunn av at de
10053 først må klarere rettighetene.  De har hauger med ungdommer som kunne gjøre
10054 fantastiske ting med innholdet, men det vil først kreve hauger med advokater
10055 for å klarere det først".  Kongressrepresentanter snakker om å gi datavirus
10056 politimyndighet for å ta ned datamaskiner som antas å bryte loven.
10057 Universiteter truer med å utvise ungdommer som bruker en datamaskin for å
10058 dele innhold.
10059 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2626664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2626688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2626695"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2626701"></a><p>
10060
10061 I mens på andre siden av Atlanteren har BBC nettopp annonsert at de vil
10062 bygge opp et "kreativt arkiv" som britiske borgere kan laste ned BBC-innhold
10063 fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.<sup>[<a name="id2626718" href="#ftn.id2626718" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup>
10064 Og i Brasil har kulturministeren, Gilberto Gil, i seg selv en folkehelt i
10065 brasiliansk musikk, slått seg sammen med Creative Commons for å gi ut
10066 innhold og frie lisenser i dette latinamerikanske landet.<sup>[<a name="id2626739" href="#ftn.id2626739" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup>  Jeg har fortalt en mørk historie.  Sannheten er
10067 mer blandet.  En teknologi har gitt oss mer frihet.  Sakte begynner noen å
10068 forstå at denne friheten trenger ikke å bety anarki.  Vi kan få med oss fri
10069 kultur inn i det tjueførste århundre, uten at artister taper og uten at
10070 potensialet for digital teknologi blir knust.  Det vil kreve omtanke, og
10071 viktigere, det vil kreve at noen omforme RCAene av i dag til Causbyere.
10072 </p><p>
10073
10074 Sunn fornuft må gjøre opprør. Den må handle for å frigjøre kulturen. Og
10075 snart, hvis dette potensialet skal noen gang bli realisert.
10076
10077
10078
10079 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2625308" href="#id2625308" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
10080
10081 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, "Final Report: Integrating
10082 Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy" (London, 2002),
10083 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10084 #55</a>. I følge en pressemelding fra verdens helseorganisasjon sendt ut
10085 9. juli 2002, mottar kun 320 000 av de 6 millioner som trenger medisiner i
10086 utviklingsland dem de trenger&#8212;og halvparten av dem er i Brasil.
10087 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2625385" href="#id2625385" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
10088
10089 Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: <em class="citetitle">Who
10090 Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New Press, 2003),
10091 37.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2625394"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2625402"></a>
10092 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2622372" href="#id2622372" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
10093
10094
10095 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10096 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, a
10097 Report Prepared for the World Intellectual Property Organization</em>
10098 (Washington, D.C., 2000), 14, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #56</a>. For a firsthand
10099 account of the struggle over South Africa, see Hearing Before the
10100 Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, House
10101 Committee on Government Reform, H. Rep., 1st sess., Ser. No. 106-126 (22
10102 July 1999), 150&#8211;57 (statement of James Love).
10103 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2625451" href="#id2625451" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
10104
10105
10106 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10107 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, en
10108 rapport forberedt for the World Intellectual Property
10109 Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2625545" href="#id2625545" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
10110
10111
10112
10113 See Sabin Russell, "New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's Needs at
10114 Odds with Firms' Profit Motive," <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
10115 Chronicle</em>, 24 May 1999, A1, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #57</a> ("compulsory licenses
10116 and gray markets pose a threat to the entire system of intellectual property
10117 protection"); Robert Weissman, "AIDS and Developing Countries: Democratizing
10118 Access to Essential Medicines," <em class="citetitle">Foreign Policy in
10119 Focus</em> 4:23 (August 1999), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #58</a> (describing
10120 U.S. policy); John A. Harrelson, "TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents, and the
10121 HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between Intellectual Property
10122 Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis," <em class="citetitle">Widener Law Symposium
10123 Journal</em> (Spring 2001): 175.
10124
10125 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2625670" href="#id2625670" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
10126
10127 Jonathan Krim, "The Quiet War over Open-Source," <em class="citetitle">Washington
10128 Post</em>, august 2003, E1, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #59</a>; William New, "Global
10129 Group's Shift on `Open Source' Meeting Spurs Stir," <em class="citetitle">National
10130 Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19. august 2003, tilgjengelig  fra
10131 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #60</a>; William New,
10132 "U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks at WIPO," <em class="citetitle">National
10133 Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra
10134 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #61</a>.
10135 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2625887" href="#id2625887" class="para">201</a>] </sup>
10136
10137 Jeg bør nevne at jeg var en av folkene som ba WIPO om dette møtet.
10138 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2625728" href="#id2625728" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
10139
10140
10141 Microsofts posisjon om åpen kildekode og fri programvare er mer
10142 sofistikert.  De har flere ganger forklart at de har ikke noe problem med
10143 programvare som er "åpen kildekode" eller programvare som er allemannseie.
10144 Microsofts prinsipielle motstand er mot "fri programvare" lisensiert med en
10145 "copyleft"-lisens, som betyr at lisensen krever at de som lisensierer skal
10146 adoptere same vilkår for ethvert avledet verk.  Se Bradford L. Smith, "The
10147 Future of Software: Enabling the Marketplace to Decide,"
10148 <em class="citetitle">Government Policy Toward Open Source Software</em>
10149 (Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies,
10150 American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 2002), 69,
10151 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10152 #62</a>. Se også Craig Mundie, Microsoft senior vice president,
10153 <em class="citetitle">The Commercial Software Model</em>, diskusjon ved New York
10154 University Stern School of Business (3. mai 2001), tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #63</a>.
10155 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2626123" href="#id2626123" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
10156
10157
10158 Krim, "The Quiet War over Open-Source," tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #64</a>.
10159 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2626326" href="#id2626326" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
10160
10161 Se Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
10162 210&#8211;20.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2625445"></a>
10163 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2626584" href="#id2626584" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
10164
10165
10166 John Borland, "RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers," CNET News.com, september 2003,
10167 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10168 #65</a>; Paul R. La Monica, "Music Industry Sues Swappers," CNN/Money, 8
10169 september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #66</a>; Soni Sangha og Phyllis
10170 Furman sammen med Robert Gearty, "Sued for a Song, N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old Among
10171 261 Cited as Sharers," <em class="citetitle">New York Daily News</em>,
10172 9. september 2003, 3; Frank Ahrens, "RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets;
10173 Single Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,"
10174 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10. september 2003, E1; Katie Dean,
10175 "Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA," <em class="citetitle">Wired News</em>,
10176 10. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #67</a>.
10177 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2626630" href="#id2626630" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
10178
10179
10180 Jon Wiederhorn, "Eminem Gets Sued &#8230; by a Little Old Lady," mtv.com,
10181 17. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #68</a>.
10182 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2626648" href="#id2626648" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
10183
10184
10185
10186 Kenji Hall, Associated Press, "Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for Dylan
10187 Songs," Kansascity.com, 9. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #69</a>.
10188
10189 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2626718" href="#id2626718" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
10190
10191 "BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public," pressemelding fra BBC,
10192 24. august 2003, tilgjengelig  fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #70</a>.
10193 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2626739" href="#id2626739" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
10194
10195
10196 "Creative Commons and Brazil," Creative Commons Weblog, 6. august 2003,
10197 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10198 #71</a>.
10199 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 16. Etterord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-afterword"></a>Kapittel 16. Etterord</h2></div></div></div><div class="toc"><p><b>Innholdsfortegnelse</b></p><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section"><a href="#themsoon">Dem, snart</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><p>
10200
10201
10202
10203 I hvert fall noen av de som har lest helt hit vil være enig med meg om at
10204 noe må gjøres for å endre retningen vi holder.  Balansen i denne boken
10205 kartlegger hva som kan gjøres.
10206 </p><p>
10207 Jeg deler dette kartet i to deler: det som enhver kan gjøre nå, og det som
10208 krever hjelp fra lovgiverne.  Hvis det er en lærdom vi kan trekke fra
10209 historien om å endre på sunn fornuft, så er det at det krever å endre
10210 hvordan mange mennesker tenker på den aktuelle saken.
10211 </p><p>
10212 Det betyr at denne bevegelsen må starte i gatene.  Det må rekrutteres et
10213 signifikant antall foreldre, lærere, bibliotekarer, skapere, forfattere,
10214 musikere, filmskapere, forskere&#8212;som alle må fortelle denne historien
10215 med sine egne ord, og som kan fortelle sine naboer hvorfor denne kampen er
10216 så viktig.
10217 </p><p>
10218 Når denne bevegelsen har hatt sin effekt i gatene, så er det et visst håp om
10219 at det kan ha effekt i Washington.  Vi er fortsatt et demokrati. Hva folk
10220 mener betyr noe.  Ikke så mye som det burde, i hvert fall når en RCA står
10221 imot, men likevel, det betyr noe.  Og dermed vil jeg skissere, i den andre
10222 delen som følger, endringer som kongressen kunne gjøre for å bedre sikre en
10223 fri kultur.
10224 </p><div class="section" title="Oss, nå"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="usnow"></a>Oss, nå</h2></div></div></div><p>
10225 Common sense is with the copyright warriors because the debate so far has
10226 been framed at the extremes&#8212;as a grand either/or: either property or
10227 anarchy, either total control or artists won't be paid. If that really is
10228 the choice, then the warriors should win.
10229 </p><p>
10230 The mistake here is the error of the excluded middle. There are extremes in
10231 this debate, but the extremes are not all that there is. There are those who
10232 believe in maximal copyright&#8212;"All Rights Reserved"&#8212; and those
10233 who reject copyright&#8212;"No Rights Reserved." The "All Rights Reserved"
10234 sorts believe that you should ask permission before you "use" a copyrighted
10235 work in any way. The "No Rights Reserved" sorts believe you should be able
10236 to do with content as you wish, regardless of whether you have permission or
10237 not.
10238 </p><p>
10239
10240 When the Internet was first born, its initial architecture effectively
10241 tilted in the "no rights reserved" direction. Content could be copied
10242 perfectly and cheaply; rights could not easily be controlled. Thus,
10243 regardless of anyone's desire, the effective regime of copyright under the
10244 original design of the Internet was "no rights reserved." Content was
10245 "taken" regardless of the rights. Any rights were effectively unprotected.
10246 </p><p>
10247 This initial character produced a reaction (opposite, but not quite equal)
10248 by copyright owners. That reaction has been the topic of this book. Through
10249 legislation, litigation, and changes to the network's design, copyright
10250 holders have been able to change the essential character of the environment
10251 of the original Internet. If the original architecture made the effective
10252 default "no rights reserved," the future architecture will make the
10253 effective default "all rights reserved." The architecture and law that
10254 surround the Internet's design will increasingly produce an environment
10255 where all use of content requires permission.  The "cut and paste" world
10256 that defines the Internet today will become a "get permission to cut and
10257 paste" world that is a creator's nightmare.
10258 </p><p>
10259 What's needed is a way to say something in the middle&#8212;neither "all
10260 rights reserved" nor "no rights reserved" but "some rights reserved"&#8212;
10261 and thus a way to respect copyrights but enable creators to free content as
10262 they see fit. In other words, we need a way to restore a set of freedoms
10263 that we could just take for granted before.
10264 </p><div class="section" title="Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="examples"></a>Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</h3></div></div></div><p>
10265 If you step back from the battle I've been describing here, you will
10266 recognize this problem from other contexts. Think about privacy. Before the
10267 Internet, most of us didn't have to worry much about data about our lives
10268 that we broadcast to the world. If you walked into a bookstore and browsed
10269 through some of the works of Karl Marx, you didn't need to worry about
10270 explaining your browsing habits to your neighbors or boss. The "privacy" of
10271 your browsing habits was assured.
10272 </p><p>
10273 Hva gjorde at det var sikret?
10274 </p><p>
10275 Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>10</a>, your privacy was
10276 assured because of an inefficient architecture for gathering data and hence
10277 a market constraint (cost) on anyone who wanted to gather that data. If you
10278 were a suspected spy for North Korea, working for the CIA, no doubt your
10279 privacy would not be assured.  But that's because the CIA would (we hope)
10280 find it valuable enough to spend the thousands required to track you. But
10281 for most of us (again, we can hope), spying doesn't pay. The highly
10282 inefficient architecture of real space means we all enjoy a fairly robust
10283 amount of privacy. That privacy is guaranteed to us by friction. Not by law
10284 (there is no law protecting "privacy" in public places), and in many places,
10285 not by norms (snooping and gossip are just fun), but instead, by the costs
10286 that friction imposes on anyone who would want to spy.
10287 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2626955"></a><p>
10288 Enter the Internet, where the cost of tracking browsing in particular has
10289 become quite tiny. If you're a customer at Amazon, then as you browse the
10290 pages, Amazon collects the data about what you've looked at. You know this
10291 because at the side of the page, there's a list of "recently viewed"
10292 pages. Now, because of the architecture of the Net and the function of
10293 cookies on the Net, it is easier to collect the data than not. The friction
10294 has disappeared, and hence any "privacy" protected by the friction
10295 disappears, too.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2626973"></a>
10296 </p><p>
10297 Amazon, of course, is not the problem. But we might begin to worry about
10298 libraries. If you're one of those crazy lefties who thinks that people
10299 should have the "right" to browse in a library without the government
10300 knowing which books you look at (I'm one of those lefties, too), then this
10301 change in the technology of monitoring might concern you. If it becomes
10302 simple to gather and sort who does what in electronic spaces, then the
10303 friction-induced privacy of yesterday disappears.
10304 </p><p>
10305
10306 It is this reality that explains the push of many to define "privacy" on the
10307 Internet. It is the recognition that technology can remove what friction
10308 before gave us that leads many to push for laws to do what friction
10309 did.<sup>[<a name="id2627008" href="#ftn.id2627008" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup> And whether you're in favor of
10310 those laws or not, it is the pattern that is important here. We must take
10311 affirmative steps to secure a kind of freedom that was passively provided
10312 before. A change in technology now forces those who believe in privacy to
10313 affirmatively act where, before, privacy was given by default.
10314 </p><p>
10315 A similar story could be told about the birth of the free software
10316 movement. When computers with software were first made available
10317 commercially, the software&#8212;both the source code and the
10318 binaries&#8212; was free. You couldn't run a program written for a Data
10319 General machine on an IBM machine, so Data General and IBM didn't care much
10320 about controlling their software.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2627046"></a>
10321 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2627057"></a><p>
10322 Dette var verden Richard Stallman ble født inn i, og mens han var forsker
10323 ved MIT, lærte han til å elske samfunnet som utviklet seg når en var fri til
10324 å utforske og fikle med programvaren som kjørte på datamaskiner. Av den
10325 smarte sorten selv, og en talentfull programmerer, begynte Stallman å basere
10326 seg frihet til å legge til eller endre på andre personers arbeid.
10327 </p><p>
10328 In an academic setting, at least, that's not a terribly radical idea. In a
10329 math department, anyone would be free to tinker with a proof that someone
10330 offered. If you thought you had a better way to prove a theorem, you could
10331 take what someone else did and change it. In a classics department, if you
10332 believed a colleague's translation of a recently discovered text was flawed,
10333 you were free to improve it. Thus, to Stallman, it seemed obvious that you
10334 should be free to tinker with and improve the code that ran a machine. This,
10335 too, was knowledge. Why shouldn't it be open for criticism like anything
10336 else?
10337 </p><p>
10338 No one answered that question. Instead, the architecture of revenue for
10339 computing changed. As it became possible to import programs from one system
10340 to another, it became economically attractive (at least in the view of some)
10341 to hide the code of your program. So, too, as companies started selling
10342 peripherals for mainframe systems. If I could just take your printer driver
10343 and copy it, then that would make it easier for me to sell a printer to the
10344 market than it was for you.
10345 </p><p>
10346
10347 Thus, the practice of proprietary code began to spread, and by the early
10348 1980s, Stallman found himself surrounded by proprietary code.  The world of
10349 free software had been erased by a change in the economics of computing. And
10350 as he believed, if he did nothing about it, then the freedom to change and
10351 share software would be fundamentally weakened.
10352 </p><p>
10353 Derfor, i 1984, startet Stallmann på et prosjekt for å bygge et fritt
10354 operativsystem, slik i hvert fall en flik av fri programvare skulle
10355 overleve.  Dette var starten på GNU-prosjektet, som "Linux"-kjernen til
10356 Linus Torvalds senere ble lagt til i for å produsere
10357 GNU/Linux-operativsystemet. <a class="indexterm" name="id2627126"></a>
10358 <a class="indexterm" name="id2627133"></a>
10359 </p><p>
10360 Stallman's technique was to use copyright law to build a world of software
10361 that must be kept free. Software licensed under the Free Software
10362 Foundation's GPL cannot be modified and distributed unless the source code
10363 for that software is made available as well. Thus, anyone building upon
10364 GPL'd software would have to make their buildings free as well. This would
10365 assure, Stallman believed, that an ecology of code would develop that
10366 remained free for others to build upon. His fundamental goal was freedom;
10367 innovative creative code was a byproduct.
10368 </p><p>
10369 Stallman was thus doing for software what privacy advocates now do for
10370 privacy. He was seeking a way to rebuild a kind of freedom that was taken
10371 for granted before. Through the affirmative use of licenses that bind
10372 copyrighted code, Stallman was affirmatively reclaiming a space where free
10373 software would survive. He was actively protecting what before had been
10374 passively guaranteed.
10375 </p><p>
10376 Finally, consider a very recent example that more directly resonates with
10377 the story of this book. This is the shift in the way academic and scientific
10378 journals are produced.
10379 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxacademocjournals"></a><p>
10380
10381 As digital technologies develop, it is becoming obvious to many that
10382 printing thousands of copies of journals every month and sending them to
10383 libraries is perhaps not the most efficient way to distribute
10384 knowledge. Instead, journals are increasingly becoming electronic, and
10385 libraries and their users are given access to these electronic journals
10386 through password-protected sites. Something similar to this has been
10387 happening in law for almost thirty years: Lexis and Westlaw have had
10388 electronic versions of case reports available to subscribers to their
10389 service.  Although a Supreme Court opinion is not copyrighted, and anyone is
10390 free to go to a library and read it, Lexis and Westlaw are also free to
10391 charge users for the privilege of gaining access to that Supreme Court
10392 opinion through their respective services.
10393 </p><p>
10394 There's nothing wrong in general with this, and indeed, the ability to
10395 charge for access to even public domain materials is a good incentive for
10396 people to develop new and innovative ways to spread knowledge.  The law has
10397 agreed, which is why Lexis and Westlaw have been allowed to flourish. And if
10398 there's nothing wrong with selling the public domain, then there could be
10399 nothing wrong, in principle, with selling access to material that is not in
10400 the public domain.
10401 </p><p>
10402 But what if the only way to get access to social and scientific data was
10403 through proprietary services? What if no one had the ability to browse this
10404 data except by paying for a subscription?
10405 </p><p>
10406 As many are beginning to notice, this is increasingly the reality with
10407 scientific journals. When these journals were distributed in paper form,
10408 libraries could make the journals available to anyone who had access to the
10409 library. Thus, patients with cancer could become cancer experts because the
10410 library gave them access. Or patients trying to understand the risks of a
10411 certain treatment could research those risks by reading all available
10412 articles about that treatment. This freedom was therefore a function of the
10413 institution of libraries (norms) and the technology of paper journals
10414 (architecture)&#8212;namely, that it was very hard to control access to a
10415 paper journal.
10416 </p><p>
10417 As journals become electronic, however, the publishers are demanding that
10418 libraries not give the general public access to the journals. This means
10419 that the freedoms provided by print journals in public libraries begin to
10420 disappear. Thus, as with privacy and with software, a changing technology
10421 and market shrink a freedom taken for granted before.
10422 </p><p>
10423 This shrinking freedom has led many to take affirmative steps to restore the
10424 freedom that has been lost. The Public Library of Science (PLoS), for
10425 example, is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making scientific research
10426 available to anyone with a Web connection. Authors of scientific work submit
10427 that work to the Public Library of Science.  That work is then subject to
10428 peer review. If accepted, the work is then deposited in a public, electronic
10429 archive and made permanently available for free. PLoS also sells a print
10430 version of its work, but the copyright for the print journal does not
10431 inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2627256"></a>
10432 </p><p>
10433 This is one of many such efforts to restore a freedom taken for granted
10434 before, but now threatened by changing technology and markets.  There's no
10435 doubt that this alternative competes with the traditional publishers and
10436 their efforts to make money from the exclusive distribution of content. But
10437 competition in our tradition is presumptively a good&#8212;especially when
10438 it helps spread knowledge and science.
10439 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2627266"></a></div><div class="section" title="Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="oneidea"></a>Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcc"></a><p>
10440 Den samme strategien kan brukes på kultur, som et svar på den økende
10441 kontrollen som gjennomføres gjennom lov og teknologi.
10442 </p><p>
10443 Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation
10444 established in Massachusetts, but with its home at Stanford University. Its
10445 aim is to build a layer of <span class="emphasis"><em>reasonable</em></span> copyright on top
10446 of the extremes that now reign. It does this by making it easy for people to
10447 build upon other people's work, by making it simple for creators to express
10448 the freedom for others to take and build upon their work. Simple tags, tied
10449 to human-readable descriptions, tied to bulletproof licenses, make this
10450 possible.
10451 </p><p>
10452
10453 <span class="emphasis"><em>Simple</em></span>&#8212;which means without a middleman, or
10454 without a lawyer.  By developing a free set of licenses that people can
10455 attach to their content, Creative Commons aims to mark a range of content
10456 that can easily, and reliably, be built upon. These tags are then linked to
10457 machine-readable versions of the license that enable computers automatically
10458 to identify content that can easily be shared. These three expressions
10459 together&#8212;a legal license, a human-readable description, and
10460 machine-readable tags&#8212;constitute a Creative Commons license. A
10461 Creative Commons license constitutes a grant of freedom to anyone who
10462 accesses the license, and more importantly, an expression of the ideal that
10463 the person associated with the license believes in something different than
10464 the "All" or "No" extremes. Content is marked with the CC mark, which does
10465 not mean that copyright is waived, but that certain freedoms are given.
10466 </p><p>
10467 These freedoms are beyond the freedoms promised by fair use. Their precise
10468 contours depend upon the choices the creator makes. The creator can choose a
10469 license that permits any use, so long as attribution is given. She can
10470 choose a license that permits only noncommercial use.  She can choose a
10471 license that permits any use so long as the same freedoms are given to other
10472 uses ("share and share alike"). Or any use so long as no derivative use is
10473 made. Or any use at all within developing nations. Or any sampling use, so
10474 long as full copies are not made. Or lastly, any educational use.
10475 </p><p>
10476 These choices thus establish a range of freedoms beyond the default of
10477 copyright law. They also enable freedoms that go beyond traditional fair
10478 use. And most importantly, they express these freedoms in a way that
10479 subsequent users can use and rely upon without the need to hire a
10480 lawyer. Creative Commons thus aims to build a layer of content, governed by
10481 a layer of reasonable copyright law, that others can build upon. Voluntary
10482 choice of individuals and creators will make this content available. And
10483 that content will in turn enable us to rebuild a public domain.
10484 </p><p>
10485 This is just one project among many within the Creative Commons.  And of
10486 course, Creative Commons is not the only organization pursuing such
10487 freedoms. But the point that distinguishes the Creative Commons from many is
10488 that we are not interested only in talking about a public domain or in
10489 getting legislators to help build a public domain. Our aim is to build a
10490 movement of consumers and producers of content ("content conducers," as
10491 attorney Mia Garlick calls them)  who help build the public domain and, by
10492 their work, demonstrate the importance of the public domain to other
10493 creativity.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2627401"></a>
10494 </p><p>
10495 The aim is not to fight the "All Rights Reserved" sorts. The aim is to
10496 complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a culture are
10497 produced by insane and unintended consequences of laws written centuries
10498 ago, applied to a technology that only Jefferson could have imagined. The
10499 rules may well have made sense against a background of technologies from
10500 centuries ago, but they do not make sense against the background of digital
10501 technologies. New rules&#8212;with different freedoms, expressed in ways so
10502 that humans without lawyers can use them&#8212;are needed. Creative Commons
10503 gives people a way effectively to begin to build those rules.
10504 </p><p>
10505 Why would creators participate in giving up total control? Some participate
10506 to better spread their content. Cory Doctorow, for example, is a science
10507 fiction author. His first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
10508 Kingdom</em>, was released on-line and for free, under a Creative
10509 Commons license, on the same day that it went on sale in bookstores.
10510 </p><p>
10511 Why would a publisher ever agree to this? I suspect his publisher reasoned
10512 like this: There are two groups of people out there: (1)  those who will buy
10513 Cory's book whether or not it's on the Internet, and (2) those who may never
10514 hear of Cory's book, if it isn't made available for free on the
10515 Internet. Some part of (1) will download Cory's book instead of buying
10516 it. Call them bad-(1)s. Some part of (2)  will download Cory's book, like
10517 it, and then decide to buy it. Call them (2)-goods.  If there are more
10518 (2)-goods than bad-(1)s, the strategy of releasing Cory's book free on-line
10519 will probably <span class="emphasis"><em>increase</em></span> sales of Cory's book.
10520 </p><p>
10521 Indeed, the experience of his publisher clearly supports that conclusion.
10522 The book's first printing was exhausted months before the publisher had
10523 expected. This first novel of a science fiction author was a total success.
10524 </p><p>
10525 The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content was
10526 confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner, who wrote a
10527 book about the free software movement titled <em class="citetitle">Free for
10528 All</em>, made an electronic version of his book free on-line under a
10529 Creative Commons license after the book went out of print. He then monitored
10530 used book store prices for the book. As predicted, as the number of
10531 downloads increased, the used book price for his book increased, as well.
10532 <a class="indexterm" name="id2627474"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2627482"></a>
10533 </p><p>
10534 These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary
10535 content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the Commons. There
10536 are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other reasons. Many who use
10537 the "sampling license" do so because anything else would be
10538 hypocritical. The sampling license says that others are free, for commercial
10539 or noncommercial purposes, to sample content from the licensed work; they
10540 are just not free to make full copies of the licensed work available to
10541 others. This is consistent with their own art&#8212;they, too, sample from
10542 others. Because the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal</em></span> costs of sampling are so high
10543 (Walter Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born
10544 sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not "allow" Public
10545 Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs are so high<sup>[<a name="id2627508" href="#ftn.id2627508" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), these artists release into the creative
10546 environment content that others can build upon, so that their form of
10547 creativity might grow.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2627531"></a>
10548 </p><p>
10549 Finally, there are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons
10550 license just because they want to express to others the importance of
10551 balance in this debate. If you just go along with the system as it is, you
10552 are effectively saying you believe in the "All Rights Reserved" model. Good
10553 for you, but many do not. Many believe that however appropriate that rule is
10554 for Hollywood and freaks, it is not an appropriate description of how most
10555 creators view the rights associated with their content. The Creative Commons
10556 license expresses this notion of "Some Rights Reserved," and gives many the
10557 chance to say it to others.
10558 </p><p>
10559
10560 In the first six months of the Creative Commons experiment, over 1 million
10561 objects were licensed with these free-culture licenses. The next step is
10562 partnerships with middleware content providers to help them build into their
10563 technologies simple ways for users to mark their content with Creative
10564 Commons freedoms. Then the next step is to watch and celebrate creators who
10565 build content based upon content set free.
10566 </p><p>
10567 These are first steps to rebuilding a public domain. They are not mere
10568 arguments; they are action. Building a public domain is the first step to
10569 showing people how important that domain is to creativity and
10570 innovation. Creative Commons relies upon voluntary steps to achieve this
10571 rebuilding. They will lead to a world in which more than voluntary steps are
10572 possible.
10573 </p><p>
10574 Creative Commons is just one example of voluntary efforts by individuals and
10575 creators to change the mix of rights that now govern the creative field. The
10576 project does not compete with copyright; it complements it. Its aim is not
10577 to defeat the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and
10578 creators to exercise their rights more flexibly and cheaply. That
10579 difference, we believe, will enable creativity to spread more easily.
10580 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2627584"></a></div></div><div class="section" title="Dem, snart"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="themsoon"></a>Dem, snart</h2></div></div></div><p>
10581 We will not reclaim a free culture by individual action alone. It will also
10582 take important reforms of laws. We have a long way to go before the
10583 politicians will listen to these ideas and implement these reforms.  But
10584 that also means that we have time to build awareness around the changes that
10585 we need.
10586 </p><p>
10587 In this chapter, I outline five kinds of changes: four that are general, and
10588 one that's specific to the most heated battle of the day, music. Each is a
10589 step, not an end. But any of these steps would carry us a long way to our
10590 end.
10591 </p><div class="section" title="1. Flere formaliteter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="formalities"></a>1. Flere formaliteter</h3></div></div></div><p>
10592 If you buy a house, you have to record the sale in a deed. If you buy land
10593 upon which to build a house, you have to record the purchase in a deed.  If
10594 you buy a car, you get a bill of sale and register the car. If you buy an
10595 airplane ticket, it has your name on it.
10596 </p><p>
10597
10598
10599 These are all formalities associated with property. They are requirements
10600 that we all must bear if we want our property to be protected.
10601 </p><p>
10602 In contrast, under current copyright law, you automatically get a copyright,
10603 regardless of whether you comply with any formality. You don't have to
10604 register. You don't even have to mark your content. The default is control,
10605 and "formalities" are banished.
10606 </p><p>
10607 Why?
10608 </p><p>
10609 As I suggested in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title='Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"'>10</a>, the motivation to abolish formalities was a good
10610 one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities imposed a burden
10611 on copyright holders without much benefit. Thus, it was progress when the
10612 law relaxed the formal requirements that a copyright owner must bear to
10613 protect and secure his work. Those formalities were getting in the way.
10614 </p><p>
10615 But the Internet changes all this. Formalities today need not be a
10616 burden. Rather, the world without formalities is the world that burdens
10617 creativity. Today, there is no simple way to know who owns what, or with
10618 whom one must deal in order to use or build upon the creative work of
10619 others. There are no records, there is no system to trace&#8212; there is no
10620 simple way to know how to get permission. Yet given the massive increase in
10621 the scope of copyright's rule, getting permission is a necessary step for
10622 any work that builds upon our past. And thus, the <span class="emphasis"><em>lack</em></span>
10623 of formalities forces many into silence where they otherwise could speak.
10624 </p><p>
10625 The law should therefore change this requirement<sup>[<a name="id2627689" href="#ftn.id2627689" class="footnote">212</a>]</sup>&#8212;but it should not change it by going back to the old, broken
10626 system. We should require formalities, but we should establish a system that
10627 will create the incentives to minimize the burden of these formalities.
10628 </p><p>
10629 The important formalities are three: marking copyrighted work, registering
10630 copyrights, and renewing the claim to copyright. Traditionally, the first of
10631 these three was something the copyright owner did; the second two were
10632 something the government did. But a revised system of formalities would
10633 banish the government from the process, except for the sole purpose of
10634 approving standards developed by others.
10635 </p><div class="section" title="Registrering og fornying"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a name="registration"></a>Registrering og fornying</h4></div></div></div><p>
10636 Under the old system, a copyright owner had to file a registration with the
10637 Copyright Office to register or renew a copyright. When filing that
10638 registration, the copyright owner paid a fee. As with most government
10639 agencies, the Copyright Office had little incentive to minimize the burden
10640 of registration; it also had little incentive to minimize the fee.  And as
10641 the Copyright Office is not a main target of government policymaking, the
10642 office has historically been terribly underfunded. Thus, when people who
10643 know something about the process hear this idea about formalities, their
10644 first reaction is panic&#8212;nothing could be worse than forcing people to
10645 deal with the mess that is the Copyright Office.
10646 </p><p>
10647 Yet it is always astonishing to me that we, who come from a tradition of
10648 extraordinary innovation in governmental design, can no longer think
10649 innovatively about how governmental functions can be designed.  Just because
10650 there is a public purpose to a government role, it doesn't follow that the
10651 government must actually administer the role. Instead, we should be creating
10652 incentives for private parties to serve the public, subject to standards
10653 that the government sets.
10654 </p><p>
10655 In the context of registration, one obvious model is the Internet.  There
10656 are at least 32 million Web sites registered around the world.  Domain name
10657 owners for these Web sites have to pay a fee to keep their registration
10658 alive. In the main top-level domains (.com, .org, .net), there is a central
10659 registry. The actual registrations are, however, performed by many competing
10660 registrars. That competition drives the cost of registering down, and more
10661 importantly, it drives the ease with which registration occurs up.
10662 </p><p>
10663
10664 We should adopt a similar model for the registration and renewal of
10665 copyrights. The Copyright Office may well serve as the central registry, but
10666 it should not be in the registrar business. Instead, it should establish a
10667 database, and a set of standards for registrars. It should approve
10668 registrars that meet its standards. Those registrars would then compete with
10669 one another to deliver the cheapest and simplest systems for registering and
10670 renewing copyrights. That competition would substantially lower the burden
10671 of this formality&#8212;while producing a database of registrations that
10672 would facilitate the licensing of content.
10673 </p></div><div class="section" title="Merking"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a name="marking"></a>Merking</h4></div></div></div><p>
10674 It used to be that the failure to include a copyright notice on a creative
10675 work meant that the copyright was forfeited. That was a harsh punishment for
10676 failing to comply with a regulatory rule&#8212;akin to imposing the death
10677 penalty for a parking ticket in the world of creative rights.  Here again,
10678 there is no reason that a marking requirement needs to be enforced in this
10679 way. And more importantly, there is no reason a marking requirement needs to
10680 be enforced uniformly across all media.
10681 </p><p>
10682 The aim of marking is to signal to the public that this work is copyrighted
10683 and that the author wants to enforce his rights. The mark also makes it easy
10684 to locate a copyright owner to secure permission to use the work.
10685 </p><p>
10686 One of the problems the copyright system confronted early on was that
10687 different copyrighted works had to be differently marked. It wasn't clear
10688 how or where a statue was to be marked, or a record, or a film. A new
10689 marking requirement could solve these problems by recognizing the
10690 differences in media, and by allowing the system of marking to evolve as
10691 technologies enable it to. The system could enable a special signal from the
10692 failure to mark&#8212;not the loss of the copyright, but the loss of the
10693 right to punish someone for failing to get permission first.
10694 </p><p>
10695
10696 Let's start with the last point. If a copyright owner allows his work to be
10697 published without a copyright notice, the consequence of that failure need
10698 not be that the copyright is lost. The consequence could instead be that
10699 anyone has the right to use this work, until the copyright owner complains
10700 and demonstrates that it is his work and he doesn't give
10701 permission.<sup>[<a name="id2627812" href="#ftn.id2627812" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
10702 work would therefore be "use unless someone complains." If someone does
10703 complain, then the obligation would be to stop using the work in any new
10704 work from then on though no penalty would attach for existing uses.  This
10705 would create a strong incentive for copyright owners to mark their work.
10706 </p><p>
10707 That in turn raises the question about how work should best be marked. Here
10708 again, the system needs to adjust as the technologies evolve. The best way
10709 to ensure that the system evolves is to limit the Copyright Office's role to
10710 that of approving standards for marking content that have been crafted
10711 elsewhere.
10712 </p><p>
10713 For example, if a recording industry association devises a method for
10714 marking CDs, it would propose that to the Copyright Office. The Copyright
10715 Office would hold a hearing, at which other proposals could be made. The
10716 Copyright Office would then select the proposal that it judged preferable,
10717 and it would base that choice <span class="emphasis"><em>solely</em></span> upon the
10718 consideration of which method could best be integrated into the registration
10719 and renewal system. We would not count on the government to innovate; but we
10720 would count on the government to keep the product of innovation in line with
10721 its other important functions.
10722 </p><p>
10723 Finally, marking content clearly would simplify registration requirements.
10724 If photographs were marked by author and year, there would be little reason
10725 not to allow a photographer to reregister, for example, all photographs
10726 taken in a particular year in one quick step. The aim of the formality is
10727 not to burden the creator; the system itself should be kept as simple as
10728 possible.
10729 </p><p>
10730 The objective of formalities is to make things clear. The existing system
10731 does nothing to make things clear. Indeed, it seems designed to make things
10732 unclear.
10733 </p><p>
10734 If formalities such as registration were reinstated, one of the most
10735 difficult aspects of relying upon the public domain would be removed.  It
10736 would be simple to identify what content is presumptively free; it would be
10737 simple to identify who controls the rights for a particular kind of content;
10738 it would be simple to assert those rights, and to renew that assertion at
10739 the appropriate time.
10740 </p></div></div><div class="section" title="2. Kortere vernetid"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="shortterms"></a>2. Kortere vernetid</h3></div></div></div><p>
10741 Vernetiden i opphavsretten har gått fra fjorten år til nittifem år der
10742 selskap har forfatterskapet , og livstiden til forfatteren pluss sytti år
10743 for individuelle forfattere.
10744 </p><p>
10745 In <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>, I proposed a
10746 seventy-five-year term, granted in five-year increments with a requirement
10747 of renewal every five years.  That seemed radical enough at the time. But
10748 after we lost <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
10749 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, the proposals became even more
10750 radical. <em class="citetitle">The Economist</em> endorsed a proposal for a
10751 fourteen-year copyright term.<sup>[<a name="id2627937" href="#ftn.id2627937" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup> Others
10752 have proposed tying the term to the term for patents.
10753 </p><p>
10754 I agree with those who believe that we need a radical change in copyright's
10755 term. But whether fourteen years or seventy-five, there are four principles
10756 that are important to keep in mind about copyright terms.
10757 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
10758
10759
10760 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it short:</em></span> The term should be as long as necessary
10761 to give incentives to create, but no longer. If it were tied to very strong
10762 protections for authors (so authors were able to reclaim rights from
10763 publishers), rights to the same work (not derivative works) might be
10764 extended further. The key is not to tie the work up with legal regulations
10765 when it no longer benefits an author.
10766 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10767
10768
10769
10770 <span class="emphasis"><em>Gjør det enkelt:</em></span> Skillelinjen mellom verker uten
10771 opphavsrettslig vern og innhold som er beskyttet må forbli klart.  Advokater
10772 liker uklarheten som "rimelig bruk" og forskjellen mellom "idéer" og
10773 "uttrykk" har.  Denne type lovverk gir dem en masse arbeid.  Men de som
10774 skrev grunnloven hadde en enklere idé: vernet versus ikke vernet. Verdien av
10775 korte vernetider er at det er lite behov for å bygge inn unntak i
10776 opphavsretten når vernetiden holdes kort.  En klar og aktiv "advokat-fri
10777 sone" gjør komplesiteten av "rimelig bruk" og "idé/uttrykk" mindre nødvendig
10778 å håndtere.
10779
10780 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10781
10782 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it alive:</em></span> Copyright should have to be renewed.
10783 Especially if the maximum term is long, the copyright owner should be
10784 required to signal periodically that he wants the protection continued. This
10785 need not be an onerous burden, but there is no reason this monopoly
10786 protection has to be granted for free. On average, it takes ninety minutes
10787 for a veteran to apply for a pension.<sup>[<a name="id2628031" href="#ftn.id2628031" class="footnote">215</a>]</sup>
10788 If we make veterans suffer that burden, I don't see why we couldn't require
10789 authors to spend ten minutes every fifty years to file a single form.
10790 <a class="indexterm" name="id2628050"></a>
10791 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10792
10793
10794 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it prospective:</em></span> Whatever the term of copyright
10795 should be, the clearest lesson that economists teach is that a term once
10796 given should not be extended. It might have been a mistake in 1923 for the
10797 law to offer authors only a fifty-six-year term. I don't think so, but it's
10798 possible. If it was a mistake, then the consequence was that we got fewer
10799 authors to create in 1923 than we otherwise would have. But we can't correct
10800 that mistake today by increasing the term. No matter what we do today, we
10801 will not increase the number of authors who wrote in 1923. Of course, we can
10802 increase the reward that those who write now get (or alternatively, increase
10803 the copyright burden that smothers many works that are today invisible). But
10804 increasing their reward will not increase their creativity in 1923.  What's
10805 not done is not done, and there's nothing we can do about that now.  </p></li></ol></div><p>
10806 Disse endringene vil sammen gi en <span class="emphasis"><em>gjennomsnittlig</em></span>
10807 opphavsrettslig vernetid som er mye kortere enn den gjeldende vernetiden.
10808 Frem til 1976 var gjennomsnittlig vernetid kun 32.2 år.  Vårt mål bør være
10809 det samme.
10810 </p><p>
10811 Uten tvil vil ekstremistene kalle disse idéene "radikale". (Tross alt, så
10812 kaller jeg dem "ekstremister".) Men igjen, vernetiden jeg anbefalte var
10813 lengre enn vernetiden under Richard Nixon. hvor "radikalt" kan det være å be
10814 om en mer sjenerøs opphavsrettighet enn da Richard Nixon var president?
10815 </p></div><div class="section" title="3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="freefairuse"></a>3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</h3></div></div></div><p>
10816 As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally granted
10817 property owners the right to control their property from the ground to the
10818 heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property rights quickly
10819 changed. There was no fuss, no constitutional challenge.  It made no sense
10820 anymore to grant that much control, given the emergence of that new
10821 technology.
10822 </p><p>
10823 Our Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors "exclusive right"
10824 to "their writings." Congress has given authors an exclusive right to "their
10825 writings" plus any derivative writings (made by others) that are
10826 sufficiently close to the author's original work. Thus, if I write a book,
10827 and you base a movie on that book, I have the power to deny you the right to
10828 release that movie, even though that movie is not "my writing."
10829 </p><p>
10830 Congress granted the beginnings of this right in 1870, when it expanded the
10831 exclusive right of copyright to include a right to control translations and
10832 dramatizations of a work.<sup>[<a name="id2628145" href="#ftn.id2628145" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> The courts
10833 have expanded it slowly through judicial interpretation ever since. This
10834 expansion has been commented upon by one of the law's greatest judges, Judge
10835 Benjamin Kaplan.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2628160"></a>
10836 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
10837 So inured have we become to the extension of the monopoly to a large range
10838 of so-called derivative works, that we no longer sense the oddity of
10839 accepting such an enlargement of copyright while yet intoning the
10840 abracadabra of idea and expression.<sup>[<a name="id2628176" href="#ftn.id2628176" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
10841 </p></blockquote></div><p>
10842 I think it's time to recognize that there are airplanes in this field and
10843 the expansiveness of these rights of derivative use no longer make
10844 sense. More precisely, they don't make sense for the period of time that a
10845 copyright runs. And they don't make sense as an amorphous grant.  Consider
10846 each limitation in turn.
10847 </p><p>
10848 <span class="emphasis"><em>Term:</em></span> If Congress wants to grant a derivative right,
10849 then that right should be for a much shorter term. It makes sense to protect
10850 John Grisham's right to sell the movie rights to his latest novel (or at
10851 least I'm willing to assume it does); but it does not make sense for that
10852 right to run for the same term as the underlying copyright. The derivative
10853 right could be important in inducing creativity; it is not important long
10854 after the creative work is done.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2628206"></a>
10855 </p><p>
10856 <span class="emphasis"><em>Scope:</em></span> Likewise should the scope of derivative rights
10857 be narrowed.  Again, there are some cases in which derivative rights are
10858 important.  Those should be specified. But the law should draw clear lines
10859 around regulated and unregulated uses of copyrighted material. When all
10860 "reuse" of creative material was within the control of businesses, perhaps
10861 it made sense to require lawyers to negotiate the lines. It no longer makes
10862 sense for lawyers to negotiate the lines. Think about all the creative
10863 possibilities that digital technologies enable; now imagine pouring molasses
10864 into the machines. That's what this general requirement of permission does
10865 to the creative process. Smothers it.
10866 </p><p>
10867 This was the point that Alben made when describing the making of the Clint
10868 Eastwood CD. While it makes sense to require negotiation for foreseeable
10869 derivative rights&#8212;turning a book into a movie, or a poem into a
10870 musical score&#8212;it doesn't make sense to require negotiation for the
10871 unforeseeable. Here, a statutory right would make much more sense.
10872 </p><p>
10873 In each of these cases, the law should mark the uses that are protected, and
10874 the presumption should be that other uses are not protected.  This is the
10875 reverse of the recommendation of my colleague Paul Goldstein.<sup>[<a name="id2628249" href="#ftn.id2628249" class="footnote">218</a>]</sup> His view is that the law should be written so that
10876 expanded protections follow expanded uses.
10877 </p><p>
10878 Goldstein's analysis would make perfect sense if the cost of the legal
10879 system were small. But as we are currently seeing in the context of the
10880 Internet, the uncertainty about the scope of protection, and the incentives
10881 to protect existing architectures of revenue, combined with a strong
10882 copyright, weaken the process of innovation.
10883 </p><p>
10884
10885 The law could remedy this problem either by removing protection beyond the
10886 part explicitly drawn or by granting reuse rights upon certain statutory
10887 conditions. Either way, the effect would be to free a great deal of culture
10888 to others to cultivate. And under a statutory rights regime, that reuse
10889 would earn artists more income.
10890 </p></div><div class="section" title="4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="liberatemusic"></a>4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</h3></div></div></div><p>
10891 The battle that got this whole war going was about music, so it wouldn't be
10892 fair to end this book without addressing the issue that is, to most people,
10893 most pressing&#8212;music. There is no other policy issue that better
10894 teaches the lessons of this book than the battles around the sharing of
10895 music.
10896 </p><p>
10897 The appeal of file-sharing music was the crack cocaine of the Internet's
10898 growth. It drove demand for access to the Internet more powerfully than any
10899 other single application. It was the Internet's killer app&#8212;possibly in
10900 two senses of that word. It no doubt was the application that drove demand
10901 for bandwidth. It may well be the application that drives demand for
10902 regulations that in the end kill innovation on the network.
10903 </p><p>
10904 The aim of copyright, with respect to content in general and music in
10905 particular, is to create the incentives for music to be composed, performed,
10906 and, most importantly, spread. The law does this by giving an exclusive
10907 right to a composer to control public performances of his work, and to a
10908 performing artist to control copies of her performance.
10909 </p><p>
10910 File-sharing networks complicate this model by enabling the spread of
10911 content for which the performer has not been paid. But of course, that's not
10912 all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title='Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"'>5</a>, they enable four
10913 different kinds of sharing:
10914 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
10915
10916
10917 Det er noen som bruker delingsnettverk som erstatninger for å kjøpe CDer.
10918 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10919
10920
10921 There are also some who are using sharing networks to sample, on the way to
10922 purchasing CDs.
10923 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10924
10925
10926
10927
10928 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk til å få tilgang til innhold som
10929 ikke lenger er i salg, men fortsatt er vernet av opphavsrett eller som ville
10930 ha vært altfor vanskelig å få kjøpt via nettet.
10931 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10932
10933
10934 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk for å få tilgang til innhold som
10935 ikke er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, eller for å få tilgang som
10936 opphavsrettsinnehaveren åpenbart går god for.
10937 </p></li></ol></div><p>
10938 Any reform of the law needs to keep these different uses in focus. It must
10939 avoid burdening type D even if it aims to eliminate type A. The eagerness
10940 with which the law aims to eliminate type A, moreover, should depend upon
10941 the magnitude of type B. As with VCRs, if the net effect of sharing is
10942 actually not very harmful, the need for regulation is significantly
10943 weakened.
10944 </p><p>
10945 As I said in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title='Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: "Piratvirksomhet"'>5</a>, the actual harm caused by sharing is controversial.  For
10946 the purposes of this chapter, however, I assume the harm is real. I assume,
10947 in other words, that type A sharing is significantly greater than type B,
10948 and is the dominant use of sharing networks.
10949 </p><p>
10950 Uansett, det er et avgjørende faktum om den gjeldende teknologiske
10951 omgivelsen som vi må huske på hvis vi skal forstå hvordan loven bør reagere.
10952 </p><p>
10953 Today, file sharing is addictive. In ten years, it won't be. It is addictive
10954 today because it is the easiest way to gain access to a broad range of
10955 content.  It won't be the easiest way to get access to a broad range of
10956 content in ten years. Today, access to the Internet is cumbersome and
10957 slow&#8212;we in the United States are lucky to have broadband service at
10958 1.5 MBs, and very rarely do we get service at that speed both up and
10959 down. Although wireless access is growing, most of us still get access
10960 across wires. Most only gain access through a machine with a keyboard. The
10961 idea of the always on, always connected Internet is mainly just an idea.
10962 </p><p>
10963
10964 But it will become a reality, and that means the way we get access to the
10965 Internet today is a technology in transition. Policy makers should not make
10966 policy on the basis of technology in transition. They should make policy on
10967 the basis of where the technology is going. The question should not be, how
10968 should the law regulate sharing in this world? The question should be, what
10969 law will we require when the network becomes the network it is clearly
10970 becoming? That network is one in which every machine with electricity is
10971 essentially on the Net; where everywhere you are&#8212;except maybe the
10972 desert or the Rockies&#8212;you can instantaneously be connected to the
10973 Internet. Imagine the Internet as ubiquitous as the best cell-phone service,
10974 where with the flip of a device, you are connected.
10975 </p><p>
10976 In that world, it will be extremely easy to connect to services that give
10977 you access to content on the fly&#8212;such as Internet radio, content that
10978 is streamed to the user when the user demands. Here, then, is the critical
10979 point: When it is <span class="emphasis"><em>extremely</em></span> easy to connect to services
10980 that give access to content, it will be <span class="emphasis"><em>easier</em></span> to
10981 connect to services that give you access to content than it will be to
10982 download and store content <span class="emphasis"><em>on the many devices you will have for
10983 playing content</em></span>. It will be easier, in other words, to subscribe
10984 than it will be to be a database manager, as everyone in the
10985 download-sharing world of Napster-like technologies essentially is. Content
10986 services will compete with content sharing, even if the services charge
10987 money for the content they give access to. Already cell-phone services in
10988 Japan offer music (for a fee) streamed over cell phones (enhanced with plugs
10989 for headphones). The Japanese are paying for this content even though "free"
10990 content is available in the form of MP3s across the Web.<sup>[<a name="id2628494" href="#ftn.id2628494" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
10991
10992 </p><p>
10993
10994 This point about the future is meant to suggest a perspective on the
10995 present: It is emphatically temporary. The "problem" with file
10996 sharing&#8212;to the extent there is a real problem&#8212;is a problem that
10997 will increasingly disappear as it becomes easier to connect to the
10998 Internet.  And thus it is an extraordinary mistake for policy makers today
10999 to be "solving" this problem in light of a technology that will be gone
11000 tomorrow.  The question should not be how to regulate the Internet to
11001 eliminate file sharing (the Net will evolve that problem away). The question
11002 instead should be how to assure that artists get paid, during this
11003 transition between twentieth-century models for doing business and
11004 twenty-first-century technologies.
11005 </p><p>
11006 The answer begins with recognizing that there are different "problems" here
11007 to solve. Let's start with type D content&#8212;uncopyrighted content or
11008 copyrighted content that the artist wants shared. The "problem" with this
11009 content is to make sure that the technology that would enable this kind of
11010 sharing is not rendered illegal. You can think of it this way: Pay phones
11011 are used to deliver ransom demands, no doubt.  But there are many who need
11012 to use pay phones who have nothing to do with ransoms. It would be wrong to
11013 ban pay phones in order to eliminate kidnapping.
11014 </p><p>
11015 Type C content raises a different "problem." This is content that was, at
11016 one time, published and is no longer available. It may be unavailable
11017 because the artist is no longer valuable enough for the record label he
11018 signed with to carry his work. Or it may be unavailable because the work is
11019 forgotten. Either way, the aim of the law should be to facilitate the access
11020 to this content, ideally in a way that returns something to the artist.
11021 </p><p>
11022 Again, the model here is the used book store. Once a book goes out of print,
11023 it may still be available in libraries and used book stores. But libraries
11024 and used book stores don't pay the copyright owner when someone reads or
11025 buys an out-of-print book. That makes total sense, of course, since any
11026 other system would be so burdensome as to eliminate the possibility of used
11027 book stores' existing. But from the author's perspective, this "sharing" of
11028 his content without his being compensated is less than ideal.
11029 </p><p>
11030 The model of used book stores suggests that the law could simply deem
11031 out-of-print music fair game. If the publisher does not make copies of the
11032 music available for sale, then commercial and noncommercial providers would
11033 be free, under this rule, to "share" that content, even though the sharing
11034 involved making a copy. The copy here would be incidental to the trade; in a
11035 context where commercial publishing has ended, trading music should be as
11036 free as trading books.
11037 </p><p>
11038
11039
11040
11041 Alternatively, the law could create a statutory license that would ensure
11042 that artists get something from the trade of their work. For example, if the
11043 law set a low statutory rate for the commercial sharing of content that was
11044 not offered for sale by a commercial publisher, and if that rate were
11045 automatically transferred to a trust for the benefit of the artist, then
11046 businesses could develop around the idea of trading this content, and
11047 artists would benefit from this trade.
11048 </p><p>
11049 This system would also create an incentive for publishers to keep works
11050 available commercially. Works that are available commercially would not be
11051 subject to this license. Thus, publishers could protect the right to charge
11052 whatever they want for content if they kept the work commercially
11053 available. But if they don't keep it available, and instead, the computer
11054 hard disks of fans around the world keep it alive, then any royalty owed for
11055 such copying should be much less than the amount owed a commercial
11056 publisher.
11057 </p><p>
11058 The hard case is content of types A and B, and again, this case is hard only
11059 because the extent of the problem will change over time, as the technologies
11060 for gaining access to content change. The law's solution should be as
11061 flexible as the problem is, understanding that we are in the middle of a
11062 radical transformation in the technology for delivering and accessing
11063 content.
11064 </p><p>
11065 Så her er en løsning som i første omgang kan virke veldig undelig for begge
11066 sider i denne krigen, men som jeg tror vil gi mer mening når en får tenkt
11067 seg om.
11068 </p><p>
11069 Stripped of the rhetoric about the sanctity of property, the basic claim of
11070 the content industry is this: A new technology (the Internet)  has harmed a
11071 set of rights that secure copyright. If those rights are to be protected,
11072 then the content industry should be compensated for that harm. Just as the
11073 technology of tobacco harmed the health of millions of Americans, or the
11074 technology of asbestos caused grave illness to thousands of miners, so, too,
11075 has the technology of digital networks harmed the interests of the content
11076 industry.
11077 </p><p>
11078
11079
11080 Jeg elsker internett, så jeg liker ikke å sammenligne det med tobakk eller
11081 asbest.  Men analogien er rimelig når en ser det fra lovens perspektiv. Og
11082 det foreslår en rimelig respons: I stedet for å forsøke å ødelegge internett
11083 eller p2p-teknologien som i dag skader innholdsleverandører på internett, så
11084 bør vi finne en relativt enkel måte å kompensere de som blir skadelidende.
11085 </p><p>
11086 The idea would be a modification of a proposal that has been floated by
11087 Harvard law professor William Fisher.<sup>[<a name="id2628649" href="#ftn.id2628649" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
11088 Fisher suggests a very clever way around the current impasse of the
11089 Internet. Under his plan, all content capable of digital transmission would
11090 (1) be marked with a digital watermark (don't worry about how easy it is to
11091 evade these marks; as you'll see, there's no incentive to evade them). Once
11092 the content is marked, then entrepreneurs would develop (2) systems to
11093 monitor how many items of each content were distributed. On the basis of
11094 those numbers, then (3) artists would be compensated. The compensation would
11095 be paid for by (4) an appropriate tax.
11096 </p><p>
11097 Fisher's proposal is careful and comprehensive. It raises a million
11098 questions, most of which he answers well in his upcoming book,
11099 <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep</em>. The modification that I would make
11100 is relatively simple: Fisher imagines his proposal replacing the existing
11101 copyright system.  I imagine it complementing the existing system. The aim
11102 of the proposal would be to facilitate compensation to the extent that harm
11103 could be shown. This compensation would be temporary, aimed at facilitating
11104 a transition between regimes. And it would require renewal after a period of
11105 years. If it continues to make sense to facilitate free exchange of content,
11106 supported through a taxation system, then it can be continued. If this form
11107 of protection is no longer necessary, then the system could lapse into the
11108 old system of controlling access.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2628816"></a>
11109 </p><p>
11110
11111 Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim is
11112 not just to ensure that artists are paid, but also to ensure that the system
11113 supports the widest range of "semiotic democracy" possible. But the aims of
11114 semiotic democracy would be satisfied if the other changes I described were
11115 accomplished&#8212;in particular, the limits on derivative uses. A system
11116 that simply charges for access would not greatly burden semiotic democracy
11117 if there were few limitations on what one was allowed to do with the content
11118 itself.
11119 </p><p>
11120 No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of "harm" to
11121 an industry. But the difficulty of making that calculation would be
11122 outweighed by the benefit of facilitating innovation. This background system
11123 to compensate would also not need to interfere with innovative proposals
11124 such as Apple's MusicStore. As experts predicted when Apple launched the
11125 MusicStore, it could beat "free" by being easier than free is. This has
11126 proven correct: Apple has sold millions of songs at even the very high price
11127 of 99 cents a song. (At 99 cents, the cost is the equivalent of a per-song
11128 CD price, though the labels have none of the costs of a CD to pay.) Apple's
11129 move was countered by Real Networks, offering music at just 79 cents a
11130 song. And no doubt there will be a great deal of competition to offer and
11131 sell music on-line.
11132 </p><p>
11133 This competition has already occurred against the background of "free" music
11134 from p2p systems. As the sellers of cable television have known for thirty
11135 years, and the sellers of bottled water for much more than that, there is
11136 nothing impossible at all about "competing with free." Indeed, if anything,
11137 the competition spurs the competitors to offer new and better products. This
11138 is precisely what the competitive market was to be about. Thus in Singapore,
11139 though piracy is rampant, movie theaters are often luxurious&#8212;with
11140 "first class" seats, and meals served while you watch a movie&#8212;as they
11141 struggle and succeed in finding ways to compete with "free."
11142 </p><p>
11143 Dette konkurranseregimet, med en sikringsmekanisme for å sikre at kunstnere
11144 ikke taper, ville bidra mye til nyskapning innen levering av
11145 innhold. Konkurransen ville fortsette å redusere type-A-deling.  Det ville
11146 inspirere en ekstraordinær rekke av nye innovatører&#8212;som ville ha
11147 retten til a bruke innhold, og ikke lenger frykte usikre og barbarisk
11148 strenge straffer fra loven.
11149 </p><p>
11150 Oppsummert, så er dette mitt forslag:
11151 </p><p>
11152
11153
11154
11155 Internett er i endring. Vi bør ikke regulere en teknologi i endring. Vi bør
11156 i stedet regulere for å minimere skaden påført interesser som er berørt av
11157 denne teknologiske endringen, samtidig vi muliggjør, og oppmuntrer, den mest
11158 effektive teknologien vi kan lage.
11159 </p><p>
11160 Vi kan minimere skaden og samtidig maksimere fordelen med innovasjon ved å
11161 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
11162
11163
11164 garantere retten til å engasjere seg i type-D-deling;
11165 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11166
11167
11168 tillate ikke-kommersiell type-C-deling uten erstatningsansvar, og
11169 kommersiell type-C-deling med en lav og fast rate fastsatt ved lov.
11170 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11171
11172
11173 mens denne overgangen pågår, skattlegge og kompensere for type-A-deling, i
11174 den grad faktiske skade kan påvises.
11175 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11176 Men hva om "piratvirksomheten" ikke forsvinner?  Hva om det finnes et
11177 konkurranseutsatt marked som tilbyr innhold til en lav kostnad, men et
11178 signifikant antall av forbrukere fortsetter å "ta" innhold uten å betale?
11179 Burde loven gjøre noe da?
11180 </p><p>
11181 Ja, det bør den.  Men, nok en gang, hva den bør gjøre avhenger hvordan
11182 realitetene utvikler seg. Disse endringene fjerner kanskje ikke all
11183 type-A-deling. Men det virkelige spørmålet er ikke om de eliminerer deling i
11184 abstrakt betydning.  Det virkelige spørsmålet er hvilken effekt det har på
11185 markedet.  Er det bedre (a) å ha en teknologi som er 95 prosent sikker og
11186 gir et marked av størrelse <em class="citetitle">x</em>, eller (b) å ha en
11187 teknologi som er 50 prosent sikker, og som gir et marked som er fem ganger
11188 større enn <em class="citetitle">x</em>?  Mindre sikker kan gi mer uautorisert
11189 deling, men det vil sannsynligvis også gi et mye større marked for
11190 autorisert deling. Det viktigste er å sikre kunstneres kompensasjon uten å
11191 ødelegge internettet.  Når det er på plass, kan det hende det er riktig å
11192 finne måter å spore opp de smålige piratene.
11193 </p><p>
11194
11195 Men vi er langt unna å spikke problemet ned til dette delsettet av
11196 type-A-delere.  Og vårt fokus inntil er der bør ikke være å finne måter å
11197 ødelegge internettet.  Var fokus inntil vi er der bør være hvordan sikre at
11198 artister får betalt, mens vi beskytter rommet for nyskapning og kreativitet
11199 som internettet er.
11200 </p></div><div class="section" title="5. Spark en masse advokater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="firelawyers"></a>5. Spark en masse advokater</h3></div></div></div><p>
11201 Jeg er en advokat. Jeg lever av å utdanne advokater. Jeg tror på loven. Jeg
11202 tror på opphavsrettsloven. Jeg har faktisk viet livet til å jobbe med loven,
11203 ikke fordi det er mye penger å tjene, men fordi det innebærer idealer som
11204 jeg elsker å leve opp til.
11205 </p><p>
11206 Likevel har mye av denne boken vært kritikk av advokater, eller rollen
11207 advokater har spilt i denne debatten.  Loven taler om idealer, mens det er
11208 min oppfatning av vår yrkesgruppe er blitt for knyttet til klienten.  Og i
11209 en verden der rike klienter har sterke synspunkter vil uviljen hos vår
11210 yrkesgruppe til å stille spørsmål med eller protestere mot dette sterke
11211 synet ødelegge loven.
11212 </p><p>
11213 Indisiene for slik bøyning er overbevisene.  Jeg er angrepet som en
11214 "radikal" av mange innenfor yrket, og likevel er meningene jeg argumenterer
11215 for nøyaktig de meningene til mange av de mest moderate og betydningsfulle
11216 personene i historien til denne delen av loven. Mange trodde for eksempel at
11217 vår utfordring til lovforslaget om å utvide opphavsrettens vernetid var
11218 galskap.  Mens bare tredve år siden mente den dominerende foreleser og
11219 utøver i opphavsrettsfeltet, Melville Nimmer, at den var
11220 åpenbar.<sup>[<a name="id2629066" href="#ftn.id2629066" class="footnote">221</a>]</sup>
11221
11222 </p><p>
11223 Min kritikk av rollen som advokater har spilt i denne debatten handler
11224 imidlertid ikke bare om en profesjonell skjevhet. Det handler enda viktigere
11225 om vår manglende evne til å faktisk ta inn over oss hva loven koster.
11226 </p><p>
11227 Økonomer er forventet å være gode til å forstå utgifter og inntekter.  Men
11228 som oftest antar økonomene uten peiling på hvordan det juridiske systemet
11229 egentlig fungerer, at transaksjonskostnaden i det juridiske systemet er
11230 lav.<sup>[<a name="id2629099" href="#ftn.id2629099" class="footnote">222</a>]</sup>  De ser et system som har
11231 eksistert i hundrevis av år, og de antar at det fungerer slik grunnskolens
11232 samfunnsfagsundervisning lærte dem at det fungerer.
11233 </p><p>
11234
11235
11236 Men det juridiske systemet fungerer ikke. Eller for å være mer nøyaktig, det
11237 fungerer kun for de med mest ressurser.  Det er ikke fordi systemet er
11238 korrupt. Jeg tror overhodet ikke vårt juridisk system (på føderalt nivå, i
11239 hvert fall) er korrupt. Jeg mener ganske enkelt at på grunn av at kostnadene
11240 med vårt juridiske systemet er så hårreisende høyt vil en praktisk talt
11241 aldri oppnå rettferdighet.
11242 </p><p>
11243 Disse kostnadene forstyrrer fri kultur på mange vis.  En advokats tid
11244 faktureres hos de største firmaene for mer enn $400 pr. time. Hvor mye tid
11245 bør en slik advokat bruke på å lese sakene nøye, eller undersøke obskure
11246 rettskilder.  Svaret er i økende grad: svært lite. Jussen er avhengig av
11247 nøye formulering og utvikling av doktrine, men nøye formulering og utvikling
11248 av doktrine er avhengig av nøyaktig arbeid.  Men nøyaktig arbeid koster for
11249 mye, bortsett fra i de mest høyprofilerte og kostbare sakene.
11250 </p><p>
11251 Kostbarheten, klomsetheten og tilfeldigheten til dette systemet håner vår
11252 tradisjon. Og advokater, såvel som akademikere, bør se det som sin plikt å
11253 endre hvordan loven praktiseres&#8212; eller bedre, endre loven slik at den
11254 fungerer. Det er galt at systemet fungerer godt bare for den øverste
11255 1-prosenten av klientene.  Det kan gjøres radikalt mer effektivt, og billig,
11256 og dermed radikalt mer rettferdig.
11257 </p><p>
11258 Men inntil en slik reform er gjennomført, bør vi som samfunn holde lover
11259 unna områder der vi vet den bare vil skade.  Og det er nettopp det loven
11260 altfor ofte vil gjøre hvis for mye av vår kultur er lovregulert.
11261 </p><p>
11262 Tenk på de fantastiske tingene ditt barn kan gjøre eller lage med digital
11263 teknologi&#8212;filmen, musikken, web-siden, bloggen. Eller tenk på de
11264 fantastiske tingene ditt fellesskap kunne få til med digital
11265 teknologi&#8212;en wiki, oppsetting av låve, kampanje til å endre noe. Tenk
11266 på alle de kreative tingene, og tenk deretter på kald sirup helt inn i
11267 maskinene. Dette er hva et hvert regime som krever tillatelser fører
11268 til. Dette er virkeligheten slik den var i Brezhnevs Russland.
11269 </p><p>
11270
11271 Loven bør regulere i visse områder av kulturen&#8212;men det bør regulere
11272 kultur bare der reguleringen bidrar positivt. Likevel tester advokater
11273 sjeldent sin kraft, eller kraften som de fremmer, mot dette enkle pragmatisk
11274 spørsmålet: "vil det bidra positivt?".  Når de blir utfordret om det
11275 utvidede rekkevidden til loven, er advokat-svaret, "Hvorfor ikke?"
11276 </p><p>
11277 Vi burde spørre: "Hvorfor?". Vis meg hvorfor din regulering av kultur er
11278 nødvendig og vis meg hvordan reguleringen bidrar positivt.  Før du kan vise
11279 meg begge, holde advokatene din unna.
11280 </p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2627008" href="#id2627008" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
11281
11282
11283
11284 See, for example, Marc Rotenberg, "Fair Information Practices and the
11285 Architecture of Privacy (What Larry Doesn't Get)," <em class="citetitle">Stanford
11286 Technology Law Review</em> 1 (2001): par. 6&#8211;18, available at
11287 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a> (describing
11288 examples in which technology defines privacy policy). See also Jeffrey
11289 Rosen, <em class="citetitle">The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an
11290 Anxious Age</em> (New York: Random House, 2004) (mapping tradeoffs
11291 between technology and privacy).</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2627508" href="#id2627508" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
11292
11293
11294 <em class="citetitle">Willful Infringement: A Report from the Front Lines of the Real
11295 Culture Wars</em> (2003), produced by Jed Horovitz, directed by Greg
11296 Hittelman, a Fiat Lucre production, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a>.
11297 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2627689" href="#id2627689" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
11298
11299
11300 The proposal I am advancing here would apply to American works only.
11301 Obviously, I believe it would be beneficial for the same idea to be adopted
11302 by other countries as well.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2627812" href="#id2627812" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
11303
11304
11305 There would be a complication with derivative works that I have not solved
11306 here. In my view, the law of derivatives creates a more complicated system
11307 than is justified by the marginal incentive it creates.
11308 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2627937" href="#id2627937" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
11309
11310
11311
11312 "A Radical Rethink," <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 366:8308 (25. januar
11313 2003): 15, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11314 #74</a>.
11315 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2628031" href="#id2628031" class="para">215</a>] </sup>
11316
11317
11318 Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation
11319 and/or Pension, VA Form 21-526 (OMB Approved No. 2900-0001), tilgjengelig
11320 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #75</a>.
11321 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2628145" href="#id2628145" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
11322
11323
11324 Benjamin Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">An Unhurried View of Copyright</em> (New
11325 York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 32.
11326 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2628176" href="#id2628176" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
11327
11328 Ibid., 56.
11329 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2628249" href="#id2628249" class="para">218</a>] </sup>
11330
11331 Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the
11332 Celestial Jukebox</em> (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003),
11333 187&#8211;216.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2627019"></a>
11334 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2628494" href="#id2628494" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
11335
11336
11337 For eksempel, se, "Music Media Watch," The J@pan Inc. Newsletter, 3 April
11338 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11339 #76</a>.
11340 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2628649" href="#id2628649" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
11341
11342 William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital Music: Problems and
11343 Possibilities</em> (sist revidert: 10. oktober 2000), tilgjengelig
11344 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #77</a>; William
11345 Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep: Technology, Law, and the Future of
11346 Entertainment</em> (kommer) (Stanford: Stanford University Press,
11347 2004), kap. 6, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #78</a>. Professor Netanel har
11348 foreslått en relatert ide som ville gjøre at opphavsretten ikke gjelder
11349 ikke-kommersiell deling fra og ville etablere kompenasjon til kunstnere for
11350 å balansere eventuelle tap. Se Neil Weinstock Netanel, "Impose a
11351 Noncommercial Use Levy to Allow Free P2P File Sharing," tilgjengelig fra
11352 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #79</a>. For andre
11353 forslag, se Lawrence Lessig, "Who's Holding Back Broadband?"
11354 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 8. january 2002, A17; Philip
11355 S. Corwin på vegne av Sharman Networks, Et brev til Senator Joseph R. Biden,
11356 Jr., leder i the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 26. februar. 2002,
11357 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11358 #80</a>; Serguei Osokine, <em class="citetitle">A Quick Case for Intellectual
11359 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,
11360 "Kazaa, Verizon Propose to Pay Artists Directly," <em class="citetitle">USA
11361 Today</em>, 13. mai 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #82</a>; Steven M. Cherry,
11362 "Getting Copyright Right," IEEE Spectrum Online, 1. juli 2002, tilgjengelig
11363 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #83</a>; Declan
11364 McCullagh, "Verizon's Copyright Campaign," CNET News.com, 27. august 2002,
11365 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11366 #84</a>.  Forslaget fra Fisher er ganske likt forslaget til Richard
11367 Stallman når det gjelder DAT.  I motsetning til Fishers forslag, ville
11368 Stallmanns forslag ikke betale kunstnere proposjonalt, selv om mer populære
11369 artister ville få mer betalt enn mindre populære.  Slik det er typisk med
11370 Stallman, la han fram sitt forslag omtrent ti år før dagens debatt. Se
11371 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #85</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2628764"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2628773"></a>
11372 <a class="indexterm" name="id2628779"></a>
11373 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2629066" href="#id2629066" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
11374
11375
11376 Lawrence Lessig, "Copyright's First Amendment" (Melville B. Nimmer Memorial
11377 Lecture), <em class="citetitle">UCLA law Review</em> 48 (2001): 1057,
11378 1069&#8211;70.
11379 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2629099" href="#id2629099" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
11380
11381 Et godt eksempel er arbeidet til professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz bør få
11382 ros for sin nøye gjennomgang av data om opphavsrettsbrudd, som fikk ham til
11383 å stille spørsmål med sin egen uttalte posisjon&#8212;to ganger.  I starten
11384 predicated han at nedlasting ville påføre industrien vesentlig skade.  Han
11385 endret så sitt syn etter i lys av dataene, og han har siden endret sitt syn
11386 på nytt.  Sammenlign Stan J. Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network
11387 Economy: The True Forces That Drive the Digital Marketplace</em> (New
11388 York: Amacom, 2002), (gikk igjennom hans originale syn men uttrykte skepsis)
11389 med Stan J.  Liebowitz, "Will MP3s Annihilate the Record Industry?"
11390 artikkelutkast, juni 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #86</a>.  Den nøye analysen til
11391 Liebowitz er ekstremt verdifull i sin estimering av effekten av
11392 fildelingsteknologi.  Etter mitt syn underestimerer han forøvrig kostnaden
11393 til det juridiske system.  Se, for eksempel,
11394 <em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174&#8211;76.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2629076"></a>
11395 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 17. Notater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>Kapittel 17. Notater</h2></div></div></div><p>
11396 I denne teksten er det referanser til lenker på verdensveven.  Og som alle
11397 som har forsøkt å bruke nettet vet, så vil disse lenkene være svært
11398 ustabile.  Jeg har forsøkt å motvirke denne ustabiliteten ved å omdirigere
11399 lesere til den originale kilden gjennom en nettside som hører til denne
11400 boken.  For hver lenke under, så kan du gå til http://free-culture.cc/notes
11401 og finne den originale kilden ved å klikke på nummeret etter #-tegnet.  Hvis
11402 den originale lenken fortsatt er i live, så vil du bli omdirigert til den
11403 lenken.  Hvis den originale lenken har forsvunnet, så vil du bli omdirigert
11404 til en passende referanse til materialet.
11405 </p></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 18. Takk til"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>Kapittel 18. Takk til</h2></div></div></div><p>
11406 Denne boken er produktet av en lang og så langt mislykket kamp som begynte
11407 da jeg leste om Eric Eldreds krig for å sørge for at bøker forble
11408 frie. Eldreds innsats bidro til å lansere en bevegelse, fri
11409 kultur-bevegelsen, og denne boken er tilegnet ham.
11410 </p><p>
11411 Jeg fikk veiledning på ulike steder fra venner og akademikere, inkludert
11412 Glenn Brown, Peter DiCola, Jennifer Mnookin, Richard Posner, Mark Rose og
11413 Kathleen Sullivan. Og jeg fikk korreksjoner og veiledning fra mange
11414 fantastiske studenter ved Stanford Law School og Stanford University. Det
11415 inkluderer Andrew B. Coan, John Eden, James P. Fellers, Christopher
11416 Guzelian, Erica Goldberg, Robert Hallman, Andrew Harris, Matthew Kahn,
11417 Brian-Link, Ohad Mayblum, Alina Ng og Erica Platt. Jeg er særlig takknemlig
11418 overfor Catherine Crump og Harry Surden, som hjalp til med å styre deres
11419 forskning og til Laura Lynch, som briljant håndterte hæren de samlet, samt
11420 bidro med sitt egen kritisk blikk på mye av dette.
11421 </p><p>
11422
11423 Yuko Noguchi hjalp meg å forstå lovene i Japan, så vel som Japans
11424 kultur. Jeg er henne takknemlig, og til de mange i Japan som hjalp meg med
11425 forundersøkelsene til denne boken: Joi Ito, Takayuki Matsutani, Naoto
11426 Misaki, Michihiro Sasaki, Hiromichi Tanaka, Hiroo Yamagata og Yoshihiro
11427 Yonezawa.  Jeg er også takknemlig til professor Nobuhiro Nakayama og Tokyo
11428 University Business Law Center, som ga meg muligheten til å bruke tid i
11429 Japan, og Tadashi Shiraishi og Kiyokazu Yamagami for deres generøse hjelp
11430 mens jeg var der.
11431 </p><p>
11432 Dette er de tradisjonelle former for hjelp som akademikere regelmessig
11433 trekker på. Men i tillegg til dem, har Internett gjort det mulig å motta råd
11434 og korrigering fra mange som jeg har aldri møtt.  Blant de som har svart med
11435 svært nyttig råd etter forespørsler om boken på bloggen min er Dr. Muhammed
11436 Al-Ubaydli, David Gerstein og Peter Dimauro, I tillegg en lang liste med de
11437 som hadde spesifikke ideer om måter å utvikle mine argumenter på.  De
11438 inkluderte Richard Bondi, Steven Cherry, David Coe, Nik Cubrilovic, Bob
11439 Devine, Charles Eicher, Thomas Guida, Elihu M. Gerson, Jeremy Hunsinger,
11440 Vaughn Iverson, John Karabaic, Jeff Keltner, James Lindenschmidt,
11441 K. L. Mann, Mark Manning, Nora McCauley, Jeffrey McHugh, Evan McMullen, Fred
11442 Norton, John Pormann, Pedro A. D.  Rezende, Shabbir Safdar, Saul Schleimer,
11443 Clay Shirky, Adam Shostack, Kragen Sitaker, Chris Smith, Bruce Steinberg,
11444 Andrzej Jan Taramina, Sean Walsh, Matt Wasserman, Miljenko Williams, "Wink,"
11445 Roger Wood, "Ximmbo da Jazz," og Richard Yanco. (jeg beklager hvis jeg gikk
11446 glipp av noen, med datamaskiner kommer feil og en krasj i e-postsystemet
11447 mitt gjorde at jeg mistet en haug med flotte svar.)
11448 </p><p>
11449 Richard Stallman og Michael Carroll har begge lest hele boken i utkast, og
11450 hver av dem har bidratt med svært nyttige korreksjoner og råd. Michael hjalp
11451 meg å se mer tydelig betydningen av regulering for avledede verker . Og
11452 Richard korrigerte en pinlig stor mengde feil.  Selv om mitt arbeid er
11453 delvis inspirert av Stallmans, er han ikke enig med meg på vesentlige steder
11454 i denne boken.
11455 </p><p>
11456 Til slutt, og for evig, er jeg Bettina takknemlig, som alltid har insistert
11457 på at det ville være endeløs lykke utenfor disse kampene, og som alltid har
11458 hatt rett.  Denne trege eleven er som alltid takknemlig for hennes
11459 evigvarende tålmodighet og kjærlighet.
11460 </p></div><div class="index" title="Indeks"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2629434"></a>Indeks</h2></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Symboler</h3><dl><dt>"copyleft" licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>"Country of the Blind, The" (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt></dl></div><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>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Aibo robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>akademiske tidsskrifter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Aristoteles, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>artister</dt><dd><dl><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2604696">"Piratvirksomhet"</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>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bern-konvensjonen (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>chimeras, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>Coase, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>CodePink Women in Peace, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Coe, Brian, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>Comcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></dt><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>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">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2604696">"Piratvirksomhet"</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Elektronisk forpost-stiftelsen (EFF), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2604696">"Piratvirksomhet"</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>fotografering, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Fried, Charles, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Friedman, Milton, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>G</h3><dl><dt>Garlick, Mia, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Gates, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>General Film Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Internet Explorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>kjørehastighet, begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2604696">"Piratvirksomhet"</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2604696">"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>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></dt><dt>Microsoft</dt><dd><dl><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">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">Piracy II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Politikk, (Aristotles), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></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 Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>veterans' pensions, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: "Eiendom"</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piracy I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: "Kun etter-apere"</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Worldcom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt></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="#id2604696">"Piratvirksomhet"</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div></body></html>