archive/freeculture.nb.html

   1 <html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"><title>Fri kultur</title><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.76.1"><meta name="description" content="Om forfatteren Lawrense Lessig (http://www.lessig.org), professor i juss og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School, er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og styreleder i Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org). Forfatteren har gitt ut The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) og Code: And other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), og er medlem av styrene i Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, og Public Knowledge. Han har vunnet Free Software Foundation's Award for the Advancement of Free Software, to ganger vært oppført i BusinessWeek's e.biz 25, og omtalt som en av Scientific American's 50 visjonærer. Etter utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, og Yale Law School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals."></head><body bgcolor="white" text="black" link="#0000FF" vlink="#840084" alink="#0000FF"><div lang="nb" class="book" title="Fri kultur"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="index"></a>Fri kultur</h1></div><div><h2 class="subtitle">Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
   2 og kontrollere kreativiteten</h2></div><div><div class="authorgroup"><div class="author"><h3 class="author"><span class="firstname">Lawrence</span> <span class="surname">Lessig</span></h3></div></div></div><div><p class="releaseinfo">Versjon 2004-02-10</p></div><div><p class="copyright">Opphavsrett © 2004 Lawrence Lessig</p></div><div><div class="legalnotice" title="Rettslig merknad"><a name="id2852374"></a><p>
   3      <span class="inlinemediaobject"><img src="images/cc.png" align="middle" height="37.5" alt="Creative Commons, noen rettigheter reservert"></span>
   4    </p><p>
   5 Denne versjonen av <em class="citetitle">Fri Kultur</em> er lisensiert med en
   6 Creative Commons-lisens.  Denne lisensen tillater ikke-kommersiell
   7 utnyttelse av verket, hvis opphavsinnehaveren er navngitt.  For mer
   8 informasjon om lisensen, klikk på ikonet over eller besøk <a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/</a>
   9    </p></div></div><div><p class="pubdate">2004-03-25</p></div><div><div class="abstract" title="Om forfatteren"><p class="title"><b>Om forfatteren</b></p><p>
  10 Lawrense Lessig (<a class="ulink" href="http://www.lessig.org" target="_top">http://www.lessig.org</a>), professor i juss
  11 og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School,
  12 er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og styreleder i
  13 Creative Commons (<a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org</a>).
  14 Forfatteren har gitt ut The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) og Code:
  15 And other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), og er medlem av styrene i
  16 Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, og Public
  17 Knowledge.  Han har vunnet Free Software Foundation's Award for the
  18 Advancement of Free Software, to ganger vært oppført i BusinessWeek's
  19 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">e.biz 25,</span>»</span> og omtalt som en av Scientific American's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">50
  20 visjonærer</span>»</span>.  Etter utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania,
  21 Cambridge University, og Yale Law School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard
  22 Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
  23   </p></div></div></div><hr></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="salespoints"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  24 Du kan kjøpe et eksemplar av denne boken ved å klikke på en av lenkene
  25 nedenfor:
  26 </p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="number" compact><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.amazon.com/" target="_top">Amazon</a></p></li><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/" target="_top">B&amp;N</a></p></li><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.penguin.com/" target="_top">Penguin</a></p></li></ul></div></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="alsobylessig"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  27 Andre bøker av Lawrence Lessig
  28 </p><p>
  29 The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World
  30 </p><p>
  31 Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace
  32 </p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2807627"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  33 Til Eric Eldred &#8212; hvis arbeid først trakk meg til denne saken, og for
  34 hvem saken fortsetter.
  35 </p></div><div class="toc"><dl><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">Forord</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">0. <a href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="part">I. <a href="#c-piracy"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">1. <a href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">2. <a href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">3. <a href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">4. <a href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirater</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">4.1. <a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.2. <a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.3. <a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.4. <a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">5. <a href="#piracy">Kapittel fem: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">5.1. <a href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">5.2. <a href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">II. <a href="#c-property"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">6. <a href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">7. <a href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">8. <a href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">9. <a href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">10. <a href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">10.1. <a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.2. <a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.3. <a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.4. <a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.5. <a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.6. <a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.7. <a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.8. <a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">III. <a href="#c-puzzles">Nøtter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">11. <a href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">12. <a href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">12.1. <a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.2. <a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.3. <a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">IV. <a href="#c-balances">Maktfordeling</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">13. <a href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">14. <a href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">15. <a href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">16. <a href="#c-afterword">Etterord</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1. <a href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1.1. <a href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.1.2. <a href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2. <a href="#themsoon">Dem, snart</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1. <a href="#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.1. <a href="#registration">Registrering og fornying</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.2. <a href="#marking">Merking</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2.2. <a href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.3. <a href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.4. <a href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.5. <a href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">17. <a href="#c-notes">Notater</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">18. <a href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#id2897831">Indeks</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Kolofon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id2808185"></a>Kolofon</h2><p>
  36 THE PENGUIN PRESS, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.  375 Hudson Street
  37 New York, New York
  38 </p><p>
  39 Opphavsrettbeskyttet © Lawrence Lessig.  Alle rettigheter reservert.
  40 </p><p>
  41 Excerpt from an editorial titled <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Coming of Copyright
  42 Perpetuity,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, January 16,
  43 2003. Copyright © 2003 by The New York Times Co.  Reprinted with
  44 permission.
  45 </p><p>
  46 Humortegningen i <a class="xref" href="#fig-1711-vcr-handgun-cartoonfig" title="Figur 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.">Figur 10.18, &#8220;VCR/handgun cartoon.&#8221;</a> er laget
  47 av Paul Conrad, og opphavsrettsbeskyttet for Tribune Media Services, Inc.
  48 Alle rettigheter reservert, trykket her med tillatelse.
  49 </p><p>
  50 Diagrammet i <a class="xref" href="#fig-1761-pattern-modern-media-ownership" title="Figur 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.">Figur 10.19, &#8220;Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.&#8221;</a>
  51 kommer fra kontoret til FCC-kommisjonæren, Michael J. Copps.
  52 </p><p>
  53 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
  54 </p><p>
  55 Lessig, Lawrence.  Free culture : how big media uses technology and the law
  56 to lock down culture and control creativity / Lawrence Lessig.
  57 </p><p>
  58 p. cm.
  59 </p><p>
  60 Includes index.
  61 </p><p>
  62 ISBN 1-59420-006-8 (hardcover)
  63 </p><p>
  64 1. Intellectual property&#8212;United States. 2. Mass media&#8212;United
  65 States.
  66 </p><p>
  67 3. Technological innovations&#8212;United States. 4. Art&#8212;United
  68 States. I. Title.
  69 </p><p>
  70 KF2979.L47
  71 </p><p>
  72 343.7309'9&#8212;dc22
  73 </p><p>
  74 This book is printed on acid-free paper.
  75 </p><p>
  76 Printed in the United States of America
  77 </p><p>
  78 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4
  79 </p><p>
  80 Designed by Marysarah Quinn
  81 </p><p>
  82 Oversatt til bokmål av Petter Reinholdtsen og Anders Hagen
  83 Jarmund. Kildefilene til oversetterprosjektet er <a class="ulink" href="https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/free-culture-lessig" target="_top">tilgjengelig
  84 fra github</a>.  Rapporter feil med oversettelsen via github.
  85 </p><p>
  86 Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this
  87 publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval
  88 system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
  89 photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission
  90 of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.
  91 </p><p>
  92 The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the Internet or
  93 via any other means without the permission of the publisher is illegal and
  94 punishable by law.  Please purchase only authorized electronic editions and
  95 do not participate in or encourage electronic piracy of copyrighted
  96 materials. Your support of the author's rights is appreciated.
  97 </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>
  98 <span class="bold"><strong>På slutten av</strong></span> hans gjennomgang av min
  99 første bok <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace</em>, skrev
 100 David Pogue, en glimrende skribent og forfatter av utallige tekniske
 101 datarelaterte tekster, dette:
 102 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 103 I motsetning til faktiske lover, så har ikke internett-programvare
 104 kapasiteten til å straffe.  Den påvirker ikke folk som ikke er online (og
 105 kun en veldig liten minoritet av verdens befolkning er online).  Og hvis du
 106 ikke liker systemet på internett, så kan du alltid slå av
 107 modemet.<sup>[<a name="preface01" href="#ftn.preface01" class="footnote">1</a>]</sup>
 108 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 109 Pogue var skeptisk til argumentet som er kjernen av boken &#8212; at
 110 programvaren, eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">koden</span>»</span>, fungerte som en slags lov &#8212;
 111 og foreslo i sin anmeldelse den lykkelig tanken at hvis livet i cyberspace
 112 gikk dårlig, så kan vi alltid som med en trylleformel slå over en bryter og
 113 komme hjem igjen. Slå av modemet, koble fra datamaskinen, og eventuelle
 114 problemer som finnes <span class="emphasis"><em>den</em></span> virkeligheten ville ikke
 115 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">påvirke</span>»</span> oss mer.
 116 </p><p>
 117
 118 Pogue kan ha hatt rett i 1999 &#8212; jeg er skeptisk, men det kan
 119 hende. Men selv om han hadde rett da, så er ikke argumentet gyldig
 120 nå. <em class="citetitle">Fri Kultur</em> er om problemene internett forårsaker
 121 selv etter at modemet er slått av.  Den er et argument om hvordan slagene
 122 som nå brer om seg i livet on-line har fundamentalt påvirket <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">folk som
 123 er ikke pålogget.</span>»</span>  Det finnes ingen bryter som kan isolere oss fra
 124 internettets effekt.
 125 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2808423"></a><p>
 126 Men i motsetning til i boken <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, er argumentet her
 127 ikke så mye om internett i seg selv. Istedet er det om konsekvensen av
 128 internett for en del av vår tradisjon som er mye mer grunnleggende, og
 129 uansett hvor hardt dette er for en geek-wanna-be å innrømme, mye viktigere.
 130 </p><p>
 131 Den tradisjonen er måten vår kultur blir laget på.  Som jeg vil forklare i
 132 sidene som følger, kommer vi fra en tradisjon av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri
 133 kultur</span>»</span>&#8212;ikke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri</span>»</span> som i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri bar</span>»</span>
 134 (for å låne et uttrykk fra stifteren av fri
 135 programvarebevegelsen<sup>[<a name="id2808469" href="#ftn.id2808469" class="footnote">2</a>]</sup>), men
 136 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri</span>»</span> som i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">talefrihet</span>»</span>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fritt
 137 marked</span>»</span>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frihandel</span>»</span>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri konkurranse</span>»</span>,
 138 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri vilje</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frie valg</span>»</span>.  En fri kultur støtter
 139 og beskytter skapere og oppfinnere.  Dette gjør den direkte ved å tildele
 140 immaterielle rettigheter.  Men det gjør den indirekte ved å begrense
 141 rekkevidden for disse rettighetene, for å garantere at neste generasjon
 142 skapere og oppfinnere forblir <span class="emphasis"><em>så fri som mulig</em></span> fra
 143 kontroll fra fortiden.  En fri kultur er ikke en kultur uten eierskap, like
 144 lite som et fritt marked er et marked der alt er gratis.  Det motsatte av
 145 fri kultur er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tillatelseskultur</span>»</span>&#8212;en kultur der skapere
 146 kun kan skape med tillatelse fra de mektige, eller fra skaperne fra
 147 fortiden.
 148 </p><p>
 149 Hvis vi forsto denne endringen, så tror jeg vi ville stå imot den.  Ikke
 150 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vi</span>»</span> på venstresiden eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">dere</span>»</span> på høyresiden,
 151 men vi som ikke har investert i den spesifikke kulturindustrien som har
 152 definert det tjuende århundre. Enten du er på venstre eller høyresiden, hvis
 153 du i denne forstand ikke har interesser, vil historien jeg forteller her gi
 154 deg problemer. For endringene jeg beskriver påvirker verdier som begge sider
 155 av vår politiske kultur anser som grunnleggende.
 156 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpowerconcentrationof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2808561"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2808568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2808575"></a><p>
 157 Vi så et glimt av dette tverrpolitiske raseri på forsommeren i 2003. Da FCC
 158 vurderte endringer i reglene for medieeierskap som ville slakke på
 159 begrensningene rundt mediekonsentrasjon, sendte en ekstraordinær koalisjon
 160 mer enn 700 000 brev til FCC for å motsette seg endringen.  Mens William
 161 Safire beskrev å marsjere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ubehagelig sammen med CodePink Women for
 162 Peace and the National Rifle Association, mellom liberale Olympia Snowe og
 163 konservative Ted Stevens</span>»</span>, formulerte han  kanskje det enkleste
 164 uttrykket for hva som var på spill: konsentrasjonen av makt.  Så spurte han:
 165 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 166 Høres dette ikke-konservativt ut?  Ikke for meg.  Denne konsentrasjonen av
 167 makt&#8212;politisk, selskapsmessig, pressemessig, kulturelt&#8212;bør være
 168 bannlyst av konservative.  Spredningen av makt gjennom lokal kontroll, og
 169 derigjennom oppmuntre til individuell deltagelse, er essensen i føderalismen
 170 og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<sup>[<a name="id2808620" href="#ftn.id2808620" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
 171 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 172 Denne idéen er et element i argumentet til <em class="citetitle">Fri
 173 Kultur</em>, selv om min fokus ikke bare er på konsentrasjonen av
 174 makt som følger av konsentrasjonen i eierskap, men mer viktig, og fordi det
 175 er mindre synlig, på konsentrasjonen av makt som er resultat av en radikal
 176 endring i det effektive virkeområdet til loven.  Loven er i endring, og
 177 endringen forandrer på hvordan vår kultur blir skapt. Den endringen bør
 178 bekymre deg&#8212;Uansett om du bryr deg om internett eller ikke, og uansett
 179 om du er til venstre for Safires eller til høyre.
 180 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2808649"></a><p>
 181 <span class="strong"><strong>Inspirasjonen</strong></span> til tittelen og mye av
 182 argumentet i denne boken kommer fra arbeidet til Richard Stallman og Free
 183 Software Foundation. Faktisk, da jeg leste Stallmans egne tekster på nytt,
 184 spesielt essyene i <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free Society</em>,
 185 innser jeg at alle de teoretiske innsiktene jeg utvikler her er innsikter
 186 som Stallman beskrev for tiår siden.  Man kan dermed godt argumentere for at
 187 dette verket <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kun</span>»</span> er et avledet verk.
 188 </p><p>
 189
 190 Jeg godtar kritikken, hvis det faktisk er kritikk.  Arbeidet til en advokat
 191 er alltid avledede verker, og jeg mener ikke å gjøre noe mer i denne boken
 192 enn å minne en kultur om en tradisjon som alltid har vært deres egen. Som
 193 Stallman forsvarer jeg denne tradisjonen på grunnlag av verdier. Som
 194 Stallman tror jeg dette er verdiene til frihet.  Og som Stallman, tror jeg
 195 dette er verdier fra vår fortid som må forsvares i vår fremtid.  En fri
 196 kultur har vært vår fortid, men vil bare være vår fremtid hvis vi endrer
 197 retningen vi følger akkurat nå.  På samme måte som Stallmans argumenter for
 198 fri programvare, treffer argumenter for en fri kultur på forvirring som er
 199 vanskelig å unngå, og enda vanskeligere å forstå.  En fri kultur er ikke en
 200 kultur uten eierskap. Det er ikke en kultur der kunstnere ikke får
 201 betalt. En kultur uten eierskap eller en der skaperne ikke kan få betalt, er
 202 anarki, ikke frihet.  Anarki er ikke hva jeg fremmer her.
 203 </p><p>
 204 I stedet er den frie kulturen som jeg forsvarer i denne boken en balanse
 205 mellom anarki og kontroll.  En fri kultur, i likhet med et fritt marked, er
 206 fylt med eierskap.  Den er fylt med regler for eierskap og kontrakter som
 207 blir håndhevet av staten.  Men på samme måte som det frie markedet blir
 208 pervertert hvis dets eierskap blir føydalt, så kan en fri kultur bli ødelagt
 209 av ekstremisme i eierskapsrettighetene som definerer den.  Det er dette jeg
 210 frykter om vår kultur i dag.  Det er som motpol til denne ekstremismen at
 211 denne boken er skrevet.
 212 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.preface01" href="#preface01" class="para">1</a>] </sup>
 213 David Pogue, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Don't Just Chat, Do Something,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
 214 York Times</em>, 30. januar 2000
 215 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2808469" href="#id2808469" class="para">2</a>] </sup>
 216 Richard M. Stallman, <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free Societies</em> 57
 217 (Joshua Gay, red. 2002).
 218 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2808620" href="#id2808620" class="para">3</a>] </sup> William Safire, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Great Media Gulp,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
 219 Times</em>, 22. mai 2003.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2808631"></a>
 220 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Introduksjon</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxwrightbrothers"></a><p>
 221 <span class="strong"><strong>Den 17. desember</strong></span> 1903, på en vindfylt
 222 strand i Nord-Carolina i såvidt under hundre sekunder, demonstrerte
 223 Wright-brødrene at et selvdrevet fartøy tyngre enn luft kunne fly.
 224 Øyeblikket var elektrisk, og dens betydning ble alment forstått. Nesten
 225 umiddelbart, eksploderte interessen for denne nye teknologien som
 226 muliggjorde bemannet luftfart og en hærskare av oppfinnere begynte å bygge
 227 videre på den.
 228 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxairtrafficlandownershipvs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlandownershipairtrafficand"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpropertyrightsairtrafficvs"></a><p>
 229 Da Wright-brødrene fant opp flymaskinen, hevdet loven i USA at en grunneier
 230 ble antatt å eie ikke bare overflaten på området sitt, men også alt landet
 231 under bakken, helt ned til senterpunktet i jorda, og alt volumet over
 232 bakken, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2864108" href="#ftn.id2864108" class="footnote">4</a>]</sup> I mange år undret lærde over hvordan en best skulle tolke idéen om
 233 at eiendomsretten gikk helt til himmelen. Betød dette at du eide stjernene?
 234 Kunne en dømme gjess for at de regelmessig og med vilje tok seg inn på annen
 235 manns eiendom?
 236 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2864126"></a><p>
 237 Så kom flymaskiner, og for første gang hadde dette prinsippet i lovverket i
 238 USA&#8212;dypt nede i grunnlaget for vår tradisjon og akseptert av de
 239 viktigste juridiske tenkerne i vår fortid&#8212;en betydning. Hvis min
 240 eiendom rekker til himmelen, hva skjer når United flyr over mitt område?
 241 Har jeg rett til å nekte dem å bruke min eiendom?  Har jeg mulighet til å
 242 inngå en eksklusiv avtale med Delta Airlines?  Kan vi gjennomføre en auksjon
 243 for å finne ut hvor mye disse rettighetene er verdt?
 244 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2864136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2864161"></a><p>
 245 I 1945 ble disse spørsmålene en føderal sak. Da bøndene Thomas Lee og Tinie
 246 Causby i Nord Carolina begynte å miste kyllinger på grunn av lavtflygende
 247 militære fly (vettskremte kyllinger fløy tilsynelatende i låveveggene og
 248 døde), saksøkte Causbyene regjeringen for å trenge seg inn på deres
 249 eiendom. Flyene rørte selvfølgelig aldri overflaten på Causbys' eiendom. Men
 250 hvis det stemte som Blackstone, Kent, og Cola hadde sagt, at deres eiendom
 251 strakk seg <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover,</span>»</span> så hadde regjeringen
 252 trengt seg inn på deres eiendom, og Causbys ønsket å sette en stopper for
 253 dette.
 254 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2864187"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2864194"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdouglaswilliamo"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsupremecourtusonairspacevslandrights"></a><p>
 255 Høyesterett gikk med på å ta opp Causbys sak. Kongressen hadde vedtatt at
 256 luftfartsveiene var tilgjengelig for alle, men hvis ens eiendom virkelig
 257 rakk til himmelen, da kunne muligens kongressens vedtak ha vært i strid med
 258 grunnlovens forbud mot å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> eiendom uten kompensasjon.
 259 Retten erkjente at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er gammel doktrine etter sedvane at en eiendom
 260 rakk til utkanten av universet.</span>»</span>, men dommer Douglas hadde ikke
 261 tålmodighet for forhistoriske doktriner.  I et enkelt avsnitt, ble hundrevis
 262 av år med eiendomslovgivningen strøket. Som han skrev på vegne av retten,
 263 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 264 [Denne] doktrinen har ingen plass i den moderne verden.  Luften er en
 265 offentlig motorvei, slik kongressen har erklært.  Hvis det ikke var
 266 tilfelle, ville hver eneste transkontinentale flyrute utsette operatørene
 267 for utallige søksmål om inntrenging på annen manns eiendom.  Idéen er i
 268 strid med sunn fornuft.  Å anerkjenne slike private krav til luftrommet
 269 ville blokkere disse motorveiene, seriøst forstyrre muligheten til kontroll
 270 og utvikling av dem i fellesskapets interesse og overføre til privat
 271 eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.<sup>[<a name="id2864270" href="#ftn.id2864270" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
 272 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 273 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>»</span>
 274 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2864324"></a><p>
 275
 276 Det er hvordan loven vanligvis fungerer.  Ikke ofte like brått eller
 277 utålmodig, men til slutt er dette hvordan loven fungerer.  Det var ikke
 278 stilen til Douglas å utbrodere.  Andre dommere ville ha skrevet mange flere
 279 sider før de nådde sin konklusjon, men for Douglas holdt det med en enkel
 280 linje: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>»</span>.  Men uansett om
 281 det tar flere sider eller kun noen få ord, så er det en genial egenskap med
 282 et rettspraksis-system, slik som vårt er, at loven tilpasser seg til
 283 aktuelle teknologiene.  Og mens den tilpasser seg, så endres den.  Idéer som
 284 var solide som fjell i en tidsalder knuses i en annen.
 285 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2864369"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2864375"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2864382"></a><p>
 286 Eller, det er hvordan ting skjer når det ikke er noen mektige på andre siden
 287 av endringen.  Causbyene var bare bønder.  Og selv om det uten tvil var
 288 mange som dem som var lei av den økende trafikken i luften (og en håper ikke
 289 for mange kyllinger flakset seg inn i vegger), ville Causbyene i verden
 290 finne det svært hardt å samles for å stoppe idéen, og teknologien, som
 291 Wright-brødrene hadde ført til verden.  Wright-brødrene spyttet flymaskiner
 292 inn i den teknologiske meme-dammen. Idéen spredte seg deretter som et virus
 293 i en kyllingfarm. Causbyene i verden fant seg selv omringet av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det
 294 synes rimelig</span>»</span> gitt teknologien som Wright-brødrene hadde produsert.
 295 De kunne stå på sine gårder, med døde kyllinger i hendene, og heve
 296 knyttneven mot disse nye teknologiene så mye de ville.  De kunne ringe sine
 297 representanter eller til og med saksøke.  Men når alt kom til alt, ville
 298 kraften i det som virket <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpenbart</span>»</span> for alle andre&#8212;makten
 299 til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>»</span>&#8212;ville vinne frem.  Deres
 300 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">personlige interesser</span>»</span> ville ikke få lov til å nedkjempe en
 301 åpenbar fordel for fellesskapet.
 302 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2864430"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2864442"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2864453"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2864464"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxarmstrongedwinhoward"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2864487"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2864495"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2864501"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxradiofmspectrumof"></a><p>
 303
 304 <span class="strong"><strong>Edwin Howard Armstrong</strong></span> er en av USAs
 305 glemte oppfinnergenier. Han dukket opp på oppfinnerscenen etter titaner som
 306 Thomas Edison og Alexander Graham Bell.  Alle hans bidrag på området
 307 radioteknologi gjør han til kanskje den viktigste av alle enkeltoppfinnere i
 308 de første femti årene av radio.  Han var bedre utdannet enn Michael Faraday,
 309 som var bokbinderlærling da han oppdaget elektrisk induksjon i 1831.  Men
 310 han hadde like god intuisjon om hvordan radioverden virket, og ved minst tre
 311 anledninger, fant Armstrong opp svært viktig teknologier som brakte vår
 312 forståelse av radio et hopp videre.
 313
 314 </p><p>
 315 Dagen etter julaften i 1933, ble fire patenter utstedt til Armstrong for
 316 hans mest signifikante oppfinnelse&#8212;FM-radio.  Inntil da hadde
 317 forbrukerradioer vært amplitude-modulert (AM) radio.  Tidens teoretikere
 318 hadde sagt at frekvens-modulert (FM) radio.  De hadde rett når det gjelder
 319 et smalt bånd av spektrumet.  Men Armstrong oppdaget at frekvens-modulert
 320 radio i et vidt bånd i spektrumet leverte en forbløffende gjengivelse av
 321 lyd, med mye mindre senderstyrke og støy.
 322 </p><p>
 323 Den 5. november 1935 demonstrerte han teknologien på et møte hos institutt
 324 for radioingeniører ved Empire State-bygningen i New York City.  Han vred
 325 radiosøkeren over en rekke AM-stasjoner, inntil radioen låste seg mot en
 326 kringkasting som han hadde satt opp 27 kilometer unna.  Radioen ble helt
 327 stille, som om den var død, og så, med en klarhet ingen andre i rommet noen
 328 gang hadde hørt fra et elektrisk apparat, produserte det lyden av en
 329 opplesers stemme: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dette er amatørstasjon W2AG ved Yonkers, New York,
 330 som opererer på frekvensmodulering ved to og en halv meter.</span>»</span>
 331 </p><p>
 332 Publikum hørte noe ingen hadde trodd var mulig:
 333 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 334 Et glass vann ble fylt opp foran mikrofonen i Yonkers, og det hørtes ut som
 335 et glass som ble fylt opp. &#8230; Et papir ble krøllet og revet opp, og
 336 det hørtes ut som papir og ikke som en sprakende skogbrann. &#8230;
 337 Sousa-marsjer ble spilt av fra plater og en pianosolo og et gitarnummer ble
 338 utført. &#8230; Musikken ble presentert med en livaktighet som sjeldent om
 339 noen gang før hadde vært hørt fra en
 340 radio-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">musikk-boks</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2864610" href="#ftn.id2864610" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
 341 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxrca"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmediaownershipconcentrationin"></a><p>
 342
 343 Som vår egen sunn fornuft forteller oss, hadde Armstrong oppdaget en mye
 344 bedre radioteknologi.  Men på tidspunktet for hans oppfinnelse, jobbet
 345 Armstrong for RCA. RCA var den dominerende aktøren i det da dominerende
 346 AM-radiomarkedet. I 1935 var det tusen radiostasjoner over hele USA, men
 347 stasjonene i de store byene var alle eid av en liten håndfull selskaper.
 348
 349 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2864665"></a><p>
 350 Presidenten i RCA, David Sarnoff, en venn av Armstrong, var ivrig etter å få
 351 Armstrong til å oppdage en måte å fjerne støyen fra AM-radio. Så Sarnoff var
 352 ganske spent da Armstrong fortalte ham at han hadde en enhet som fjernet
 353 støy fra <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radio.</span>»</span>.   Men da Armstrong demonstrerte sin
 354 oppfinnelse, var ikke Sarnoff fornøyd.
 355 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 356 Jeg trodde Armstrong ville finne opp et slags filter for å fjerne skurring
 357 fra AM-radioen vår. Jeg trodde ikke han skulle starte en revolusjon &#8212;
 358 starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.<sup>[<a name="id2864546" href="#ftn.id2864546" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
 359 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxfmradio"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2864729"></a><p>
 360 Armstrongs oppfinnelse truet RCAs AM-herredømme, så selskapet lanserte en
 361 kampanje for å knuse FM-radio. Mens FM kan ha vært en overlegen teknologi,
 362 var Sarnoff en overlegen taktiker. En forfatter beskrev det slik,
 363 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessinglawrence"></a><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 364 Kreftene til fordel for FM, i hovedsak ingeniørfaglige, kunne ikke overvinne
 365 tyngden til strategien utviklet av avdelingene for salg, patenter og juss
 366 for å undertrykke denne trusselen til selskapets posisjon.  For FM utgjorde,
 367 hvis det fikk utvikle seg uten begrensninger &#8230; en komplett endring i
 368 maktforholdene rundt radio &#8230; og muligens fjerningen av det nøye
 369 begrensede AM-systemet som var grunnlaget for RCA stigning til
 370 makt.<sup>[<a name="id2864778" href="#ftn.id2864778" class="footnote">8</a>]</sup>
 371 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxfcconfmradio"></a><p>
 372 RCA holdt først teknologien innomhus, og insistere på at det var nødvendig
 373 med ytterligere tester. Da Armstrong, etter to år med testing, ble
 374 utålmodig, begynte RCA å bruke sin makt hos myndighetene til holde tilbake
 375 den generelle spredningen av FM-radio. I 1936, ansatte RCA den tidligere
 376 lederen av FCC og ga ham oppgaven med å sikre at FCC tilordnet
 377 radiospekteret på en måte som ville kastrere FM&#8212;hovedsakelig ved å
 378 flytte FM-radio til et annet band i spekteret. I første omgang lyktes ikke
 379 disse forsøkene.  Men mens Armstrong og nasjonen var distrahert av andre
 380 verdenskrig, begynte RCAs arbeid å bære frukter.  Like etter at krigen var
 381 over, annonserte FCC et sett med avgjørelser som ville ha en klar effekt:
 382 FM-radio ville bli forkrøplet.Lawrence lessing beskrevet det slik,
 383 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 384 Serien med slag mot kroppen som FM-radio mottok rett etter krigen, i en
 385 serie med avgjørelser manipulert gjennom FCC av de store radiointeressene,
 386 var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.<sup>[<a name="id2864808" href="#ftn.id2864808" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
 387 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2864847"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2864855"></a><p>
 388 For å gjøre plass i spektrumet for RCAs nyeste satsingsområde, televisjon,
 389 skulle FM-radioens brukere flyttes til et helt nytt band i spektrumet.
 390 Sendestyrken til FM-radioene ble også redusert, og gjorde at FM ikke lenger
 391 kunne brukes for å sende programmer fra en del av landet til en annen.
 392 (Denne endringen ble sterkt støttet av AT&amp;T, på grunn av at fjerningen
 393 av FM-videresendingsstasjoner ville bety at radiostasjonene ville bli nødt
 394 til å kjøpe kablede linker fra AT&amp;T.)  Spredningen av FM-radio var
 395 dermed kvalt, i hvert fall midlertidig.
 396 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2864875"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2864883"></a><p>
 397 Armstrong sto imot RCAs innsats. Som svar motsto RCA Armstrongs patenter.
 398 Etter å ha bakt FM-teknologi inn i den nye standarden for TV, erklærte RCS
 399 patentene ugyldige&#8212;uten grunn og nesten femten år etter at de ble
 400 utstedet.  De nektet dermed å betale ham for bruken av patentene.  I seks år
 401 kjempet Armstrong en dyr søksmålskrig for å forsvare patentene sine.  Til
 402 slutt, samtidig som patentene utløp, tilbød RCA et forlik så lavt at det
 403 ikke engang dekket Armstrongs advokatregning.  Beseiret, knust og nå blakk,
 404 skrev Armstrong i 1954 en kort beskjed til sin kone, før han gikk ut av et
 405 vindu i trettende etasje og falt i døden.
 406 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2864893"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2864921"></a><p>
 407
 408 Dette er slik loven virker noen ganger.  Ikke ofte like tragisk, og sjelden
 409 med heltemodig drama, men noen ganger er det slik det virker. Fra starten
 410 har myndigheter og myndighetsorganer blitt tatt til fange. Det er mer
 411 sannsynlig at de blir fanget når en mektig interesse er truet av enten en
 412 juridisk eller teknologisk endring.  Denne mektige interessen utøver for
 413 ofte sin innflytelse hos myndighetene til å få myndighetene til å beskytte
 414 den.  Retorikken for denne beskyttelsen er naturligvis alltid med fokus på
 415 fellesskapets beste.  Realiteten er noe annet.  Idéer som kan være solide
 416 som fjell i en tidsalder, men som overlatt til seg selv, vil falle sammen i
 417 en annen, er videreført gjennom denne subtile korrupsjonen i vår politiske
 418 prosess.  RCA hadde hva Causby-ene ikke hadde: Makten til å undertrykke
 419 effekten av en teknologisk endring.
 420 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2864953"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2864961"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxinternetdevelopmentof"></a><p>
 421 <span class="strong"><strong>Det er ingen</strong></span> enkeltoppfinner av
 422 Internet.  Ei heller er det en god dato som kan brukes til å markere når det
 423 ble født.  Likevel har internettet i løpet av svært kort tid blitt en del av
 424 vanlige amerikaneres liv.  I følge the Pew Internet and American
 425 Life-prosjektet, har 58 prosent av amerikanerne hatt tilgang til internettet
 426 i 2002, opp fra 49 prosent to år tidligere.<sup>[<a name="id2865002" href="#ftn.id2865002" class="footnote">10</a>]</sup> Det tallet kan uten problemer passere to tredjedeler av nasjonen
 427 ved utgangen av 2004.
 428 </p><p>
 429 Etter hvert som internett er blitt integrert inn i det vanlige liv har ting
 430 blitt endret.  Noen av disse endringene er teknisk&#8212;internettet har
 431 gjort kommunikasjon raskere, det har redusert kostnaden med å samle inn
 432 data, og så videre.  Disse tekniske endringene er ikke fokus for denne
 433 boken.  De er viktige.  De er ikke godt forstått.  Men de er den type ting
 434 som ganske enkelt ville blir borte hvis vi alle bare slo av internettet.  De
 435 påvirker ikke folk som ikke bruker internettet, eller i det miste påvirker
 436 det ikke dem direkte.  De er et godt tema for en bok om internettet.  Men
 437 dette er ikke en bok om internettet.
 438 </p><p>
 439 I stedet er denne boken om effekten av internettet ut over internettet i seg
 440 selv.  En effekt på hvordan kultur blir skapt.  Min påstand er at
 441 internettet har ført til en viktig og ukjent endring i denne prosessen.
 442 Denne endringen vil forandre en tradisjon som er like gammel som republikken
 443 selv.  De fleste, hvis de la merke til denne endringen, ville avvise den.
 444 Men de fleste legger ikke engang merke til denne endringen som internettet
 445 har introdusert.
 446 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2865058"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2865066"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxculturecommercialvsnoncommercial"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2865087"></a><p>
 447
 448 Vi kan få en følelse av denne endringen ved å skille mellom kommersiell og
 449 ikke-kommersiell kultur, ved å knytte lovens reguleringer til hver av dem.
 450 Med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kommersiell kultur</span>»</span> mener jeg den delen av vår kultur som
 451 er produsert og solgt eller produsert for å bli solgt.  Med
 452 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke-kommersiell kultur</span>»</span> mener jeg alt det andre. Da gamle
 453 menn satt rundt i parker eller på gatehjørner og fortalte historier som
 454 unger og andre lyttet til, så var det ikke-kommersiell kultur.  Da Noah
 455 Webster publiserte sin <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Reader</span>»</span>, eller Joel Barlow sin poesi,
 456 så var det kommersiell kultur.
 457 </p><p>
 458 Fra historisk tid, og for omtrent hele vår tradisjon, har ikke-kommersiell
 459 kultur i hovedsak ikke vært regulert.  Selvfølgelig, hvis din historie var
 460 utuktig, eller hvis dine sanger forstyrret freden, kunne loven gripe inn.
 461 Men loven var aldri direkte interessert i skapingen eller spredningen av
 462 denne form for kultur, og lot denne kulturen være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri</span>»</span>.  Den
 463 vanlige måten som vanlige individer delte og formet deres
 464 kultur&#8212;historiefortelling, formidling av scener fra teater eller TV,
 465 delta i fan-klubber, deling av musikk, laging av kassetter&#8212;ble ikke
 466 styrt av lovverket.
 467 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightinfringementlawsuitscommercialcreativityasprimarypurposeof"></a><p>
 468 Fokuset på loven var kommersiell kreativitet.  I starten forsiktig, etter
 469 hvert betraktelig, beskytter loven insentivet til skaperne ved å tildele dem
 470 en eksklusiv rett til deres kreative verker, slik at de kan selge disse
 471 eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.<sup>[<a name="id2865178" href="#ftn.id2865178" class="footnote">11</a>]</sup> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
 472 kreativitet og kultur, og det har blitt en viktigere og viktigere del i
 473 USA.  Men det var på ingen måte dominerende i vår tradisjon.  Det var i
 474 stedet bare en del, en kontrollert del, balansert mot det frie.
 475 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2865215"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2865223"></a><p>
 476 Denne grove inndelingen mellom den frie og den kontrollerte har nå blitt
 477 fjernet.<sup>[<a name="id2865237" href="#ftn.id2865237" class="footnote">12</a>]</sup> Internettet har satt scenen
 478 for denne fjerningen, og pressen frem av store medieaktører har loven nå
 479 påvirket det.  For første gang i vår tradisjon, har de vanlige måtene som
 480 individer skaper og deler kultur havnet innen rekekvidde for reguleringene
 481 til loven, som har blitt utvidet til å dra inn i sitt kontrollområde den
 482 enorme mengden kultur og kreativitet som den aldri tidligere har nådd over.
 483 Teknologien som tok vare på den historiske balansen&#8212;mellom bruken av
 484 den delen av kulturen vår som var fri og bruken av vår kultur som krevde
 485 tillatelse&#8212;har blitt borte.  Konsekvensen er at vi er mindre og mindre
 486 en fri kultur, og mer og mer en tillatelseskultur.
 487 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2865252"></a><p>
 488 Denne endringen blir rettferdiggjort som nødvendig for å beskytte
 489 kommersiell kreativitet.  Og ganske riktig, proteksjonisme er nøyaktig det
 490 som motiverer endringen.  Men proteksjonismen som rettferdiggjør endringene
 491 som jeg skal beskrive lenger ned er ikke den begrensede og balanserte typen
 492 som har definert loven tidligere.  Dette er ikke en proteksjonisme for å
 493 beskytte artister.  Det er i stedet en proteksjonisme for å beskytte
 494 bestemte forretningsformer.  Selskaper som er truet av potensialet til
 495 internettet for å endre måten både kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell kultur
 496 blir skapt og delt, har samlet seg for å få lovgiverne til å bruke loven for
 497 å beskytte selskapene.  Dette er historien om RCA og Armstrong, og det er
 498 drømmen til Causbyene.
 499 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2865306"></a><p>
 500 For internettet har sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mulighet for mange til å
 501 delta i prosessen med å bygge og kultivere en kultur som rekker lagt utenfor
 502 lokale grenselinjer.  Den makten har endret markedsplassen for å lage og
 503 kultivere kultur generelt, og den endringen truer i neste omgang etablerte
 504 innholdsindustrier. Internettet er dermed for industriene som bygget og
 505 distribuerte innhold i det tjuende århundret hva FM-radio var for AM-radio,
 506 eller hva traileren var for jernbaneindustrien i det nittende århundret:
 507 begynnelsen på slutten, eller i hvert fall en markant endring. Digitale
 508 teknologier, knyttet til internettet, kunne produsere et mye mer
 509 konkurransedyktig og levende marked for å bygge og kultivere kultur.  Dette
 510 markedet kunne inneholde en mye videre og mer variert utvalg av skapere.
 511 Disse skaperne kunne produsere og distribuere et mye mer levende utvalg av
 512 kreativitet. Og avhengig av noen få viktige faktorer, så kunne disse
 513 skaperne tjenere mer i snitt fra dette systemet enn skaperne gjør i
 514 dag&#8212;så lenge RCA-ene av i dag ikke bruker loven til å beskytte dem
 515 selv mot denne konkurransen.
 516 </p><p>
 517 Likevel, som jeg argumenterer for i sidene som følger, er dette nøyaktig det
 518 som skjer i vår kultur i dag.  Dette som er dagens ekvivalenter til tidlig
 519 tjuende århundres radio og nittende århundres jernbaner bruker deres makt
 520 til å få loven til å beskytte dem mot dette nye, mer effektive, mer levende
 521 teknologi for å bygge kultur. De lykkes i deres plan om å gjøre om
 522 internettet før internettet gjør om på dem.
 523 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2865334"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2865345"></a><p>
 524 Det ser ikke slik ut for mange.  Kamphandlingene over opphavsrett og
 525 internettet er fjernt for de fleste.  For de få som følger dem, virker de i
 526 hovedsak å handle om et enklere sett med spørsmål&#8212;hvorvidt
 527 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> vil bli akseptert, og hvorvidt
 528 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>»</span> vil bli beskyttet.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Krigen</span>»</span> som
 529 har blitt erklært mot teknologiene til internettet&#8212;det presidenten for
 530 Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) Jack Valenti kaller sin
 531 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">egen terroristkrig</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2865416" href="#ftn.id2865416" class="footnote">13</a>]</sup>&#8212;har blitt rammet inn som en kamp om å følge loven og
 532 respektere eiendomsretten.  For å vite hvilken side vi bør ta i denne
 533 krigen, de fleste tenker at vi kun trenger å bestemme om hvorvidt vi er for
 534 eiendomsrett eller mot den.
 535 </p><p>
 536 Hvis dette virkelig var alternativene, så ville jeg være enig med Jack
 537 Valenti og innholdsindustrien.  Jeg tror også på eiendomsretten, og spesielt
 538 på viktigheten av hva Mr. Valenti så pent kaller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativ
 539 eiendomsrett</span>»</span>.  Jeg tror at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> er galt,
 540 og at loven, riktig innstilt, bør straffe <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>,
 541 både på og utenfor internettet.
 542 </p><p>
 543 Men disse enkle trosoppfatninger maskerer et mye mer grunnleggende spørsmål
 544 og en mye mer dramatisk endring. Min frykt er at med mindre vi begynner å
 545 legge merke til denne endringen, så vil krigen for å befri verden fra
 546 internettets <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span> også fjerne verdier fra vår kultur som
 547 har vært integrert til vår tradisjon helt fra starten.
 548 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2865480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2865488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2865496"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2865504"></a><p>
 549 Disse verdiene bygget en tradisjon som, for i hvert fall de første 180 årene
 550 av vår republikk, garanterte skaperne rettigheten til å bygge fritt på deres
 551 fortid, og beskyttet skaperne og innovatørene fra både statlig og privat
 552 kontroll.  Det første grunnlovstillegget beskyttet skaperne fra statlig
 553 kontroll.  Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,<sup>[<a name="id2865524" href="#ftn.id2865524" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> åndsverkslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
 554 skaperne mot privat kontroll.  Vår tradisjon var dermed hverken Sovjet eller
 555 tradisjonen til velgjørere.  I stedet skar det ut en bred manøvreringsrom
 556 hvor skapere kunne kultivere og utvide vår kultur.
 557 </p><p>
 558 Likevel har lovens respons til internettet, når det knyttes sammen til
 559 endringer i teknologien i internettet selv, ført til massiv økting av den
 560 effektive reguleringen av kreativitet i USA.  For å bygge på eller kritisere
 561 kulturen rundt oss må en spørre, som Oliver Twist, om tillatelse først.
 562 Tillatelse er, naturligvis, ofte innvilget&#8212;men det er ikke ofte
 563 innvilget til den kritiske eller den uavhengige.  Vi har bygget en slags
 564 kulturell adel.  De innen dette adelskapet har et enkelt liv, mens de på
 565 utsiden har det ikke.  Men det er adelskap i alle former som er fremmed for
 566 vår tradisjon.
 567 </p><p>
 568 Historien som følger er om denne krigen.  Er det ikke om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">betydningen
 569 av teknologi</span>»</span> i vanlig liv.  Jeg tror ikke på guder, hverken digitale
 570 eller andre typer.  Det er heller ikke et forsøk på å demonisere noen
 571 individer eller gruppe, jeg tro heller ikke i en djevel, selskapsmessig
 572 eller på annen måte.  Det er ikke en moralsk historie.  Ei heller er det et
 573 rop om hellig krig mot en industri.
 574 </p><p>
 575 Det er i stedet et forsøk på å forstå en håpløst ødeleggende krig som er
 576 inspirert av teknologiene til internettet, men som rekker lang utenfor dens
 577 kode.  Og ved å forstå denne kampen er den en innsats for å finne veien til
 578 fred.  Det er ingen god grunn for å fortsette dagens batalje rundt
 579 internett-teknologiene.  Det vil være til stor skade for vår tradisjon og
 580 kultur hvis den får lov til å fortsette ukontrollert. Vi må forstå kilden
 581 til denne krigen.  Vi må finne en løsning snart.
 582 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2865614"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2865619"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxintellectualpropertyrights"></a><p>
 583 <span class="strong"><strong>Lik Causbyenes</strong></span> kamp er denne krigen,
 584 delvis, om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>»</span>. Eiendommen i denne krigen er ikke
 585 like håndfast som den til Causbyene, og ingen uskyldige kyllinger har så
 586 langt mistet livet.  Likevel er idéene rundt denne
 587 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>»</span> like åpenbare for de fleste som Causbyenes
 588 krav om ukrenkeligheten til deres bondegård var for dem. De fleste av oss
 589 tar for gitt de uvanlig mektige krav som eierne av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle
 590 rettigheter</span>»</span> nå hevder.  De fleste av oss, som Causbyene, behandler
 591 disse kravene som åpenbare.  Og dermed protesterer vi, som Causbyene,, når
 592 ny teknologi griper inn i denne eiendomsretten.  Det er så klart for oss som
 593 det var fro dem at de nye teknologiene til internettet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tar seg til
 594 rette</span>»</span> mot legitime krav til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>»</span>.  Det er
 595 like klart for oss som det var for dem at loven skulle ta affære for å
 596 stoppe denne inntrengingen i annen manns eiendom.
 597 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2865688"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2865694"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2865700"></a><p>
 598
 599 Og dermed, når nerder og teknologer forsvarer sin tids Armstrong og
 600 Wright-brødenes teknologi, får de lite sympati fra de fleste av oss. Sunn
 601 fornuft gjør ikke opprør.  I motsetning til saken til de uheldige Causbyene,
 602 er sunn fornuft på samme side som eiendomseierne i denne krigen.  I
 603 motsetning til hos de heldige Wright-brødrene, har internettet ikke
 604 inspirert en revolusjon til fordel for seg.
 605 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2865723"></a><p>
 606 Mitt håp er å skyve denne sunne fornuften videre.  Jeg har blitt stadig mer
 607 overrasket over kraften til denne idéen om immaterielle rettigheter og, mer
 608 viktig, dets evne til å slå av kritisk tanke hos lovmakere og innbyggere.
 609 Det har aldri før i vår historie vært så mye av vår <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kultur</span>»</span>
 610 som har vært <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eid</span>»</span> enn det er nå.  Og likevel har aldri før
 611 konsentrasjonen av makt til å kontrollere <span class="emphasis"><em>bruken</em></span> av
 612 kulturen vært mer akseptert uten spørsmål enn det er nå.
 613 </p><p>
 614 Gåten er, hvorfor det?  Er det fordi vi fått en innsikt i sannheten om
 615 verdien og betydningen av absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur? Er det
 616 fordi vi har oppdaget at vår tradisjon med å avvise slike absolutte krav var
 617 feil?
 618 </p><p>
 619 Eller er det på grunn av at idéer om absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur
 620 gir fordeler til RCA-ene i vår tid, og passer med vår ureflekterte
 621 intuisjon?
 622 </p><p>
 623 Er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår tradisjon om fri kultur en
 624 forekomst av USA som korrigerer en feil fra sin fortid, slik vi gjorde det
 625 etter en blodig krig mot slaveri, og slik vi sakte gjør det mot
 626 forskjellsbehandling?  Eller er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår
 627 tradisjon med fri kultur nok et eksempel på at vårt politiske system er
 628 fanget av noen få mektige særinteresser?
 629 </p><p>
 630 Fører sunn fornuft til det ekstreme i dette spørsmålet på grunn av at sunn
 631 fornuft faktisk tror på dette ekstreme?  Eller står sunn fornuft i stillhet
 632 i møtet med dette ekstreme fordi, som med Armstrong versus RCA, at den mer
 633 mektige siden har sikret seg at det har et mye mer mektig synspunkt?
 634 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2865806"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2865812"></a><p>
 635
 636 Jeg forsøker ikke å være mystisk.  Mine egne synspunkter er klare. Jeg mener
 637 det var riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør mot ekstremismen til
 638 Causbyene.  Jeg mener det ville være riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør
 639 mot de ekstreme krav som gjøres i dag på vegne av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle
 640 rettigheter</span>»</span>.  Det som loven krever i dag er mer å mer like dumt som
 641 om lensmannen skulle arrestere en flymaskin for å trenge inn på annen manns
 642 eiendom.  Men konsekvensene av den nye dumskapen vil bli mye mer
 643 dyptgripende.
 644
 645 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2865844"></a><p>
 646 <span class="strong"><strong>Basketaket</strong></span> som pågår akkurat nå senterer
 647 seg rundt to idéer: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> og
 648 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span>.  Mitt mål med denne bokens neste to deler er å
 649 utforske disse to idéene.
 650 </p><p>
 651 Metoden min er ikke den vanlige metoden for en akademiker.  Jeg ønsker ikke
 652 å pløye deg inn i et komplisert argument, steinsatt med referanser til
 653 obskure franske teoretikere&#8212;uansett hvor naturlig det har blitt for
 654 den rare sorten vi akademikere har blitt.  Jeg vil i stedet begynne hver del
 655 med en samling historier som etablerer en sammenheng der disse
 656 tilsynelatende enkle idéene kan bli fullt ut forstått.
 657 </p><p>
 658 De to delene setter opp kjernen i påstanden til denne boken: at mens
 659 internettet faktisk har produsert noe fantastisk og nytt, bidrar våre
 660 myndigheter, presset av store medieaktører for å møte dette <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">noe
 661 nytt</span>»</span> til å ødelegge noe som er svært gammelt.  I stedet for å forstå
 662 endringene som internettet kan gjøre mulig, og i stedet for å ta den tiden
 663 som trengs for å la <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>»</span> finne ut hvordan best svare
 664 på utfordringen, så lar vi de som er mest truet av endringene bruke sin makt
 665 til å endre loven&#8212;og viktigere, å bruke sin makt til å endre noe
 666 fundamentalt om hvordan vi alltid har fungert.
 667 </p><p>
 668 Jeg tror vi tillater dette, ikke fordi det er riktig, og heller ikke fordi
 669 de fleste av oss tror på disse endringene.  Vi tillater det på grunn av at
 670 de interessene som er mest truet er blant de mest mektige aktørene i vår
 671 deprimerende kompromitterte prosess for å utforme lover. Denne boken er
 672 historien om nok en konsekvens for denne type korrupsjon&#8212;en konsekvens
 673 for de fleste av oss forblir ukjent med.
 674 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2864108" href="#id2864108" class="para">4</a>] </sup>
 675 St. George Tucker, <em class="citetitle">Blackstone's Commentaries</em> 3 (South
 676 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1969), 18.
 677 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2864270" href="#id2864270" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
 678 USA mot Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. Domstolen fant at det kunne være
 679 å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> hvis regjeringens bruk av sitt land reelt sett hadde
 680 ødelagt verdien av eiendomen til Causby.  Dette eksemplet ble foreslått for
 681 meg i Keith Aokis flotte stykke, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">(intellectual) Property and
 682 Sovereignty: Notes Toward a cultural Geography of Authorship</span>»</span>,
 683 <em class="citetitle">Stanford Law Review</em> 48 (1996): 1293, 1333. Se også
 684 Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Real Property</em> (Mineola, N.Y.:
 685 Foundation Press (1984)), 1112&#8211;13.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2864309"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2864304"></a>
 686 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2864610" href="#id2864610" class="para">6</a>] </sup>
 687 Lawrence Lessing, <em class="citetitle">Man of High Fidelity:: Edwin Howard
 688 Armstrong</em> (Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company, 1956), 209.
 689 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2864546" href="#id2864546" class="para">7</a>] </sup> Se <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era,</span>»</span>
 690 første elektroniske kirke i USA, hos www.webstationone.com/fecha,
 691 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #1</a>.
 692 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2864778" href="#id2864778" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
 693 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2864808" href="#id2864808" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
 694 Lessing, 256.
 695 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2865002" href="#id2865002" class="para">10</a>] </sup>
 696 Amanda Lenhart, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
 697 Internet Access and the Digital Divide,</span>»</span> Pew Internet and American
 698 Life Project, 15. april 2003: 6, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #2</a>.
 699 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2865178" href="#id2865178" class="para">11</a>] </sup>
 700 Dette er ikke det eneste formålet med opphavsrett, men det er helt klart
 701 hovedformålet med opphavsretten slik den er etablert i føderal grunnlov.
 702 Åndsverkslovene i delstatene beskyttet historisk ikke bare kommersielle
 703 interesse når det gjaldt publikasjoner, men også personverninteresser.  Ved
 704 å gi forfattere eneretten til å publisere først, ga delstatenes
 705 åndsverkslovene forfatterne makt til å kontrollere spredningen av fakta om
 706 seg selv. Se Samuel D. Warren og Louis Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to
 707 Privacy</span>»</span>, Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198&#8211;200.
 708 <a class="indexterm" name="id2864492"></a>
 709 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2865237" href="#id2865237" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
 710 Se Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (New York:
 711 Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2865245"></a>
 712 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2865416" href="#id2865416" class="para">13</a>] </sup>
 713 Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates Use New
 714 Tools to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
 715 York Times</em>, 17. januar 2002.
 716 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2865524" href="#id2865524" class="para">14</a>] </sup>
 717 Neil W. Netanel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society,</span>»</span>
 718 <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2865536"></a>
 719 </p></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Del I. «Piratvirksomhet»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Del I. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="«Piratvirksomhet»"><div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2865946"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfieldwilliammurraylord"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2865968"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2865974"></a><p>
 720 <span class="strong"><strong>Helt siden</strong></span> loven begynte å regulere
 721 kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært en krig mot
 722 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>.  De presise konturene av dette konseptet,
 723 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>, har vært vanskelig å tegne opp, men bildet
 724 av urettferdighet er enkelt å beskrive.  Som Lord Mansfield skrev i en sak
 725 som utvidet rekkevidden for engelsk åndsverkslov til å inkludere noteark,
 726 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 727 En person kan bruke kopien til å spille den, men han har ingen rett til å
 728 robbe forfatteren for profitten, ved å lage flere kopier og distribuere
 729 etter eget forgodtbefinnende.<sup>[<a name="id2866016" href="#ftn.id2866016" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
 730 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2866030"></a></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2866041"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpeertopeerppfilesharingefficiencyof"></a><p>
 731
 732 I dag er vi midt inne i en annen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">krig</span>»</span> mot
 733 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>. Internettet har fremprovosert denne krigen.
 734 Internettet gjør det mulig å effektivt spre innhold.  Peer-to-peer (p2p)
 735 fildeling er blant det mest effektive av de effektive teknologier
 736 internettet muliggjør. Ved å bruke distribuert intelligens, kan p2p-systemer
 737 muliggjøre enkel spredning av innhold på en måte som ingen forestilte seg
 738 for en generasjon siden.
 739
 740 </p><p>
 741 Denne effektiviteten respekterer ikke de tradisjonelle skillene i
 742 opphavsretten. Nettverket skiller ikke mellom deling av
 743 opphavsrettsbeskyttet og ikke opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold. Dermed har det
 744 vært deling av en enorm mengde opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold.  Denne
 745 delingen har i sin tur ansporet til krigen, på grunn av at eiere av
 746 opphavsretter frykter delingen vil <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frata forfatteren
 747 overskuddet.</span>»</span>
 748 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2866109"></a><p>
 749 Krigerne har snudd seg til domstolene, til lovgiverne, og i stadig større
 750 grad til teknologi for å forsvare sin <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> mot denne
 751 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>»</span>.  En generasjon amerikanere, advarer
 752 krigerne, blir oppdratt til å tro at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> skal være
 753 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratis</span>»</span>.  Glem tatoveringer, ikke tenk på
 754 kroppspiercing&#8212;våre barn blir <span class="emphasis"><em>tyver</em></span>!
 755 </p><p>
 756 Det er ingen tvil om at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> er galt, og at
 757 pirater bør straffes.  Men før vi roper på bødlene, bør vi sette dette
 758 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhets</span>»</span>-begrepet i en sammenheng.  For mens begrepet
 759 blir mer og mer brukt, har det i sin kjerne en ekstraordinær idé som nesten
 760 helt sikkert er feil.
 761 </p><p>
 762 Idéen høres omtrent slik ut:
 763 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 764 Kreativt arbeid har verdi.  Når jeg bruker, eller tar, eller bygger på det
 765 kreative arbeidet til andre, så tar jeg noe fra dem som har verdi.  Når jeg
 766 tar noe av verdi fra noen andre, bør jeg få tillatelse fra dem.  Å ta noe
 767 som har verdi fra andre uten tillatelse er galt.  Det er en form for
 768 piratvirksomhet.
 769 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2866187"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2866194"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2866200"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativepropertyifvaluethenrighttheoryof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxifvaluethenrighttheory"></a><p>
 770 Dette synet går dypt i de pågående debattene.  Det er hva jussprofessor
 771 Rochelle Dreyfuss ved NYU kritiserer som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så
 772 rettighet</span>»</span>-teorien for kreative eierrettigheter <sup>[<a name="id2866246" href="#ftn.id2866246" class="footnote">16</a>]</sup>&#8212;hvis det finnes verdi, så må noen ha
 773 rettigheten til denne verdien.  Det er perspektivet som fikk komponistenes
 774 rettighetsorganisasjon, ASCAP, til å saksøke jentespeiderne for å ikke
 775 betale for sangene som jentene sagt rundt jentespeidernes
 776 leirbål.<sup>[<a name="id2866269" href="#ftn.id2866269" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> Det fantes
 777 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">verdi</span>»</span> (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en
 778 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rettighet</span>»</span>&#8212;til og med mot jentespeiderne.
 779 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2866313"></a><p>
 780
 781 Denne idéen er helt klart en mulig forståelse om hvordan kreative
 782 eierrettigheter bør virke.  Det er helt klart et mulig design for et
 783 lovsystem som beskytter kreative eierrettigheter.  Men teorien om
 784 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så rettighet</span>»</span> for kreative eierrettigheter har
 785 aldri vært USAs teori for kreative eierrettigheter.  It har aldri stått rot
 786 i vårt lovverk.
 787 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2866344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawonrepublishingvstransformationoforiginalwork"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitylegalrestrictionson"></a><p>
 788 I vår tradisjon har immaterielle rettigheter i stedet vært et instrument.
 789 Det bygger fundamentet for et rikt kreativt samfunn, men er fortsatt servilt
 790 til verdien av kreativitet.  Dagens debatt har snudd dette helt rundt.  Vi
 791 har blitt så opptatt av å beskytte instrumentet at vi mister verdien av
 792 syne.
 793 </p><p>
 794 Kilden til denne forvirringen er et skille som loven ikke lenger bryr seg om
 795 å markere&#8212;skillet mellom å gjenpublisere noens verk på den ene siden,
 796 og bygge på og gjøre om verket på den andre.  Da opphavsretten kom var det
 797 kun publisering som ble berørt. Opphavsretten i dag regulerer begge.
 798 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2866399"></a><p>
 799 Før teknologiene til internettet dukket opp, betød ikke denne begrepsmessige
 800 sammenblandingen mye.  Teknologiene for å publisere var kostbare, som betød
 801 at det meste av publisering var kommersiell. Kommersielle aktører kunne
 802 håndtere byrden pålagt av loven&#8212;til og med byrden som den bysantiske
 803 kompleksiteten som åndsverksloven har blitt.  Det var bare nok en kostnad
 804 ved å drive forretning.
 805 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2866423"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2866446"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2866453"></a><p>
 806 Men da internettet dukket opp, forsvant denne naturlige begrensningen til
 807 lovens virkeområde.  Loven kontrollerer ikke bare kreativiteten til
 808 kommersielle skapere, men effektivt sett kreativiteten til alle. Selv om
 809 utvidelsen ikke ville bety stort hvis åndsverksloven kun regulerte
 810 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopiering</span>»</span>, så betyr utvidelsen mye når loven regulerer så
 811 bredt og obskurt som den gjør.  Byrden denne loven gir oppveier nå langt
 812 fordelene den ga da den ble vedtatt&#8212;helt klart slik den påvirker
 813 ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, og i stadig større grad slik den påvirker
 814 kommersiell kreativitet.  Dermed, slik vi ser klarere i kapitlene som
 815 følger, er lovens rolle mindre og mindre å støtte kreativitet, og mer og mer
 816 å beskytte enkelte industrier mot konkurranse.  Akkurat på tidspunktet da
 817 digital teknologi kunne sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mengde med kommersiell
 818 og ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, tynger loven denne kreativiteten med
 819 sinnsykt kompliserte og vage regler og med trusselen om uanstendig harde
 820 straffer.  Vi ser kanskje, som Richard Florida skriver, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fremveksten
 821 av den kreative klasse</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2866475" href="#ftn.id2866475" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup>
 822 Dessverre ser vi også en ekstraordinær fremvekst av reguleringer av denne
 823 kreative klassen.
 824 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2866539"></a><p>
 825 Disse byrdene gir ingen mening i vår tradisjon.  Vi bør begynne med å forstå
 826 den tradisjonen litt mer, og ved å plassere dagens slag om oppførsel med
 827 merkelappen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> i sin rette sammenheng.
 828 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2866016" href="#id2866016" class="para">15</a>] </sup>
 829
 830
 831 <em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
 832 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777) (Mansfield).
 833 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2866246" href="#id2866246" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
 834
 835
 836 Se Rochelle Dreyfuss, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language
 837 in the Pepsi Generation,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Notre Dame Law
 838 Review</em> 65 (1990): 397.
 839 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2866269" href="#id2866269" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
 840
 841 Lisa Bannon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay
 842 Up,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 21. august 1996,
 843 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #3</a>;
 844 Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of
 845 Property vs. Free Speech, No One Wins,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston
 846 Globe</em>, 24. november 2002.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2866294"></a>
 847 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2866475" href="#id2866475" class="para">18</a>] </sup>
 848
 849 I <em class="citetitle">The Rise of the Creative Class</em> (New York: Basic
 850 Books, 2002), dokumenterer Richard Florida en endring i arbeidsstokken mot
 851 kreativitetsarbeide.  Hans tekst omhandler derimot ikke direkte de juridiske
 852 vilkår som kreativiteten blir muliggjort eller hindret under.  Jeg er helt
 853 klart enig med ham i viktigheten og betydningen av denne endringen, men jeg
 854 tror også at vilkårene som disse endringene blir aktivert under er mye
 855 vanskeligere.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2866518"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2866526"></a>
 856 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>Kapittel en: Skaperne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxanimatedcartoons"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcartoonfilms"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxfilmsanimated"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsteamboatwillie"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmickeymouse"></a><p>
 857 <span class="strong"><strong>I 1928</strong></span> ble en tegnefilmfigur født.  En
 858 tidlig Mikke Mus debuterte i mai dette året, i en stille flopp ved navn
 859 <em class="citetitle">Plane Crazy</em>.  I november, i Colony teateret i New
 860 York City, ble den første vidt distribuerte tegnefilmen med synkronisert
 861 lyd, <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willy</em>, vist frem med figuren som
 862 skulle bli til Mikke Mus.
 863 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt"></a><p>
 864 Film med synkronisert lyd hadde blitt introdusert et år tidligere i filmen
 865 <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em>.  Suksessen fikk Walt Disney til å
 866 kopiere teknikken og mikse lyd med tegnefilm.  Ingen visste hvorvidt det
 867 ville virke eller ikke, og om det fungere, hvorvidt publikum villa ha sans
 868 for det.  Men da Disney gjorde en test sommeren 1928, var resultatet
 869 entydig.  Som Disney beskriver dette første eksperimentet,
 870 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 871
 872 Et par av guttene mine kunne lese noteark, og en av dem kunne spille
 873 munnspill.  Vi stappet dem inn i et rom hvor de ikke kunne se skjermen, og
 874 gjorde det slik at lyden de spilte ble sendt videre til et rom hvor våre
 875 koner og venner var plassert for å se på bildet.
 876
 877 </p><p>
 878 Guttene brukte et note- og lydeffekt-ark.  Etter noen dårlige oppstarter,
 879 kom endelig lyd og handling i gang med et smell. Munnspilleren spilte
 880 melodien, og resten av oss i lydavdelingen slamret på tinnkasseroller og
 881 blåste på slide-fløyte til rytmen. Synkroniseringen var nesten helt riktig.
 882 </p><p>
 883 Effekten på vårt lille publikum var intet mindre enn elektrisk.  De reagerte
 884 nesten instinktivt til denne union av lyd og bevegelse.  Jeg trodde de
 885 tullet med meg.  Så de puttet meg i publikum og satte igang på nytt.  Det
 886 var grufullt, men det var fantastisk.  Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id2866723" href="#ftn.id2866723" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
 887 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2866736"></a><p>
 888 Disneys daværende partner, og en av animasjonsverdenens mest ekstraordinære
 889 talenter, Ub Iwerks, uttalte det sterkere: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg har aldri vært så
 890 begeistret i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like
 891 bra.</span>»</span>
 892 </p><p>
 893 Disney hadde laget noe helt nyt, basert på noe relativt nytt. Synkronisert
 894 lyd ga liv til en form for kreativitet som sjeldent hadde&#8212;unntatt fra
 895 Disneys hender&#8212;vært noe annet en fyllstoff for andre filmer.  Gjennom
 896 animasjonens tidligere historie var det Disneys oppfinnelse som satte
 897 standarden som andre måtte sloss for å oppfylle.  Og ganske ofte var Disneys
 898 store geni, hans gnist av kreativitet, bygget på arbeidet til andre.
 899 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2866775"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkeatonbuster"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsteamboatbilljr"></a><p>
 900 Dette er kjent stoff.  Det du kanskje ikke vet er at 1928 også markerer en
 901 annen viktig overgang.  I samme år laget et komedie-geni (i motsetning til
 902 tegnefilm-geni) sin siste uavhengig produserte stumfilm.  Dette geniet var
 903 Buster Keaton.  Filmen var <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>.
 904 </p><p>
 905 Keaton ble født inn i en vauderville-familie i 1895.  I stumfilm-æraen hadde
 906 han mestret bruken av bredpenslet fysisk komedie på en måte som tente
 907 ukontrollerbar latter fra hans publikum. <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill,
 908 Jr</em>. var en klassiker av denne typen, berømt blant film-elskere
 909 for sine utrolige stunts.  Filmen var en klassisk Keaton&#8212;fantastisk
 910 populær og blant de beste i sin sjanger.
 911 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkspiracyvs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpiracyderivativeworkvs"></a><p>
 912 <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>. kom før Disneys tegnefilm
 913 Steamboat Willie.  Det er ingen tilfeldighet at titlene er så
 914 like. Steamboat Willie er en direkte tegneserieparodi av Steamboat
 915 Bill,<sup>[<a name="id2866873" href="#ftn.id2866873" class="footnote">20</a>]</sup> og begge bygger på en felles sang
 916 som kilde.  Det er ikke kun fra nyskapningen med synkronisert lyd i
 917 <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em> at vi får <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
 918 Willie</em>.  Det er også fra Buster Keatons nyskapning Steamboat
 919 Bill, Jr., som igjen var inspirert av sangen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill</span>»</span>,
 920 at vi får Steamboat Willie.  Og fra Steamboat Willie får vi så Mikke Mus.
 921 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2866938"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2866947"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2866955"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2866963"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitybytransformingpreviousworks"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneyinc"></a><p>
 922 Denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">låningen</span>»</span> var ikke unik, hverken for Disney eller for
 923 industrien.  Disney apet alltid etter full-lengde massemarkedsfilmene rundt
 924 ham.<sup>[<a name="id2867004" href="#ftn.id2867004" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> Det samme gjorde mange andre.
 925 Tidlige tegnefilmer er stappfulle av etterapninger&#8212;små variasjoner
 926 over suksessfulle temaer, gamle historier fortalt på nytt.  Nøkkelen til
 927 suksess var brilliansen i forskjellene.  Med Disney var det lyden som ga
 928 gnisten til hans animasjoner.  Senere var det kvaliteten på hans arbeide
 929 relativt til de masseproduserte tegnefilmene som han konkurrerte med.
 930 Likevel var disse bidragene bygget på toppen av fundamentet som var lånt.
 931 Disney bygget på arbeidet til andre som kom før han, og skapte noe nytt ut
 932 av noe som bare var litt gammelt.
 933 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxgrimmfairytales"></a><p>
 934 Noen ganger var låningen begrenset, og noen ganger var den betydelig. Tenkt
 935 på eventyrene til brødrene Grimm.  Hvis du er like ubevisst som jeg var, så
 936 tror du sannsynlighvis at disse fortellingene er glade, søte historier som
 937 passer for ethvert barn ved leggetid.  Realiteten er at Grimm-eventyrene er,
 938 for oss, ganske dystre.  Det er noen sjeldne og kanskje spesielt ambisiøse
 939 foreldre som ville våge å lese disse blodige moralistiske historiene til
 940 sine barn, ved leggetid eller hvilken som helst annet tidspunkt.
 941 </p><p>
 942
 943 Disney tok disse historiene og fortalte dem på nytt på en måte som førte dem
 944 inn i en ny tidsalder. Han ga historiene liv, med både karakterer og
 945 lys. Uten å fjerne bitene av frykt og fare helt, gjorde han morsomt det som
 946 var mørkt og satte inn en ekte følelse av medfølelse der det før var
 947 frykt. Og ikke bare med verkene av brødrene Grimm.  Faktisk er katalogen
 948 over Disney-arbeid som baserer seg på arbeidet til andre ganske forbløffende
 949 når den blir samlet: <em class="citetitle">Snøhvit</em> (1937),
 950 <em class="citetitle">Fantasia</em> (1940), <em class="citetitle">Pinocchio</em>
 951 (1940), <em class="citetitle">Dumbo</em> (1941), <em class="citetitle">Bambi</em>
 952 (1942), <em class="citetitle">Song of the South</em> (1946),
 953 <em class="citetitle">Askepott</em> (1950), <em class="citetitle">Alice in
 954 Wonderland</em> (1951), <em class="citetitle">Robin Hood</em> (1952),
 955 <em class="citetitle">Peter Pan</em> (1953), <em class="citetitle">Lady og
 956 landstrykeren</em> (1955), <em class="citetitle">Mulan</em> (1998),
 957 <em class="citetitle">Tornerose</em> (1959), <em class="citetitle">101
 958 dalmatinere</em> (1961), <em class="citetitle">Sverdet i steinen</em>
 959 (1963), og <em class="citetitle">Jungelboken</em> (1967)&#8212;for ikke å nevne
 960 et nylig eksempel som vi bør kanskje glemme raskt, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
 961 Planet</em> (2003). I alle disse tilfellene, har Disney (eller
 962 Disney, Inc.) hentet kreativitet fra kultur rundt ham, blandet med
 963 kreativiteten fra sitt eget ekstraordinære talent, og deretter brent denne
 964 blandingen inn i sjelen til sin kultur. Hente, blande og brenne.
 965 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2867144"></a><p>
 966 Dette er en type kreativitet.  Det er en kreativitet som vi bør huske på og
 967 feire.  Det er noen som vil si at det finnes ingen kreativitet bortsett fra
 968 denne typen.  Vi trenger ikke gå så langt for å anerkjenne dens betydning.
 969 Vi kan kalle dette <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span>, selv om det vil være
 970 litt misvisende.  Det er mer presist <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt
 971 Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span>&#8212;en uttrykksform og genialitet som bygger på
 972 kulturen rundt oss og omformer den til noe annet.
 973 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2867176"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2867184"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2867193"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightdurationof"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomaindefined"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpublicdomaintraditionaltermforconversionto"></a><p> I 1928 var kulturen som Disney fritt kunne trekke veksler på relativt
 974 fersk.  Allemannseie i 1928 var ikke veldig gammelt og var dermed ganske
 975 levende.  Gjennomsnittlig vernetid i opphavsretten var bare rundt tredve
 976 år&#8212;for den lille delen av kreative verk som faktisk var
 977 opphavsrettsbeskyttet.<sup>[<a name="id2867171" href="#ftn.id2867171" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> Det betyr at i
 978 tredve år, i gjennomsnitt, hadde forfattere eller kreative verks
 979 opphavsrettighetsinnehaver en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eksklusiv rett</span>»</span> til a
 980 kontrollere bestemte typer bruk av verket.  For å bruke disse
 981 opphavsrettsbeskyttede verkene på de begrensede måtene krevde tillatelse fra
 982 opphavsrettsinnehaveren.
 983 </p><p>
 984 Når opphavsrettens vernetid er over, faller et verk i det fri og blir
 985 allemannseie.  Ingen tillatelse trengs da for å bygge på eller bruke dette
 986 verket.  Ingen tillatelse og dermed, ingen advokater. Allemannseie er en
 987 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">advokat-fri sone</span>»</span>.  Det meste av innhold fra det nittende
 988 århundre var dermed fritt tilgjengelig for Disney å bruke eller bygge på i
 989 1928.  Det var tilgjengelig for enhver&#8212;uansett om de hadde
 990 forbindelser eller ikke, om de var rik eller ikke, om de var akseptert eller
 991 ikke&#8212;til å bruke og bygge videre på.
 992 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2867309"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2867330"></a><p>
 993
 994 Dette er slik det alltid har vært&#8212;inntil ganske nylig.  For
 995 mesteparten av vår historie, har allemannseiet vært like over horisonten.
 996 Fram til 1978 var den gjennomsnittlige opphavsrettslige vernetiden aldri mer
 997 enn trettito år, som gjorde at det meste av kultur fra en og en halv
 998 generasjon tidligere var tilgjengelig for enhver å bygge på uten tillatelse
 999 fra noen.  Tilsvarende for i dag ville være at kreative verker fra 1960- og
1000 1970-tallet nå ville være fritt tilgjengelig for de neste Walt Disney å
1001 bygge på uten tillatelse.  Men i dag er allemannseie presumtivt kun for
1002 innhold fra før mellomkrigstiden.
1003 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2867358"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2867366"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2867374"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2867382"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2867390"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2867400"></a><p>
1004 <span class="strong"><strong>Walt Disney</strong></span> hadde selvfølgelig ikke
1005 monopol på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span>.  Det har heller ikke
1006 USA.  Normen med fri kultur har, inntil nylig, og unntatt i totalitære
1007 nasjoner, vært bredt utnyttet og svært universell.
1008 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcomicsjapanese"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxderivativeworkspiracyvs2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjapanesecomics"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmanga"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpiracyderivativeworkvs2"></a><p>
1009 Vurder for eksempel en form for kreativitet som synes underlig for mange
1010 amerikanere, men som er overalt i japansk kultur:
1011 <em class="citetitle">manga</em>, eller tegneserier.  Japanerne er fanatiske når
1012 det gjelder tegneserier.  Over 40 prosent av publikasjoner er tegneserier,
1013 og 30 prosent av publikasjonsomsetningen stammer fra tegneserier.  De er
1014 over alt i det japanske samfunnet, tilgjengelig fra ethvert
1015 tidsskriftsutsalg, og i hendene på en stor andel av pendlere på Japans
1016 ekstraordinære system for offentlig transport.
1017 </p><p>
1018 Amerikanere har en tendens til å se ned på denne formen for kultur. Det er
1019 et lite attraktivt kjennetegn hos oss.  Vi misforstår sannsynligvis mye
1020 rundt manga, på grunn av at få av oss noen gang har lest noe som ligner på
1021 historiene i disse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grafiske historiene</span>»</span> forteller.  For en
1022 japaner dekker manga ethvert aspekt ved det sosiale liv.  For oss er
1023 tegneserier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menn i strømpebukser</span>»</span>.  Og uansett er det ikke
1024 slik at T-banen i New York er full av folk som leser Joyse eller Hemingway
1025 for den saks skyld.  Folk i ulike kulturer skiller seg ut på forskjellig
1026 måter, og japanerne på dette interessante viset.
1027 </p><p>
1028 Men mitt formål her er ikke å forstå manga.  Det er å beskrive en variant av
1029 manga som fra en advokats perspektiv er ganske merkelig, men som fra en
1030 Disneys perspektiv er ganske godt kjent.
1031 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcreativitybytransformingpreviousworks2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdoujinshicomics"></a><p>
1032
1033 Dette er fenomenet <em class="citetitle">doujinshi</em>.  Doujinshi er også
1034 tegneserier, men de er slags etterapings-tegneserier.  En rik etikk styrer
1035 de som skaper doujinshi.  Det er ikke doujinshi hvis det
1036 <span class="emphasis"><em>bare</em></span> er en kopi.  Kunstneren må gjøre et bidrag til
1037 kunsten han kopierer ved å omforme det enten subtilt eller betydelig.  En
1038 doujinshi-tegneserie kan dermed ta en massemarkeds-tegneserie og utvikle den
1039 i en annen retning&#8212;med en annen historie-linje.  Eller tegneserien kan
1040 beholde figuren som seg selv men endre litt på utseendet.  Det er ingen
1041 bestemt formel for hva som gjør en doujinshi tilstrekkelig
1042 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">forskjellig</span>»</span>.  Men de må være forskjellige hvis de skal anses
1043 som ekte doujinshi.  Det er faktisk komiteer som går igjennom doujinshi for
1044 å bli med på messer, og avviser etterapninger som bare er en kopi.
1045 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt2"></a><p>
1046 Disse etterapings-tegneseriene er ikke en liten del av manga-markedet.  Det
1047 er enorme.  Mer en 33 000 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sirkler</span>»</span> av skapere over hele Japan
1048 som produserer disse bitene av Walt Disney-kreativitet.  Mer en 450 000
1049 japanere samles to ganger i året, i den største offentlige samlingen i
1050 langet, for å bytte og selge dem.  Dette markedet er parallelt med det
1051 kommersielle massemarkeds-manga-markedet.  På noen måter konkurrerer det
1052 åpenbart med det markedet, men det er ingen vedvarende innsats fra de som
1053 kontrollerer det kommersielle manga-markedet for å stenge
1054 doujinshi-markedet.  Det blomstrer, på tross av konkurransen og til tross
1055 for loven.
1056 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2867650"></a><p>
1057 Den mest gåtefulle egenskapen med doujinshi-markedet, for de som har
1058 juridisk trening i hvert fall, er at det overhodet tillates å eksistere.
1059 Under japansk åndsverkslov, som i hvert fall på dette området (på papiret)
1060 speiler USAs åndsverkslov, er doujinshi-markedet ulovlig.  Doujinshi er helt
1061 klart <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">avledede verk</span>»</span>.  Det er ingen generell praksis hos
1062 doujinshi-kunstnere for å sikre seg tillatelse hos manga-skaperne.  I stedet
1063 er praksisen ganske enkelt å ta og endre det andre har laget, slik Walt
1064 Disney gjorde med <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>.  For både
1065 japansk og USAs lov, er å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> uten tillatelse fra den
1066 opprinnelige opphavsrettsinnehaver ulovlig.  Det er et brudd på
1067 opphavsretten til det opprinnelige verket å lage en kopi eller et avledet
1068 verk uten tillatelse fra den opprinnelige rettighetsinnehaveren.
1069 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2867696"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
1070 Likevel eksisterer dette illegale markedet og faktisk blomstrer i Japan, og
1071 etter manges syn er det nettopp fordi det eksisterer at japansk manga
1072 blomstrer.  Som USAs tegneserieskaper Judd Winick fortalte meg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I
1073 amerikansk tegneseriers første dager var det ganske likt det som foregår i
1074 Japan i dag. &#8230; Amerikanske tegneserier kom til verden ved å kopiere
1075 hverandre. &#8230; Det er slik [kunstnerne] lærer å tegne&#8212;ved å se i
1076 tegneseriebøker og ikke følge streken, men ved å se på dem og kopiere
1077 dem</span>»</span> og bygge basert på dem.<sup>[<a name="id2867723" href="#ftn.id2867723" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
1078 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2867749"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2867757"></a><p>
1079 Amerikanske tegneserier nå er ganske annerledes, forklarer Winick, delvis på
1080 grunn av de juridiske problemene med å tilpasse tegneserier slik doujinshi
1081 får lov til.  Med for eksempel Supermann, fortalte Winick meg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er det
1082 en rekke regler, og du må følge dem</span>»</span>.  Det er ting som Supermann
1083 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke kan</span>»</span> gjøre.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For en som lager tegneserier er det
1084 frustrerende å måtte begrense seg til noen parameter som er femti år
1085 gamle.</span>»</span>
1086 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2867790"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2867810"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmehrasalil"></a><p>
1087 Normen i Japan reduserer denne juridiske utfordringen.  Noen sier at det
1088 nettopp er den oppsamlede fordelen i det japanske mangamarkedet som
1089 forklarer denne reduksjonen.  Jussprofessor Salil Mehra ved Temple
1090 University hypnotiserer for eksempel med at manga-markedet aksepterer disse
1091 teoretiske bruddene fordi de får mangamarkedet til å bli rikere og mer
1092 produktivt.  Alle ville få det verre hvis doujinshi ble bannlyst, så loven
1093 bannlyser ikke doujinshi.<sup>[<a name="id2867845" href="#ftn.id2867845" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
1094 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2867874"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2867882"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2867890"></a><p>
1095 Problemet med denne historien, derimot, og som Mehra helt klart erkjenner,
1096 er at mekanismen som produserer denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hold hendene
1097 borte</span>»</span>-responsen ikke er forstått.  Det kan godt være at markedet som
1098 helhet gjør det bedre hvis doujinshi tillates i stedet for å bannlyse den,
1099 men det forklarer likevel ikke hvorfor individuelle opphavsrettsinnehavere
1100 ikke saksøker.  Hvis loven ikke har et generelt unntak for doujinshi, og det
1101 finnes faktisk noen tilfeller der individuelle manga-kunstnere har saksøkt
1102 doujinshi-kunstnere, hvorfor er det ikke et mer generelt mønster for å
1103 blokkere denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frie takingen</span>»</span> hos doujinshi-kulturen?
1104 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2867921"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2867929"></a><p>
1105 Jeg var fire nydelige måneder i Japan, og jeg stilte dette spørsmål så ofte
1106 som jeg kunne.  Kanskje det beste svaret til slutt kom fra en venn i et
1107 større japansk advokatfirma. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vi har ikke nok advokater</span>»</span>,
1108 fortalte han meg en ettermiddag.  Det er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bare ikke nok ressurser til
1109 å tiltale tilfeller som dette</span>»</span>.
1110 </p><p>
1111
1112 Dette er et tema vi kommer tilbake til: at lovens regulering både er en
1113 funksjon av ordene i bøkene, og kostnadene med å få disse ordene til å ha
1114 effekt.  Akkurat nå er det endel åpenbare spørsmål som presser seg frem:
1115 Ville Japan gjøre det bedre med flere advokater? Ville manga være rikere
1116 hvis doujinshi-kunstnere ble regelmessig rettsforfulgt?  Ville Japan vinne
1117 noe viktig hvis de kunne stoppe praksisen med deling uten kompensasjon?
1118 Skader piratvirksomhet ofrene for piratvirksomheten, eller hjelper den dem?
1119 Ville advokaters kamp mot denne piratvirksomheten hjelpe deres klienter,
1120 eller skade dem?
1121 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2867973"></a><p>
1122 <span class="strong"><strong>La oss ta</strong></span> et øyeblikks pause.
1123 </p><p>
1124 Hvis du er som meg et tiår tilbake, eller som folk flest når de først
1125 begynner å tenke på disse temaene, da bør du omtrent nå være rådvill om noe
1126 du ikke hadde tenkt igjennom før.
1127 </p><p>
1128 Vi lever i en verden som feirer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span>.  Jeg er en av de som
1129 feierer.  Jeg tror på verdien av eiendom generelt, og jeg tror også på
1130 verdien av den sære formen for eiendom som advokater kaller
1131 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immateriell eiendom</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2868015" href="#ftn.id2868015" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> Et
1132 stort og variert samfunn kan ikke overleve uten eiendom, og et moderne
1133 samfunn kan ikke blomstre uten immaterielle eierrettigheter.
1134 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxgrimmfairytales2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2868074"></a><p>
1135 Men det tar bare noen sekunders refleksjon for å innse at det er masse av
1136 verdi der ute som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> ikke dekker.  Jeg mener ikke
1137 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kjærlighet kan ikke kjøpes med penger</span>»</span> men heller, at en verdi
1138 som ganske enkelt er del av produksjonsprosessen, både for kommersiell og
1139 ikke-kommersiell produksjon.  Hvis Disneys animatører hadde stjålet et sett
1140 med blyanter for å tegne Steamboat Willie, vi ville ikke nølt med å dømme
1141 det som galt&#8212;selv om det er trivielt og selv om det ikke blir
1142 oppdaget.  Men det var intet galt, i hvert fall slik loven var da, med at
1143 Disney tok fra Buster Keaton eller fra Grimm-brødrene.  Det var intet galt
1144 med å ta fra Keaton, fordi Disneys bruk ville blitt ansett som
1145 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig</span>»</span>.  Det var intet galt med å ta fra brødrene Grimm
1146 fordi deres verker var allemannseie.
1147 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfreeculturederivativeworksbasedon"></a><p>
1148
1149 Dermed, selv om de tingene som Disney tok&#8212;eller mer generelt, tingene
1150 som blir tatt av enhver som utøver Walt Disney-kreativitet&#8212;er
1151 verdifulle, så anser ikke vår tradisjon det som galt å ta disse tingene.
1152 Noen ting forblir frie til å bli tatt i en fri kultur og denne friheten er
1153 bra.
1154 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2868151"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcopyrightlawjapanese3"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2868172"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdoujinshicomics2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxjapanesecomics2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmanga2"></a><p>
1155 Det er det samme med doujinshi-kulturen.  Hvis en doujinshi-kunstner brøt
1156 seg inn på kontoret til en forlegger, og stakk av med tusen kopier av hans
1157 siste verk&#8212;eller bare en kopi&#8212;uten å betale, så ville vi uten å
1158 nøle si at kunstneren har gjort noe galt.  I tillegg til å ha trengt seg inn
1159 på andres eiendom, ville han ha stjålet noe av verdi. Loven forbyr stjeling
1160 i enhver form, uansett hvor stort eller lite som blir tatt.
1161 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2868227"></a><p>
1162 Likevel er det en åpenbar motvilje, selv blant japanske advokater, for å si
1163 at etterapende tegneseriekunstnere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeler</span>»</span>.  Denne formen for
1164 Walt Disney-kreativitet anses som rimelig og riktig, selv om spesielt
1165 advokater synes det er vanskelig å forklare hvorfor.
1166 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2868252"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2868260"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2868268"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2868276"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2868284"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2868292"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2868300"></a><p>
1167 Det er det same med tusen eksempler som dukker opp over alt med en gang en
1168 begynner å se etter dem.  Forskerne bygger på arbeidet til andre forskere
1169 uten å spørre eller betale for privilegiet. (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Unnskyld meg, professor
1170 Einstein, men kan jeg få tillatelse til å bruke din relativitetsteori til å
1171 vise at du tok feil om kvantefysikk?</span>»</span>) Teatertropper viser frem
1172 bearbeidelser av verkene til Shakespeare uten å sikre seg noen tillatelser.
1173 (Er det <span class="emphasis"><em>noen</em></span> som tror at Shakespeare ville vært mer
1174 spredt i vår kultur om det var et sentralt rettighetsklareringskontor for
1175 Shakespeare som alle som laget Shakespeare-produksjoner måtte appellere til
1176 først?)  Og Hollywood går igjennom sykluser med en bestemt type filmer: fem
1177 astroidefilmer i slutten av 1990-tallet, to vulkankatastrofefilmer i 1997.
1178 </p><p>
1179
1180 Skapere her og overalt har alltid og til alle tider bygd på kreativiteten
1181 som eksisterte før og som omringer dem nå.  Denne byggingen er alltid og
1182 overalt i det minste delvis gjort uten tillatelse og uten å kompensere den
1183 opprinnelige skaperen.  Intet samfunn, fritt eller kontrollert, har noen
1184 gang krevd at enhver bruk skulle bli betalt for eller at tillatelse for Walt
1185 Disney-kreativitet alltid måtte skaffes.  Istedet har ethvert samfunn latt
1186 en bestemt bit av sin kultur være fritt tilgjengelig for alle å
1187 ta&#8212;frie samfunn muligens i større grad enn ufrie, men en viss grad i
1188 alle samfunn.
1189
1190 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2868347"></a><p>
1191 Det vanskelige spørsmålet er derfor ikke <span class="emphasis"><em>om</em></span> en kultur
1192 er fri.  Alle kulturer er frie til en viss grad. Det vanskelige spørsmålet
1193 er i stedet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><span class="emphasis"><em>hvor</em></span> fri er denne kulturen
1194 er?</span>»</span> Hvor mye og hvor bredt, er kulturen fritt tilgjengelig for andre
1195 å ta, og bygge på?  Er den friheten begrenset til partimedlemmer?  Til
1196 medlemmer av kongefamilien?  Til de ti største selskapene på New
1197 York-børsen?  Eller er at frihet bredt tilgjengelig? Til kunstnere generelt,
1198 uansett om de er tilknyttet til nasjonalmuseet eller ikke?  Til musikere
1199 generelt, uansett om de er hvite eller ikke? Til filmskapere generelt,
1200 uansett om de er tilknyttet et studio eller ikke?
1201 </p><p>
1202 Frie kulturer er kulturer som etterlater mye åpent for andre å bygge på.
1203 Ufrie, eller tillatelse-kulturer etterlater mye mindre.  Vår var en fri
1204 kultur. Den er på tur til å bli mindre fri.
1205 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2868419"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2866723" href="#id2866723" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
1206
1207
1208 Leonard Maltin, <em class="citetitle">Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated
1209 Cartoons</em> (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 34&#8211;35.
1210 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2866873" href="#id2866873" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
1211
1212
1213 Jeg er takknemlig overfor David Gerstein og hans nøyaktige historie,
1214 beskrevet på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #4</a>.  I
1215 følge Dave Smith ved the Disney Archives, betalte Disney for å bruke
1216 musikken til fem sanger i <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willie</em>:
1217 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill,</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Simpleton</span>»</span> (Delille),
1218 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mischief Makers</span>»</span> (Carbonara), <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Joyful Hurry
1219 No. 1</span>»</span> (Baron), og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Gawky Rube</span>»</span> (Lakay). En sjette sang,
1220 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Turkey in the Straw,</span>»</span> var allerede allemannseie.  Brev fra
1221 David Smith til Harry Surden, 10. juli 2003, tilgjenglig i arkivet til
1222 forfatteren.
1223 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2867004" href="#id2867004" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
1224
1225
1226 Han var også tilhenger av allmannseiet. Se Chris Sprigman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Mouse
1227 that Ate the Public Domain,</span>»</span> Findlaw, 5. mars 2002, fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #5</a>.
1228 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2867171" href="#id2867171" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
1229
1230
1231 Inntil 1976 ga åndsverksloven en forfatter to mulige verneperioder: en
1232 initiell periode, og en fornyingsperiode.  Jeg har beregnet
1233 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gjennomsnittlig</span>»</span> vernetid ved å finne vektet gjennomsnitt av
1234 de totale registreringer for et gitt år, og andelen fornyinger.  Hvis 100
1235 opphavsretter ble registrert i år 1, bare 15 av dem ble fornyet, og
1236 fornyingsvernetiden er 28 år, så er gjennomsnittlig vernetid 32,2
1237 år. Fornyingsdata og andre relevante data ligger på nettsidene tilknyttet
1238 denne boka, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
1239 #6</a>.
1240 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2867723" href="#id2867723" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
1241
1242
1243 For en utmerket historie, se Scott McCloud, <em class="citetitle">Reinventing
1244 Comics</em> (New York: Perennial, 2000).
1245 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2867845" href="#id2867845" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
1246
1247
1248 Se Salil K. Mehra, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain
1249 Why All the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?</span>»</span>
1250 <em class="citetitle">Rutgers Law Review</em> 55 (2002): 155, 182. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det
1251 kan være en kollektiv økonomisk rasjonalitet som får manga- og
1252 anime-kunstnere til ikke å saksøke for opphavsrettsbrudd. Én hypotese er at
1253 alle manga-kunstnere kan være bedre stilt hvis de setter sin individuelle
1254 egeninteresse til side og bestemmer seg for ikke å forfølge sine juridiske
1255 rettigheter. Dette er essensielt en løsning på fangens dilemma.</span>»</span>
1256 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2868015" href="#id2868015" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
1257
1258 <a class="indexterm" name="id2868018"></a> Begrepet <em class="citetitle">immateriell
1259 eiendom</em> er av relativ ny opprinnelse. Se See Siva Vaidhyanathan,
1260 <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and Copywrongs</em>, 11 (New York: New York
1261 University Press, 2001). Se også Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">The Future of
1262 Ideas</em> (New York: Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. Begrepet
1263 presist beskriver et sett med
1264 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendoms</span>»</span>-rettigheter&#8212;opphavsretter, patenter,
1265 varemerker og forretningshemmeligheter&#8212;men egenskapene til disse
1266 rettighetene er svært forskjellige.
1267 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Kapittel to: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2868443"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratechnology"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><p>
1268 <span class="strong"><strong>I 1839</strong></span> fant Louis Daguerre opp den første
1269 praktiske teknologien for å produsere det vi ville kalle
1270 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fotografier</span>»</span>.  Rimelig nok ble de kalt
1271 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">daguerreotyper</span>»</span>.  Prosessen var komplisert og kostbar, og
1272 feltet var dermed begrenset til profesjonelle og noen få ivrige og
1273 velstående amatører.  (Det var til og med en amerikansk Daguerre-forening
1274 som hjalp til med å regulere industrien, slik alle slike foreninger gjør,
1275 ved å holde konkurransen ned slik at prisene var høye.)
1276 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2868499"></a><p>
1277 Men til tross for høye priser var etterspørselen etter daguerreotyper
1278 sterk.  Dette inspirerte oppfinnere til å finne enklere og billigere måter å
1279 lage <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">automatiske bilder</span>»</span>.  William Talbot oppdaget snart en
1280 prosess for å lage <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">negativer</span>»</span>.  Men da negativene var av
1281 glass, og måtte holdes fuktige, forble prosessen kostbar og tung.  På
1282 1870-tallet ble tørrplater utviklet, noe som gjorde det enklere å skille det
1283 å ta et bilde fra å fremkalle det.  Det var fortsatt plater av glass, og
1284 dermed var det fortsatt ikke en prosess som var innenfor rekkevidden til de
1285 fleste amatører.
1286 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxeastmangeorge"></a><p>
1287
1288 Den teknologiske endringen som gjorde masse-fotografering mulig skjedde ikke
1289 før i 1888, og det var takket være en eneste mann. George Eastman, selv en
1290 amatørfotograf, var frustrert over den plate-baserte fotografi-teknologien.
1291 I et lysglimt av innsikt (for å si det slik), forsto Eastman at hvis filmen
1292 kunne gjøres bøyelig, så kunne den holdes på en enkel rull.  Denne rullen
1293 kunne så sendes til en fremkaller, og senke kostnadene til fotografering
1294 vesentlig.  Ved å redusere kostnadene, forventet Eastman at han dramatisk
1295 kunne utvide andelen fotografer.
1296 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxkodakcameras"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxkodakprimertheeastman"></a><p>
1297 Eastman utviklet bøyelig, emulsjons-belagt papirfilm og plasserte ruller med
1298 dette i små, enkle kameraer: Kodaken.  Enheten ble markedsfør med grunnlag
1299 dens enkelhet. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Du trykker på knappen og vi fikser
1300 resten.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2868594" href="#ftn.id2868594" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> Som han beskrev det i
1301 <em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>:
1302 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1303 Prinsippet til Kodak-systemet er skillet mellom arbeidet som enhver kan
1304 utføre når en tar fotografier, fra arbeidet som kun en ekspert kan
1305 gjøre. &#8230; Vi utstyrte alle, menn, kvinner og barn, som hadde
1306 tilstrekkelig intelligens til å peke en boks i riktig retning og trykke på
1307 en knapp, med et instrument som helt fjernet fra praksisen med å fotografere
1308 nødvendigheten av uvanlig utstyr eller for den del, noe som helst spesiell
1309 kunnskap om kunstarten.  Det kan tas i bruk uten forutgående studier, uten
1310 et mørkerom og uten kjemikalier.<sup>[<a name="id2864787" href="#ftn.id2864787" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
1311 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2868652"></a><p>
1312 For $25 kunne alle ta bilder.  Det var allerede film i kameraet, og når det
1313 var brukt ble kameraet returnert til en Eastman-fabrikk hvor filmen ble
1314 fremkalt.  Etter hvert, naturligvis, ble både kostnaden til kameraet og hvor
1315 enkelt et var å bruke forbedret.  Film på rull ble dermed grunnlaget for en
1316 eksplosiv vekst i fotografering blant folket. Eastmans kamera ble lagt ut
1317 for salg i 1888, og et år senere trykket Kodak mer enn seks tusen negativer
1318 om dagen.  Fra 1888 til 1909, mens produksjonen i industrien vokste med 4,7
1319 prosent, økte salget av fotografisk utstyr og materiale med 11
1320 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2868674" href="#ftn.id2868674" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
1321 samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2868684" href="#ftn.id2868684" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
1322 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2868693"></a><p>
1323
1324
1325 Den virkelige betydningen av oppfinnelsen til Eastman, var derimot ikke
1326 økonomisk.  Den var sosial.  Profesjonell fotografering ga individer et
1327 glimt av steder de ellers aldri ville se. Amatørfotografering ga dem
1328 muligheten til å arkivere deres liv på en måte som de aldri hadde vært i
1329 stand til tidligere.  Som forfatter Brian Coe skriver, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For første
1330 gang tilbød fotoalbumet mannen i gata et permanent arkiv over hans familie
1331 og dens aktiviteter. &#8230; For første gang i historien fantes det en
1332 autentisk visuell oppføring av utseende og aktivitet til vanlige mennesker
1333 laget uten [skrivefør] tolkning eller forutinntatthet.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2868619" href="#ftn.id2868619" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
1334 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2868735"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2868744"></a><p>
1335 På denne måten var Kodak-kameraet og film uttrykksteknologier. Blyanten og
1336 malepenselen var selvfølgelig også en uttrykksteknologi. Men det tok årevis
1337 med trening før de kunne bli brukt nyttig og effektiv av amatører.  Med
1338 Kodaken var uttrykk mulig mye raskere og enklere.  Barrièren for å uttrykke
1339 seg var senket.  Snobber ville fnyse over <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kvaliteten</span>»</span>,
1340 profesjonelle ville avvise den som irrelevant.  Men se et barn studere
1341 hvordan best velge bildemotiv og du får følelsen av hva slags
1342 kreativitetserfaring som Kodaken muliggjorde.  Demokratiske verktøy ga
1343 vanlige folk en måte å uttrykke dem selv på enklere enn noe annet verktøy
1344 kunne ha gjort før.
1345 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2868779"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxpermissionsphotographyexemptedfrom"></a><p>
1346 Hva krevdes for at denne teknologien skulle blomstre.  Eastmans genialitet
1347 var åpenbart en viktig del.  Men den juridiske miljøet som Eastmans
1348 oppfinnelse vokste i var også viktig.  For tidlig i historien til
1349 fotografering, var det en rekke av rettsavgjørelser som godt kunne ha endret
1350 kursen til fotograferingen betydelig.  Domstoler ble spurt om fotografen,
1351 amatør eller profesjonell, måtte ha tillatelse før han kunne fange og trykke
1352 hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket.  Svaret var nei.<sup>[<a name="id2868818" href="#ftn.id2868818" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
1353 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2868846"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt4"></a><p>
1354
1355 Argumentene til fordel for å kreve tillatelser vil høres overraskende kjent
1356 ut.  Fotografen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tok</span>»</span> noe fra personen eller bygningen som ble
1357 fotografert&#8212;røvet til seg noe av verdi.  Noen trodde til og med at han
1358 tok målets sjel.  På samme måte som Disney ikke var fri til å ta blyantene
1359 som hans animatører brukte til å tegne Mikke, så skulle heller ikke disse
1360 fotografene være fri til å ta bilder som de fant verdi i.
1361 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2868359"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2868894"></a><p>
1362 På den andre siden var et argument som også bør bør være kjent. Joda, det
1363 var kanskje noe av verdi som ble brukt.  Men borgerne burde ha rett til å
1364 fange i hvert fall de bildene som var tatt av offentlig område.  (Louis
1365 Brandeis, som senere ble høyesterettsjustitiarus, mente regelen skulle være
1366 annerledes for bilder tatt av private områder.<sup>[<a name="id2868912" href="#ftn.id2868912" class="footnote">32</a>]</sup>) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting.
1367 På samme måte som Disney kunne hente inspirasjon fra <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
1368 Bill, Jr</em>. eller Grimm-brødrene, så burde fotografene stå fritt
1369 til å fange et bilde uten å kompensere kilden.
1370 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2868952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2868960"></a><p>
1371 Heldigvis for Mr. Eastman, og for fotografering generelt, gikk disse
1372 tidligere avgjørelsene i favør av piratene.  Generelt ble det ikke nødvendig
1373 å sikre seg tillatelse før et bilde kunne tas og deles med andre.  I stedet
1374 var det antatt at tillatelse var gitt.  Frihet var utgangspunktet.  (Loven
1375 ga etter en stund et unntak for berømte personer: kommersielle fotografer
1376 som tok bilder av berømte personer for kommersielle formål har flere
1377 begrensninger enn resten av oss.  Men i det vanlige tilfellet, kan bildet
1378 fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.<sup>[<a name="id2868981" href="#ftn.id2868981" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
1379 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2869011"></a><p>
1380 Vi kan kun spekulere om hvordan fotografering ville ha utviklet seg om loven
1381 hadde slått ut den andre veien.  Hvis den hadde vært mot fotografen, da
1382 ville fotografen måttet dokumentere at tillatelse var på plass.  Kanskje
1383 Eastman Kodak også måtte ha dokumentert at tillatelse var gitt, før de
1384 utviklet filmen som bildene ble fanget på.  Tross alt, hvis tillatelse ikke
1385 var gitt, da ville Eastman Kodak ha nytt fordeler fra
1386 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tyveriet</span>»</span> begått av fotografer.  På samme måte som Napster nøt
1387 fordeler fra opphavsrettsbrudd utført av Napster-brukere, så ville Kodak
1388 nytt fordeler fra <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bilde-rettighets</span>»</span>-brudd til deres
1389 fotografer.  Vi kan forestille oss at loven da krevede at en form for
1390 tillatelse ble vist frem før et selskap fremkalte bildene.  Vi kan
1391 forestille oss et system bli utviklet for å legge frem slike tillatelser.
1392 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2869053"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2869062"></a><p>
1393
1394
1395
1396 Men selv om vi kan tenke oss dette godkjenningssystemet, så vil det være
1397 svært vanskelig å se hvordan fotografering skulle ha blomstret slik det
1398 gjorde hvis det var bygd inn krav om godkjenning i reglene som styrte det.
1399 Fotografering ville eksistert.  Det ville ha økt sin betydning over tid.
1400 Profesjonelle ville ha fortsatt å bruke teknologien slik de
1401 gjorde&#8212;siden profesjonelle enklere kunne håndtert byrdene pålagt dem
1402 av godkjenningssystemet.  Men spredningen av fotografering til vanlige folk
1403 villa aldri ha skjedd.  Veksten det skapte kunne aldri ha skjedd.  Og det
1404 ville uten tvil aldri vært realisert en slik vekst i demokratisk
1405 uttrykksteknologi.
1406 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2869075"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2869086"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2869118"></a><p>
1407 <span class="strong"><strong>Hvis du kjører</strong></span> gjennom området Presidio i
1408 San Francisco, kan det hende du ser to gusjegule skolebusser overmalt med
1409 fargefulle og iøynefallende bilder, og logoen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Just Think!</span>»</span> i
1410 stedet for navnet på en skole. Men det er lite som er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bare</span>»</span>
1411 mentalt i prosjektene som disse bussene muliggjør.  Disse bussene er fylt
1412 med teknologi som lærer unger å fikle med film.  Ikke filmen til Eastman.
1413 Ikke en gang filmen i din videospiller.  I stedet er det snakk om
1414 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">filmen</span>»</span> til digitale kamera.  Just Think! er et prosjekt som
1415 gjør det mulig for unger å lage filmer, som en måte å forstå og kritisere
1416 den filmede kulturen som de finner over alt rundt seg.  Hvert år besøker
1417 disse bussene mer enn tredve skoler og gir mellom tre hundre og fire hundre
1418 barn muligheten til å lære noe om media ved å gjøre noe med media.  Ved å
1419 gjøre, så tenker de.  Ved å fikle, så lærer de.
1420 </p><p>
1421 Disse bussene er ikke billige, men teknologien de har med seg blir billigere
1422 og billigere.  Kostnaden til et høykvalitets digitalt videosystem har falt
1423 dramatisk.  Som en analytiker omtalte det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for fem år siden kostet et
1424 godt sanntids redigerinssystem for digital video $25 000.  I dag kan du
1425 få profesjonell kvalitet for $595.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2869196" href="#ftn.id2869196" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup> Disse bussene er fylt med teknologi som ville kostet
1426 hundre-tusenvis av dollar for bare ti år siden.  Og det er nå mulig å
1427 forestille seg ikke bare slike busser, men klasserom rundt om i landet hvor
1428 unger kan lære mer og mer av det lærerne kaller
1429 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">medie-skriveføre</span>»</span> eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mediekompetanse</span>»</span>.
1430 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2869224"></a><p>
1431
1432
1433 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Media-skriveføre,</span>»</span> eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mediekompetanse</span>»</span> som
1434 administrerende direktør Dave Yanofsky i Just Think!, sier det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er
1435 evnen til &#8230; å forstå, analysere og dekonstruere mediebilder. Dets mål
1436 er å gjøre [unger] i stand til å forstå hvordan mediene fungerer, hvordan de
1437 er konstruert, hvordan de blir levert, og hvordan folk bruker dem</span>»</span>.
1438 </p><p>
1439 Dette kan virke som en litt rar måte å tenke på
1440 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">skrivefør</span>»</span>. For de fleste handler skrivefør å kunne lese og
1441 skrive. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Skriveføre</span>»</span> folk kjenner ting som Faulkner, Hemingway
1442 og å kjenne igjen delte infinitiver.
1443 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2869276"></a><p>
1444 Mulig det.  Men i en verden hvor barn ser i gjennomsnitt 390 timer med
1445 TV-reklamer i året, eller generelt mellom 20 000 og 45 000
1446 reklameinnslag,<sup>[<a name="id2869290" href="#ftn.id2869290" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> så er det mer og mer
1447 viktig å forstå <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grammatikken</span>»</span> til media.  For på samme måte
1448 som det er en grammatikk for det skrevne ord, så er det også en for media.
1449 Og akkurat slik som unger lærer å skrive ved å skrive masse grusom prosa, så
1450 lærer unger å skrive media ved å konstruere masse (i hvert fall i
1451 begynnelsen) grusom media.
1452 </p><p>
1453 Et voksende felt av akademikere og aktivister ser denne formen for
1454 skriveføre som avgjørende for den neste generasjonen av kultur. For selv om
1455 de som har skrevet forstår hvor vanskelig det er å skrive&#8212;hvor
1456 vanskelig det er å bestemme rekkefølge i historien, å holde på
1457 oppmerksomheten hos leseren, å forme språket slik at det er
1458 forståelig&#8212;så har få av oss en reell følelse av hvor vanskelig medier
1459 er. Eller mer fundamentalt, de færreste av oss har en følelse for hvordan
1460 media fungerer, hvordan det holder et publikum eller leder leseren gjennom
1461 historien, hvordan det utløser følelser eller bygger opp spenningen.
1462 </p><p>
1463 Det tok filmkusten en generasjon før den kunne gjøre disse tingene bra.  Men
1464 selv da, så var kunnskapen i filmingen, ikke i å skrive om filmen.
1465 Ferdigheten kom fra erfaring med å lage en film, ikke fra å lese en bok om
1466 den.  En lærer å skrive ved å skrive, og deretter reflektere over det en har
1467 skrevet.  En lærer å skrive med bilder ved å lage dem, og deretter
1468 reflektere over det en har laget.
1469 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2869331"></a><p>
1470 Denne gramatikken har endret seg etter hvert som media har endret seg.  Da
1471 det kun var film, som Elizabeth Daley, administrerende direktør ved
1472 Universitetet i Sør-Califorias Anneberg-senter for kommunkasjon og rektor
1473 ved USC skole for Kino-Televisjon, forklarte for meg, var gramatikken om
1474 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">plasseringen av objekter, farger, &#8230; rytme, skritt og
1475 tekstur</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2869390" href="#ftn.id2869390" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> Men etter hvert som
1476 datamaskiner åpner opp et interaktivt rom hvor en historie blir
1477 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">spillt</span>»</span> i tillegg til opplevd, endrer gramatikken seg.  Den
1478 enkle kontrollen til forstellerstemmen er forsvunnet, og dermed er andre
1479 teknikker nødvendig.  Forfatter Michael Crichton hadde mestret
1480 fortellerstemmen til science fiction.  Men da han forsøkte å lage et
1481 dataspill basert på et av sine verk, så var det et nytt håndverk han måtte
1482 lære.  Det var ikke åpenbart hvordan en leder folk gjennom et spill uten at
1483 de far følelsen av å ha blitt ledet, selv for en enormt vellykket
1484 forfatter.<sup>[<a name="id2869435" href="#ftn.id2869435" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
1485 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2869461"></a><p>
1486 Akkurat denne ferdigheten er håndverket en lærer til de som lager
1487 filmer. Som Daley skriver, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">folk er svært overrasket over hvordan de
1488 blir ledet gjennom en film.  Den er perfekt konstruert for å hindre deg fra
1489 å se det, så du aner det ikke.  Hvis en som lager filmer lykkes så vet du
1490 ikke at du har vært ledet.</span>»</span> Hvis du vet at du ble ledet igjennom en
1491 film, så har filmen feilet.
1492 </p><p>
1493 Likevel er innsatsen for å utvide skriveføren&#8212;til en som går ut over
1494 tekst til å ta med lyd og visuelle elementer&#8212;handler ikke om å lage
1495 bedre filmregissører.  Målet er ikke å forbedre filmyrket i det hele tatt.
1496 I stedet, som Daley forklarer,
1497 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1498 Fra mitt perspektiv er antagelig det viktigste digitale skillet ikke om en
1499 har tilgang til en boks eller ikke.  Det er evnen til å ha kontroll over
1500 språket som boksen bruker.  I motsatt fall er det bare noen få som kan
1501 skrive i dette språket, og alle oss andre er redusert til å ikke kunne
1502 skrive.
1503 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1504 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke kunne skrive.</span>»</span> Passive mottakerne av kultur produsert
1505 andre steder. Sofapoteter. Forbrukere. Dette er medieverden fra det tjuende
1506 århundre.
1507 </p><p>
1508 Det tjueførste århundret kan bli annerledes.  Dette er et kritisk punkt: Det
1509 kan bli både lesing og skriving.  Eller i det minste lesing og bedre
1510 forståelse for håndverket å skrive.  Eller det beste, lesing og forstå
1511 verktøyene som gir skriving mulighet til å veilede eller villede.  Målet med
1512 enhver skriveførhet, og denne skriveførheten spesielt, er å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gi folket
1513 myndighet til å velge det språket som passer for det de trenger å lage eller
1514 uttrykke</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2869547" href="#ftn.id2869547" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> Det gir studenter
1515 mulighet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">til å kommunisere i språket til det tjueførste
1516 århundret</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2869568" href="#ftn.id2869568" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
1517 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2869576"></a><p>
1518 Som det alle andre språk, læres dette språket lettere for noen enn for
1519 andre.  Det kommer ikke nødvendigvis lettere for de som gjør det godt
1520 skriftlig. Daley og Stephanie Barish, direktør for Institutt for
1521 Multimedia-skriveføre ved Annenberg-senteret, beskriver et spesielt sterkt
1522 eksempel fra et prosjekt de gjennomførte i en videregående skole.  Den
1523 videregående skolen var en veldig fattig skole i den indre byen i Los
1524 Angeles.  Etter alle tradisjonelle måleenheter for suksess var denne skolen
1525 en fiasko.  Men Daley og Barish gjennomførte et program som ga ungene en
1526 mulighet til å bruke film til å uttrykke sine meninger om noe som studentene
1527 visste noe om&#8212;våpen-relatert vold.
1528 </p><p>
1529 Klassen møttes fredag ettermiddag, og skapte et relativt nytt problem for
1530 skolen.  Mens utfordringen i de fleste klasser var å få ungene til å dukke
1531 opp, var utfordringen for denne klassen å holde dem unna. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ungene
1532 dukket opp 06:00, og dro igjen 05:00 på natta</span>»</span>, sa Barish. De jobbet
1533 hardere enn i noen annen klasse for å gjøre det utdanning burde handle
1534 om&#8212;å lære hvordan de skulle uttrykke seg.
1535 </p><p>
1536 Ved å bruke hva som helst av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fritt tilgjengelig web-stoff de kunne
1537 finne</span>»</span>, og relativt enkle verktøy som gjorde det mulig for ungene å
1538 blande <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bilde, lyd og tekst</span>»</span>, sa Barish at denne klassen
1539 produserte en serie av prosjekter som viste noe om våpen-basert vold som få
1540 ellers ville forstå. Dette var et tema veldig nært livene til disse
1541 studentene.  Prosjektet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ga dem et verktøy og bemyndiget dem slik at
1542 de både ble i stand til å forstå det og snakke om det</span>»</span>, forklarer
1543 Barish.  Dette verktøyet lyktes med å skape uttrykk&#8212;mye mer vellykket
1544 og kraffylt enn noe som hadde blitt laget ved å kun bruke tekst.
1545 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis du hadde sagt til disse studentene at 'du må gjøre dette i
1546 tekstform', så hadde de bare kastet hendene i været og gått og gjort noe
1547 annet</span>»</span>, forklarer Barish.  Delvis, uten tvil, fordi å uttrykke seg
1548 selv i tekstform ikke er noe disse studentene gjør godt. Heller ikke er
1549 tekstform en form som kan uttrykke <span class="emphasis"><em>disse</em></span> idéene godt.
1550 Kraften i denne meldingen avhenger av dens forbindelse med denne for for
1551 uttrykk.
1552 </p><p>
1553
1554
1555
1556 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Men handler ikke utdanning om å lære unger å skrive?</span>»</span> spurte
1557 jeg. Jo delvis, naturligvis.  Men hvorfor lærer vi unger å skrive?
1558 Utdanning, forklarer Daley, handler om å gi studentene en måte å
1559 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">konstruere mening</span>»</span>.  Å si at det kun betyr skriving er som å
1560 si at å lære bort skriving kun handler om å lære ungene å
1561 stave. Tekstforming er bare en del&#8212;og i større grad ikke den
1562 kraftigste delen&#8212;for å konstruere mening.  Som Daley forklarte i den
1563 mest rørende delen av vårt intervju,
1564 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1565 Det du ønsker er å gi disse studentene en måte å konstruere mening. Hvis alt
1566 du gir dem er tekst, så kommer de ikke til å gjøre det. Fordi de kan ikke.
1567 Du vet, du har Johnny som kan se på en video, han kan spille på et TV-spill,
1568 han kan spre grafitti over alle dine vegger, han kan ta fra hverandre bilen
1569 din, og han kan gjøre alle mulige andre ting.  Men han kan ikke lese teksten
1570 din.  Så Jonny kommer på skolen og du sier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Johnny, du er analfabet.
1571 Ingenting du gjør betyr noe</span>»</span>.  Vel, da har Johnny to valg: Han kan
1572 avvise deg eller han kan avvise seg selv.  Hvis han har et sunt ego så vil
1573 han avvise deg.  Men hvis du i stedet sier, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vel, med alle disse
1574 tingene som du kan gjøre, la oss snakke om dette temaet.  Spill musikk til
1575 meg som du mener reflekterer over temaet, eller vis meg bilder som du mener
1576 reflekterer over temaet, eller tegn noe til meg som reflektere
1577 temaet</span>»</span>.  Ikke ved å gi en unge et videokamera og &#8230; si
1578 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">La oss dra å ha det morsomt med videokameraet og lage en liten
1579 film</span>»</span>. Men istedet, virkelig hjelpe deg å ta disse elementene som du
1580 forstår, som er ditt språk, og konstruer mening om temaet.&#8230;
1581 </p><p>
1582 Dette bemyndiger enormt.  Og det som skjer til slutt, selvfølgelig, som det
1583 har skjedd i alle disse klassene, er at de stopper opp når de treffer
1584 faktumet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">jeg trenger å forklare dette, og da trenger jeg virkelig å
1585 skrive noe</span>»</span>.  Og som en av lærerne fortalte Stephanie, de vil skrive
1586 om avsnittet 5, 6, 7, 8 ganger, helt til det blir riktig.
1587 </p><p>
1588
1589 Fordi de trengte det.  Det var en grunn til å gjøre det.  De trengte å si
1590 noe, i motsetning til å kun danse etter din pipe.  De trengte faktisk å
1591 bruke det språket de ikke håndterte veldig bra.  Men de hadde begynt å
1592 forstå at de hadde mye gjennomslagskraft med dette språket.
1593 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2869799"></a><p>
1594 <span class="strong"><strong>Da to fly</strong></span> krasjet inn i World Trade
1595 Center, og et annet inn i Pentagon, og et fjerde inn i et jorde i
1596 Pennsylvania, snudde alle medier verden rundt seg til denne nyheten.
1597 Ethvert moment for omtreng hver eneste dag den uka, og ukene som fulgte
1598 gjenfortalte TV spesielt, men media generelt, historien om disse hendelsene
1599 som vi nettopp hadde vært vitne til.  Genialiteten i denne forferdelige
1600 terrorhandlingen var at det forsinkede andre-angrepet var perfekt tidsatt
1601 for å sikre at hele verden ville være der for å se på.
1602 </p><p>
1603 Disse gjenfortellingene ga en økende familiær følelse.  Det var musikk
1604 spesiallaget for mellom-innslagene, og avansert grafikk som blinket tvers
1605 over skjermen.  Det var en formel for intervjuer.  Det var
1606 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balanse</span>»</span> og seriøsitet.  Dette var nyheter koreaografert slik
1607 vi i stadig større grad forventer det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nyheter som
1608 underholdning</span>»</span>, selv om underholdningen er en tragedie.
1609 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2869849"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2869854"></a><p>
1610 Men i tillegg til disse produserte nyhetene om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tragedien
1611 11. september</span>»</span>, kunne de av oss som er knyttet til internettet i
1612 tillegg se en svært annerledes produksjon. Internettet er fullt av
1613 fortellinger om de samme hendelsene.  Men disse internet-fortellingene hadde
1614 en veldig annerledes smak.  Noen folk konstruerte foto-sider som fanget
1615 bilder fra hele verden og presenterte dem som lysbildepresentasjoner med
1616 tekst.  Noen tilbød åpne brev.  Det var lydopptak.  Det var sinne og
1617 frustrasjon.  Det var forsøk på å tilby en sammenheng.  Det var, kort og
1618 godt, en ekstraordinær verdensomspennende låvebygging, slik Mike Godwin
1619 bruker begrepet i hans bok <em class="citetitle">Cyber Rights</em>, rundt en
1620 nyhetshendelse som hadde fanget oppmerksomheten til hele verden.  Det var
1621 ABC og CBS, men det var også internettet.
1622 </p><p>
1623
1624 Det er ikke så enkelt som at jeg ønsker å lovprise internettet&#8212;selv om
1625 jeg mener at folkene som støtter denne formen for tale bør lovprises.  Jeg
1626 ønsker i stedet å peke på viktigheten av denne formen for tale.  For på
1627 samme måte som en Kodak, gjør internettet folk i stand til å fange bilder.
1628 Og på samme måte som med en film laget av en av studentene på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Just
1629 Think!</span>»</span>-bussen, kan visuelle bilder bli blandet med lyd og tekst.
1630 </p><p>
1631 Men i motsetning til en hvilken som helst teknologi for å enkelt fange
1632 bilder, tillater internettet at en nesten umiddelbart deler disse
1633 kreasjonene med et ekstraordinært antall menesker.  Dette er noe nytt i vår
1634 tradisjon&#8212;ikke bare kan kultur fanges inn mekanisk, og åpenbart heller
1635 ikke at hendelser blir kommentert kritisk, men at denne blandingen av
1636 bilder, lyd og kommentar kan spres vidt omkring nesten umiddelbart.
1637 </p><p>
1638 11. september var ikke et avvik.  Det var en start.  Omtrent på samme tid,
1639 begynte en form for kommunkasjon som hadde vokst dramatisk å komme inn i
1640 offentlig bevissthet: web-loggen, eller blog.  Bloggen er en slags offentlig
1641 dagbok, og i noen kulturer, slik som i Japan, fungerer den veldig lik en
1642 dagbok.  I disse kulturene registrerer den private fakta på en offentlig
1643 måte&#8212;det er en slags elektronisk <em class="citetitle">Jerry
1644 Springer</em>, tilgjengelig overalt i verden.
1645 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2869942"></a><p>
1646 Men i USA har blogger inntatt en svært annerledes karakter.  Det er noen som
1647 bruker denne plassen til å snakke om sitt private liv.  Men det er mange som
1648 bruker denne plassen til å delta i offentlig debatt. Diskuterer saker med
1649 offentlig interesse, kritiserer andre som har feil synspunkt, kritisere
1650 politigere for avgjørelser de tar, tilbyr løsninger på problemer vi alle
1651 ser.  Blogger skaper en følelse av et virtuelt offentlig møte, men et hvor
1652 vi ikke alle håper å være tilstede på samme tid og hvor konversasjonene ikke
1653 nødvendigvis er koblet sammen.  De beste av bloggoppføringene er relativt
1654 korte.  De peker direkte til ord bruk av andre, kritiserer dem eller bidrar
1655 til dem.  Det kan argumenteres for at de er den viktigste form for
1656 ukoreografert offentlig debatt som vi har.
1657 </p><p>
1658
1659 Dette er en sterk uttalelse.  Likevel sier den like mye om vårt demokrati
1660 som den sier om blogger.  Dette er delen av USA som det er mest vanskelig
1661 for oss som elsker USA å akseptere: vårt demokrati har svunnet hen.  Vi har
1662 naturligvis valg, og mesteparten av tiden tillater domstolene at disse
1663 valgene teller.  Et relativt lite antall mennesker stemmer i disse valgene.
1664 Syklusen med disse valgene har blitt totalt profesjonalisert og
1665 rutinepreget.  De fleste av oss tenker på dette som demokrati.
1666 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2869996"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2870003"></a><p>
1667 Men demokrati har aldri kun handlet om valg.  Demokrati betyr at folket
1668 styrer, og å styre betyr noe mer enn kun valg.  I vår tradisjon betyr det
1669 også kontroll gjennom gjennomtenkt meningsbrytning.  Dette var idéen som
1670 fanget fantasien til Alexis de Tocqueville, den franske
1671 nittenhundretalls-advokaten som skrev den viktigste historien om det tidlige
1672 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">demokratiet i Amerika</span>»</span>.  Det var ikke allmenn stemmerett som
1673 fascinerte han&#8212;det var juryen, en institusjon som ga vanlige folk
1674 retten til å velge liv eller død før andre borgere.  Og det som fascinerte
1675 han mest var at juryen ikke bare stemte over hvilket resultat de ville legge
1676 frem.  De diskuterte.  Medlemmene argumenterte om hva som var
1677 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">riktig</span>»</span> resultat, de forsøkte å overbevise hverandre om
1678 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">riktig</span>»</span>resultat, og i hvert fall i kriminalsaker måtte de bli
1679 enige om et enstemming resultat for at prosessen skulle
1680 avsluttes.<sup>[<a name="id2870050" href="#ftn.id2870050" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
1681 </p><p>
1682 Og likevel fremheves denne institusjonen i USA i dag.  Og i dets sted er det
1683 ingen systematisk innsats for å muliggjøre borger-diskusjon. Noen gjør en
1684 innsats for å lage en slik institusjon.<sup>[<a name="id2870071" href="#ftn.id2870071" class="footnote">41</a>]</sup>
1685 Og i noen landsbyer i New England er det noe i nærheten av diskusjon igjen.
1686 Men for de fleste av oss mesteparten av tiden, er det ingen tid og sted for
1687 å gjennomføre <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">demokratisk diskusjon</span>»</span>.
1688 </p><p>
1689 Mer merkelig er at en generelt sett ikke engang har aksept for at det skal
1690 skje.  Vi, det mektigste demokratiet i verden, har utviklet en sterk norm
1691 mot å diskutere politikk.  Det er greit å diskutere politikk med folk du er
1692 enig med, men det er uhøflig å diskutere politikk med folk du er uenig med.
1693 Politisk debatt blir isolert, og isolert diskusjon blir mer
1694 ekstrem.<sup>[<a name="id2870110" href="#ftn.id2870110" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> Vi sier det våre venner vil
1695 høre, og hører veldig lite utenom hva våre venner sier.
1696 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogs1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2870135"></a><p>
1697
1698 Så kommer bloggen.  Selve bloggens arkitektur løser en del av dette
1699 problemet.  Folk publiserer det de ønsker å publisere, og folk leser det de
1700 ønsker å lese.  Det vanskeligste tiden er synkron tid. Teknologier som
1701 muliggjør asynkron kommunasjons, slik som epost, øker muligheten for
1702 kommunikasjon.  Blogger gjør det mulig med offentlig debatt uten at folket
1703 noen gang trenger å samle seg på et enkelt offentlig sted.
1704 </p><p>
1705 Men i tillegg til arkitektur, har blogger også løst problemet med normer.
1706 Det er (ennå) ingen norm i blogg-sfæren om å ikke snakke om politikk.
1707 Sfæren er faktisk fylt med politiske innlegg, både på høyre- og
1708 venstresiden.  Noen av de mest populære stedene er konservative eller
1709 libertarianske, men det er mange av alle politiske farger.  Til og med
1710 blogger som ikke er politiske dekker politiske temaer når anledningen krever
1711 det.
1712 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2870172"></a><p>
1713 Betydningene av disse bloggene er liten nå, men ikke ubetydelig. Navnet
1714 Howard Dean har i stor grad forsvunnet fra 2004-presidentvalgkampen bortsett
1715 fra hos noen få blogger.  Men selv om antallet lesere er lavt, så har det å
1716 lese dem en effekt.
1717 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2870190"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2870196"></a><p>
1718 En direkte effekt er på historier som hadde en annerledes livssyklus i de
1719 store mediene.  Trend Lott-affæren er et eksempel.  Da Logg <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sa
1720 feil</span>»</span> på en fest for senator Storm Thurmond, og essensielt lovpriste
1721 segregeringspolitikken til Thurmond, regnet han ganske riktig med at
1722 historien ville forsvinne fra de store mediene i løpet av førtiåtte timer.
1723 Det skjedde.  Men han regnet ikke med dens livssyklus i bloggsfæren.
1724 Bloggerne fortsatte å undersøke historien.  Etter hvert dukket flere og
1725 flere tilfeller av tilsvarende <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">feiluttalelser</span>»</span> opp. Så dukket
1726 historien opp igjen hos de store mediene.  Lott ble til slutt tvinget til å
1727 trekke seg som leder for senatets flertall.<sup>[<a name="id2870231" href="#ftn.id2870231" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup>
1728 </p><p>
1729 Denne annerledes syklusen er mulig på grunn av at et tilsvarende kommersielt
1730 press ikke eksisterer hos blogger slik det gjør hos andre kanaler.
1731 Televisjon og aviser er kommersielle aktører.  De må arbeide for å holde på
1732 oppmerksomheten.  Hvis de mister lesere, så mister de inntekter.  Som haier,
1733 må de bevege seg videre.
1734 </p><p>
1735 Men bloggere har ikke tilsvarende begresninger.  De kan bli opphengt, de kan
1736 fokusere, de kan bli seriøse.  Hvis en bestemt blogger skriver en spesielt
1737 interessant historie, så vil flere og flere folk lenke til den historien.
1738 Og etter hvert som antalet lenker til en bestemt historie øker, så stiger
1739 den i rangeringen for historier.  Folk leser det som er populært, og hva som
1740 er populært har blitt valgt gjennom en svært demokratisk prosess av
1741 likemanns-generert rangering.
1742 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinerdave"></a><p>
1743
1744 Det er også en annen måte, hvor blogger har en annen syklus enn de store
1745 mediene.  Som Dave Winer, en av fedrene til denne bevegelsen og en
1746 programvareutvikler i mange tiår fortalte meg, er en annen forskjell
1747 fraværet av finansiell <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">interessekonflikt</span>»</span>.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg tror du
1748 må ta interessekonflikten</span>»</span> ut av journalismen, fortalte Winer
1749 meg. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">En amatørjournalist har ganske enkelt ikke interessekonflikt,
1750 eller interessekonflikten er så enkelt å avsløre at du liksom vet du kan
1751 rydde den av veien.</span>»</span>
1752 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2870315"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2870322"></a><p>
1753 Disse konfliktene blir mer viktig etter hvert som mediene blir mer
1754 konsentert (mer om dette under).  Konsenterte medier kan skjule mer fra
1755 offentligheten enn ikke-konsenterte medier kan&#8212;slik CNN innrømte at de
1756 gjorde etter Iraq-krigen fordi de var rett for konsekvensene for sine egne
1757 ansatte.<sup>[<a name="id2870027" href="#ftn.id2870027" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> De trenger også å opprettholde
1758 en mer konsistent rapportering.  (Midt under Irak-krigen, leste jeg en
1759 melding på Internet fra noen som på det tidspunktet lyttet på
1760 satellitt-forbindelsen til en reporter i Iraq.  New York-hovedkvarteret ba
1761 reporteren gang på gang at hennes rapport om krigen var for trist: Hun måtte
1762 tilby en mer optimistisk historie. Når hun fortalte New York at det ikke var
1763 grunnlag for det, fortalte de henne at det var <span class="emphasis"><em>dem</em></span> som
1764 skrev <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">historien</span>»</span>.)
1765 </p><p> Blogg-sfæren gir amatører en måte å bli med i
1766 debatten&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">amatør</span>»</span> ikke i betydningen uerfaren, men i
1767 betydningen til en Olympisk atlet, det vil si ikke betalt av noen for å
1768 komme med deres rapport.  Det tillater en mye bredere rekke av innspill til
1769 en historie, slik rapporteringen Columbia-katastrofen avdekket, når
1770 hundrevis fra hele sørvest-USA vendte seg til internettet for å gjenfortelle
1771 hva de hadde sett.<sup>[<a name="id2870385" href="#ftn.id2870385" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> Og det får lesere
1772 til å lese på tvers av en rekke fortellinger og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">triangulere</span>»</span>,
1773 som Winer formulerer det, sannheten.  Blogger, sier Winer,
1774 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kommunserer direkte med vår velgermasse, og mellommannen er
1775 fjernet</span>»</span>&#8212; med alle de fordeler og ulemper det kan føre med seg.
1776 </p><p>
1777
1778 Winer er optimistisk når det gjelder en journalistfremtid infisert av
1779 blogger.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det kommer til å bli en nødvendig ferdighet</span>»</span>, spår
1780 Winer, for offentlige aktører og også i større grad for private aktører.
1781 Det er ikke klart at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">journalismen</span>»</span> er glad for
1782 dette&#8212;noen journalister har blitt bedt om å kutte ut sin
1783 blogging.<sup>[<a name="id2870421" href="#ftn.id2870421" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> Men det er klart at vi
1784 fortsatt er i en overgangsfase.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mye av det vi gjør nå er
1785 oppvarmingsøvelser</span>»</span>, fortalte Winer meg.  Det er mye som må modne før
1786 dette området har sin modne effekt.  Og etter som inkludering av innhold i
1787 dette området er det området med minst opphavsrettsbrudd på internettet, sa
1788 Wiener at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vi vil være den siste tingen som blir skutt ned</span>»</span>.
1789 </p><p>
1790 Slik tale påvirker demokratiet.  Winer mener dette skjer fordi <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">du
1791 trenger ikke jobber for noen som kontrollerer, [for] en
1792 portvokter</span>»</span>. Det er sant.  Men det påvirker demokratiet også på en
1793 annen måte. Etter hvert som flere og flere borgere uttrykker hva de mener,
1794 og forsvarer det skriftlig, så vil det endre hvordan folk forstår offentlige
1795 temaer.  Det er enkelt å ha feil og være på villspor i hodet ditt.  Det er
1796 vanskeligere når resultatet fra dine tanker kan bli kritisert av andre.  Det
1797 er selvfølgelig et sjeldent menneske som innrømmer at han ble overtalt til å
1798 innse at han tok feil.  Men det er mer sjeldent for et menneske å ignorere
1799 at noen har bevist at han tok feil.  Å skrive ned idéer, argumenter og
1800 kritikk forbedrer demokratiet.  I dag er det antagelig et par millioner
1801 blogger der det skrives på denne måten.  Når det er ti milloner, så vil det
1802 være noe ekstraordært å rapportere.
1803 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2870565"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2870573"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising1"></a><p>
1804 <span class="strong"><strong>John Seely Brown</strong></span> er sjefsforsker ved
1805 Xerox Corporation.  Hans arbeid, i følge hans eget nettsted, er
1806 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menneskelig læring og &#8230; å skape kunnskapsøkologier for å skape
1807 &#8230; innovasjon</span>»</span>.
1808 </p><p>
1809 Brown ser dermed på disse teknologiene for digital kreativitet litt
1810 annerledes enn fra perspektivene jeg har skissert opp så langt.  Jeg er
1811 sikker på at han blir begeistret for enhver teknologi som kan forbedre
1812 demokratiet.  Men det han virkelig blir begeistret over er hvordan disse
1813 teknologiene påvirker læring.
1814 </p><p>
1815
1816 Brown tror vi lærer med å fikle.  Da <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mange av oss vokste opp</span>»</span>,
1817 forklarer han, ble fiklingen gjort <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pa motorsykkelmotorer,
1818 gressklippermotorer, biler, radioer og så videre</span>»</span>.  Men digitale
1819 teknologier muliggjør en annen type fikling&#8212;med abstrakte idéer i sin
1820 konkrete form.  Ungene i Just Think! tenker ikke bare på hvordan et
1821 reklameinnslag fremstiller en politiker.  Ved å bruke digital teknologi kan
1822 de ta reklameinnslaget fra hverandre og manipulerer det, fikle med det, og
1823 se hvordan det blir gjort.  Digitale teknologier setter igang en slags
1824 *bricolage* eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling</span>»</span>, som
1825 Brown kaller det.  Mange får mulighet til å legge til på eller endre på
1826 fiklingen til mange andre.
1827 </p><p>
1828 Det beste eksemplet i større skala så langt på denne typen fikling er fri
1829 programvare og åpen kildekode (FS/OSS).  FS/OSS er programvare der
1830 kildekoden deles ut.  Alle kan laste ned teknologien som får et
1831 FS/OSS-program til å fungere.  Og enhver som har lyst til å lære hvordan en
1832 bestemt bit av FS/OSS-teknologi fungerer kan fikle med koden.
1833 </p><p>
1834 Denne muligheten gir en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">helt ny type læringsplattform</span>»</span>, i
1835 følge Brown.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Så snart du begynner å gjøre dette, så &#8230; slipper
1836 du løs en fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling til fellesskapet, slik at andre
1837 folk kan begynne å se på koden din, fikle med den, teste den, seom de kan
1838 forbedre den</span>»</span>.  Og hver innsats er et slags læretid.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Åpen
1839 kildekode blir en stor lærlingeplatform.</span>»</span>.
1840 </p><p>
1841 I denne prossesen, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er de konkrete tingene du fikler med abstrakte. De
1842 er kildekode</span>»</span>.  Unger <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">endres til å få evnen til å fikle med
1843 det abstrakte, og denne fiklingen er ikke lenger en isolert aktivitet som du
1844 gjør i garasjen din.  Du fikler med en fellesskapsplatform. &#8230; Du
1845 fikler med andre folks greier.  Og jo mer du fikler, jo mer forbedrer
1846 du.</span>»</span> Jo mer du forbedrer, jo mer lærer du.
1847 </p><p>
1848 Denne sammen tingen skjer også med innhold.  Og det skjer på samme
1849 samarbeidende måte når dette innholdet er del av nettet.  Som Brown
1850 formulerer det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nettet er det første medium som virkelig tar hensyn
1851 til flere former for intelligens</span>»</span>.  Tidligere teknologier, slik som
1852 skrivemaskin eller tekstbehandling, hjelper med å fremme tekst.  Men nettet
1853 fremmer mye mer enn tekst.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Nettet &#8230; si hvis du er musikalsk,
1854 hvis du er kunstnerisk, hvis du er visuell, hvis du er interessert i film
1855 &#8230;da er det en masse du kan gå igang med på dette mediet.  Det kan
1856 fremme og ta hensyn til alle disse formene for intelligens.</span>»</span>
1857 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2870758"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2870765"></a><p>
1858
1859 Brown snakker om hva Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish Og Just Think! lærer
1860 bort: at denne fiklingen med kultur lærer såvel som den skaper. Den utvikler
1861 talenter litt anderledes, og den bygger en annen type gjenkjenning.
1862 </p><p>
1863 Likevel er friheten til å fikle med disse objektene ikke garantert. Faktisk,
1864 som vi vil se i løpet av denne boken, er den friheten i stadig større grad
1865 omstridt.  Mens det ikke er noe tvil om at din far hadde rett til å fikle
1866 med bilmotoren, så er det stor tvil om dine barn vil ha retten til å fikle
1867 med bilder som hun finner over alt. Loven, og teknologi i stadig større
1868 grad, forstyrrer friheten som teknolog, nysgjerrigheten, ellers ville sikre.
1869 </p><p>
1870 Disse begresningene har blitt fokusen for forskere og akademikere. Professor
1871 Ed Felten ved Princeton (som vi vil se mer fra i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>) har utviklet et
1872 kraftfylt argument til fordel for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">retten til å fikle</span>»</span> slik det
1873 gjøres i informatikk og til kunnskap generelt.<sup>[<a name="id2870816" href="#ftn.id2870816" class="footnote">47</a>]</sup> Men bekymringen til Brown er tidligere, og mer fundamentalt.  Det
1874 handler om hva slags læring unger kan få, eller ikke kan få, på grunn av
1875 loven.
1876 </p><p>
1877 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dette er dit utviklingen av utdanning i det tjueførste århundret er
1878 på vei</span>»</span>, forklarer Brown.  Vi må <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">forstå hvordan unger som
1879 vokser opp digitalt tenker og ønsker å lære</span>»</span>.
1880 </p><p>
1881 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Likevel</span>»</span>, fortsatte Brown, og som balansen i denne boken vil
1882 føre bevis for, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bygger vi et juridisk system som fullstendig
1883 undertrykker den naturlige tendensen i dagens digitale unger. &#8230; We
1884 bygger en arkitektur som frigjør 60 prosent av hjernen [og] et juridisk
1885 system som stenger ned den delen av hjernen</span>»</span>.
1886 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2870875"></a><p>
1887 Vi bygger en teknologi som tar magien til Kodak, mikser inn bevegelige
1888 bilder og lyd, og legger inn plass for kommentarer og en mulighet til å spre
1889 denne kreativiteten over alt.  Men vi bygger loven for å stenge ned denne
1890 teknologien.
1891 </p><p>
1892 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke måten å drive en kultur på</span>»</span>, sa Brewster Kahle, som vi
1893 møtte i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="Kapittel ni: Samlere">9</a>, kommenterte til meg i et sjeldent øyeblikk av
1894 nedstemthet.
1895 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2868594" href="#id2868594" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
1896
1897
1898 Reese V. Jenkins, <em class="citetitle">Images and Enterprise</em> (Baltimore:
1899 Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 112.
1900 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2864787" href="#id2864787" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
1901
1902 <a class="indexterm" name="id2868617"></a> Brian Coe, <em class="citetitle">The Birth of
1903 Photography</em> (New York: Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53.
1904 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2868674" href="#id2868674" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
1905
1906
1907 Jenkins, 177.
1908 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2868684" href="#id2868684" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
1909
1910
1911 Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178.
1912 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2868619" href="#id2868619" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
1913
1914
1915 Coe, 58.
1916 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2868818" href="#id2868818" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
1917
1918
1919 For illustrerende saker, se for eksempel, <em class="citetitle">Pavesich</em>
1920 mot <em class="citetitle">N.E. Life Ins. Co</em>., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905);
1921 <em class="citetitle">Foster-Milburn Co</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Chinn</em>,
1922 123090 S.W. 364, 366 (Ky. 1909); <em class="citetitle">Corliss</em> mot
1923 <em class="citetitle">Walker</em>, 64 F. 280 (Mass.  Dist. Ct. 1894).
1924 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2868912" href="#id2868912" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
1925
1926 Samuel D. Warren og Louis D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy</span>»</span>,
1927 <em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2868924"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2868932"></a>
1928 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2868981" href="#id2868981" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
1929
1930
1931 Se Melville B. Nimmer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right of Publicity</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Law
1932 and Contemporary Problems</em> 19 (1954): 203; William L. Prosser,
1933 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Privacy</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">California Law Review</em> 48
1934 (1960) 398&#8211;407; <em class="citetitle">White</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Samsung
1935 Electronics America, Inc</em>., 971 F.  2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992),
1936 sert. nektet, 508 U.S. 951 (1993).
1937 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2869196" href="#id2869196" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
1938
1939
1940 H. Edward Goldberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and
1941 Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations,</span>»</span>
1942 cadalyst, februar 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #7</a>.
1943 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2869290" href="#id2869290" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
1944
1945
1946 Judith Van Evra, <em class="citetitle">Television and Child Development</em>
1947 (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Findings on
1948 Family and TV Study</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25. mai
1949 1997, B6.
1950 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2869390" href="#id2869390" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
1951
1952 Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002.
1953 <a class="indexterm" name="id2869398"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2869406"></a>
1954 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2869435" href="#id2869435" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
1955
1956
1957 Se Scott Steinberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs</span>»</span>, E!online,
1958 4. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #8</a>;
1959 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Timeline</span>»</span>, 22. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #9</a>.
1960 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2869547" href="#id2869547" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
1961
1962 Intervju med Daley og Barish.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2869553"></a>
1963 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2869568" href="#id2869568" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
1964
1965
1966 ibid.
1967 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2870050" href="#id2870050" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
1968
1969
1970 Se for eksempel Alexis de Tocqueville, <em class="citetitle">Democracy in
1971 America</em>, bk. 1, overs.  Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books,
1972 2000), kap. 16.
1973 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2870071" href="#id2870071" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
1974
1975
1976 Bruce Ackerman og James Fishkin, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Deliberation Day</span>»</span>,
1977 <em class="citetitle">Journal of Political Philosophy</em> 10 (2) (2002): 129.
1978 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2870110" href="#id2870110" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
1979
1980
1981 Cass Sunstein, <em class="citetitle">Republic.com</em> (Princeton: Princeton
1982 University Press, 2001), 65&#8211;80, 175, 182, 183, 192.
1983 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2870231" href="#id2870231" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
1984
1985
1986 Noah Shachtman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the
1987 Pot</span>»</span>, New York Times, 16. januar 2003, G5.
1988 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2870027" href="#id2870027" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
1989
1990
1991 Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003.
1992 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2870385" href="#id2870385" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
1993
1994
1995 John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
1996 Information Online</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 2 februar
1997 2003, A28; Staci D. Kramer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but
1998 Strong Overall</span>»</span>, Online Journalism Review, 2. februar 2003,
1999 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
2000 #10</a>.
2001 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2870421" href="#id2870421" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
2002
2003 <a class="indexterm" name="id2870452"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2870460"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2870466"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2870473"></a>  Se Michael Falcone, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does an Editor's
2004 Pencil Ruin a Web Log?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>,
2005 29. september 2003, C4. (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke alle nyhetsorganisasjoner har hatt like
2006 stor aksept for ansatte som blogger. Kevin Sites, en CNN-korrespondent i
2007 Irak som startet en blogg om sin rapportering av krigen 9. mars, stoppet å
2008 publisere 12 dager senere på forespørsel fra sine sjefer. I fjor fikk Steve
2009 Olafson, en <em class="citetitle">Houston Chronicle</em>-reporter, sparken for å
2010 ha hatt en personlig web-logg, publisert under pseudonym, som handlet om
2011 noen av temaene og folkene som han dekket.</span>»</span>)
2012 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2870816" href="#id2870816" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
2013
2014
2015 Se for eksempel, Edward Felten og Andrew Appel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Technological Access
2016 Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,</span>»</span>
2017 <em class="citetitle">Communications of the Association for Computer
2018 Machinery</em> 43 (2000): 9.
2019 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel tre: Kataloger"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Kapittel tre: Kataloger</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2870925"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><p>
2020 <span class="strong"><strong>Høsten 2001</strong></span>, ble Jesse Jordan fra
2021 Oceanside, New York, innrullert som førsteårsstudent ved Rensselaer
2022 Polytechnic Institute, i Troy, New York.  Hans studieprogram ved RPI var
2023 informasjonsteknologi.  Selv om han ikke var en programmerer, bestemte Jesse
2024 seg i oktober å begynne å fikle med en søkemotorteknologi som var
2025 tilgjengelig på RPI-nettverket.
2026 </p><p>
2027 RPI er en av Amerikas fremste teknologiske forskningsinstitusjoner. De
2028 tilbyr grader innen områder som går fra arkitektur og ingeniørfag til
2029 informasjonsvitenskap.  Mer enn 65 prosent av de fem tusen
2030 laveregradsstudentene fullførte blant de 10 prosent beste i deres klasse på
2031 videregående.  Skolen er dermed en perfekt blanding av talent og erfaring
2032 for å se for seg og deretter bygge, en generasjon tilpasset
2033 nettverksalderen.
2034 </p><p>
2035 RPIs data-nettverk kobler studenter, forelesere og administrasjon sammen.
2036 Det kobler også RPI til internettet.  Ikke alt som er tilgjengelig på
2037 RPI-nettet er tilgjengelig på internettet.  Men nettverket er utformet for å
2038 gi alle studentene mulighet til å bruke internettet, i tillegg til mer
2039 direkte tilgang til andre medlemmer i RPI-fellesskapet.
2040 </p><p>
2041
2042 Søkemotorer er et mål pa hvor nært et nettverk oppleves å være. Google
2043 brakte internettet mye nærmere oss alle ved en utrolig forbedring av
2044 kvaliteten på søk i nettverket.  Spesialiserte søkemotorer kan gjøre dette
2045 enda bedre.  Idéen med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intranett</span>»</span>-søkemotorer, søkemotorer som
2046 kun søker internt i nettverket til en bestemt institusjon, er å tilby
2047 brukerne i denne institusjonen bedre tilgang til materiale fra denne
2048 institusjonen. Bedrifter gjør dette hele tiden, ved å gi ansatte mulighet
2049 til å få tak i materiale som folk på utsiden av bedriften ikke kan få tak
2050 i. Universitetet gjør også dette.
2051 </p><p>
2052 Disse motorene blir muliggjort av netverksteknologien selv.  For eksempel
2053 har Microsoft et nettverksfilsystem som gjør det veldig enkelt for
2054 søkemotorer tilpasset det nettverket å spørre systemet etter informasjon om
2055 det offentlig (innen nettverket) tilgjengelige innholdet.  Søkemotoren til
2056 Jesse var bygget for å dra nytte av denne teknologien.  Den brukte
2057 Microsofts nettverksfilsystem for å bygge en indeks over alle filene
2058 tilgjengelig inne i RPI-nettverket.
2059 </p><p>
2060 Jesse sin var ikke den første søkemotoren bygget for RPI-nettverket. Hans
2061 motor var faktisk en enkel endring av motorer som andre hadde bygget.  Hans
2062 viktigste enkeltforbedring i forhold til disse motorene var å fikse en feil
2063 i Microsofts fildelings-system som fikk en brukers datamaskin til å krasje.
2064 Med motorene som hadde eksistert tidligere, hvis du forsøkte å koble deg ved
2065 hjelp av Windows-utforskeren til en fil som var på en datamaskin som ikke
2066 var på nett, så ville din datamaskin krasje.  Jesse endret systemet litt for
2067 å fikse det problemet, ved å legge til en knapp som en bruker kunne klikke
2068 på for å se om maskinen som hadde filen fortsatt var på nett.
2069 </p><p>
2070 Motoren til Jesse kom pa nett i slutten av oktober.  I løpet av de følgende
2071 seks månedene fortsatte han å justere den for å forbedre dens
2072 funksjonalitet.  I mars fungerte systemet ganske bra.  Jesse hadde mer enn
2073 en million filer i sin katalog, inkludert alle mulige typer innhold som
2074 fantes på brukernes datamaskiner.
2075 </p><p>
2076
2077 Dermed inneholdt indeksen som hans søkemotor produserte bilder, som
2078 studentene kunne bruke til å legge inn på sine egne nettsider, kopier av
2079 notater og forskning, kopier av informasjonshefter, filmklipp som studentene
2080 kanskje hadde laget, universitetsbrosjyrer&#8212;ganske enkelt alt som
2081 brukerne av RPI-nettverket hadde gjort tilgjengelig i en fellesmappe på sine
2082 datamaskiner.
2083 </p><p>
2084 Men indeksen inneholdt også musikkfiler.  Faktisk var en fjerdedel av filene
2085 som Jesses søkemotor inneholdt musikkfiler.  Men det betyr, naturligvis, at
2086 tre fjerdedeler ikke var det, og&#8212;slik at dette poenget er helt
2087 klart&#8212;Jesse gjorde ingenting for å få folk til å plassere musikkfiler
2088 i deres fellesmapper.  Han gjorde ingenting for å sikte søkemotoren mot
2089 disse filene.  Han var en ungdom som fiklet med Google-lignende teknologi
2090 ved et universitet der han studerte informasjonsvitenskap, og dermed var
2091 fiklingen målet.  I motsetning til Google, eller Microsoft for den saks
2092 skyld, tjente han ingen penger på denne fiklingen.  Han var ikke knyttet til
2093 noen bedrift som skulle tjene penger fra dette eksperimentet.  Han var en
2094 ungdom som fiklet med teknologi i en omgivelse hvor fikling med teknologi
2095 var nøyaktig hva han var ment å gjøre.
2096 </p><p>
2097 Den 3. april 2003 ble Jesse kontaktet av lederen for studentkontoret ved
2098 RPI.  Lederen fortalte Jesse at Foreningen for musikkindustri i USA, RIAA,
2099 wille levere inn et søksmål mot han og tre andre studenter som han ikke en
2100 gang kjente, to av dem på andre undersiteter.  Noen få timer senere ble
2101 Jesse forkynt søksmålet og fikk overlevert dokumentene.  Mens han leste
2102 disse dokumentene og så på nyhetsrapportene om den, ble han stadig mer
2103 forbauset.
2104 </p><p>
2105 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det var absurd</span>»</span>, fortalte han meg. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg mener at jeg
2106 ikke gjorde noe galt. &#8230; Jeg mener det ikke er noe galt med
2107 søkemotoren som jeg kjørte eller &#8230; hva jeg hadde gjort med den.  Jeg
2108 mener, jeg hadde ikke endret den på noen måte som fremmet eller forbedret
2109 arbeidet til pirater.  Jeg endret kun søkemotoren slik at den ble enklere å
2110 bruke</span>»</span>&#8212;igjen, en <span class="emphasis"><em>søkemotor</em></span>, som Jesse ikke
2111 hadde bygd selv, som brukte fildelingssystemet til Windows, som Jesse ikke
2112 hadde bygd selv, for å gjøre det mulig for medlemmer av RPI-fellesskapet å
2113 få tilgang til innhold, som Jesse ikke hadde laget eller gjort tilgjengelig,
2114 og der det store flertall av dette ikke hadde noe å gjøre med musikk.
2115 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2871176"></a><p>
2116
2117 Men RIAA kalte Jesse en pirat.  De hevdet at han opererte et nettverk og
2118 dermed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">med vilje</span>»</span> hadde brutt åndsverkslovene.  De krevde at
2119 han betalte dem skadeerstatning for det han hadde gjort galt.  I saker med
2120 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">krenkelser med vilje</span>»</span>, spesifiserer åndsverksloven noe som
2121 advokater kaller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lovbestemte skader</span>»</span>.  Disse skadene tillater
2122 en opphavsrettighetseier å kreve $150 000 per krenkelse.  Etter som
2123 RIAA påsto det var mer enn et hundre spesifikke opphavsrettskrenkelser,
2124 krevde de dermed at Jesse betalte dem minst $15 000 000.
2125 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2871204"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2871215"></a><p>
2126 Lignende søksmål ble gjort mot tre andre studenter: en annen student ved
2127 RPI, en ved Michegan Technical University og en ved Princeton. Deres
2128 situasjoner var lik den til Jesse.  Selv om hver sak hadde forskjellige
2129 detaljer, var hovedpoenget nøyaktig det samme: store krav om
2130 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">erstatning</span>»</span> som RIAA påsto de hadde rett på.  Hvis du summerte
2131 opp disse kravene, ba disse fire søksmålene domstolene i USA å tildele
2132 saksøkerne nesten $100 <span class="emphasis"><em>milliarder</em></span>&#8212;seks ganger det
2133 <span class="emphasis"><em>totale</em></span> overskuddet til filmindustrien i
2134 2001.<sup>[<a name="id2871248" href="#ftn.id2871248" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
2135 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2871265"></a><p>
2136 Jesse kontaktet sine foreldre.  De støttet ham, men var litt skremt. En
2137 onkel var advokat.  Han startet forhandlinger med RIAA.  De krevde å få vite
2138 hvor mye penger Jesse hadde.  Jesse hadde spart opp $12 000 fra
2139 sommerjobber og annet arbeid.  De krevde 12 000 for å trekke saken.
2140 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2871286"></a><p>
2141 RIAA ville at Jesse skulle innrømme at han hadde gjort noe galt.  Han
2142 nektet.  De ville ha han til å godta en kjennelse som i praksis ville gjøre
2143 det umulig for han å arbeide i mange områder innen teknologi for resten av
2144 hans liv.  Han nektet.  De fikk han til å forstå at denne prosessen med å
2145 bli saksøkt ikke kom til å bli hyggelig.  (Som faren til Jesse refererte til
2146 meg, fortalte sjefsadvokaten på saken, Matt Oppenheimer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Du ønsker
2147 ikke et tannlegebesøk hos meg flere ganger</span>»</span>) Og gjennom det hele
2148 insisterte RIAA at de ikke ville inngå forlik før de hadde tatt hver eneste
2149 øre som Jesse hadde spart opp.
2150 </p><p>
2151
2152 Familien til Jessie ble opprørt over disse påstandene.  De ønsket å kjempe.
2153 Men onkelen til Jessie gjorde en innsats for å lære familien om hvordan det
2154 amerikanske juridiske systemet fungerte.  Jesse kunne sloss mot RIAA.  Han
2155 kunne til og med vinne.  Men kostnaden med å loss mot et søksmål som dette,
2156 ble Jesse fortalt, ville være minst $250 000.  Hvis han vant ville han
2157 ikke få tilbake noen av de pengene.  Hvis han vant, så ville han ha en bit
2158 papir som sa at han vant, og en bit papir som sa at han og hans familie var
2159 konkurs.
2160 </p><p>
2161 Så Jesse hadde et mafia-lignende valg: $250 000 og en sjanse til å
2162 vinne, eller $12 000 og et forlik.
2163 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2871327"></a><p>
2164 Musikkindustrien insisterer at dette er et spørsmål om lov og moral.  La oss
2165 legge loven til side for et øyeblikk og tenke på moralen.  Hvor er moralen i
2166 et søksmål som dette?  Hva er dyden i å skape offerlam.  RIAA er en spesielt
2167 mektig lobby.  Presidenten i RIAA tjener i følge rapporter mer enn $1
2168 million i året.  Artister, på den andre siden, får ikke godt betalt.  Den
2169 gjennomsnittelige innspillingsartist tjener $45 900.<sup>[<a name="id2871332" href="#ftn.id2871332" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> Det er utallige måter som RIAA kan bruke for å
2170 påvirke og styre politikken.  Så hva er det moralske i å ta penger fra en
2171 student for å drive en søkemotor?<sup>[<a name="id2871386" href="#ftn.id2871386" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
2172 </p><p>
2173 23. juni overførte Jesse alle sine oppsparte midler til advokaten som jobbet
2174 for RIAA.  Saken mot ham ble trukket.  Og med dette, ble unggutten som hadde
2175 fiklet med en datamaskin og blitt saksøkt for 15 millioner dollar en
2176 aktivist:
2177 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2178 Jeg var definitivt ikke en aktivist [tidligere].  Jeg mente egentlig aldri å
2179 være en aktivist. &#8230; [men] jeg har blitt skjøvet inn i dette.  Jeg
2180 forutså over hodet ikke noe slik som dette, men jeg tror det er bare helt
2181 absurd det RIAA har gjort.
2182 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2183 Foreldrene til Jesse avslører en viss stolthet over deres motvillige
2184 aktivist.  Som hans far fortalte meg, Jesse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">anser seg selv for å være
2185 konservativ, og det samme gjør jeg. &#8230; Han er ingen
2186 treklemmer. &#8230; Jeg synes det er sært at de ville lage bråk med ham.
2187 Men han ønsker å la folk vite at de sender feil budskap.  Og han ønsker å
2188 korrigere rullebladet.</span>»</span>
2189 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2871248" href="#id2871248" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
2190
2191
2192
2193 Tim Goral, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks: Suit
2194 Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Professional Media
2195 Group LCC</em> 6 (2003): 5, tilgjengelig fra 2003 WL 55179443.
2196 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2871332" href="#id2871332" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
2197
2198
2199 Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001)
2200 (27&#8211;2042&#8212;Musikere og Sangere). Se også National Endowment for
2201 the Arts, <em class="citetitle">More Than One in a Blue Moon</em> (2000).
2202 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2871386" href="#id2871386" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
2203
2204
2205 Douglas Lichtman kommer med et relatert poeng i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">KaZaA and
2206 Punishment,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>,
2207 10. september 2003, A24.
2208 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel fire: «Pirater»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirater</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2871461"></a><p>
2209 <span class="strong"><strong>Hvis <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> betyr</strong></span>
2210 å bruke den kreative eiendommen til andre uten deres tillatelse&#8212;hvis
2211 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så rettighet</span>»</span> er sant&#8212;da er historien om
2212 innholdsindustrien en historie om piratvirksomhet.  Hver eneste viktige
2213 sektor av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">store medier</span>»</span> i dag&#8212;film, plater, radio og
2214 kabel-TV&#8212;kom fra en slags piratvirksomhet etter den definisjonen.  Den
2215 konsekvente fortellingen er at forrige generasjon pirater blir del av denne
2216 generasjonens borgerskap&#8212;inntil nå.
2217 </p><div class="section" title="4.1. Film"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="film"></a>4.1. Film</h2></div></div></div><p>
2218
2219 Filmindustrien i Hollywood var bygget av flyktende pirater.<sup>[<a name="id2871513" href="#ftn.id2871513" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> Skapere og regissører migrerte fra østkysten til
2220 California tidlig i det tjuende århundret delvis for å slippe unna
2221 kontrollene som patenter ga oppfinneren av det å lage filmer, Thomas
2222 Edison.  Disse kontrollene be utøvet gjennom et
2223 monopol-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kartell</span>»</span>, The Motion Pictures Patents company, og var
2224 basert på Thomas Edisons kreative eierrettigheter&#8212;patenter. Edison
2225 stiftet MPPC for å utøve rettighetene som disse kreative eierrettighetene ga
2226 ham, og MPPC var seriøst med kontrollen de krevde.
2227 </p><p>
2228 Som en kommentator forteller en del av historien,
2229 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2230 En tidsfrist ble satt til januar 1909 for alle selskaper å komme i samsvar
2231 med lisensen.  Når februar kom, protesterte de ulisensierte fredløse, som
2232 refererte til seg selv som uavhengige, mot kartellet og fortsatte sin
2233 forretningsvirksomhet uten å bøye seg for Edisons monopol.  Sommeren 1909
2234 var bevegelsen med uavhengige i full sving, med produsenter og kinoeiere som
2235 brukte ulovlig utstyr og importerte filmlager for å opprette sitt eget
2236 undergrunnsmarked.
2237 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2871581"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2871587"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2871593"></a><p>
2238 Med et land som så en kolossal økning i antall billige kinoer, såkalte
2239 nickelodeons, reagerte patentselskapet på bevegelsen av uavhengige med å
2240 stifte et hardhendt datterselskap ved navn General Film Company for å
2241 blokkere innføringen av ulisensierte uavhengige.  Med tvangstaktikker som
2242 har blitt legendariske, konfiskerte General Film ulisensiert utstyr, stoppet
2243 varelevering til kinoer som viste ulisensiert fil, og effektivt
2244 monopoliserte distribusjon ved å kjøpe opp alle USAs filmsentraler, med
2245 unntak av den ene som var eid av den uavhengige William Fox som motsto
2246 kartellet selv etter at hans lisens var trukket tilbake.<sup>[<a name="id2871624" href="#ftn.id2871624" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup>
2247 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2248 Napsterne i de dager, de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">uavhengige</span>»</span>, var selskaper som Fox.
2249 Og ikke mindre enn i dag ble disse uavhengige intenst motarbeidet.
2250 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Opptak ble avbrutt av stjålet maskineri, og 'uhell' som førte til
2251 tapte negativer, utstyr, bygninger og noen ganger liv og lemmer skjedde
2252 ofte.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2871684" href="#ftn.id2871684" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> Dette fikk de uavhengige
2253 til å flykte til østkysten.  California var fjernt nok fra Edisons
2254 innflytelse til at filmskaperne der kunne røve hans nyvinninger uten å
2255 frykte loven.  Og lederne blant Hollywoods filmskapere, Fox mest
2256 fremtredende, gjorde akkurat dette.
2257 </p><p>
2258
2259 California vokste naturligvis raskt, og effektiv håndhevelse av føderale
2260 lover spredte seg til slutt vestover.  Men fordi patenter tildeler
2261 patentinnehaveren et i sannhet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">begrenset</span>»</span> monopol (kun sytten
2262 år på den tiden), så patentene var utgått før nok føderale lovmenn dukket
2263 opp. En ny industri var født, delvis fra piratvirksomhet mot Edison's
2264 kreative rettigheter.
2265 </p></div><div class="section" title="4.2. Innspilt musikk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="recordedmusic"></a>4.2. Innspilt musikk</h2></div></div></div><p>
2266 Musikkindustrien ble født av en annen type piratvirksomhet, dog for å forstå
2267 hvordan krever at en setter seg inn i detaljer om hvordan loven regulerer
2268 musikk.
2269 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2871762"></a><p>
2270 På den tiden da Edison og Henri Fourneaux fant opp maskiner for å
2271 reprodusere musikk (Edison fonografen, Fourneaux det automatiske pianoet),
2272 gav loven komponister eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere kopier av
2273 deres musikk og eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere fremføringer av
2274 deres musikk.  Med andre ord, i 1900, hvis jeg ønsket et kopi av Phil
2275 Russels populære låt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>»</span>, sa loven at jeg måtte betale
2276 for rettigheten til å få en kopi av notearkene, og jeg måtte også betale for
2277 å ha rett til å fremføre det offentlig.
2278 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2871790"></a><p>
2279 Men hva hvis jeg ønsket å spille inn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>»</span> ved hjelp av
2280 Edisons fonograf eller Fourneaux automatiske piano?  Her snublet loven.  Det
2281 var klart nok at jeg måtte kjøpe en kopi av notene som jeg fremførte når jeg
2282 gjorde innspillingen.  Og det var klart nok at jeg måtte betale for enhver
2283 offentlig fremførelse av verket jeg spilte inn.  Men det var ikke helt klart
2284 at jeg måtte betale for en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>»</span> hvis jeg
2285 spilte inn sangen i mitt eget hus (selv i dag skylder du ingenting til
2286 Beatles hvis du synger en av deres sanger i dusjen), eller hvis jeg spilte
2287 inn sangen fra hukommelsen (kopier i din hjerne er
2288 ikke&#8212;ennå&#8212;regulert av åndsverksloven).  Så hvis jeg ganske
2289 enkelt sang sangen inn i et innspillingsapparat i mitt eget hjem, så var det
2290 ikke klart at jeg skyldte komponisten noe.  Og enda viktigere, det var ikke
2291 klart om jeg skyldte komponisten noe hvis jeg så laget kopier av disse
2292 innspillingene.  På grunn av dette hullet i loven, sa kunne jeg i effekt
2293 røve noen andres sang uten å betale dets komponist noe.
2294 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2871819"></a><p>
2295 Komponistene (og utgiverne) var ikke veldig glade for denne kapasiteten til
2296 å røve.  Som Senator Alfred Kittredge fra Sør-Dakota formulerte
2297 det,<a class="indexterm" name="id2871854"></a>
2298 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2299 Forestill dere denne urettferdigheten.  En komponist skriver en sang eller
2300 en opera.  En utgiver kjøper til et høy sum rettighetene til denne, og
2301 registrerer opphavsretten til den.  Så kommer de fonografiske selskapene og
2302 selskapene som skjærer musikk-ruller og med vitende og vilje stjeler
2303 arbeidet som kommer fra hjernen til komponisten og utgiveren uten å bry seg
2304 om [deres] rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2871881" href="#ftn.id2871881" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
2305 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2871910"></a><p>
2306 Innovatørene som utviklet teknologien for å spille inn andres arbeide
2307 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">snyltet på innsatsen, arbeidet, talentet og geniet til amerikanske
2308 komponister</span>»</span>,<sup>[<a name="id2871927" href="#ftn.id2871927" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> og
2309 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">musikkpubliseringsindistrien</span>»</span> var dermed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fullstendig i
2310 denne piratens vold</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2871943" href="#ftn.id2871943" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> Som John
2311 Philip Sousa formulerte det, så direkte som det kan sies, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">når de
2312 tjener penger på mine stykker, så vil jeg ha en andel</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2871960" href="#ftn.id2871960" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
2313 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2871969"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2871976"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2871982"></a><p>
2314 Disse argumentene høres omtrent ut som argumentene fra våre dager. Det samme
2315 gjør argumentene fra den andre siden.  Oppfinnerne som utviklet det
2316 automatiske pianoet argumenterte med at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er fullt mulig å vise at
2317 introduksjonen av automatiske musikkspillere ikke har fratatt noen komponist
2318 noe han hadde før det ble introdusert.</span>»</span> I stedet økte maskinene
2319 salget av noteark.<sup>[<a name="id2872007" href="#ftn.id2872007" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> Uansett,
2320 argumenterte oppfinnerne, jobben til kongressen var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">å først vurdere
2321 interessen til [folket], som de representerte, og som de skal
2322 tjene.</span>»</span>.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alt snakk om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tyveri</span>»</span></span>»</span>, skrev
2323 sjefsjuristen til American Graphophone Company, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er kun nonsens, for
2324 det finnes ingen eiendom i musikalske idéer, skriftlig eller kunstnerisk,
2325 unntatt det som er definert i loven.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2872035" href="#ftn.id2872035" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
2326 </p><p>
2327
2328 Loven løste snart denne kampen i favør av <span class="emphasis"><em>både</em></span>
2329 komponisten og innspillingsartisten.  Kongressen endret loven slik at
2330 komponisten fikk betalt for den <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mekaniske reproduksjonen</span>»</span> av
2331 deres musikk.  Men i stedet for å ganske enkelt gi komponisten full kontroll
2332 over rettigheten til å lage mekaniske reproduksjoner, ga kongressen
2333 innspillingsartister rett en til å spille inn musikk, til en pris satt av
2334 kongressen, så snart komponisten har tillatt at den ble spilt inn en gang.
2335 Det er denne delen av åndsverksloven som gjør cover-låter mulig.  Så snart
2336 en komponist tillater en innspilling av hans sang, har andre mulighet til å
2337 spille inn samme sang, så lenge de betaler den originale komponisten et
2338 gebyr fastsatt av loven.
2339 </p><p>
2340 Amerikansk lov kaller dette vanligvis en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tvangslisens</span>»</span>, men
2341 jeg vil referere til dette som en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lovbestemt lisens</span>»</span>.  En
2342 lovbestemt lisens er en lisens hvis nøkkelvilkår er bestemt i lovverket.
2343 Etter kongressens endring av åndsverksloven i 1909, sto plateselskapene
2344 fritt til å distribuere kopier av innspillinger så lenge som de betalte
2345 komponisten (eller opphavsrettsinnehaveren) gebyret spesifisert i lovverket.
2346 </p><p>
2347 Dette er et unntak i åndsverksloven.  Når John Grisham skriver en roman så
2348 kan en utgiver kun utgi denne romanen hvis Grisham gir utgiveren tillatelse
2349 til det.  Grisham står fritt til å kreve hvilken som helst betaling for den
2350 tillatelsen.  Prisen for å publisere Grisham er dermed bestemt av Grisham og
2351 åndsverksloven sier at du ikke har tillatelse til å bruke Grishams verker
2352 med mindre du har tillatelse fra Grisham.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2872110"></a>
2353 </p><p>
2354 Men loven som styrer innspillinger gir innspillingsartisten mindre. Og
2355 dermed er effekten at loven <span class="emphasis"><em>subsidierer</em></span>
2356 musikkindustrien med et slags piratvirksomhet&#8212;ved å gi
2357 innspillingsartister en svakere rettighet enn de gir kreative forfattere.
2358 The Beatles har mindre kontroll over deres kreative verker enn Grisham har.
2359 Og de som nyter godt av at de har mindre kontroll er musikkindustrien og
2360 folket.  Musikkindustrien får noe av verdi for mindre enn de ellers måtte
2361 betalt, og folket får tilgang til en større mengde musikalsk kreativitet.
2362 Kongressen var faktisk svært eksplisitt i sine grunner for å dele ut denne
2363 rettigheten.  Den fryktet monopolmakten til rettighetsinnehaverne, og at
2364 denne makten skulle kvele påfølgende kreativitet.<sup>[<a name="id2871553" href="#ftn.id2871553" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2872156"></a>
2365 </p><p>
2366 Mens musikkindustrien har vært ganske stille om dette i det siste, har de
2367 historisk vært høylytte tilhengere av den lovbestemte lisensen for
2368 innspillinger.  Som det sto i en rapport fra 1967 utgitt av House Committee
2369 on the Judiciary:
2370 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2371 plateprodusentene argumenterte energisk for at tvangslisens-systemet måtte
2372 bevares.  De tok utgangspunkt i at musikkindustrien er et forretningsområde
2373 på en halv milliard dollar som er veldig viktig for økonomien i USA og
2374 resten av verden. Plater er i dag den viktigste måten å spre musikk, og
2375 dette fører til spesielle problemer, siden utøvere trenger uhindret tilgang
2376 til musikalsk materiale på ikke-diskriminerende vilkår.  Plateprodusentene
2377 pekte på at historisk var det ingen innspillingsrettigheter før 1909 og
2378 1909-endringen i lovverket vedtok tvangslisensen som en gjennomtenkt
2379 mekanisme for å unngå monopol da de tildelte disse rettighetene.  De
2380 argumenterer med at resultatet har vært at det har strømmet på med innspilt
2381 musikk, at folket har fått lavere priser, bedre kvalitet og flere
2382 valg.<sup>[<a name="id2872208" href="#ftn.id2872208" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
2383 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2384 Ved å begrense rettighetene musikere hadde, ved å delvis røve deres kreative
2385 verk, fikk innspillingsprodusentene, og folket, fordeler.
2386 </p></div><div class="section" title="4.3. Radio"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="radio"></a>4.3. Radio</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments1"></a><p>
2387 Radio kom også fra piratvirksomhet.
2388 </p><p>
2389 Når en radiostasjon spiller en plate på luften, så utgjør dette en
2390 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>»</span> av komponistens verk.<sup>[<a name="id2872270" href="#ftn.id2872270" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> Som jeg beskrev over, gir loven komponisten (eller
2391 opphavsrettsinnehaveren) en eksklusiv rett til offentlige fremføringer av
2392 hans verk.  Radiostasjonen skylder dermed komponisten penger for denne
2393 fremføringen.
2394 </p><p>
2395
2396 Men når en radiostasjon spiller en plage, så fremfører det ikke bare et
2397 eksemplar av <span class="emphasis"><em>komponistens</em></span> verk. Radiostasjonen
2398 fremfører også et eksemplar av <span class="emphasis"><em>innspillingsartistens</em></span>
2399 verk.  Det er en ting å få <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> sunget på radio av
2400 det lokale barnekoret.  Det er noe ganske annet å få det sunget av Rolling
2401 Stones eller Lyle Lovett.  Innspillingsartisten legger til verdi på
2402 komposisjonen fremført på radiostasjonen.  Og hvis loven var fullstendig
2403 konsistent, så burde radiostasjonen også vært nødt til å betale
2404 innspillingsartisten for hans verk, på samme måten som den betaler
2405 komponisten av musikken for hans verk.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2872362"></a>
2406
2407
2408 </p><p>
2409 Men det gjør den ikke.  I følge loven som styrer radiofremføringer, trenger
2410 ikke radiostasjonen å betale noe til innspillingsartisten. Radiostasjonen
2411 trenger kun å betale komponisten.  Radiostasjonen får dermed noe uten å
2412 betale.  Den får fremføre innspillingsartistens verk gratis, selv om den må
2413 betale komponisten noe for privilegiet det er å spille sangen.
2414 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmadonna"></a><p>
2415 Denne forskjellen kan bli stor.  Forestill deg at du komponerer et stykke
2416 musikk.  Se for deg at det er ditt første stykke.  Du eier de eksklusive
2417 rettighetene til å godkjenne offentlig fremføring av den musikken.  Så hvis
2418 Madonna ønsker å synge din sang offentlig, må hun få din tillatelse.
2419 </p><p>
2420 Tenkt deg videre at hun synger din sang, og at hun liker den veldig
2421 godt. Hun bestemmer seg deretter for å spille inn sangen din, og den blir en
2422 populær hitlåt.  Med vår lov vil du få litt penger hver gang en radiostasjon
2423 spiller din sang.  Men Madonna får ingenting, fortsett fra de indirekte
2424 effektene fra salg av hennes CD-er.  Den offentlige fremføringen av hennes
2425 innspilling er ikke en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">beskyttet</span>»</span> rettighet. Radiostasjonen
2426 får dermed <span class="emphasis"><em>røve</em></span> verdien av Madonnas arbeid uten å
2427 betale henne noen ting.
2428 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2872433"></a><p>
2429 Uten tvil kan en argumentere at, totalt sett, tjener innspillingsartistene
2430 på dette.  I snitt er reklamen de får verdt mer enn enn
2431 fremføringsrettighetene de frasier seg.  Kanskje.  Men selv om det er slik,
2432 så gir loven vanligvis skaperen retten til å gjøre dette valget.  Ved å
2433 gjøre valget for ham eller henne, gir loven radiostasjonen rett til å ta noe
2434 uten å betale.
2435 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2872457"></a></div><div class="section" title="4.4. Kabel-TV"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>4.4. Kabel-TV</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcabletv1"></a><p>
2436 Kabel-TV kom også fra en form for piratvirksomhet.
2437 </p><p>
2438
2439 Da kabel-TV-gründere først begynte å koble opp fellesskap med kabel-TV i
2440 1948, nektet de fleste å betale kringkasterne for innholdet som de sendte
2441 videre til sine kunder.  Selv da kabelselskapene begynte å selge tilgang til
2442 TV-kringkastinger, nektet de å betale for det de solgte.  Kabelselskapene
2443 Napsteriserte dermed kringkasternes innhold, men grovere enn det Napster
2444 noen gang gjorde&#8212;Napster tok aldri betalt for innholdet som det ble
2445 mulig for andre å gi bort.
2446 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2872493"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2872500"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2872524"></a><p>
2447 Kringkastere og opphavsrettsinnehavere var raske til å angripe dette
2448 tyveriet.  Rosel Hyde, styreleder i FCC, så praksisen som en slags
2449 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">urettferdig og potensielt ødeleggende
2450 konkurranse</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2872541" href="#ftn.id2872541" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup> Det kan ha vært en
2451 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig interesse</span>»</span> i å øke spredningen til kabel-TV, men som
2452 Douglas Anello, sjefsjurist hos Nasjonalforeningen for kringkastere spurte
2453 senator Quentin Burdick under sitt vitnemål, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dikterer offentlig
2454 interesse at du kan bruke noen andres eiendom?</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2872577" href="#ftn.id2872577" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> Som en annen kringkaster formulerte det,
2455 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2456 Den uvanlige tingen med kabel-TV-selskapene er at det er de eneste
2457 selskapene jeg vet om hvor produktet som blir solgt ikke er betalt
2458 for.<sup>[<a name="id2872596" href="#ftn.id2872596" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
2459 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2460 Igjen, kravene til opphavsrettsinnehaverne virket rimelige nok:
2461 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2462 Alt vi ber om er en veldig enkel ting, at folk som tar vår eiendom gratis
2463 betaler for den.  Vi forsøker å stoppe piratvirksomhet og jeg kan ikke tenke
2464 på et svakere ord for å beskrive det.  Jeg tror det er sterkere ord som
2465 ville passe.<sup>[<a name="id2872625" href="#ftn.id2872625" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
2466 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2872637"></a><p>
2467 Disse var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratispassasjerer</span>»</span>, sa presidenten Charlton Heston i
2468 Screen Actor's Guild, som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tok lønna fra
2469 skuespillerne</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2872653" href="#ftn.id2872653" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
2470 </p><p>
2471 Men igjen, det er en annen side i debatten.  Som assisterende justisminister
2472 Edwin Zimmerman sa det,
2473 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2474 Vårt poeng her er ikke problemet med om hvorvidt du over hode har
2475 opphavsrettsbeskyttelse.  Problemet her er hvorvidt opphavsrettsinnehavere
2476 som allerede blir kompensert, som allerede har et monopol, skal få lov til å
2477 utvide dette monopolet. &#8230; Spørsmålet er hvor mye kompensasjon de bør
2478 ha, og hvor langt de kan strekke sin rett på kompenasjon.<sup>[<a name="id2871420" href="#ftn.id2871420" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2872709"></a>
2479 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2480 Opphavsrettinnehaverne tok kabelselskapene til retten. Høyesterett fant to
2481 ganger at kabelselskaper ikke skyldte opphavsrettinnehaverne noen ting.
2482 </p><p>
2483 Det tok kongressen nesten tredve år før den fikk løst spørsmålet om hvorvidt
2484 kabel-TV-selskapene måtte betale for innholdet de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røvet</span>»</span>.  Til
2485 slutt løste kongressen dette spørsmålet på samme måte som den hadde løst
2486 spørsmålet om platespillere og automatiske pianoer.  Ja, kabel-TV-selskapene
2487 måtte betale for innholdet som de kringkastet, men prisen de måtte betale
2488 ble ikke satt av opphavsrettsinnehaveren.  Prisen ble fastsatt ved lov, slik
2489 at kringkasterne ikke kunne utøve vetomakt over den nye teknologien
2490 kabel-TV.  Kabel-TV-selskapene bygde dermed deres imperium delvis ved å
2491 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røve</span>»</span> verdien skapt av kringkasternes innhold.
2492 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2872752"></a><p>
2493 <span class="strong"><strong>Disse separate historiene</strong></span> synger en
2494 felles melodi.  Hvis <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> betyr å bruke verdien
2495 fra noen andres kreative eiendom uten tillatelse fra dets skaper&#8212;slik
2496 det stadig oftere beskrives i dag<sup>[<a name="id2872684" href="#ftn.id2872684" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup>
2497 &#8212;da er <span class="emphasis"><em>enhver</em></span> industri påvirket av opphavsrett i
2498 dag produktet og de som har nytt godt av ulike former for piratvirksomhet.
2499 Film, plater, radio, kabel-TV. &#8230; Listen er lang og kunne vært
2500 lengre.  Hver generasjon ønsker piratene fra den forrige velkommen.  Hver
2501 generasjon&#8212;inntil nå.
2502 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2871513" href="#id2871513" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
2503
2504 <a class="indexterm" name="id2871516"></a> Jeg er takknemlig til Peter DiMauro
2505 for å ha pekt meg i retning av denne ekstraordinære historien.  Se også Siva
2506 Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and Copywrongs</em>,
2507 87&#8211;93, som forteller detaljer om Edisons <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eventyr</span>»</span> med
2508 opphavsrett og patent.
2509 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2871624" href="#id2871624" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
2510
2511 J. A. Aberdeen, <em class="citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent
2512 Motion Picture Producers</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) og
2513 utvidede tekster lagt ut på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion
2514 Picture Patents Company vs. the Independent Outlaws</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig
2515 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #11</a>. For en
2516 diskusjon om det økomiske motivet bak begge disse begresningene, og
2517 begresningene pålagt av Victor på fonografer, se Randal C. Picker,
2518 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal
2519 and the Propertization of Copyright</span>»</span> (september 2002), University of
2520 Chicago Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working
2521 Paper No.  159.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2871657"></a>
2522 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2871684" href="#id2871684" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
2523
2524
2525 Marc Wanamaker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First Studios</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">The Silents
2526 Majority</em>, arkivert på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #12</a>.
2527 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2871881" href="#id2871881" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
2528
2529 Endre og slå sammen lovforslag om å respektere opphavsretten: Høring om
2530 S. 6330 og H.R. 19853 foran (felles)-komiteene om patenter, 59. kongr. 59,
2531 1. sess. (1906) (uttalelse til senator Alfred B. Kittredge fra Sør-Dakota,
2532 formann), gjengitt i <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright
2533 Act</em>, E.  Fulton Brylawski og Abe Goldman, red. (South
2534 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2871898"></a>
2535 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2871927" href="#id2871927" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
2536
2537
2538 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223 (uttalelse fra
2539 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2540 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2871943" href="#id2871943" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
2541
2542
2543 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (uttalelse fra
2544 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2545 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2871960" href="#id2871960" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
2546
2547
2548 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (uttalelse fra
2549 John Philip Sousa, komponist).
2550 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2872007" href="#id2872007" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
2551
2552
2553
2554 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283&#8211;84
2555 (uttalelse fra Albert Walker, representant for the Auto-Music Perforating
2556 Company of New York).
2557 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2872035" href="#id2872035" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
2558
2559
2560 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 376 (forberedt
2561 innlegg fra Philip Mauro, sjefspatentrådgiver for the American Graphophone
2562 Company Association).
2563 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2871553" href="#id2871553" class="para">60</a>] </sup>
2564
2565
2566
2567 Endring i åndsverksloven: Høring om S. 2499, S.2900, H.R. 243, og H.R. 11794
2568 foran (felles)-komiteen om patenter, 60. kongr., 1. sess., 217 (1908)
2569 (uttalelse fra senator Reed Smooth, formann), gjengitt i
2570 <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act</em>, E.
2571 Fulton Brylawski og Abe Goldman, red. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman
2572 Reprints, 1976).
2573 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2872208" href="#id2872208" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
2574
2575
2576 Endring av åndsverksloven: Rapport som følger H.R. 2512, House Committee on
2577 the Judiciary, 90. Kongr., 1. sess., House Document no. 83, (8. mars 1967).
2578 Jeg er takknemlig til Glenn Brown for å ha gjort meg oppmerksom på denne
2579 rapporten.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2872270" href="#id2872270" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
2580
2581 Se 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, seksjon 106 og 110. I
2582 begynnelsen skrev noen plateselskaper <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke lisensiert for
2583 radiokringkasting</span>»</span> og andre meldinger som ga inntrykk av å begrense
2584 muligheten tli å spille en plate på en radiostasjon.  Dommer Learned Hand
2585 avviste argumentet om at en advarsel klistret på en plate kunne begrense
2586 rettighetene til radiostasjonen. Se <em class="citetitle">RCA Manufacturing
2587 Co</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Whiteman</em>, 114 F. 2d 86 (2nd
2588 Cir. 1940).  Se også Randal C.  Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast
2589 Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of
2590 Copyright</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em>
2591 70 (2003): 281.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2872307"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2872316"></a>
2592 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2872541" href="#id2872541" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
2593
2594 Endring i åndsverksloven&#8212;Kabel-TV: Høring om S. 1006 foran
2595 underkomiteen om patenter, varemerker og opphavsrett av Senate Committee on
2596 the Judiciary, 89. Kongr., 2. sess., 78 (1966) (uttalelse fra Rosel H. Hyde,
2597 styreleder i den føderale kommunikasjonskommisjonen.<a class="indexterm" name="id2872504"></a>
2598 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2872577" href="#id2872577" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
2599
2600
2601 Endring i åndsverksloven&#8212;Kabel-TV, 116 (uttalelse fra Douglas
2602 A. Anello, sjefsjuristen i Nasjonalforeningen for kringkastere).
2603 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2872596" href="#id2872596" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
2604
2605
2606 Endring i åndsverksloven&#8212;Kabel-TV, 126 (uttalelse fra Ernest
2607 W. Jennes, sjefsjurist ved Association of Maximum Service Telecasters,
2608 Inc.).
2609 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2872625" href="#id2872625" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
2610
2611
2612 Endring i åndsverksloven&#8212;Kabel-TV, 169 (felles uttalelse fra Arthur
2613 B.  Krim, president i United Artists Corp. og John Sinn, president i United
2614 Artists Television Inc.).
2615 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2872653" href="#id2872653" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
2616
2617 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 209 (uttalelse fra Charlton Heston,
2618 president i Screen Actors Guild).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2872631"></a>
2619 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2871420" href="#id2871420" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
2620
2621 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 216 (uttalelse fra Edwin M. Zimmerman,
2622 fungerende assisterende justisministeren).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2872656"></a>
2623 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2872684" href="#id2872684" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
2624
2625
2626 Se for eksempel National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The
2627 Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet&#8212;The Myth of Free
2628 Information</em>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #13</a>. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Trusselen fra
2629 piratvirksomhet&#8212;bruken av noen andres kreative verker uten tillatelse
2630 eller kompenasjons&#8212;har vokst med internettet.</span>»</span>
2631 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="piracy"></a>Kapittel fem: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
2632 Det røves opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale.  Massevis.  Og denne
2633 piratvirksomheten antar mange former.  Den mest betydningsfulle er
2634 kommersiell piratvirksomhet, det å ta andres innhold uten lov i en
2635 kommersiell setting.  På tross av de mange forklaringer om hvorfor dette er
2636 greit som fremføres i dets forsvar, så er dette galt.  Ingen bør gå god for
2637 det, og loven bør stoppe det.
2638 </p><p>
2639
2640 Men på samme måte som med piratvirksomheten til kopierings-firma, så
2641 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tas</span>»</span> det på en annen måte som er mer direkte relatert til
2642 internettet.  Denne måten å ta på virker galt for mante, og det er galt mye
2643 av tiden.  Før vi kaller det å ta på denne måten for
2644 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>, bør vi dog forstå dets natur litt mer. For
2645 skaden som denne formen for å ta gjør er betydelig mer tvetydig enn direkte
2646 kopiering, og loven bør ta hensyn til denne tvetydigheten, slik den har
2647 gjort ofte tidligere.
2648
2649 </p><div class="section" title="5.1. Piratvirksomhet I"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-i"></a>5.1. Piratvirksomhet I</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2872876"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsforeign"></a><p>
2650 Over hele verden, men spesielt i Asia og Øst-Europa, er det selskaper som
2651 ikke gjør annet enn å ta andre folks opphavsrettsbeskyttede innhold,
2652 kopierer det og selger det&#8212;alt dette uten tillatelse fra
2653 opphavsrettseieren.  Musikkindustrien estimerer at de taper rundt $4,6
2654 milliarder hvert år på fysisk piratvirksomhet <sup>[<a name="id2872687" href="#ftn.id2872687" class="footnote">70</a>]</sup> (det blir ca. en av tre CD-er solgt på verdensbasis).  MPAA
2655 estimerer at de taper $3 milliarder på verdensbasis på piratvirksomhet.
2656 </p><p>
2657 Dette er enkelt og greit piratvirksomhet.  Ingenting i argumentet i denne
2658 boken, og heller ikke i argumentet til de fleste folkene som omtaler temaet
2659 i denne boken, bør trekke i tvil dette enkle poenget: Slik piratvirksomhet
2660 er galt.
2661 </p><p>
2662 Hvilket ikke er å si at unnskyldninger og begrunnelser ikke kan lages for
2663 det.  Vi kan, for eksempel, minne oss selv om at for de første hundre årene
2664 USA har vært republikk, respekterte ikke USA utenlandske
2665 opphavsrettigheter.  Vi ble på en måte skapt som en piratnasjon.  Det kan
2666 dermed synes hyklersk for oss å insistere så sterkt at andre utviklingsland
2667 skal behandle som galt det vi, for de første hundre årene vi eksisterte,
2668 behandlet som riktig.
2669 </p><p>
2670 Denne unnskyldningen er ikke veldig vektig.  Teknisk sett forbød ikke vårt
2671 lovverk å ta utenlandske verker.  Det begrenset seg eksplisitt til
2672 amerikanske verker.  Dermed brøt de amerikanske forleggerne som publiserte
2673 utenlandske verker uten tillatelse fra de utenlandske forfattere noen
2674 regler.  Kopierings-selskapene i Asia bryter derimot loven i Asia.  Loven i
2675 Asia beskytter utenlandsk opphavsrett, og aktiviteten til
2676 kopierings-selskapene bryter den loven.  Så det at piratvirksomheten er galt
2677 er ikke bare moralsk galt, men juridisk galt.  Og ikke bare galt i følge
2678 internasjonal lovgiving, men også juridisk galt etter lokal lovgiving.
2679 </p><p>
2680
2681 Joda, disse reglene har i praksis blitt påtvunget disse landene. Intet land
2682 kan være del av verdensøkonomien og velge å ikke beskytte opphavsrett
2683 internasjonalt.  Vi ble kanskje skapt som en piratnasjon, men vi tillater
2684 ingen annen nasjon å ha en tilsvarende barndom.
2685 </p><p>
2686 Men likevel, hvis et land skal behandles som selvstendig da er landets lover
2687 landets lover, uavhengig av deres kilde.  De internasjonale lovene som disse
2688 landene lever under gir dem noen muligheter til å slippe unna byrden til
2689 immaterielle rettighetslover.<sup>[<a name="id2873005" href="#ftn.id2873005" class="footnote">71</a>]</sup> Etter
2690 mitt syn burde flere utviklingsland utnytte den muligheten, men når de ikke
2691 gjør det bør deres lover likevel respekteres.  Og i følge lovene i disse
2692 landene, er piratvirksomhet galt.
2693 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2873053"></a><p>
2694 Alternativt, så kan vi forsøke å unnskylde denne piratvirksomheten ved å
2695 legge merke til at det uansett ikke skader industrien. Kineserne som får
2696 tilgang til amerikanske CDer for 50 cent pr. utgave er ikke folk som ville
2697 kjøpt disse CDene for #15 per utgave.  Så ingen har egentlig noe mindre
2698 penger enn de ellers ville hatt.<sup>[<a name="id2873073" href="#ftn.id2873073" class="footnote">72</a>]</sup>
2699 </p><p>
2700 Dette er ofte riktig (selv om jeg har venner som har kjøpt flere tusen
2701 piratkopierte DVDer og som helt klart har nok penger til å betale for
2702 innholdet de har tatt), og det begrenser til en hvis grad skaden forårsaket
2703 av å ta på denne måten.  Ekstremister i denne debatten elsker å si,
2704 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Du ville ikke gå inn på Barnes &amp; Noble og ta en bok fra hyllen
2705 der uten å betale.  Hvorfor skulle det være noe annerledes med musikk på
2706 nettet?</span>»</span> Forskjellen er, naturligvis, at når du tar en bok fra Barnes
2707 &amp; Noble så er det en mindre bok som kan selges.  Dette er forskjellig
2708 fra når du tar en MP3 fra et datanettverk, der det ikke blir en mindre CD
2709 som kan selges.  Fysikken til røving av det uhåndgripelige er forskjellig
2710 fra fysikken til røving av det håndgripelige.
2711 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2873141"></a><p>
2712
2713 Dette er likevel et veldig dårlig argument.  For selv om opphavsretten er en
2714 eiendomsrett av en veldig spesiell type, så <span class="emphasis"><em>er</em></span> det en
2715 eiendomsrett.  På samme måte som med alle eiendomsretter gir opphavsretten
2716 eieren retten til å bestemme vilkårene for når innholdet blir delt.  Hvis
2717 opphavsrettseieren ikke ønsker å selge, så må hun ikke det.  Det finnes
2718 unntak: viktige lovbestemte lisenser som gjelder for opphavsrettsbeskyttet
2719 innhold uavhengig av ønsket til opphavsrettseieren.  Disse lisensene gir
2720 folk retten til å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold uavhengig
2721 av om opphavsrettseieren ønsker å selge eller ikke.  Men der loven ikke gir
2722 folk retten til å ta innhold, så er det galt å ta det innholdet selv om det
2723 ikke gjør noen skade å gjøre dette gale.  Hvis vi har et eiendomssystem og
2724 det systemet er skikkelig balansert opp mot teknologien i tiden, så er det
2725 galt å ta eiendom uten tillatelse fra eiendomseieren.  Det er nøyaktig hva
2726 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> betyr.
2727 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2873192"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2873198"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2873207"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2873214"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2873220"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2873226"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2873235"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2873242"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2873251"></a><p>
2728 Til slutt kan vi forsøke å unnskylde denne piratvirksomheten med argumentet
2729 om at piratvirksomheten faktisk hjelper opphavsrettseieren. Når kineserne
2730 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeler</span>»</span> Windows, så gjør det kineserne avhengig av
2731 Microsoft.  Microsoft mister verdien til programvaren som ble tatt, men det
2732 vinner brukere som er vant til livet i Microsoft-verdenen.  Over tid, etter
2733 hvert som nasjonen blir mer velstående, vil flere og flere folk kjøpe
2734 programvare is stedet for å stjele den.  Og dermed vil det over tid, på
2735 grunn av at disse kjøpene kommer Microsoft til gode, vil Microsoft tjene på
2736 piratvirksomheten. Hvis kineserne i stedet for å piratkopiere Windows,
2737 brukte det fritt tilgjengelige operativsystemet GNU/Linux, så ville disse
2738 kinesiske brukerne ikke til slutt kjøpe Microsoft.  Uten piratvirksomheten
2739 ville dermed Microsoft tape.
2740 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2873294"></a><p>
2741 Det er også noe sant i dette argumentet.  Å gjøre folk avhengig er en god
2742 strategi.  Mange selskaper praktiserer det.  Noen gjør det godt på grunn av
2743 det.  Juss-studenter, for eksempel, får gratis tilgang til de to største
2744 juridiske databasene.  Begge selskapenes markedsfører dette i håp om at
2745 studentene vil bli så vant til deres tjenester at de vil ønske å bruke deres
2746 tjeneste og ikke konkurrentens når de blir advokater (og må betale høy
2747 abonnementsavgift).
2748 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2873317"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2873324"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2873330"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2873336"></a><p>
2749 Likevel er ikke dette argumentet spesielt overbevistende.  Vi gir ikke
2750 alkoholikeren et forsvar når han stjeler sin første øl, kun på grunn av at
2751 det vil gjøre det mer sannsynlig at han vil betale for de tre neste.  I
2752 stedet lar vi vanligvis bedrifter bestemme selv når det er best for dem å gi
2753 bort deres produkter.  Hvis Microsoft frykter konkurransen fra GNU/Linux, så
2754 kan Microsoft gi bort produktet sitt, slik de for eksempel gjorde med
2755 Internet Explorer for å bekjempe Netscape.  En eiendomsrett betyr å la
2756 eiendomseieren ha retten til å si hvem som får tilgang til hva&#8212;i hvert
2757 fall vanligvis.  Og hvis loven ordentlig balanserer rettighetene til
2758 opphavsrettighetseieren med rettighetene for tilgang, så er det å bryte
2759 loven fortsatt galt.
2760 </p><p>
2761
2762
2763 Dermed, selv om jeg forstår dragningen mot disse begrunnelsene for
2764 piratvirksomhet, og helt klart ser motivasjonen, så er konklusjonen etter
2765 mitt syn til slutt, at disse forsøkene på å begrunne kommersiell
2766 piratvirksomhet ganske enkelt ikke holder.  Denne typen piratvirksomhet er
2767 krampaktig og ganske enkelt galt.  Den endrer ikke innholdet den stjeler,
2768 den endrer ikke markedet den konkurrerer i. Den gir kun noen tilgang til noe
2769 som loven sier at han ikke skulle hatt.  Ingenting har endret for å skape
2770 tvil om loven.  Denne formen for piratvirksomhet er rett ut galt.
2771 </p><p>
2772 Men som eksemplene fra de fire kapitlene som introduserte denne delen
2773 foreslår, selv om noe piratvirksomhet helt klart er galt, er ikke all
2774 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> galt.  Eller i det minste er ikke all
2775 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> galt hvis uttrykket skal forstås slik det i
2776 stadig større grad blir brukt i dag.  Mange typer
2777 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> er nyttig og produktivt, enten for å
2778 produsere nytt innhold eller nye måter å drive forretninger.  Hverken vår
2779 tradisjon eller noen annen tradisjon har noen sinne bannlyst all
2780 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> i den betydningen av uttrykket.
2781 </p><p>
2782 Dette betyr ikke at det ikke er reist noen spørsmål på grunn av den nyeste
2783 piratvirksomhetsbekymringen, peer-to-peer-fildeling.  Men det betyr at vi
2784 trenger å forstå skaden i peer-to-peer-deling litt mer før vi dømmer den til
2785 galgen med anklager om piratvirksomhet.
2786 </p><p>
2787 For (1) på samme måte som det opprinnelige Hollywood, rømmer p2p-fildeling
2788 fra en altfor kontrollerende industri og (2) på samme måte som den
2789 opprinnelige innspillingsindustrien, ganske enkelt utnytter den nye måter å
2790 spre innhold på, men (3) til forskjell fra kabel-TV er det ingen som selger
2791 innholdet som blir delt med p2p-tjenester.
2792 </p><p>
2793 Disse forskjellene skiller p2p-deling fra virkelig
2794 piratvirksomhet. Forskjellen bør få oss til å finne en måte å beskytte
2795 kunstnerne mens vi gjør det mulig for denne delingen å overleve.
2796 </p></div><div class="section" title="5.2. Piratvirksomhet II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-ii"></a>5.2. Piratvirksomhet II</h2></div></div></div><p>
2797
2798 Nøkkelen til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>»</span> som loven tar sikte på å
2799 skvise er den bruken som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frata forfatteren
2800 overskuddet</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2873479" href="#ftn.id2873479" class="footnote">73</a>]</sup> Dette betyr vi må
2801 avgjøre hvorvidt og hvor mye p2p-deling skader før vi vet hvor sterkt loven
2802 bør søke å enten hindre det eller finne et alternativ for å sikre
2803 forfatteren hans overskudd.
2804 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2873500"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2873506"></a><p>
2805 Peer-to-peer-deling ble gjort berømt av Napster.  Men oppfinnerne av
2806 Napster-teknologien hadde ikke gjort noen store teknologiske nyskapninger.
2807 Som ethvert stort steg i nyskapningen på internettet (og, kan det
2808 argumenteres for, utenfor internettet<sup>[<a name="id2873523" href="#ftn.id2873523" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>)
2809 hadde Shawn Fanning og hans bemanning ganske enkelt satt sammen deler som
2810 hadde blitt utviklet uavhengig av hverandre.
2811 </p><p>
2812 Resultatet var en eksplosjon.  Etter lansering i juli 1999, samlet Napster
2813 over 10 millioner brukere i løpet av ni måneder.  Etter atten måneder var
2814 det nesten 80 millioner registrerte brukere av systemet.<sup>[<a name="id2873576" href="#ftn.id2873576" class="footnote">75</a>]</sup> Rettsaker skøt Napster raskt ned, men andre
2815 tjenester dukket opp for å overta plassen.  (Kazaa er for tiden den mest
2816 populære p2p-tjenesten.  Den skryter av over 100 millioner medlemmer.)
2817 Disse tjenestene har en anderledes arkitektur selv om de ikke er veldig
2818 forskjellige i funksjon: Hver av dem gjør det mulig for brukerne å gjøre
2819 innhold tilgjengelig til et ubegrenset antall andre brukere.  Med et
2820 p2p-system kan du dele dine favorittsanger med dine beste venner&#8212;
2821 eller dine 20 000 beste venner.
2822 </p><p>
2823 I følge en rekke estimater har en stor andel av amerikanere testet
2824 fildelings-teknologi.  En studie av Ipsos-Insight i september 2002 estimerte
2825 at 60 millioner amerikanere har lastet ned musikk&#8212;28 prosent av
2826 amerikanerne over 12.<sup>[<a name="id2873628" href="#ftn.id2873628" class="footnote">76</a>]</sup> En
2827 spørreundersøkelse fra NPD-gruppen sitert i <em class="citetitle">The New York
2828 Times</em> estimerte at 43 millioner innbyggere brukte
2829 fildelingsnettverk for å utveksle innhold i mai 2003.<sup>[<a name="id2873661" href="#ftn.id2873661" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> De aller fleste av dem er ikke unger.  Uansett hva
2830 de egentlige tallene er, en massiv mengde innhold blir <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tatt</span>»</span>
2831 på disse nettverkene.  Enkelheten og den lave kostnaden til
2832 fildelingsnettverkene har inspirert millioner til å nyte musikk på måter de
2833 ikke før hadde gjort.
2834 </p><p>
2835 Noe av denne nytelsen involverer brudd på opphavsretten.  Noe av den gjør
2836 det ikke.  Og selv for den delen som teknisk sett er brudd på opphavsretten
2837 er det å beregne den faktiske skaden påført opphavsrettseierne mer
2838 komplisert enn en skulle tro. Vurder&#8212;litt mer nøye enn de polariserte
2839 stemmene i denne debatten vanligvis gjør&#8212;de ulike typer deling som
2840 fildeling muliggjør, og hva slags skader de innebærer.
2841 </p><p>
2842
2843
2844 Fildelerne deler ulike typer innhold.  Vi kan dele disse ulike typene inn i
2845 fire typer.
2846 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="id2873722"></a><p>
2847
2848
2849 Det er noen som bruker delingsnettverk som erstatninger for å kjøpe
2850 innhold.  Dermed vil disse i stedet for å kjøpe den når en ny Madonna-CD
2851 blir gitt ut, ganske enkelt ta den.  Vi kan diskutere om alle som tar den
2852 ville ha kjøpt den hvis deling ikke gjorde den gratis tilgjengelig.  De
2853 fleste ville sannsynligvis ikke det, men det er åpenbart noen som ville
2854 det.  Den siste gruppen er målet for kategori A: Brukere som laster ned i
2855 stedet for å kjøpe.
2856 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2857
2858
2859 Det er noen som bruker delingsnettverk til å teste musikk før de kjøper
2860 den.  For eksempel kan noen sende en en MP3 til en av sine venner med en
2861 artist han aldri har hørt om.  Denne vennen kjøper så CDer av denne
2862 artisten.  Dette er en slags målrettet reklame som har stor suksessrate.
2863 Hvis en venn som anbefaler albumet ikke har noen fordeler av å gi en dårlig
2864 anbefaling, så kan en forvente at anbefalingene faktisk vil være ganske
2865 gode.  Totaleffekten av denne delingen kan øke mengden musikk som blir
2866 kjøpt.
2867 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2868
2869
2870 Det er mange som bruker delingsnettverk for å få tilgang til
2871 opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold som ikke lenger er til salgs, eller som de
2872 ikke ville ha kjøpt på grunn av at transaksjonskostnadene på nettet er for
2873 høye.  Denne bruken av delingsnettverk er blant det mange finner mest
2874 givende.  Sanger som var del av din barndom men som har forsvunnet fra
2875 markedsplassen dukker magisk opp igjen på nettet.  (En venn fortalte meg at
2876 da hun oppdaget Napster, tilbrakte hun en hel helg med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">å
2877 mimre</span>»</span> over gamle sanger.  Hun var overrasket over omfanget og
2878 variasjonen i innhold som var tilgjengelig.  For innhold som ikke blir sogt,
2879 så er dette fortsatt teknisk sett brudd på opphavsretten, selv om på grunn
2880 av at opphavsrettseieren ikke selger innholdet lenger så er den økonomiske
2881 skaden null&#8212;den samme skaden som inntreffer når jeg selger min samling
2882 med 45-rpm grammofonplater fra 1960-tallet til en lokal samler.
2883 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888 Til slutt er det mange som bruker delingsnettverk for å få tilgang til
2889 innhold som ikke er opphavsrettsbeskyttet eller der opphavsrettseieren
2890 ønsker å gi det bort.
2891 </p></li></ol></div><p>
2892 Hvordan balanserer disse ulike delingstypene?
2893 </p><p>
2894 La oss starte med noen enkle men viktige poeng.  Fra lovens perspektiv er
2895 det kun type-D-deling som helt klart er lovlig.  Fra et økonomisk perspektiv
2896 er det kun type-A-deling som helt klart forårsaker skade.<sup>[<a name="id2873830" href="#ftn.id2873830" class="footnote">78</a>]</sup> Type-B-deling er ulovlig men gir klare fordeler.
2897 Type-C-deling er ulovlig, men bra for samfunnet (siden mer eksponering til
2898 musikk er bra) og skadelig for artistene (siden verket ellers ikke er
2899 tilgjengelig.  Så det er vanskelig å avgjøre hvordan deling kommer ut totalt
2900 set&#8212;og helt klart mye vanskeligere enn den gjeldende retorikken rundt
2901 temaet foreslår.
2902 </p><p>
2903 Hvorvidt deling er skadelig totalt sett er mye avhengig av hvor skadelig
2904 type-A-deling er.  Slik Edison klaget over Hollywood, komponister klaget
2905 over pianoruller, plateartister klaget over radio og kringkastere klaget
2906 over kabel-TV, klager musikkindustrien over at type-A-deling er en slags
2907 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tyveri</span>»</span> som vil <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ødelegge</span>»</span> industrien.
2908 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassette"></a><p>
2909 Mens disse tallene jo foreslår at deling er skadelig, så er det vanskeligere
2910 å finne ut hvor skadelig det er.  Det har lenge vært praksis for
2911 platebransjen å skylde på teknologi for all nedgang i salg.  Historien til
2912 kassettopptak er et godt eksempel.  Som et studie av Cap Gemini Ernst &amp;
2913 Young formulerer det: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I stedet for å utforske denne nye populære
2914 teknologien, sloss selskapene imot den.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2873903" href="#ftn.id2873903" class="footnote">79</a>]</sup> Selskapene påsto at hvert album som ble tatt opp på kassett var et
2915 album som ikke ble solgt, og da platesalget falt med 11,4 prosent i 1981,
2916 påsto industrien at dets poeng var bevist.  Teknologien var problemet, og
2917 forbud eller regulering av teknologien var svaret.
2918 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2873950"></a><p>
2919 Ikke lenge etterpå, og før kongressen fikk muligheten til å innføre
2920 reguleringer, ble MTV lansert, og industrien fikk et
2921 rekordoppsving. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Til slutt</span>»</span>, konkluderte Cap Gemini, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var
2922 ikke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">krisen</span>»</span> &#8230; forårsaket av de som tok opp på
2923 kassett&#8212;som ikke [sluttet etter at MTV dukket opp]&#8212;men hadde i
2924 stor grad vært resultatet av en stagnasjon i musikknyskapningen hos de store
2925 selskapene.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2873086" href="#ftn.id2873086" class="footnote">80</a>]</sup>
2926 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2873993"></a><p>
2927 Men det at industrien har tatt feil før betyr ikke at de tar feil i dag.
2928 For å evaluere den virkelige trusselen som p2p-deling representerer for
2929 indistrien spesielt, og samfunnet generelt&#8212;eller i hvert fall det
2930 samfunnet som arvet tradisjonen som ga oss filmindistrien, plateindustrien,
2931 radioindustrien, kabel-TV og videospilleren&#8212;så er ikke spørsmåle kun
2932 om type-A-deling er skadelig.  Spørsmålet er også <span class="emphasis"><em>hvor</em></span>
2933 skadelig type-A-deling er, og hvor nyttige de andre typene deling er.
2934 </p><p>
2935 Vi går igang med å svare på dette spørsmålet ved å fokusere på netto skade,
2936 sett fra industrien som helhet, som delingsnettverkene forårsaker.
2937 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Netto skade</span>»</span> for industrien som helhet er verdien av
2938 type-A-deling som overgår type B.  Hvis plateselskapene solgte flere plater
2939 som resultat av at folk testet musikken enn de taper gjennom at en lar være
2940 å kjøpe, så har delingsnettverkene totalt sett faktisk vært til fordel for
2941 musikkselskapene.  De ville dermed ha liten <span class="emphasis"><em>*static*</em></span>
2942 grunn til å motarbeide dem.
2943
2944 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdssales"></a><p>
2945 Kan det være riktig?  Kan industrien som helhet øke i omfang på grunn av
2946 fildeling?  Selv om det kan høres rart ut, så foreslår faktisk salgstall for
2947 CD-er at det ikke er langt unna sannheten.
2948 </p><p>
2949 I 2002 rappoterte RIAA at CD-salg hadde falt med 8,9 prosent, fra 882
2950 millioner til 803 millioner enheter, og inntektene hadde falt 6,7
2951 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2874076" href="#ftn.id2874076" class="footnote">81</a>]</sup> Dette bekrefter en trend fra
2952 de siste årene.  RIAA skylder på piratvirksomhet på internett for denne
2953 trenden, selv om det er mange andre årsaker som kan forklare denne
2954 reduksjonen.  SoundScan rapporterte for eksempel om en reduksjon på over 20
2955 prosent siden 1999 når det gjelder antall CD-er er gitt ut Dette er uten
2956 tvil årsaken til noe av nedgangen i salget.  Stigende priser kan også ha
2957 bidratt til noe av tapet. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fra 1999 til 201 steg den gjennomsnittlige
2958 prisen for en CD med 7,2 prosent, fra $13,04 til $14,19.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2874131" href="#ftn.id2874131" class="footnote">82</a>]</sup> Konkurranse fra andre typer media kan også forklare
2959 noe av nedgangen.  Som Jane Black i <em class="citetitle">BusinessWeek</em>
2960 kommenterer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Lydsporet for filmen <em class="citetitle">High
2961 Fidelity</em> har en listepris på $19,98.  Du kan få hele filmen [på
2962 DVD] for $19,99.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2874170" href="#ftn.id2874170" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
2963 </p><p>
2964
2965
2966
2967 Men la oss anta at RIAA har rett, at all nedgangen i CD-salg er forårsaket
2968 av deling på internett.  Her er hvor det skurrer: I samme periode som RIAA
2969 estimerer at 803 milloner CDer ble solgt, estimerer RIAA at 2,1 milliarder
2970 CD-er ble lastet ned gratisk.  Dermed selv om 2,6 ganger det totale antallet
2971 CDer ble lastet ned gratis, så falt salgsinntektene med kun 6,7 prosent.
2972 </p><p>
2973 Det er for mange ulike ting som skjer samtidig til å forklare disse tallene
2974 med sikkerhet, men en konklusjon er uunngåelig: Musikkindustrien spør
2975 stadig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hva er forskjellen mellom å laste ned en sang og å stjele en
2976 CD?</span>»</span>&#8212;men deres egne tall avslører forskjellen.  Hvis jeg
2977 stjeler en CD, så er det en mindre CD å selge.  Hvert eneste som blir tatt
2978 er et tapt salg.  Men basert på tallene som RIAA gjør tilgjengelig, så er
2979 det helt klart at det samme ikke er sant for downloads.  Hvis hver
2980 nedlasting var et tapt salg&#8212;hvis hver bruk av Kazaa <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fratok
2981 forfatteren overskuddet</span>»</span>&#8212;da skulle industrien vært påført 100
2982 prosent reduksjon i salg i fjor, ikke e 7 prosents nedgang.  Hvis 2,6 ganger
2983 antallet solgte CDer ble lastet ned gratis, og salgsinntektene kun ble
2984 redusert med 6,7 prosent, så er det en stor forskjell mellom å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">laste
2985 ned en sang og å stjele en CD</span>»</span>.
2986 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2874233"></a><p>
2987 Dette er skadene&#8212;påståtte og muligens overdrevende men, la oss anta at
2988 de er reelle.  Hva er fordelene?  Fildeling påfører muligens kostnader for
2989 plateindustrien.  Hva slags verdi gir det i tillegg til disse kostnadene?
2990 </p><p>
2991 En fordel er type-C-deling&#8212;å gjøre innhold tilgjengelig som teknisk
2992 sett fortsatt er opphavsrettsbeskyttet men som ikke lenger er kommersielt
2993 tilgjengelig.  Dette er ikke en liten kategori med innhold Det er millioner
2994 av spor som ikke lenger er kommersielt tilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id2874243" href="#ftn.id2874243" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup> Og mens det kan tenkes at noe av dette innholdet
2995 ikke er tilgjengelig fordi artisten som laget innholdet ikke ønsker at det
2996 blir gjort tilgjengelig, så er det meste av dette utilgjengelig kun fordi
2997 forlaget eller distributøren har bestemt at det ikke lenger gir økonomisk
2998 mening <span class="emphasis"><em>for selskapet</em></span> å gjøre det tilgjengelig.
2999 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2874298"></a><p>
3000 I den virkelige verden&#8212;lenge før internettet&#8212;hadde markedet et
3001 enkelt svar på dette problemet: bruktbok- og bruktplate-butikker.  Det er
3002 tusenvis av butikker for brukte bøker og plater i amerika i dag.<sup>[<a name="id2874310" href="#ftn.id2874310" class="footnote">85</a>]</sup> Disse butikkene kjøper innhold fra eierne og selger
3003 så videre innholdet de kjøpte. Og i følge amerikansk åndsverkslov, når de
3004 kjøper og selger dette innholdet, <span class="emphasis"><em>selv om innholdet fortsatt er
3005 vernet av åndsverksloven</em></span>, så får ikke opphavsrettseieren et
3006 øre. Bruktbok- og bruktplatebutikkene er kommersielle aktører.  Deres eiere
3007 tjener penger på innholdet de selger, men på samme måte som med
3008 kabel-TV-selskapene før lovbestemt lisensiering må de ikke betale
3009 opphavsrettseierene for innholdet de selger.
3010 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2874382"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2874388"></a><p>
3011 Type-C-deling har dermed veldig mye til felles med bruktbok- og
3012 bruktplatebutikker.  Det er naturligvis også veldig forskjellig, fordi
3013 personenen som gjør innhold tilgjengelig tjener ikke penger på å gjøre
3014 innholdet tilgjengelig.  Det er naturligvis også forskjellig fra i den
3015 virkelige verden ved at når jeg selger en plate så har jeg den ikke lenger,
3016 mens på nettet når jeg deler min 1949-plate av Bernsteins <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Two Love
3017 Songs</span>»</span> med noen, sa har jeg den fortsatt. Denne forskjellen betyr noe
3018 økonomisk hvis eieren av opphavsretten selger platen i konkurranse med min
3019 deling.  Men vi snakker om den klassen av innhold som nå ikke er kommersielt
3020 tilgjengelig. Internettet gjør det tilgjengelig, gjennom samarbeidende
3021 deling, uten å konkurrere med markedet.
3022 </p><p>
3023 Det kan godt være, når alle faktorer vurderes, at det ville vært bedre om
3024 opphavsrettseieren fikk noe fra denne handelen.  Men det at det kunne vært
3025 bedre fører ikke til at det ville vært en god ide å forby bruktbokbutikker.
3026 Eller sagt på en annen måte, hvis du tror type-C-deling burde vært stoppet,
3027 mener du også at biblioteker og bruktbokhandler også burde vært stengt?
3028 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline1"></a><p>
3029
3030 Til slutt, og kanskje mest viktig, muliggjør fildelingsnettverk
3031 type-D-deling&#8212;delingen av innhold som opphavsrettseierne ønsker å få
3032 delt eller der det ikke er vert etter åndsverksloven.  Denne delingen er
3033 klart til fordel for forfattere og samfunnet.  Science fiction-forfatteren
3034 Cory Doctorow, for eksempel, utga sin første roman, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out
3035 in the Magic Kingdom</em>, både fritt tilgjengelig på nettet og i
3036 bokhandler på samme dag.  Han (og hans forlag) mente at distribusjon på
3037 nettet ville være flott markedsføring for den <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ekte</span>»</span> boken.
3038 Folk ville lese deler på nettet, og så bestemme seg for om de likte boken
3039 eller ikke. Hvis de likte den, så var det mer sansynlig at de kjøpte
3040 den. Doctorows innholder type-D-innhold.  Hvis delingsnettverkene gjør det
3041 mulig å spre hans verk, så kommer både han og samfunnet bedre ut. (Faktisk
3042 så kommer de mye bedre ut: det er en god bok!)
3043 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2874495"></a><p>
3044 Det samme gjelder for allemannseide verk: Denne delingen gagner samfunnet
3045 uten noen juridisk skade mot forfattere i det hele tatt. Hvis innsats for å
3046 løse problemet med type-A-deling ødelegger muligheten for type-D-deling, så
3047 mister vi noe viktig for å beskytte type-A-innhold.
3048 </p><p>
3049 Poenget med alt dette er: Selv om plateindustrien forståelig nok sier,
3050 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dette er hvor mye vi har tapt</span>»</span>, så må vi også spørre oss
3051 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvor mye har samfunnet fått igjen fra p2p-deling? Hva gjør oss mer
3052 effektive?  Hva er innholdet som ellers ville være utilgjengelig?</span>»</span>
3053 </p><p>
3054 For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this chapter, much
3055 of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> that file sharing enables is plainly legal and
3056 good.  And like the piracy I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Kapittel fire: «Pirater»">4</a>, much of this piracy is motivated by a new
3057 way of spreading content caused by changes in the technology of
3058 distribution. Thus, consistent with the tradition that gave us Hollywood,
3059 radio, the recording industry, and cable TV, the question we should be
3060 asking about file sharing is how best to preserve its benefits while
3061 minimizing (to the extent possible) the wrongful harm it causes artists. The
3062 question is one of balance. The law should seek that balance, and that
3063 balance will be found only with time.
3064 </p><p>
3065 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Men er ikke krigen bare en krig mot ulovlig deling?  Er ikke
3066 angrepsmålet bare det du kaller type-A-deling?</span>»</span>
3067 </p><p>
3068 En skulle tro det.  Og vi bør håpe på det.  Men så langt er det ikke
3069 tilfelle.  Effekten som krigen som påstås å kun være mot type-A-deling har
3070 blitt kjent langt uten den klassen med deling.  Det er åpenbart fra
3071 Napster-saken selv.  Da Napster fortalte *district*-retten at den hadde
3072 utviklet teknologi som ville blokkere for 99,4 prosent av identifisert
3073 opphavsrettsbrytende materiale, fortalte *district*-retten advokatene til
3074 Napster at 99,4 prosent var ikke godt nok.  Napster måtte få
3075 opphavsrettsbruddene <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ned til null</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2874586" href="#ftn.id2874586" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
3076 </p><p>
3077 Hvis 99,4 prosent ikke er godt nok, så er dette en krig mot
3078 fildelingsteknologier, og ikke en krig mot opphavsrettsbrudd.  Det er ikke
3079 mulig å sikre at et p2p-system brukes 100 prosent av tiden i henhold til
3080 loven, like lite som det er mulig å sikre at 100 prosent av videospillere
3081 eller 100 prosent av kopmaskiner eller 100 prosent av håndvåken blir brukt i
3082 henhold til loven.  Ingen toleranse betyr ingen p2p.  Rettens avgjørelser
3083 betyr at vi som samfunn må miste fordelene med p2p, selv for de fullstendig
3084 lovlige og fordelaktige bruksområdene som de tjener, kun for å sikre at de
3085 ikke er brudd på opphavsretten forårsaken av p2p.
3086 </p><p>
3087 Zero tolerance has not been our history. It has not produced the content
3088 industry that we know today. The history of American law has been a process
3089 of balance. As new technologies changed the way content was distributed, the
3090 law adjusted, after some time, to the new technology.  In this adjustment,
3091 the law sought to ensure the legitimate rights of creators while protecting
3092 innovation. Sometimes this has meant more rights for creators. Sometimes
3093 less.
3094 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2874635"></a><p>
3095 So, as we've seen, when <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mechanical reproduction</span>»</span> threatened
3096 the interests of composers, Congress balanced the rights of composers
3097 against the interests of the recording industry. It granted rights to
3098 composers, but also to the recording artists: Composers were to be paid, but
3099 at a price set by Congress. But when radio started broadcasting the
3100 recordings made by these recording artists, and they complained to Congress
3101 that their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> was not being respected (since
3102 the radio station did not have to pay them for the creativity it broadcast),
3103 Congress rejected their claim. An indirect benefit was enough.
3104 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcabletv2"></a><p>
3105 Cable TV followed the pattern of record albums. When the courts rejected the
3106 claim that cable broadcasters had to pay for the content they rebroadcast,
3107 Congress responded by giving broadcasters a right to compensation, but at a
3108 level set by the law. It likewise gave cable companies the right to the
3109 content, so long as they paid the statutory price.
3110 </p><p>
3111
3112
3113
3114 This compromise, like the compromise affecting records and player pianos,
3115 served two important goals&#8212;indeed, the two central goals of any
3116 copyright legislation. First, the law assured that new innovators would have
3117 the freedom to develop new ways to deliver content.  Second, the law assured
3118 that copyright holders would be paid for the content that was
3119 distributed. One fear was that if Congress simply required cable TV to pay
3120 copyright holders whatever they demanded for their content, then copyright
3121 holders associated with broadcasters would use their power to stifle this
3122 new technology, cable. But if Congress had permitted cable to use
3123 broadcasters' content for free, then it would have unfairly subsidized
3124 cable. Thus Congress chose a path that would assure
3125 <span class="emphasis"><em>compensation</em></span> without giving the past (broadcasters)
3126 control over the future (cable).
3127 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2874707"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2874715"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs1"></a><p>
3128 In the same year that Congress struck this balance, two major producers and
3129 distributors of film content filed a lawsuit against another technology, the
3130 video tape recorder (VTR, or as we refer to them today, VCRs) that Sony had
3131 produced, the Betamax. Disney's and Universal's claim against Sony was
3132 relatively simple: Sony produced a device, Disney and Universal claimed,
3133 that enabled consumers to engage in copyright infringement. Because the
3134 device that Sony built had a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">record</span>»</span> button, the device could
3135 be used to record copyrighted movies and shows. Sony was therefore
3136 benefiting from the copyright infringement of its customers. It should
3137 therefore, Disney and Universal claimed, be partially liable for that
3138 infringement.
3139 </p><p>
3140
3141 There was something to Disney's and Universal's claim. Sony did decide to
3142 design its machine to make it very simple to record television shows. It
3143 could have built the machine to block or inhibit any direct copying from a
3144 television broadcast. Or possibly, it could have built the machine to copy
3145 only if there were a special <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy me</span>»</span> signal on the line. It
3146 was clear that there were many television shows that did not grant anyone
3147 permission to copy. Indeed, if anyone had asked, no doubt the majority of
3148 shows would not have authorized copying. And in the face of this obvious
3149 preference, Sony could have designed its system to minimize the opportunity
3150 for copyright infringement. It did not, and for that, Disney and Universal
3151 wanted to hold it responsible for the architecture it chose.
3152 </p><p>
3153 MPAA president Jack Valenti became the studios' most vocal champion. Valenti
3154 called VCRs <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tapeworms.</span>»</span> He warned, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">When there are 20,
3155 30, 40 million of these VCRs in the land, we will be invaded by millions of
3156 `tapeworms,' eating away at the very heart and essence of the most precious
3157 asset the copyright owner has, his copyright.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2874787" href="#ftn.id2874787" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">One does not have to be trained in
3158 sophisticated marketing and creative judgment,</span>»</span> he told Congress,
3159 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to understand the devastation on the after-theater marketplace caused
3160 by the hundreds of millions of tapings that will adversely impact on the
3161 future of the creative community in this country. It is simply a question of
3162 basic economics and plain common sense.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2874809" href="#ftn.id2874809" class="footnote">88</a>]</sup> Indeed, as surveys would later show, percent of VCR owners had
3163 movie libraries of ten videos or more<sup>[<a name="id2874818" href="#ftn.id2874818" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup>
3164 &#8212; a use the Court would later hold was not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair.</span>»</span> By
3165 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the means of an exemption from
3166 copyright infringementwithout creating a mechanism to compensate
3167 copyrightowners,</span>»</span> Valenti testified, Congress would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">take from
3168 the owners the very essence of their property: the exclusive right to
3169 control who may use their work, that is, who may copy it and thereby profit
3170 from its reproduction.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2874847" href="#ftn.id2874847" class="footnote">90</a>]</sup>
3171 </p><p>
3172 It took eight years for this case to be resolved by the Supreme Court. In
3173 the interim, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Hollywood in
3174 its jurisdiction&#8212;leading Judge Alex Kozinski, who sits on that court,
3175 refers to it as the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hollywood Circuit</span>»</span>&#8212;held that Sony
3176 would be liable for the copyright infringement made possible by its
3177 machines. Under the Ninth Circuit's rule, this totally familiar
3178 technology&#8212;which Jack Valenti had called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Boston Strangler
3179 of the American film industry</span>»</span> (worse yet, it was a
3180 <span class="emphasis"><em>Japanese</em></span> Boston Strangler of the American film
3181 industry)&#8212;was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id2874869" href="#ftn.id2874869" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2874893"></a>
3182 </p><p>
3183
3184 But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit.  And in
3185 its reversal, the Court clearly articulated its understanding of when and
3186 whether courts should intervene in such disputes. As the Court wrote,
3187 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3188 Sound policy, as well as history, supports our consistent deference to
3189 Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for
3190 copyrighted materials. Congress has the constitutional authority and the
3191 institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of
3192 competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new
3193 technology.<sup>[<a name="id2874919" href="#ftn.id2874919" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
3194 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3195 Kongressen ble bedt om å svare på avgjørelsen fra Høyesterett.  Men på samme
3196 måte som med appellen fra plateartistene om radiokringkastinger, ignorerte
3197 kongressen denne forespørselen.  Kongressen var overbevist om at Amerikansk
3198 film fikk nok, på tross av at det her ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tatt</span>»</span>.  Hvis vi
3199 samler disse saken, trer et mønster frem:
3200 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t1"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Tilfelle</th><th align="left">Hvems verdi ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røvet</span>»</span></th><th align="left">Responsen til domstolene</th><th align="left">Responsen til Kongressen</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Innspillinger</td><td align="left">Komponister</td><td align="left">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="left">Lovbestemt lisens</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Radio</td><td align="left">Plateartister</td><td align="left">N/A</td><td align="left">Ingenting</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Kabel-TV</td><td align="left">Kringkastere</td><td align="left">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="left">Lovbestemt lisens</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Videospiller / opptaker</td><td align="left">Filmskapere</td><td align="left">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="left">Ingenting</td></tr></tbody></table></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2875053"></a><p>
3201 In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the way
3202 content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id2875065" href="#ftn.id2875065" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
3203 throughout our history, that change meant that someone got a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free
3204 ride</span>»</span> on someone else's work.
3205 </p><p>
3206
3207 In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these cases did either the courts or
3208 Congress eliminate all free riding. In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these
3209 cases did the courts or Congress insist that the law should assure that the
3210 copyright holder get all the value that his copyright created. In every
3211 case, the copyright owners complained of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy.</span>»</span> In every
3212 case, Congress acted to recognize some of the legitimacy in the behavior of
3213 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates.</span>»</span> In each case, Congress allowed some new
3214 technology to benefit from content made before. It balanced the interests at
3215 stake.
3216
3217 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2875144"></a><p>
3218 When you think across these examples, and the other examples that make up
3219 the first four chapters of this section, this balance makes sense. Was Walt
3220 Disney a pirate? Would doujinshi be better if creators had to ask
3221 permission? Should tools that enable others to capture and spread images as
3222 a way to cultivate or criticize our culture be better regulated? Is it
3223 really right that building a search engine should expose you to $15 million
3224 in damages? Would it have been better if Edison had controlled film? Should
3225 every cover band have to hire a lawyer to get permission to record a song?
3226 </p><p>
3227 We could answer yes to each of these questions, but our tradition has
3228 answered no. In our tradition, as the Supreme Court has stated, copyright
3229 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all
3230 possible uses of his work.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2875172" href="#ftn.id2875172" class="footnote">94</a>]</sup>
3231 Instead, the particular uses that the law regulates have been defined by
3232 balancing the good that comes from granting an exclusive right against the
3233 burdens such an exclusive right creates. And this balancing has historically
3234 been done <span class="emphasis"><em>after</em></span> a technology has matured, or settled
3235 into the mix of technologies that facilitate the distribution of content.
3236 </p><p>
3237 We should be doing the same thing today. The technology of the Internet is
3238 changing quickly. The way people connect to the Internet (wires
3239 vs. wireless) is changing very quickly. No doubt the network should not
3240 become a tool for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stealing</span>»</span> from artists. But neither should
3241 the law become a tool to entrench one particular way in which artists (or
3242 more accurately, distributors) get paid. As I describe in some detail in the
3243 last chapter of this book, we should be securing income to artists while we
3244 allow the market to secure the most efficient way to promote and distribute
3245 content. This will require changes in the law, at least in the
3246 interim. These changes should be designed to balance the protection of the
3247 law against the strong public interest that innovation continue.
3248 </p><p>
3249
3250
3251 This is especially true when a new technology enables a vastly superior mode
3252 of distribution. And this p2p has done. P2p technologies can be ideally
3253 efficient in moving content across a widely diverse network.  Left to
3254 develop, they could make the network vastly more efficient.  Yet these
3255 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">potential public benefits,</span>»</span> as John Schwartz writes in
3256 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">could be delayed in the
3257 P2P fight.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2875232" href="#ftn.id2875232" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup>
3258 </p><p>
3259 <span class="strong"><strong>Yet when anyone</strong></span> begins to talk about
3260 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balance,</span>»</span> the copyright warriors raise a different
3261 argument. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All this hand waving about balance and incentives,</span>»</span>
3262 they say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">misses a fundamental point. Our content,</span>»</span> the
3263 warriors insist, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">is our <span class="emphasis"><em>property</em></span>. Why should we
3264 wait for Congress to `rebalance' our property rights? Do you have to wait
3265 before calling the police when your car has been stolen? And why should
3266 Congress deliberate at all about the merits of this theft? Do we ask whether
3267 the car thief had a good use for the car before we arrest him?</span>»</span>
3268 </p><p>
3269 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det er <span class="emphasis"><em>vår eiendom</em></span>,</span>»</span> insisterer
3270 krigerne. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">og den bør være beskyttet på samme måte som all annen
3271 eiendom er beskyttet.</span>»</span>
3272 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2872687" href="#id2872687" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
3273
3274
3275 Se IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry),
3276 <em class="citetitle">The Recording Industry Commercial Piracy Report 2003</em>,
3277 juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
3278 #14</a>. Se også Ben Hunt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Companies Warned on Music Piracy
3279 Risk</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Financial Times</em>, 14. februar 2003, 11.
3280 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2873005" href="#id2873005" class="para">71</a>] </sup>
3281
3282 Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: <em class="citetitle">Who
3283 Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New Press, 2003),
3284 10&#8211;13, 209.  Avtalen om handelsrelaterte aspektene av immaterielle
3285 rettigheter (TRIPS) forplikter medlemsnasjonene til å få på plass
3286 administrative og håndhevingsmekanismer for immaterielle rettigheter,
3287 hvilket er et kostbar forslag for utviklingsland.  I tillegg kan
3288 patentrettigheter føre til høyere priser for grunnleggende industrier som
3289 landbruk.  Kritikerne av TRIPS stiller spørsmål om avviket mellom
3290 belastningen den legger på utviklingland og fordelene den gir til
3291 industrialiserte land.  TRIPS tillater myndigheter å bruke patenter til
3292 ikke-kommersielle formål som kommer folket til gode uten å først få
3293 tillatelse fra patentinnehaveren.  Utviklingsland kan være i stand til å
3294 bruke dette til å få fordelene fra utenlandske patenter til lavere priser.
3295 Dette er en lovende strategi for utviklingsland innenfor
3296 TRIPS-rammeverket. <a class="indexterm" name="id2872014"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2873038"></a>
3297 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2873073" href="#id2873073" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
3298
3299 For en analyse av den økonomiske effekten av kopieringsteknologi, se Stan
3300 Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em> (New York:
3301 Amacom, 2002), 144&#8211;190. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I noen tilfeller &#8230; vil effekten
3302 av piratvirksomhet på opphavsrettsinnehaverens mulighet til å nyte godt av
3303 verdien av verket vil være neglisjerbart. Et åpenbart tilfelle er der
3304 individet som tar nyter godt av piratvirksomheten ikke ville ha kjøpt
3305 originalen selv om piratvirksomhet ikke var en mulighet.</span>»</span> Ibid.,
3306 149.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2873098"></a>
3307 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2873479" href="#id2873479" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
3308
3309
3310 <em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
3311 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777).
3312 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2873523" href="#id2873523" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
3313
3314 <a class="indexterm" name="id2873526"></a> Se Clayton M. Christensen,
3315 <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary National Bestseller
3316 That Changed the Way We Do Business</em> (New York: HarperBusiness,
3317 2000).  Professor Christensen undersøker hvorfor selskaper som gir opphav
3318 til og dominerer et produktområde ofte ikke er i stand til å komme opp med
3319 de mest kreative, paradigmeskiftende måtene å bruke deres egne produkter
3320 på.  Denne jobben ender som oftest opp hos oppfinnere utenfra, som setter
3321 sammen eksisterende teknologi på nyskapende måter.  For en diskkusjon om
3322 Christensens idéer, se Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>,
3323 89&#8211;92, 139. <a class="indexterm" name="id2873083"></a>
3324 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2873576" href="#id2873576" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
3325
3326
3327 Se Carolyn Lochhead, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood
3328 Nightmare</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>,
3329 24. september 2002, A1; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rock 'n' Roll Suicide</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">New
3330 Scientist</em>, 6. juli 2002, 42; Benny Evangelista, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Napster
3331 Names CEO, Secures New Financing</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
3332 Chronicle</em>, 23. mai 2003, C1; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Napster's Wake-Up
3333 Call,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24. juni 2000, 23; John
3334 Naughton, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hollywood at War with the Internet</span>»</span> (London)
3335 <em class="citetitle">Times</em>, 26. juli 2002, 18.
3336 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2873628" href="#id2873628" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
3337
3338
3339
3340 Se Ipsos-Insight, <em class="citetitle">TEMPO: Keeping Pace with Online Music
3341 Distribution</em> (september 2002), som rapporterer at 28 prosent av
3342 amerikanere eldre enn tolv år hadde lastet musikk ned fra internettet og 30
3343 prosent hadde lyttet til digitale musikkfiler lagred på sine datamaskiner.
3344 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2873661" href="#id2873661" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
3345
3346
3347 Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,</span>»</span>
3348 <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 6. juni 2003, A1.
3349 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2873830" href="#id2873830" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
3350
3351 Se Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
3352 148&#8211;49.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2873556"></a>
3353 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2873903" href="#id2873903" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
3354
3355 <a class="indexterm" name="id2873907"></a> See Cap Gemini Ernst &amp; Young,
3356 <em class="citetitle">Technology Evolution and the Music Industry's Business Model
3357 Crisis</em> (2003), 3. This report describes the music industry's
3358 effort to stigmatize the budding practice of cassette taping in the 1970s,
3359 including an advertising campaign featuring a cassette-shape skull and the
3360 caption <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Home taping is killing music.</span>»</span> At the time digital
3361 audio tape became a threat, the Office of Technical Assessment conducted a
3362 survey of consumer behavior. In 1988, 40 percent of consumers older than ten
3363 had taped music to a cassette format. U.S.  Congress, Office of Technology
3364 Assessment, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the
3365 Law</em>, OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.  Government Printing
3366 Office, October 1989), 145&#8211;56.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2873086" href="#id2873086" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
3367
3368
3369 U.S. Congress, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying</em>, 4.
3370 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874076" href="#id2874076" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
3371
3372
3373 See Recording Industry Association of America, <em class="citetitle">2002 Yearend
3374 Statistics</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #15</a>. A later report
3375 indicates even greater losses. See Recording Industry Association of
3376 America, <em class="citetitle">Some Facts About Music Piracy</em>, 25 June 2003,
3377 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #16</a>:
3378 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the past four years, unit shipments of recorded music have fallen
3379 by 26 percent from 1.16 billion units in to 860 million units in 2002 in the
3380 United States (based on units shipped).  In terms of sales, revenues are
3381 down 14 percent, from $14.6 billion in to $12.6 billion last year (based on
3382 U.S. dollar value of shipments). The music industry worldwide has gone from
3383 a $39 billion industry in 2000 down to a $32 billion industry in 2002 (based
3384 on U.S. dollar value of shipments).</span>»</span>
3385 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874131" href="#id2874131" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
3386 Jane Black, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Big Music's Broken Record</span>»</span>, BusinessWeek online,
3387 13. februar 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2874147"></a>
3388 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874170" href="#id2874170" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
3389
3390
3391 ibid.
3392 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874243" href="#id2874243" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
3393
3394
3395 Et estimat forteller at 75 prosent av musikken gitt ut av de store
3396 plateselskapene ikke lenger trykkes opp.  Se Online Entertainment and
3397 Copyright Law&#8212;Coming Soon to a Digital Device Near You: Høring foran
3398 the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 107. kongr., 1. sesj. (3. april 2001)
3399 (forberedt innlegg av the Future of Music Coalition), tilgjengelig fra
3400 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #18</a>.
3401 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874310" href="#id2874310" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
3402
3403 <a class="indexterm" name="id2874324"></a> While there are not good estimates of
3404 the number of used record stores in existence, in 2002, there were 7,198
3405 used book dealers in the United States, an increase of 20 percent since
3406 1993. See Book Hunter Press, <em class="citetitle">The Quiet Revolution: The Expansion
3407 of the Used Book Market</em> (2002), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #19</a>. Used records accounted
3408 for $260 million in sales in 2002. See National Association of Recording
3409 Merchandisers, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">2002 Annual Survey Results,</span>»</span> available at
3410 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #20</a>.
3411 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874586" href="#id2874586" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
3412
3413
3414 See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34- 35
3415 (N.D. Cal., 11 July 2001), nos. MDL-00-1369 MHP, C 99-5183 MHP, available at
3416 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #21</a>. For an account
3417 of the litigation and its toll on Napster, see Joseph Menn, <em class="citetitle">All
3418 the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster</em> (New
3419 York: Crown Business, 2003), 269&#8211;82.
3420 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874787" href="#id2874787" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
3421
3422
3423 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders): Hearing on S. 1758
3424 Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess.,
3425 459 (1982) (testimony of Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association
3426 of America, Inc.).
3427 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874809" href="#id2874809" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
3428
3429
3430 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
3431 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874818" href="#id2874818" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
3432
3433
3434 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Sony
3435 Corp. of America</em>, 480 F. Supp. 429, (C.D. Cal., 1979).
3436 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874847" href="#id2874847" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
3437
3438
3439 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (testimony of Jack
3440 Valenti).
3441 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874869" href="#id2874869" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
3442
3443
3444 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Sony
3445 Corp. of America</em>, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th Cir.  1981).
3446 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874919" href="#id2874919" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
3447
3448
3449 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3450 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984).
3451 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2875065" href="#id2875065" class="para">93</a>] </sup>
3452
3453 These are the most important instances in our history, but there are other
3454 cases as well. The technology of digital audio tape (DAT), for example, was
3455 regulated by Congress to minimize the risk of piracy. The remedy Congress
3456 imposed did burden DAT producers, by taxing tape sales and controlling the
3457 technology of DAT. See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (Title 17 of the
3458 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>), Pub. L. No. 102-563, 106 Stat.
3459 4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. §1001. Again, however, this regulation did not
3460 eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
3461 Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. See also Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From
3462 Edison to the Broadcast Flag,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law
3463 Review</em> 70 (2003): 293&#8211;96.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2874607"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2875104"></a>
3464 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2875172" href="#id2875172" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
3465
3466
3467 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3468 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, (1984).
3469 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2875232" href="#id2875232" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
3470
3471
3472 John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software
3473 Echoes Past Efforts,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>,
3474 22. september 2003, C3.
3475 </p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Del II. «Eiendom»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-property"></a>Del II. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="«Eiendom»"><div></div><p>
3476
3477
3478
3479 <span class="strong"><strong>Opphavsretts-krigerne</strong></span> har rett:
3480 Opphavsretten er en type eiendom. Den kan eies og selges, og loven beskytter
3481 mot at den blir stjålet. Vanligvis, kan opphavsrettseieren be om hvilken som
3482 helst pris som han ønsker.  Markeder bestemmer tilbud og etterspørsel som i
3483 hvert tilfelle bestemmer prisen hun kan få.
3484 </p><p>
3485 Men i vanlig språk er det å kalle opphavsrett for en
3486 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendoms</span>»</span>-rett litt misvisende, for eiendommen i opphavsretten
3487 er en merkelig type eiendom.  Selve Idéen om eienrettigheter til en idé
3488 eller et uttrykk er nemlig veldig merkelig.  Jeg forstår hva jeg tar når jeg
3489 tar en piknik-bord som du plasserte i din bakhage.  Jeg tar en ting,
3490 piknik-bordet, og etter at jeg tar det har ikke du det.  Men hva tar jeg når
3491 jeg tar den gode <span class="emphasis"><em>idéen</em></span> som du hadde om å plassere
3492 piknik-bordet i bakhagen&#8212;ved å for eksempel dra til butikken Sears,
3493 kjøpe et bord, og plassere det i min egen bakhage? Hva er tingen jeg tar da?
3494 </p><p>
3495 Poenget er ikke bare om hvorvidt piknik-bord og idéer er ting, selv om det
3496 er en viktig forskjell.  Poenget er istedet at i det vanlige
3497 tilfelle&#8212;faktisk i praktisk talt ethvert tilfelle unntatt en begrenset
3498 rekke med unntak&#8212;er idéer sluppet ut i verden frie. Jeg tar ingenting
3499 fra deg når jeg kopierer måten du kler deg&#8212;selv om det ville se sært
3500 ut hvis jeg gjorde det hver dag, og spesielt sært hvis du er en kvinne.
3501 Istedet, som Thomas Jefferson sa (og det er spesielt sant når jeg kopierer
3502 hvordan noen andre kler seg), <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Den som mottar en idé fra meg, får selv
3503 informasjon uten å ta noe fra me, på samme måte som den som tenner sitt lys
3504 fra min veike får lys uten å forlate meg i mørket</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2875374" href="#ftn.id2875374" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
3505 </p><p>
3506 Unntakene til fri bruk er idéer og uttrykk innenfor dekningsområdet til
3507 loven om patent og opphavsrett, og noen få andre områder som jeg ikke vil
3508 diskutere her.  Her sier loven at du ikke kan ta min idé eller uttrykk uten
3509 min tillatelse: Loven gjør det immaterielle til eiendom.
3510 </p><p>
3511 Men hvordan, og i hvilken utstrekning, og i hvilken form&#8212;detaljene,
3512 med andre ord&#8212;betyr noe.  For å få en god forståelse om hvordan denne
3513 praksis om å gjøre det immaterielle om til eiendom vokste frem, trenger vi å
3514 plassere denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> i sin rette sammenheng.<sup>[<a name="id2875436" href="#ftn.id2875436" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
3515 </p><p>
3516 Min strategi for å gjøre detet er den samme som min strategi i den
3517 foregående del.  Jeg tilbyr fire historier som bidrar til å plassere
3518 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettsmateriale er eiendom</span>»</span> i sammenheng.  Hvor kom
3519 idéen fra?  Hva er dens begresninger?  Hvordan fungerer dette i praksis.
3520 Etter disse historiene vil betydningen til dette sanne
3521 utsagnet&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettsmateriale er eiendom</span>»</span>&#8212; bli
3522 litt mer klart, og dets implikasjoner vil bli avslørt som ganske forskjellig
3523 fra implikasjonene som opphavsrettskrigerne vil at vi skal forstå.
3524 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2875374" href="#id2875374" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
3525
3526
3527 Brev fra Thomas Jefferson til Isaac McPherson (13. august 1813) i
3528 <em class="citetitle">The Writings of Thomas Jefferson</em>, vol. 6 (Andrew
3529 A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, eds., 1903), 330, 333&#8211;34.
3530 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2875436" href="#id2875436" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
3531
3532
3533 Slik de juridiske realistene lærte bort amerikansk lov, var alle
3534 eiendomsretter immaterielle.  En eiendomsrett er ganske enkelt den retten
3535 som et idivid har mot verden til å gjøre eller ikke gjøre visse ting som er
3536 eller ikke er knyttet til et fysisk objekt.  Retten i seg selv er
3537 immateriell, selv om objektet som det er (metafysisk) knyttet til er
3538 materielt.  Se Adam Mossoff, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What Is Property? Putting the Pieces
3539 Back Together,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Arizona Law Review</em> 45 (2003):
3540 373, 429 n. 241.
3541 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2875500"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2875506"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksenglishlaw"></a><p>
3542 <span class="strong"><strong>William Shakespeare</strong></span> skrev
3543 <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> i 1595. Skuespillet ble først utgitt i
3544 1597. Det var det ellevte store skuespillet Shakespeare hadde skrevet. Han
3545 fortsatte å skrive skuespill helt til 1613, og stykkene han skrev har
3546 fortsatt å definere angloamerikansk kultur siden. Så dypt har verkene av en
3547 1500-talls forfatter sunket inn i vår kultur at vi ofte ikke engang kjenner
3548 kilden. Jeg overhørte en gang noen som kommentere Kenneth Branaghs utgave av
3549 Henry V: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg likte det, men Shakespeare er så full av
3550 klisjeer.</span>»</span>
3551 </p><p>
3552
3553 I 1774, nesten 180 år etter at <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> ble
3554 skrevet, mente mange at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsretten</span>»</span> kun tilhørte én eneste
3555 utgiver i London, John Tonson. <sup>[<a name="id2875569" href="#ftn.id2875569" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson
3556 var den mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
3557 Conger</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2875618" href="#ftn.id2875618" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup>, som kontrollerte
3558 boksalget i England gjennom hele 1700-tallet. The Conger hevdet at de hadde
3559 en evigvarende rett over <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopier</span>»</span> av bøker de hadde fått av
3560 forfatterne. Denne evigvarende retten innebar at ingen andre kunne publisere
3561 kopier av disse bøkene. Slik ble prisen på klassiske bøker holdt oppe; alle
3562 konkurrenter som lagde bedre eller billigere utgaver, ble fjernet.
3563 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament"></a><p>
3564 Men altså, det er noe spennende med året 1774 for alle som vet litt om
3565 opphavsretts-lovgivning. Det mest kjente året for opphavsrett er 1710, da
3566 det britiske parlamentet vedtok den første loven. Denne loven er kjent som
3567 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> og sa at alle publiserte verk skulle være
3568 beskyttet i fjorten år, en periode som kunne fornyes én gang dersom
3569 forfatteren ennå levde, og at alle verk publisert i eller før 1710 skulle ha
3570 en ekstraperiode på 22 tilleggsår.<sup>[<a name="id2875675" href="#ftn.id2875675" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> På
3571 grunn av denne loven, så skulle <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> ha
3572 falt i det fri i 1731. Hvordan kunne da Tonson fortsatt ha kontroll over
3573 verket i 1774?
3574 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2875704"></a><p>
3575 Årsaken var ganske enkelt at engelskmennene ennå ikke hadde bestemt hva
3576 opphavsrett innebar -- faktisk hadde ingen i verden det. På den tiden da
3577 engelskmennene vedtok <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, var det ingen annen
3578 lovgivning om opphavsrett. Den siste loven som regulerte utgivere var
3579 lisensieringsloven av 1662, utløpt i 1695. At loven ga utgiverne monopol
3580 over publiseringen, noe som gjorde det enklere for kronen å kontrollere hva
3581 ble publisert. Men etter at det har utløpt, var det ingen positiv lov som sa
3582 at utgiverne hadde en eksklusiv rett til å trykke bøker.
3583 </p><p>
3584 At det ikke fantes noen <span class="emphasis"><em>positiv</em></span> lov, betydde ikke at
3585 det ikke fantes noen lov. Den anglo-amerikanske juridiske tradisjon ser både
3586 til lover skapt av politikere (det lovgivende statsorgen)og til lover
3587 (prejudikater) skapt av domstolene for å bestemme hvordan folket skal
3588 leve. Vi kaller politikernes lover for positiv lov og vi kaller lovene fra
3589 dommerne sedvanerett.<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Common law</span>»</span> angir bakgrunnen for de
3590 lovgivendes lovgivning; retten til lovgiving, vanligvis kan trumfe at
3591 bakgrunnen bare hvis det går gjennom en lov til å forskyve den. Og så var
3592 det virkelige spørsmålet etter lisensiering lover hadde utløpt om felles lov
3593 beskyttet opphavsretten, uavhengig av lovverket positiv.
3594 </p><p>
3595
3596 Dette spørsmålet var viktig for utgiverne eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bokselgere</span>»</span>,
3597 som de ble kalt, fordi det var økende konkurranse fra utenlandske utgivere,
3598 Særlig fra Skottland hvor publiseringen og eksporten av bøker til England
3599 hadde økt veldig. Denne konkurransen reduserte fortjenesten til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The
3600 Conger</span>»</span>, som derfor krevde at parlamentet igjen skulle vedta en lov
3601 for å gi dem eksklusiv kontroll over publisering. Dette kravet resulterte i
3602 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>.
3603 </p><p>
3604 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> ga forfatteren eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eieren</span>»</span> av
3605 en bok en eksklusiv rett til å publisere denne boken. Men det var, til
3606 bokhandlernes forferdelse en viktig begrensning, nemlig hvor lenge denne
3607 retten skulle vare. Etter dette gikk trykkeretten bort og verket falt i det
3608 fri og kunne trykkes av hvem som helst. Det var ihvertfall det lovgiverne
3609 hadde tenkt.
3610 </p><p>
3611 Men nå det mest interessante med dette: Hvorfor ville parlamentet begrense
3612 trykkeretten? Spørsmålet er ikke hvorfor de bestemte seg for denne perioden,
3613 men hvorfor ville de begrense retten <span class="emphasis"><em>i det hele tatt?</em></span>
3614 </p><p>
3615 Bokhandlerne, og forfatterne som de representerte, hadde et veldig sterkt
3616 krav. Ta <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> som et eksempel: Skuespillet
3617 ble skrevet av Shakespeare. Det var hans kreativitet som brakte det til
3618 verden. Han krenket ikke noens rett da han skrev dette verket (det er en
3619 kontroversiell påstanden, men det er ikke relevant), og med sin egen rett
3620 skapte han verket, han gjorde det ikke noe vanskeligere for andre til å lage
3621 skuespill. Så hvorfor skulle loven tillate at noen annen kunne komme og ta
3622 Shakespeares verk uten hans, eller hans arvingers, tillatelse? Hvilke
3623 grunner finnes for å tillate at noen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeler</span>»</span> Shakespeares
3624 verk?
3625 </p><p>
3626 Svaret er todel. Først må vi se på noe spesielt med oppfatningen av
3627 opphavsrett som fantes på tidspunktet da <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> ble
3628 vedtatt. Deretter må vi se på noe spesielt med bokhandlerne.
3629 </p><p>
3630
3631 Først om opphavsretten. I de siste tre hundre år har vi kommet til å bruke
3632 begrepet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> i stadig videre forstand. Men i 1710 var
3633 det ikke så mye et konsept som det var en bestemt rett. Opphavsretten ble
3634 født som et svært spesifikt sett med begrensninger: den forbød andre å
3635 reprodusere en bok. I 1710 var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopi-rett</span>»</span> en rett til å bruke
3636 en bestemt maskin til å replikere en bestemt arbeid. Den gikk ikke utover
3637 dette svært smale formålet. Den kontrollerte ikke mer generelt hvordan et
3638 verk kunne <span class="emphasis"><em>brukes</em></span>. Idag inkluderer retten en stor
3639 samling av restriksjoner på andres frihet: den gir forfatteren eksklusiv
3640 rett til å kopiere, eksklusiv rett til å distribuere, eksklusiv rett til å
3641 fremføre, og så videre.
3642 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2875909"></a><p>
3643 Så selv om f. eks. opphavsretten til Shakespeares verker var evigvarende,
3644 betydde det under den opprinnelige betydningen av begrepet at ingen kunne
3645 trykke Shakespeares arbeid uten tillatelse fra Shakespeares arvinger. Den
3646 ville ikke ha kontrollert noe mer, for eksempel om hvordan verket kunne
3647 fremføres, om verket kunne oversettes eller om Kenneth Branagh ville hatt
3648 lov til å lage filmer. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kopi-retten</span>»</span> var bare en eksklusiv rett
3649 til å trykke--ikke noe mindre, selvfølgelig, men heller ikke mer.
3650 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2875935"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2875942"></a><p>
3651 Selv denne begrensede retten ble møtt med skepsis av britene. De hadde hatt
3652 en lang og stygg erfaring med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eksklusive rettigheter</span>»</span>,
3653 spesielt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">enerett</span>»</span> gitt av kronen. Engelskmennene hadde
3654 utkjempet en borgerkrig delvis mot kronens praksis med å dele ut
3655 monopoler--spesielt monopoler for verk som allerede eksisterte. Kong Henrik
3656 VIII hadde gitt patent til å trykke Bibelen og monopol til Darcy for å lage
3657 spillkort. Det engelske parlamentet begynte å kjempe tilbake mot denne
3658 makten hos kronen. I 1656 ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Monopolis</span>»</span> vedtatt
3659 for å begrense monopolene på patenter for nye oppfinnelser. Og i 1710 var
3660 parlamentet ivrig etter å håndtere det voksende monopolet på publisering.
3661 </p><p>
3662 Dermed ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopi-retten</span>»</span>, når den sees på som en monopolrett,
3663 en rettighet som bør være begrenset. (Uansett hvor overbevisende påstanden
3664 om at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er min eiendom, og jeg skal ha for alltid,</span>»</span> prøv
3665 hvor overbevisende det er når men sier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er mitt monopol, og jeg
3666 skal ha det for alltid.</span>»</span>) Staten ville beskytte eneretten, men bare
3667 så lenge det gavnet samfunnet. Britene så skadene særinteressene kunne
3668 skape; de vedtok en lov for å stoppe dem.
3669 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksellers"></a><p>
3670 Dernest, om bokhandlerne. Det var ikke bare at kopiretten var et
3671 monopol. Det var også et monopol holdt av bokhandlerne. En bokhandler høres
3672 greie og ufarlige ut for oss, men slik var det ikke i syttenhundretallets
3673 England. Medlemmene i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span> ble av en voksende mengde
3674 sett på som monopolister av verste sort - et verktøy for kronens
3675 undertrykkelse, de solgte Englands frihet mot å være garantert en
3676 monopolskinntekt. Men monopolistene ble kvast kritisert: Milton beskrev dem
3677 som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gamle patentholdere og monopolister i bokhandlerkunsten</span>»</span>;
3678 de var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menn som derfor ikke hadde  et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er
3679 nødvendig.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2876050" href="#ftn.id2876050" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
3680 </p><p>
3681 Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap,
3682 var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste
3683 Opplysningen viktigheten av utdannelse og kunnskap for alle. idéen om at
3684 kunnskap burde være gratis er et kjennetegn for tiden, og disse kraftige
3685 kommersielle interesser forstyrret denne idéen.
3686 </p><p>
3687 For å balansere denne makten, besluttet Parlamentet å øke konkurransen blant
3688 bokhandlerne, og den enkleste måten å gjøre det på, var å spre mengden av
3689 verdifulle bøker. Parlamentet begrenset derfor begrepet om opphavsrett, og
3690 garantert slik at verdifulle bøker ville bli frie for alle utgiver å
3691 publisere etter en begrenset periode. Slik ble det å gi eksisterende verk en
3692 periode på tjueen år et kompromiss for å bekjempe bokhandlernes
3693 makt. Begrensninger med dato var en indirekte måte å skape konkurranse
3694 mellom utgivere, og slik en skapelse og spredning av kultur.
3695 </p><p>
3696 Når 1731 (1710+21) kom, ble bokhandlerne engstelige. De så konsekvensene av
3697 mer konkurranse, og som alle konkurrenter, likte de det ikke. Først
3698 ignorerte bokhandlere ganske enkelt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, og
3699 fortsatte å kreve en evigvarende rett til å kontrollere publiseringen. Men i
3700 1735 og 1737 de prøvde å tvinge Parlamentet til å utvide periodene. Tjueen
3701 år var ikke nok, sa de; de trengte mer tid.
3702 </p><p>
3703 Parlamentet avslo kravene, Som en pamflett sa, i en vending som levere ennå
3704 idag,
3705 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3706 Jeg ser ingen grunn til å gi en utvidet perioden nå som ikke ville kunne gi
3707 utvidelser om igjen og om igjen, så fort de gamle utgår; så dersom dette
3708 lovforslaget blir vedtatt, vil effekten være: at et evig monopol blir skapt,
3709 et stort nederlag for handelen, et angrep mot kunnskapen, ingen fordel for
3710 forfatterne, men en stor avgift for folket; og alt dette kun for å øke
3711 bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<sup>[<a name="id2876134" href="#ftn.id2876134" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
3712 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3713 Etter å ha mislyktes i Parlamentet gikk utgiverne til rettssalen i en rekke
3714 saker. Deres argument var enkelt og direkte: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>
3715 ga forfatterne en viss beskyttelse gjennom positiv loven, men denne
3716 beskyttelsen var ikke ment som en erstatning for felles lov. Istedet var de
3717 ment å supplere felles lov. Ifølge sedvanerett var det galt å ta en annen
3718 persons kreative eiendom og bruke den uten hans tillatelse. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute
3719 of Anne</span>»</span>, hevdet bokhandlere, endret ikke dette faktum. Derfor
3720 betydde ikke det at beskyttelsen gitt av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>
3721 utløp, at beskyttelsen fra sedvaneretten utløp: Ifølge sedvaneretten hadde
3722 de rett til å fordømme publiseringen av en bok, selv følgelig om
3723 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> sa at de var falt i det fri. Dette, mente de,
3724 var den eneste måten å beskytte forfatterne.
3725 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2876199"></a><p>
3726 Dette var et godt argument, og hadde støtte fra flere av den tidens ledende
3727 jurister. Det viste også en ekstraordinær chutzpah. Inntail da, som
3728 jusprofessor Raymond Pattetson har sagt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var utgiverne &#8230; like
3729 bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2873972" href="#ftn.id2873972" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om
3730 forfatternes rettigheter. Deres bekymring var den monopolske inntekten
3731 forfatterens verk ga.
3732 </p><p>
3733 Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne
3734 kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id2876253" href="#ftn.id2876253" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
3735 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2876266"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2876273"></a><p>
3736 Donaldson var en fremmed for Londons <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span>. Han startet
3737 in karriere i Edinburgh i 1750. Hans forretningsidé var billige kopier av
3738 standardverk falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
3739 Anne</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2876293" href="#ftn.id2876293" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldsons forlag vokste
3740 og ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">et sentrum for litterære skotter.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Blant
3741 dem,</span>»</span> skriver professor Mark Rose, var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">den unge James Boswell
3742 som, sammen med sin venn Andrew Erskine, publiserte en hel antologi av
3743 skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2876323" href="#ftn.id2876323" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup>
3744 </p><p>
3745 Da Londons bokselgere prøvde å få stengt Donaldsons butikk i Skottland, så
3746 flyttet han butikken til London. Her solgte han billige utgaver av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">de
3747 mest populære, engelske bøker, i kamp mot sedvanerettens rett til litterær
3748 eiendom.</span>»</span> <sup>[<a name="id2876346" href="#ftn.id2876346" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> Bøkene hans var
3749 mellom 30% og 50% billigere enn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span>s, og han baserte
3750 sin rett til denne konkurransen på at bøkene, takket være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
3751 Anne</span>»</span>, var falt i det fri.
3752 </p><p>
3753 Londons bokselgere begynte straks å slå ned mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span> som
3754 Donaldson. Flere tiltak var vellykkede, den viktigste var den tidlig seieren
3755 i kampen mellom <em class="citetitle">Millar</em> og
3756 <em class="citetitle">Taylor</em>.
3757 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2876391"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2876397"></a><p>
3758 Millar var en bokhandler som i 1729 hadde kjøpt opp rettighetene til James
3759 Thomsons dikt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Seasons</span>»</span>. Millar hadde da full beskyttelse
3760 gjennom <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, men etter at denne beskyttelsen var
3761 utløpt, begynte Robert Taylor å trykke et konkurrerende bind. Millar gikk
3762 til sak, og hevdet han hadde en evig rett gjennom sedvaneretten, uansett hva
3763 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> sa.<sup>[<a name="id2876426" href="#ftn.id2876426" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
3764 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfieldwilliammurraylord2"></a><p>
3765 Til moderne juristers forbløffelse, var en av, ikke bare datidens, men en av
3766 de største dommere i engelsk historie, Lord Mansfield, enig med
3767 bokhandlerne. Uansett hvilken beskyttelse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> gav
3768 bokhandlerne, så sa han at den ikke fortrengte noe fra
3769 sedvaneretten. Spørsmålet var hvorvidt sedvaneretten beskyttet forfatterne
3770 mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span>. Mansfield svar var ja: Sedvaneretten nektet
3771 Taylor å reprodusere Thomsons dikt uten Millars tillatelse. Slik gav
3772 sedvaneretten bokselgerne en evig publiseringsrett til bøker solgt til dem.
3773 </p><p>
3774
3775 Ser man på det som et spørsmål innen abstrakt jus - dersom man resonnere som
3776 om rettferdighet bare var logisk deduksjon fra de første bud - kunne
3777 Mansfields konklusjon gitt mening. Men den overså det Parlamentet hadde
3778 kjempet for i 1710: Hvordan man på best mulig vis kunne innskrenke
3779 utgivernes monopolmakt. Parlamentets strategi hadde vært å kjøpe fred
3780 gjennom å tilby en beskyttelsesperiode også for eksisterende verk, men
3781 perioden måtte være så kort at kulturen ble utsatt for konkurranse innen
3782 rimelig tid. Storbritannia skulle vokse fra den kontrollerte kulturen under
3783 kronen, inn i en fri og åpen kultur.
3784 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2876508"></a><p>
3785 Kampen for å forsvare <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>s begrensninger sluttet
3786 uansett ikke der, for nå kommer Donaldson.
3787 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2876528"></a><p>
3788 Millar døde kort tid etter sin seier. Boet hans solgte rettighetene over
3789 Thomsons dikt til et syndikat av utgivere, deriblant Thomas
3790 Beckett.<sup>[<a name="id2876541" href="#ftn.id2876541" class="footnote">109</a>]</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
3791 uautorisert utgave av Thomsons verk. Etter avgjørelsen i
3792 <em class="citetitle">Millar</em>-saken, gikk Beckett til sak mot
3793 Donaldson. Donaldson tok saken inn for Overhuset, som da fungerte som en
3794 slags høyesterett. I februar 1774 hadde dette organet muligheten til å tolke
3795 Parlamentets mening med utløpsdatoen fra seksti år før.
3796 </p><p>
3797 Rettssaken <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot
3798 <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> fikk en enorm oppmerksomhet i hele
3799 Storbritannia. Donaldsons advokater mente at selv om det før fantes en del
3800 rettigheter i sedvaneretten, så var disse fortrengt av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
3801 Anne</span>»</span>. Etter at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> var blitt vedtatt,
3802 skulle den eneste lovlige beskyttelse for trykkerett kom derfra. Og derfor,
3803 mente de, i tråd med vilkårene i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, falle i det
3804 fri så fort beskyttelsesperioden var over.
3805 </p><p>
3806 Overhuset var en merkelig institusjon. Juridiske spørsmål ble presentert for
3807 huset, og ble først stemt over av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">juslorder</span>»</span>, medlemmer av en
3808 spesiell rettslig gruppe som fungerte nesten slik som justiariusene i vår
3809 Høyesterett. Deretter, etter at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">juslordene</span>»</span> hadde stemt,
3810 stemte resten av Overhuset.
3811 </p><p>
3812
3813 Rapportene om juslordene stemmer er uenige. På enkelte punkter ser det ut
3814 som om evigvarende beskyttelse fikk flertall. Men det er ingen tvil om
3815 hvordan resten av Overhuset stemte. Med en majoritet på to mot en (22 mot
3816 11) stemte de ned forslaget om en evig beskyttelse. Uansett hvordan man
3817 hadde tolket sedvaneretten, var nå kopiretten begrenset til en periode, og
3818 etter denne ville verket falle i det fri.
3819 </p><p>
3820 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Å falle i det fri</span>»</span>. Før rettssaken
3821 <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> var det
3822 ingen klar oppfatning om hva å falle i det fri innebar. Før 1774 var det jo
3823 en allmenn oppfatning om at kopiretten var evigvarende. Men etter 1774 ble
3824 Public Domain født. For første gang i angloamerikansk historie var den
3825 lovlige beskyttelsen av et verk utgått, og de største verk i engelsk
3826 historie - inkludert Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Johnson og Bunyan - var
3827 frie.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2876654"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2876661"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2876667"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2876673"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2876679"></a>
3828 </p><p>
3829 Vi kan knapt forestille oss det, men denne avgjørelsen fra Overhuset fyrte
3830 opp under en svært populær og politisk reaksjon. I Skottland, hvor de fleste
3831 piratutgiverne hadde holdt til, ble avgjørelsen feiret i gatene. Som
3832 <em class="citetitle">Edinburgh Advertiser</em> skrev <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ingen privatsak har
3833 noen gang fått slik oppmerksomhet fra folket, og ingen sak som har blitt
3834 prøvet i Overhuset har interessert så mange enkeltmennesker.</span>»</span>
3835 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Stor glede i Edinburgh etter seieren over litterær eiendom: bål og
3836 *illuminations*.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2876713" href="#ftn.id2876713" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
3837 </p><p>
3838 I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i
3839 motsatt retning. <em class="citetitle">Morning Chronicle</em> skrev:
3840 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3841 Gjennom denne avgjørelsen &#8230; er verdier til nesten 200 000 pund, som
3842 er blitt ærlig kjøpt gjennom allment salg, og som i går var eiendom, er nå
3843 redusert til ingenting. Bokselgerne i London og Westminster, mange av dem
3844 har solgt hus og eiendom for å kjøpe kopirettigheter, er med ett ruinerte,
3845 og mange som gjennom mange år har opparbeidet kompetanse for å brødfø
3846 familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="id2876216" href="#ftn.id2876216" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
3847 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3848
3849
3850 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ruinert</span>»</span> er en overdrivelse. Men det er ingen overdrivelse å
3851 si at endringen var stor. Vedtaket fra Overhuset betydde at bokhandlerne
3852 ikke lenger kunnen kontrollere hvordan kulturen i England ville vokse og
3853 utvikle seg. Kulturen i England var etter dette
3854 <span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span>. Ikke i den betydning at kopiretten ble ignorert,
3855 for utgiverne hadde i en begrenset periode rett over trykkingen. Og heller
3856 ikke i den betydningen at bøker kunne stjeles, for selv etter at boken var
3857 falt i det fri, så måtte den kjøpes. Men <span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span> i
3858 betydningen at kulturen og dens vekst ikke lenger var kontrollert av en
3859 liten gruppe utgivere. Som alle frie markeder, ville dette markedet vokse og
3860 utvikle seg etter tilbud og etterspørsel. Den engelske kulturen ble nå
3861 formet slik flertallet Englands lesere ville at det skulle formes - gjennom
3862 valget av hva de kjøpte og skrev, gjennom valget av memer de gjentok og
3863 beundret. Valg i en <span class="emphasis"><em>konkurrerende sammenheng</em></span>, ikke der
3864 hvor valgene var om hvilken kultur som skulle være tilgjengelig for folket
3865 og hvor deres tilgang til den ble styrt av noen få, på tros av flertallets
3866 ønsker.
3867 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2876810"></a><p>
3868 Til sist, dette var en verden hvor Parlamentet var antimonopolistisk, og
3869 holdt stand mot utgivernes krav. I en verden hvor parlamentet er lett å
3870 påvirke, vil den frie kultur være mindre beskyttet.
3871 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2876828"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2876836"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2875569" href="#id2875569" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
3872
3873 <a class="indexterm" name="id2875572"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2875580"></a> Jacob Tonson er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med 1700-tallets
3874 litterære storheter, spesielt John Dryden, og for hans kjekke<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ferdige
3875 versjoner</span>»</span> av klassiske verk. I tillegg til <em class="citetitle">Romeo og
3876 Julie</em>, utga han en utrolig rekke liste av verk som ennå er
3877 hjertet av den engelske kanon, inkludert de samlede verk av Shakespeare, Ben
3878 Jonson, John Milton, og John Dryden. Se Keith Walker: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jacob Tonson,
3879 Bookseller</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992):
3880 424-31.
3881 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2875618" href="#id2875618" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
3882
3883
3884 Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3885 Perspective</em> (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968),
3886 151&#8211;52.
3887 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2875675" href="#id2875675" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
3888
3889 <a class="indexterm" name="id2875678"></a> Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent
3890 argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette en
3891 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åndsverkslov</span>»</span>. Se Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
3892 Copywrongs</em>, 40.
3893 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876050" href="#id2876050" class="para">101</a>] </sup>
3894
3895
3896
3897 Philip Wittenberg, <em class="citetitle">The Protection and Marketing of Literary
3898 Property</em> (New York: J. Messner, Inc., 1937), 31.
3899 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876134" href="#id2876134" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
3900
3901
3902 A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending in the
3903 House of Commons, for making more effectual an Act in the Eighth Year of the
3904 Reign of Queen Anne, entitled, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by
3905 Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such
3906 Copies, during the Times therein mentioned (London, 1735), in Brief Amici
3907 Curiae of Tyler T. Ochoa et al., 8, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
3908 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618).
3909 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2873972" href="#id2873972" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
3910
3911 <a class="indexterm" name="id2876221"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2876229"></a> Lyman Ray Patterson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair
3912 Use</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt Law Review</em> 40 (1987): 28. For
3913 en fantastisk overbevisende fortelling, se Vaidhyanathan, 37&#8211;48.
3914 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876253" href="#id2876253" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
3915
3916
3917 For a compelling account, see David Saunders, <em class="citetitle">Authorship and
3918 Copyright</em> (London: Routledge, 1992), 62&#8211;69.
3919 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876293" href="#id2876293" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
3920
3921 Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
3922 University Press, 1993), 92.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2876300"></a>
3923 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876323" href="#id2876323" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
3924
3925
3926 Ibid., 93.
3927 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876346" href="#id2876346" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
3928
3929 <a class="indexterm" name="id2876349"></a> Lyman Ray Patterson,
3930 <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical Perspective</em>, 167 (quoting
3931 Borwell).
3932 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876426" href="#id2876426" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
3933
3934
3935 Howard B. Abrams, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
3936 Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law
3937 Review</em> 29 (1983): 1152.
3938 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876541" href="#id2876541" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
3939
3940
3941 Ibid., 1156.
3942 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876713" href="#id2876713" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
3943
3944
3945 Rose, 97.
3946 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876216" href="#id2876216" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
3947
3948
3949 ibid.
3950 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel sju: Innspillerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="recorders"></a>Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</h2></div></div></div><p>
3951 <span class="strong"><strong>Jon Else</strong></span> er en filmskaper. Han er mest
3952 kjent for sine dokumentarer og har på ypperlig vis klart å spre sin
3953 kunst. Han er også en lærer, som meg selv, og jeg misunner den lojaliteten
3954 og beundringen hans studenter har for ham. (Ved et uhell møtte jeg to av
3955 hans studenter i et middagsselskap og han var deres Gud.)
3956 </p><p>
3957 Else arbeidet med en dokumentarfilm hvor også jeg var involvert. I en pause
3958 så fortalte han meg om hvordan det kunne være å skape film i dagens Amerika.
3959 </p><p>
3960 I 1990 arbeidet Else med en dokumentar om Wagners Ring Cycle. Fokuset var på
3961 *stagehands* på San Francisco Opera. Stagehands er spesielt morsomt og
3962 fargerikt innslag i en opera. I løpet av forestillingen oppholder de seg
3963 blant publikum og på lysloftet. De er en perfekt kontrast til kunsten på
3964 scenen.<a class="indexterm" name="id2876897"></a>
3965 </p><p>
3966
3967 Under en forestilling, filmet Else noen stagehands som spilte *checkers*. I
3968 et hjørne av rommet stod det et fjernsynsapparat. På fjernsynet, mens
3969 forestillingen pågikk og operakompaniet spilte Wagner, gikk <em class="citetitle">The
3970 Simpsons</em>. Slik Else så det, så hjalp dette tegnefilm-innslaget
3971 med å fange det spesielle med scenen.
3972 </p><p>
3973 Så noen år senere, da han endelig hadde fått ordnet den siste
3974 finansieringen, ville Else skaffe rettigheter til å bruke disse få sekundene
3975 med <em class="citetitle">The Simpson</em>. For disse få sekundene var selvsagt
3976 beskyttet av opphavsretten, og for å bruke beskyttet materiale må man ha
3977 tillatelse fra eieren, dersom det ikke er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> eller
3978 det foreligger spesielle avtaler.
3979 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2876944"></a><p>
3980 Else kontaktet <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-skaper Matt Groenings kontor
3981 for å få tillatelse. Og Groening gav ham det. Det var tross alt kun snakk om
3982 fire og et halvt sekund på et lite fjernsyn, bakerst i et hjørne av
3983 rommet. Hvordan kunne det skade? Groening var glad for å få ha det med i
3984 filmen, men han ba Else om å kontakte Gracie Films, firmaet som produserer
3985 programmet.
3986 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2876968"></a><p>
3987 Gracie Films sa også at det var greit, men de, slik som Groening, ønsket å
3988 være forsiktige, og ba Else om å kontakte Fox, konsernet som eide Gracie. Og
3989 Else kontaktet Fox og forklarte situasjonen; at det var snakk om et klipp i
3990 hjørnet i bakgrunnen i ett rom i filmen. Matt Groening hadde allerede gitt
3991 sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox.
3992 </p><p>
3993 Deretter, fortalte Else: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">skjedde to ting. Først oppdaget vi &#8230;
3994 at Matt Groening ikke eide sitt eget verk &#8212; ihvertfall at noen [hos
3995 Fox] trodde at han ikke eide sitt eget verk.</span>»</span> Som det andre krevde
3996 Fox <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ti tusen dollar i lisensavgift for disse fire og et halvt
3997 sekundene med &#8230; fullstendig tilfeldig <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>
3998 som var i et hjørne i ett opptak.</span>»</span>
3999 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2877008"></a><p>
4000 Ellers var sikker på at det var en feil. Han fikk tak i noen som han trodde
4001 var nestleder for lisensiering, Rebecca Herrera. Han forklarte for henne at
4002 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det må være en feil her &#8230; Vi ber deg om en utdanningssats på
4003 dette.</span>»</span> Og de hadde fått utdanningssats, fortalte Herrera. Kort tid
4004 etter ringte Else igjen for å få dette bekreftet.
4005 </p><p>
4006
4007 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg måtte være sikker på at jeg hadde riktige opplysninger foran
4008 meg</span>»</span>, sa han. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ja, du har riktige opplysninger</span>»</span>, sa
4009 hun. Det ville koste $10 000 å bruke dette lille klippet av <em class="citetitle">The
4010 Simpson</em>, plassert bakerst i et hjørne i en scene i en dokumentar
4011 om Wagners Ring Cycle. Som om det ikke var nok, forbløffet Herrera Else med
4012 å si <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Og om du siterer meg, vil du høre fra våre advokater.</span>»</span> En
4013 av Herreras assistenter fortalte Else at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">De bryr seg ikke i det
4014 heletatt. Alt de vil ha er pengene.</span>»</span>
4015 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2877069"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2877075"></a><p>
4016 Men Else hadde ikke penger til å kjøpe lisens for klippet. Så å gjenskape
4017 denne delen av virkeligheten, lå langt utenfor hans budsjett. Like før
4018 dokumentaren skulle slippes, redigerte Else inn et annet klipp på
4019 fjernsynet, et klipp fra en av hans andre filmer <em class="citetitle">The Day After
4020 Trinity</em> fra ti år tidligere.
4021 </p><p>
4022 Det er ingen tvil om at noen, enten det er er Matt Groening eller Fox, eier
4023 rettighetene til <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Rettighetene er deres
4024 eiendom. For å bruke beskyttet materiale, kreves det ofte at men får
4025 tillatelse fra eieren eller eierne. Dersom Else ønsket å bruke
4026 <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em> til noe hvor loven gir verket
4027 beskyttelse, så må han innhente tillatelse fra eieren før han kan bruke
4028 det. Og i et fritt marked er det eieren som bestemmer hvor mye han/hun vil
4029 ta for hvilken som helst bruk (hvor loven krever tillatelse fra eier).
4030 </p><p>
4031 For eksempel <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremvisning</span>»</span>* av <em class="citetitle">The
4032 Simpson</em> er en form for bruk hvor loven gir eieren
4033 kontroll. Dersom du velger ut dine favorittepisoder, leier en kinosal og
4034 selger billetter til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mine
4035 <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-favoritter</span>»</span>, så må du ha tillatelse
4036 fra rettighetsinnhaveren (eieren). Og eieren kan (med rette, slik jeg ser
4037 det) kreve hvor mye han vil; $10 eller $1 000 000. Det er hans
4038 rett ifølge loven.
4039 </p><p>
4040 Men når jurister hører denne historien om Jon Else og Fox, så er deres
4041 første tanke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2877157" href="#ftn.id2877157" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Elses bruk av 4,5 sekunder med et indirekte klipp av en
4042 <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>-episode er et klart eksempel på
4043 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>&#8212; og
4044 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> krever ingen tillatelse fra noen.
4045 </p><p>
4046
4047
4048 Så jeg spurte Else om hvorfor han ikke bare stolte på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
4049 use</span>»</span>. Og her er hans svar:
4050 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4051 <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>-fiaskoen lærte meg om hvor stor avstand det
4052 var mellom det jurister finner urelevant på en abstrakt måte, og hva som er
4053 knusende relevant på en konkret måte for oss som prøver å lage og kringkaste
4054 dokumentarer. Jeg tvilte aldri på at dette helt klart var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
4055 bruk</span>»</span>, men jeg kunne ikke stole på konseptet på noen konkret måte. Og
4056 dette er grunnen:
4057 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
4058
4059
4060 Før våre filmer kan kringkastes, krever nettverket at vi kjøper en
4061 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Errors and Omissions</span>»</span>-forsikring. Den krever en detaljert
4062 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">visual cue sheet</span>»</span> med alle kilder og lisens-status på alle
4063 scener i filmen. De har et smalt syn på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>, og å påstå
4064 at noe er nettopp det kan forsinke, og i verste fall stoppe, prosessen.
4065 </p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="id2877267"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2877274"></a><p>
4066
4067
4068 Jeg skulle nok aldri ha bedt om Matt Groenings tillatelse. Men jeg visste
4069 (ihvertfall fra rykter) at Fox tidligere hadde brukt å jakte på og stoppe
4070 ulisensiert bruk av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>, på samme måte som
4071 George Lucas var veldig ivrig på å forfølge bruken av <em class="citetitle">Star
4072 Wars</em>. Så jeg bestemte meg for å følge boka, og trodde at vi
4073 kulle få til en gratis, i alle fall rimelig, avtale for fire sekunders bruk
4074 av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Som en dokumentarskaper, arbeidende
4075 på randen av utryddelse, var det siste jeg ønsket en juridisk strid, selv
4076 for å forsvare et prinsipp.
4077 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4078
4079
4080
4081 Jeg snakket faktisk med en av dine kolleger på Stanford Law School &#8230;
4082 som bekreftet at dette var rimelig bruk. Han bekreftet også at Fox ville
4083 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">depose and litigate you to within an inch of your life</span>»</span>,
4084 uavhengig av sannheten i mine krav. Han gjorde det klart at alt ville koke
4085 ned til hvem som hadde flest jurister og dypest lommer, jeg eller dem.
4086
4087 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4088
4089
4090 Spørsmålet om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> dukker om regel opp helt mot slutten
4091 av prosjektet, når vi nærmer oss siste frist og er tomme for penger.
4092 </p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><p>
4093 I teorien betyr <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> at du ikke trenger
4094 tillatelse. Teorien støtter derfor den frie kultur og arbeider mot
4095 tillatelseskulturen. Men i praksis fungerer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> helt
4096 annerledes. Men de uklare linjene i lovverket, samt de fryktelige
4097 konsekvensene dersom man tar feil, gjør at mange kunstnere ikke stoler på
4098 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>. Loven har en svært god hensikt, men praksisen har
4099 ikke fulgt opp.
4100 </p><p>
4101 Dette eksempelet viser hvor langt denne loven har kommet fra sine
4102 syttenhundretalls røtter. Loven som skulle beskytte utgiverne mot
4103 urettferdig piratkonkurranse, hadde utviklet seg til et sverd som slo ned på
4104 _all_ bruk, transformativ* eller ikke.
4105 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877157" href="#id2877157" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
4106
4107
4108 Ønsker du å lese en flott redegjørelse om hvordan dette er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
4109 use</span>»</span>, og hvordan advokatene ikke anerkjenner det, så les Richard
4110 A. Posner og William F. Patry, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the
4111 Wake of <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> </span>»</span> (utkast arkivert hos
4112 forfatteren), University of Chicago Law School, 5. august 2003.
4113 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel åtte: Omformerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2877400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2877416"></a><p>
4114 <span class="strong"><strong>I 1993</strong></span> var Alex Alben en jurist som
4115 arbeidet hos Starwave Inc. Starwave var et innovativt firma grunnlagt av
4116 Paul Allen, som også hadde vært med på å grunnlegge Microsoft.Starwaves mål
4117 var å utvikle digital underholdning. Lenge før internett ble superpopulært,
4118 forsket Starwave på ny teknologi for å levere underholdning uten nettverk.
4119 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsretrospective"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdroms"></a><p>
4120 Alben var veldig interessert i ny teknologi. Han var fascinert av det
4121 voksende markedet for CD-ROM-teknologi&#8212;ikke for å distribuere film,
4122 men for å gjøre ting med filmen som før ville vært svært vanskelig. I 1993
4123 lanserte han ideen om å utvikle et produkt for å vise retrospectives* rundt
4124 verkene av en bestemt kunstner. Den første skuespilleren som ble valgt, var
4125 Clint Eastwood. Ideen var å vise alle Eastwoods verker, sammen med klipp fra
4126 filmene hans og intervjuer av personer som hadde vært viktige i hans
4127 karriere.
4128 </p><p>
4129 På den tiden hadde Eastwood lagd over femti filmer, både som skuespiller og
4130 som regissør. Alben begynte med en serie intervjuer med Eastwood, hvor tema
4131 var hans karriere. Siden Starwave produserte disse intervjuene, kunne de
4132 fritt ha dem med på CD-en.
4133 </p><p>
4134
4135
4136 Men det alene hadde ikke blitt noe interessant produkt, så Starwave ønsket å
4137 legge til litt innhold fra noen av Eastwoods filmer, noen plakater, manus og
4138 andre ting som kunne knyttes til filmene hans. Mesteparten av Eastwoods
4139 karriere hadde foregått hos Warner Brothers og det var relativt enkelt å få
4140 tillatelse for det materialet.
4141 </p><p>
4142 Deretter ønsket Alben og hans team å bruke noen faktiske klipp fra aktuelle
4143 filmer. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vårt mål var å ha et klipp fra alle Eastwoods filmer</span>»</span>
4144 fortalte Alben meg. Det var her problemene startet. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ingen hadde
4145 noensinne gjort dette før</span>»</span>, forklarte Alben. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ingen hadde prøvd
4146 å presentere et slikt kunstnerisk overblikk over en skuespillers
4147 karriere.</span>»</span>
4148 </p><p>
4149 Alben tok ideen videre til Michael Slade, leder for Starwave. Slade spurte
4150 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vel, hvor mye vil det kreve?</span>»</span>
4151 </p><p>
4152 Alben svarte, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tja, vi må innhente tillatelse fra alle som opptrer i
4153 disse filmene, for musikken og for alt annet som er i disse
4154 filmklippene.</span>»</span> Slade svarte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Flott! Gjør
4155 det.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2877556" href="#ftn.id2877556" class="footnote">113</a>]</sup>
4156 </p><p>
4157 Problemet var at verken Alben eller Slade forstod hva det innebar å innhente
4158 disse tillatelsene. Alle skuespillerne i hver av filmene kunne ha krav på
4159 royalties for bruk av sin film. Men CD-ROM hadde ikke vært spesifisert i
4160 skuespillernes kontrakter, så ingen visste helt hva Starwave skulle gjøre.
4161 </p><p>
4162 Jeg spurte Alben om hvordan han løste problemet. Med en tydelig stolthet som
4163 overskygget hvor bisarr historien var, så fortalte han hva de gjorde:
4164 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4165 Så vi dro og fant frem filmene og gjorde noen kunstneriske beslutninger om
4166 hvilke klipp som skulle være med. Selvsagt skulle vi bruke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Make my
4167 day</span>»</span>-scenen fra Dirty Harry. Men da måtte vi oppsøke den personen som
4168 ligger på bakken under geværet og få hans tillatelse. Og så måtte vi
4169 bestemme hva han skulle få betalt.
4170 </p><p>
4171
4172
4173 Vi bestemte at det ville være rettferdig hvis vi tilbydde dem en
4174 dagspiller-sats for retten til å bruke klippet. Vi snakker tross alt om et
4175 klipp på under et minutt, men satsen for å bruke klippet på CD-ROM lå på den
4176 tiden på $600. Så vi måtte identifisere personene - noen var vanskelig å
4177 identifisere, siden det ofte er vanskelig å vite hvem som er skuespilleren
4178 og hvem som er stuntmannen i Eastwoods filmer. Og deretter samlet vi oss en
4179 gjeng og begynte å ringe rundt.
4180 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2877652"></a><p>
4181 Noen skuespillere var glade for å kunne hjelpe &#8212; Donald Sutherland
4182 fulgte for eksempel opp saken personlig for å sørge for at alt var
4183 greit. Andre brydde seg mest om pengene. Alben kunne spørre <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hei, kan
4184 jeg betale deg $600, eller hvis du var i to filmer $1200?</span>»</span> Og de
4185 kunne svare <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Er det sant? Jeg vil svært gjerne ha $1200.</span>»</span> Og
4186 noen kunne være litt vanskelige av seg (særlig krevende eks-koner). Men til
4187 slutt greide Alben og hans team å gjøre rede for alle rettighetene til CD-en
4188 om Clint Eastwoods karriere.
4189 </p><p>
4190 Det gått ett <span class="emphasis"><em>år</em></span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">og selv da var vi ikke sikre på
4191 om alt var helt klart.</span>»</span>
4192 </p><p>
4193 Alben er stolt av arbeidet sitt. Prosjektet var det første av sitt slag, og
4194 første gang han hadde hørt om et team som hadde tatt på seg så mye arbeid
4195 for å gi ut en *retrospective*.
4196 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4197 Alle hadde trodd det skulle bli for vanskelig. De hadde kastet hendene i
4198 været og sagt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oi, en film. Det er så mange rettigheter; det er
4199 musikk, det er scenekusten, det er skuespillere, det er regissører.</span>»</span>
4200 Men vi gjorde det! Vi tok delen fra hverandre og sa <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">okei, det er så
4201 mange skuespillere, så mange regissører ... så mange musikere</span>»</span>, så
4202 gikk vi systematisk igjennom det og fikk tak i rettighetene.
4203 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4204
4205
4206
4207 Og produktet ble uten tvil særdeles godt. Eastwood elsket det og det solgte
4208 veldig godt.
4209 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2877740"></a><p>
4210 Men jeg spurte Alben om hvor merkelig det syntes at det skulle ta et helt år
4211 bare å få orden på rettigheter. Alben hadde gjort det hele svært effektivt,
4212 men som Peter Drucker så berømmelig har sagt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det er ikke noe som er
4213 så ubrukelig å gjøre effektivt enn det som egentlig ikke gjøres i det hele
4214 tatt.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2877762" href="#ftn.id2877762" class="footnote">114</a>]</sup> Var det noe fornuft i at
4215 det var slik et nye verk skulle skapes, spurte jeg Alben.
4216 </p><p>
4217 For, som han innrømmet, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">veldig få ... har tid og ressurser, og ikke
4218 minst vilje til å gjøre dette</span>»</span>, og veldig få slike verk har blitt
4219 lagd, Gir det noen mening, spurte jeg ham, ********* at du må gjøre alt
4220 dette for å få rett til å bruke disse klippene?
4221 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4222 Jeg tror ikke det. Når en skuespiller gjengir en forestilling i en film, får
4223 han eller hun veldig godt betalt &#8230; Og derfor, når 30 sekunder av
4224 denne forestillingen blir brukt i et nytt produkt som er et tilbakeblikk på
4225 noens karriere, så tror jeg ikke at den personen &#8230; burde få
4226 kompensasjon for det.
4227 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4228 Eller er det kanskje <span class="emphasis"><em>slik</em></span> en kunstner burde få
4229 kompensasjon? Gir det noen mening, spurte jeg, om det var en form for
4230 lovbestemt lisens som noen kan betale og fritt videreutvikle og bearbeide
4231 klipp som disse?  Ga det virkelig mening at en videreutviklende skaper
4232 skulle måtte spore opp hver eneste artist, skuespiller, regissør, musiker og
4233 få eksplisitt tillatelse fra hver av dem.  Ville ikke mye mer bli laget hvis
4234 den juridiske delen av den kreative prosessen kunne gjøres enklere.
4235 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4236
4237 Absolutt. Jeg tror at hvis det fantes en form for
4238 lisensieringsmekanisme&#8212;hvor du ikke risikerte å bli offer for
4239 forglemmelser eller problematiske ekskoner&#8212;ville man kanskje ha sett
4240 mange flere av denne typen verk, rett og slett fordi det ikke ville sett så
4241 skrekkinngytende ut å sette sammen et tilbakeblikk på noens karriere og å
4242 bruke mange media-illustrasjoner fra dennes karriere. Du ville kunne lage en
4243 budsjettpost på dette. Sette opp en kostnad på X dollar til talentet som
4244 fremførte. Og det ville være en kjent kostnad. Det er kanskje
4245 kjerneproblemet med å produsere slike produkter. Hvis man visste at man
4246 hadde 100 minutter med film, kunne man si at dette vil koste meg så og så
4247 mange dollar, og lage et budsjett rundt det. Deretter kan du skaffe
4248 investorer og alt annet som trengs for å produsere det. Men dersom man kun
4249 kan si <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hm, jeg ønsker 100 minutter med noe, og jeg aner ikke hvor mye
4250 det vil koste meg, og et bestemt antall personer vil kreve penger</span>»</span>,
4251 vil det være ganske vanskelig å få til slike ting.
4252 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4253 Alben jobbet for et stort selskap. Hans selskap var støttet av noen av de
4254 rikeste investorene i verden. Derfor hadde han myndighet og ressurser som en
4255 gjennomsnittlig webdesigner ikke kunne drømme om. Så hvis det tok ham et år,
4256 hvor lang tid ville det ta noen andre? Og hvor mye kreativitet får aldri
4257 form på grunn av kostnadene rundt å kartlegge og skaffe rettigheter?
4258 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2877885"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2877893"></a><p>
4259 Disse kostnadene er byrdene av en form for regulering. Vi kan prøve å ta på
4260 oss en republikanerhatt og bli sinte for et øyeblikk. Staten styrer disse
4261 rettighetenes dekningsområde, og dekningsområdet bestemmer hvor mye det vil
4262 koste å krenke disse rettighetene. (Husker dere ideen om at en eiendom
4263 strakte seg til universets grense? Og se for dere piloten som må betale for
4264 å krysse eiendommen som han krenker ved å fly fra Los Angeles til San
4265 Fracisco.) Disse rettighetene gav sikkert mening en gang, men nå som
4266 forholdene har endret seg, er meningen borte. Ihvertfall så burde en
4267 veltrenet, reguleringsfientlig republikaner se på rettighetene og spørre
4268 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Gir dette mening nå?</span>»</span>
4269 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2877920"></a><p>
4270
4271 Jeg har sett glimt av gjenkjennelse på dette punktet, men bare noen få
4272 ganger. Første gang var på en konferanse for føderale dommere i
4273 California. Dommerne var samlet for å diskutere det økende temaet
4274 cyber-lov. Jeg ble spurt om å sitte i panelet. Harvey Saferstein, en
4275 respektert lawyer fra et firma i Los Angeles, introduserte en film han og
4276 hans venn Robert Fairbank hadde laget for panelet.
4277 </p><p>
4278 Videoen var en glimrende sammenstilling av filmer fra hver periode i det
4279 tjuende århundret, rammet inn rundt idéen om en episode i TV-serien
4280 <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em>. Utførelsen var perfekt, ned til seksti
4281 minutter stoppeklokken. Dommerne elsket enhver minutt av den.
4282 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2877960"></a><p>
4283 Da lysene kom på, kikket jeg over til min medpaneldeltager, David Nimmer,
4284 kanskje den ledende opphavsrettakademiker og utøver i nasjonen. Han hadde en
4285 forbauset uttrykk i ansiktet sitt, mens han tittet ut over rommet med over
4286 250 godt underholdte dommere. Med en en illevarslende tone, begynte han sin
4287 tale med et spørsmål: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vet dere hvor mange føderale lover som nettopp
4288 brutt i dette rommet?</span>»</span>
4289 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2877986"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2877992"></a><p>
4290 Og selvsagt hadde ikke disse to briljante talentene gjort hva Alben hadde
4291 gjort. De hadde ikke ordnet alle rettighetene til klippene de brukte. Rent
4292 teknisk hadde de brutt loven. Men ingen kom til å straffeforfølge disse to
4293 (selv om de viste den for 250 dommere og en gjeng føderale marshaller". Men
4294 Nimmer hadde et viktig poeng: Et år før noen hadde hørt ordet Napster, og to
4295 år før et annet medlem av panelet, David Boies, ville forsvare Napster for
4296 den niende Circuit Court of Appeals, prøvde Nimmer å få dommerne til å
4297 forstå at loven ikke var særlig åpen for de nye kapasitetene den nye
4298 teknologien ville gi. Teknologi betyr at du kan gjøre fantastiske ting,
4299 enkelt. Men du kan ikke nødvendigvis gjøre dem enkelt, lovlig.
4300 </p><p>
4301 Vi lever i en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">klippe og lime</span>»</span>-kultur som er muliggjort av
4302 dagens teknologi. Alle som lager presentasjoner vet hvilken eksepsjonell
4303 frihet internettets <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">klippe og lime</span>»</span>-arkitektur gir&#8212;på et
4304 sekund kan du finne akkurat det bildet du vil ha, og du kan få den inn i
4305 presentasjonen din.
4306 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2878034"></a><p>
4307
4308 Men presentasjoner er bare en liten begynnelse. Ved hjelp av internett og
4309 dets arkiver, er musikere i stand til å sy sammen nye lydmikser som ingen
4310 hadde kunnet forestille seg; filmskapere er i stand til å lage filmer ut av
4311 klipp på datamaskiner rundt om i verden. Et spesielt nettsted i Sverige tar
4312 bilder av politikere og blander dem med musikk å skape bitende politiske
4313 kommentarer. En nettside kalt Camp Chaos har skapt noe av den skarpeste
4314 kritikken som finnes mot musikkindustrien, gjennom å mikse Flash! og musikk.
4315 </p><p>
4316 Men alt dette er rent teknisk ulovlig. Selv om skaperen ønsket å holde seg
4317 på rett side av loven, ville kostnadene ved å følge loven vært
4318 umenneskelige. Derfor vil de som ønsker å følge loven bli hindret i å bruke
4319 sin kreativitet, og mye blir aldri skapt. Og det som er skapt, vil ikke bli
4320 publisert fordi det ikke følger *clearence-rules*.
4321 </p><p>
4322 Noen ser synes at denne historien kommer med et forslag til forbedring: La
4323 oss fjerne miksen av rettigheter slik at folk fritt kan bygge på vår
4324 kultur. Fritt å legge til eller mikse som de synes det passer. Vi kunne
4325 innføre dette uten at det ble fritt som i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri bar</span>»</span>. I stedet
4326 kunne systemet gjøre det lettere for nye kunstnere å kompensere den
4327 originale artisten uten at det krever en hær av jurister. Hva med regler som
4328 f. eks. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kompensasjon til en opphavsrettholder for uregistrerte verk
4329 vil for avledede verk føre 1% av netto overskudd (*to be held in escrow for
4330 the copyright owner.*)</span>»</span> Med en slik regel ville opphavsrettholderen
4331 få en inntekt, men han vil ikke ha en full eiendomsrett over opphavsretten
4332 (som betyr retten til å sette sin egen pris) uten å ha registrert verket.
4333 </p><p>
4334 Hvem vil nekte å bli med på det? Og hvilke grunner finner for å nekte dette?
4335 Vi snakker om et verk som ikke blir lagd akkurat nå, men om det blir lagd
4336 under denne planen, vil det skape inntekter for artistene. Hvilke baktanker
4337 kan noen ha for motarbeide det?
4338 </p><p>
4339
4340 <span class="strong"><strong>I februar 2003</strong></span> kunne DreamWorks studios
4341 kunngjøre at de hadde fått en avtale med komikeren Mike Myers (mannen bak
4342 Saturday Night Liva og Austin Powers). Ifølge kunngjøringen skulle
4343 DreamWorks og Myers arbeide for å skape en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">unik
4344 filmskaperavtale</span>»</span>. Og under denne avtalen ville DreamWorks <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">få
4345 rett til å benytte eksisterende filmklipp, skrive nye storylines* og - med
4346 hjelp av *stateof-the-art-teknologi - sette inn Myers og andre skuespillere
4347 i filmene, og slik skape et helt nytt stykke underholdning.</span>»</span>
4348 </p><p>
4349 Dette ble kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">film sampling</span>»</span>, og som Myers forklarte var
4350 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">film sampling en fantastisk måte å få ny vri på eksisterende filmer
4351 og lar publikum se gamle filmer i et nytt lys. Rap-artister har gjort slikt
4352 i en årrekke og nå kan vi ta det samme konseptet og bruke det på
4353 film.</span>»</span> Steven Spielberg er sitert med følgende utsagn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis
4354 noen kan klare å bringe gamle filmer til et nytt publikum, så er det
4355 Mike.</span>»</span>
4356 </p><p>
4357 Spielberg har rett. Film sampling med Myers ville vært brilliant. Men hvis
4358 du ikke følger godt med, så vil du overse det forbløffende med denne
4359 kunngjøringen. Siden den aller største delen av vår filmarv fortsetter å
4360 være regulert av loven, så er den virkelige meningen i DreamWorks
4361 kunngjøring følgende: Det er Mike Myers og kun Mike Myers som har lov til å
4362 gjøre slikt. All generell frihet til å fortsette å bygge på verdens
4363 filmkultur, en frihet som i andre sammenhenger er en selvfølge, er et
4364 privilegium forbeholdt de morsomme og berømte - og antakelig rike.
4365 </p><p>
4366 Dette privilegiet er såpass reservert av to grunner: Første grunn er en
4367 fortsettelse av forrige kapittel, vagheten i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
4368 bruk</span>»</span>. Mye av denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">samplingen</span>»</span> vil nok betraktes som
4369 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span>, men ingen våger å stole på et så vagt
4370 prinsipp. Det leder oss til neste grunn for at privilegiet er forbeholdt få:
4371 Kostnadene ved å krenke opphavsretten ved kreativt gjenbruk er
4372 astronomiske. Disse kostnadene speiler kostnaden for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
4373 bruk</span>»</span>: Enten betaler du en jurist til å forsvare dine <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
4374 bruk</span>»</span>-rettigheter, eller så betaler du en jurist for å oppspore og
4375 ordne med rettighetene du trenger, slik at du slipper å stole på rimelig
4376 bruk. I begge tilfeller er den kreative prosessen blitt en prosess med å
4377 betale jurister&#8212;igjen, et privilegium forbeholdt de få.
4378 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877556" href="#id2877556" class="para">113</a>] </sup>
4379
4380 Teknisk sett var rettighetene som Alben måtte klarere i hovedsak de om
4381 publisitet&#8212;rettigheten en artist har til å kontrollere den
4382 kommersielle utnyttelsen av hans bilde.  Men disse rettighetene belaster
4383 også <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rip, miks, brenn</span>»</span>-kreativiteten slik dette kapittelet
4384 demonstrerer.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2877574"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2877585"></a>
4385 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877762" href="#id2877762" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
4386
4387
4388 U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management,
4389 <em class="citetitle">Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services
4390 Acquisition</em>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #22</a>.
4391 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel ni: Samlere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Kapittel ni: Samlere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2878261"></a><p>
4392 <span class="strong"><strong>In April 1996</strong></span>, millions of
4393 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bots</span>»</span>&#8212;computer codes designed to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">spider,</span>»</span>
4394 or automatically search the Internet and copy content&#8212;began running
4395 across the Net. Page by page, these bots copied Internet-based information
4396 onto a small set of computers located in a basement in San Francisco's
4397 Presidio. Once the bots finished the whole of the Internet, they started
4398 again. Over and over again, once every two months, these bits of code took
4399 copies of the Internet and stored them.
4400 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2878277"></a><p>
4401 By October 2001, the bots had collected more than five years of copies. And
4402 at a small announcement in Berkeley, California, the archive that these
4403 copies created, the Internet Archive, was opened to the world. Using a
4404 technology called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Way Back Machine,</span>»</span> you could enter a Web
4405 page, and see all of its copies going back to 1996, as well as when those
4406 pages changed.
4407 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxorwellgeorge"></a><p>
4408 This is the thing about the Internet that Orwell would have appreciated.  In
4409 the dystopia described in <em class="citetitle">1984</em>, old newspapers were
4410 constantly updated to assure that the current view of the world, approved of
4411 by the government, was not contradicted by previous news reports.
4412 </p><p>
4413
4414
4415 Thousands of workers constantly reedited the past, meaning there was no way
4416 ever to know whether the story you were reading today was the story that was
4417 printed on the date published on the paper.
4418 </p><p>
4419 It's the same with the Internet. If you go to a Web page today, there's no
4420 way for you to know whether the content you are reading is the same as the
4421 content you read before. The page may seem the same, but the content could
4422 easily be different. The Internet is Orwell's library&#8212;constantly
4423 updated, without any reliable memory.
4424 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2878341"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2878358"></a><p>
4425 Until the Way Back Machine, at least. With the Way Back Machine, and the
4426 Internet Archive underlying it, you can see what the Internet was. You have
4427 the power to see what you remember. More importantly, perhaps, you also have
4428 the power to find what you don't remember and what others might prefer you
4429 forget.<sup>[<a name="id2878371" href="#ftn.id2878371" class="footnote">115</a>]</sup>
4430 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2878404"></a><p>
4431 <span class="strong"><strong>We take it</strong></span> for granted that we can go
4432 back to see what we remember reading. Think about newspapers. If you wanted
4433 to study the reaction of your hometown newspaper to the race riots in Watts
4434 in 1965, or to Bull Connor's water cannon in 1963, you could go to your
4435 public library and look at the newspapers. Those papers probably exist on
4436 microfiche. If you're lucky, they exist in paper, too. Either way, you are
4437 free, using a library, to go back and remember&#8212;not just what it is
4438 convenient to remember, but remember something close to the truth.
4439 </p><p>
4440 It is said that those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat
4441 it. That's not quite correct. We <span class="emphasis"><em>all</em></span> forget
4442 history. The key is whether we have a way to go back to rediscover what we
4443 forget. More directly, the key is whether an objective past can keep us
4444 honest. Libraries help do that, by collecting content and keeping it, for
4445 schoolchildren, for researchers, for grandma. A free society presumes this
4446 knowedge.
4447 </p><p>
4448
4449 The Internet was an exception to this presumption. Until the Internet
4450 Archive, there was no way to go back. The Internet was the quintessentially
4451 transitory medium. And yet, as it becomes more important in forming and
4452 reforming society, it becomes more and more important to maintain in some
4453 historical form. It's just bizarre to think that we have scads of archives
4454 of newspapers from tiny towns around the world, yet there is but one copy of
4455 the Internet&#8212;the one kept by the Internet Archive.
4456 </p><p>
4457 Brewster Kahle is the founder of the Internet Archive. He was a very
4458 successful Internet entrepreneur after he was a successful computer
4459 researcher.  In the 1990s, Kahle decided he had had enough business
4460 success.  It was time to become a different kind of success. So he launched
4461 a series of projects designed to archive human knowledge. The Internet
4462 Archive was just the first of the projects of this Andrew Carnegie of the
4463 Internet. By December of 2002, the archive had over 10 billion pages, and it
4464 was growing at about a billion pages a month.
4465 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2878449"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2878475"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2878481"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2878487"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2878493"></a><p>
4466 The Way Back Machine is the largest archive of human knowledge in human
4467 history. At the end of 2002, it held <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">two hundred and thirty terabytes
4468 of material</span>»</span>&#8212;and was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ten times larger than the Library
4469 of Congress.</span>»</span> And this was just the first of the archives that Kahle
4470 set out to build. In addition to the Internet Archive, Kahle has been
4471 constructing the Television Archive. Television, it turns out, is even more
4472 ephemeral than the Internet. While much of twentieth-century culture was
4473 constructed through television, only a tiny proportion of that culture is
4474 available for anyone to see today. Three hours of news are recorded each
4475 evening by Vanderbilt University&#8212;thanks to a specific exemption in the
4476 copyright law. That content is indexed, and is available to scholars for a
4477 very low fee. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But other than that, [television] is almost
4478 unavailable,</span>»</span> Kahle told me. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If you were Barbara Walters you
4479 could get access to [the archives], but if you are just a graduate
4480 student?</span>»</span> As Kahle put it,
4481 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2878537"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2878543"></a><p>
4482
4483 Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown? Remember
4484 that back and forth surreal experience of a politician interacting with a
4485 fictional television character? If you were a graduate student wanting to
4486 study that, and you wanted to get those original back and forth exchanges
4487 between the two, the <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em> episode that came out
4488 after it &#8230; it would be almost impossible. &#8230; Those materials
4489 are almost unfindable. &#8230;
4490 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2878567"></a><p>
4491 Why is that? Why is it that the part of our culture that is recorded in
4492 newspapers remains perpetually accessible, while the part that is recorded
4493 on videotape is not? How is it that we've created a world where researchers
4494 trying to understand the effect of media on nineteenthcentury America will
4495 have an easier time than researchers trying to understand the effect of
4496 media on twentieth-century America?
4497 </p><p>
4498 In part, this is because of the law. Early in American copyright law,
4499 copyright owners were required to deposit copies of their work in
4500 libraries.  These copies were intended both to facilitate the spread of
4501 knowledge and to assure that a copy of the work would be around once the
4502 copyright expired, so that others might access and copy the work.
4503 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2878595"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2878601"></a><p>
4504 These rules applied to film as well. But in 1915, the Library of Congress
4505 made an exception for film. Film could be copyrighted so long as such
4506 deposits were made. But the filmmaker was then allowed to borrow back the
4507 deposits&#8212;for an unlimited time at no cost. In 1915 alone, there were
4508 more than 5,475 films deposited and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">borrowed back.</span>»</span> Thus, when
4509 the copyrights to films expire, there is no copy held by any library. The
4510 copy exists&#8212;if it exists at all&#8212;in the library archive of the
4511 film company.<sup>[<a name="id2878614" href="#ftn.id2878614" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
4512 </p><p>
4513 The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts were
4514 originally not copyrighted&#8212;there was no way to capture the broadcasts,
4515 so there was no fear of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theft.</span>»</span> But as technology enabled
4516 capturing, broadcasters relied increasingly upon the law. The law required
4517 they make a copy of each broadcast for the work to be
4518 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrighted.</span>»</span> But those copies were simply kept by the
4519 broadcasters. No library had any right to them; the government didn't demand
4520 them.  The content of this part of American culture is practically invisible
4521 to anyone who would look.
4522 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2878666"></a><p>
4523
4524 Kahle was eager to correct this. Before September 11, 2001, he and his
4525 allies had started capturing television. They selected twenty stations from
4526 around the world and hit the Record button. After September 11, Kahle,
4527 working with dozens of others, selected twenty stations from around the
4528 world and, beginning October 11, 2001, made their coverage during the week
4529 of September 11 available free on-line.  Anyone could see how news reports
4530 from around the world covered the events of that day.
4531 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2878687"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2878693"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2878702"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2878710"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2878716"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2878722"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2878729"></a><p>
4532 Kahle had the same idea with film. Working with Rick Prelinger, whose
4533 archive of film includes close to 45,000 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ephemeral films</span>»</span>
4534 (meaning films other than Hollywood movies, films that were never
4535 copyrighted), Kahle established the Movie Archive. Prelinger let Kahle
4536 digitize 1,300 films in this archive and post those films on the Internet to
4537 be downloaded for free. Prelinger's is a for-profit company. It sells copies
4538 of these films as stock footage. What he has discovered is that after he
4539 made a significant chunk available for free, his stock footage sales went up
4540 dramatically. People could easily find the material they wanted to use. Some
4541 downloaded that material and made films on their own. Others purchased
4542 copies to enable other films to be made.  Either way, the archive enabled
4543 access to this important part of our culture.  Want to see a copy of the
4544 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Duck and Cover</span>»</span> film that instructed children how to save
4545 themselves in the middle of nuclear attack? Go to archive.org, and you can
4546 download the film in a few minutes&#8212;for free.
4547 </p><p>
4548 Here again, Kahle is providing access to a part of our culture that we
4549 otherwise could not get easily, if at all. It is yet another part of what
4550 defines the twentieth century that we have lost to history. The law doesn't
4551 require these copies to be kept by anyone, or to be deposited in an archive
4552 by anyone. Therefore, there is no simple way to find them.
4553 </p><p>
4554 The key here is access, not price. Kahle wants to enable free access to this
4555 content, but he also wants to enable others to sell access to it. His aim is
4556 to ensure competition in access to this important part of our culture.  Not
4557 during the commercial life of a bit of creative property, but during a
4558 second life that all creative property has&#8212;a noncommercial life.
4559 </p><p>
4560
4561 For here is an idea that we should more clearly recognize. Every bit of
4562 creative property goes through different <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lives.</span>»</span> In its first
4563 life, if the creator is lucky, the content is sold. In such cases the
4564 commercial market is successful for the creator. The vast majority of
4565 creative property doesn't enjoy such success, but some clearly does. For
4566 that content, commercial life is extremely important. Without this
4567 commercial market, there would be, many argue, much less creativity.
4568 </p><p>
4569 After the commercial life of creative property has ended, our tradition has
4570 always supported a second life as well. A newspaper delivers the news every
4571 day to the doorsteps of America. The very next day, it is used to wrap fish
4572 or to fill boxes with fragile gifts or to build an archive of knowledge
4573 about our history. In this second life, the content can continue to inform
4574 even if that information is no longer sold.
4575 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2878816"></a><p>
4576 The same has always been true about books. A book goes out of print very
4577 quickly (the average today is after about a year<sup>[<a name="id2878828" href="#ftn.id2878828" class="footnote">117</a>]</sup>). After it is out of print, it can be sold in used book stores
4578 without the copyright owner getting anything and stored in libraries, where
4579 many get to read the book, also for free. Used book stores and libraries are
4580 thus the second life of a book. That second life is extremely important to
4581 the spread and stability of culture.
4582 </p><p>
4583 Yet increasingly, any assumption about a stable second life for creative
4584 property does not hold true with the most important components of popular
4585 culture in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. For
4586 these&#8212;television, movies, music, radio, the Internet&#8212;there is no
4587 guarantee of a second life. For these sorts of culture, it is as if we've
4588 replaced libraries with Barnes &amp; Noble superstores. With this culture,
4589 what's accessible is nothing but what a certain limited market demands.
4590 Beyond that, culture disappears.
4591 </p><p>
4592
4593 <span class="strong"><strong>For most of</strong></span> the twentieth century, it was
4594 economics that made this so. It would have been insanely expensive to
4595 collect and make accessible all television and film and music: The cost of
4596 analog copies is extraordinarily high. So even though the law in principle
4597 would have restricted the ability of a Brewster Kahle to copy culture
4598 generally, the real restriction was economics. The market made it impossibly
4599 difficult to do anything about this ephemeral culture; the law had little
4600 practical effect.
4601 </p><p>
4602 Perhaps the single most important feature of the digital revolution is that
4603 for the first time since the Library of Alexandria, it is feasible to
4604 imagine constructing archives that hold all culture produced or distributed
4605 publicly. Technology makes it possible to imagine an archive of all books
4606 published, and increasingly makes it possible to imagine an archive of all
4607 moving images and sound.
4608 </p><p>
4609 The scale of this potential archive is something we've never imagined
4610 before. The Brewster Kahles of our history have dreamed about it; but we are
4611 for the first time at a point where that dream is possible. As Kahle
4612 describes,
4613 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2878929"></a><p>
4614 It looks like there's about two to three million recordings of music.
4615 Ever. There are about a hundred thousand theatrical releases of movies,
4616 &#8230; and about one to two million movies [distributed] during the
4617 twentieth century. There are about twenty-six million different titles of
4618 books. All of these would fit on computers that would fit in this room and
4619 be able to be afforded by a small company.  So we're at a turning point in
4620 our history. Universal access is the goal. And the opportunity of leading a
4621 different life, based on this, is &#8230; thrilling. It could be one of the
4622 things humankind would be most proud of. Up there with the Library of
4623 Alexandria, putting a man on the moon, and the invention of the printing
4624 press.
4625 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2878941"></a><p>
4626
4627 Kahle is not the only librarian. The Internet Archive is not the only
4628 archive. But Kahle and the Internet Archive suggest what the future of
4629 libraries or archives could be. <span class="emphasis"><em>When</em></span> the commercial
4630 life of creative property ends, I don't know. But it does. And whenever it
4631 does, Kahle and his archive hint at a world where this knowledge, and
4632 culture, remains perpetually available. Some will draw upon it to understand
4633 it; some to criticize it. Some will use it, as Walt Disney did, to re-create
4634 the past for the future. These technologies promise something that had
4635 become unimaginable for much of our past&#8212;a future
4636 <span class="emphasis"><em>for</em></span> our past. The technology of digital arts could make
4637 the dream of the Library of Alexandria real again.
4638 </p><p>
4639 Technologists have thus removed the economic costs of building such an
4640 archive. But lawyers' costs remain. For as much as we might like to call
4641 these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">archives,</span>»</span> as warm as the idea of a
4642 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">library</span>»</span> might seem, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">content</span>»</span> that is
4643 collected in these digital spaces is also someone's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span>
4644 And the law of property restricts the freedoms that Kahle and others would
4645 exercise.
4646 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2879007"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2878371" href="#id2878371" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
4647
4648 <a class="indexterm" name="id2878374"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2878383"></a> The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the
4649 White House changes its own press releases without notice. A May 13, 2003,
4650 press release stated, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.</span>»</span>
4651 That was later changed, without notice, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Major Combat Operations in
4652 Iraq Have Ended.</span>»</span> E-mail from Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
4653 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2878614" href="#id2878614" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
4654
4655
4656 Doug Herrick, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
4657 the Library of Congress,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Film Library
4658 Quarterly</em> 13 nos. 2&#8211;3 (1980): 5; Anthony Slide,
4659 <em class="citetitle">Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film Preservation in the United
4660 States</em> ( Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland &amp; Co., 1992), 36.
4661 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2878828" href="#id2878828" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
4662
4663 <a class="indexterm" name="id2878832"></a> Dave Barns, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fledgling Career
4664 in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord, Bar Owner Starts a New Chapter by
4665 Adopting Business,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 5
4666 September 1997, at Metro Lake 1L. Of books published between 1927 and 1946,
4667 only 2.2 percent were in print in 2002. R. Anthony Reese, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First
4668 Sale Doctrine in the Era of Digital Networks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston
4669 College Law Review</em> 44 (2003): 593 n. 51.
4670 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2879030"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2879036"></a><p>
4671 <span class="strong"><strong>Jack Valenti</strong></span> has been the president of
4672 the Motion Picture Association of America since 1966. He first came to
4673 Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's administration&#8212;literally. The
4674 famous picture of Johnson's swearing-in on Air Force One after the
4675 assassination of President Kennedy has Valenti in the background. In his
4676 almost forty years of running the MPAA, Valenti has established himself as
4677 perhaps the most prominent and effective lobbyist in Washington.
4678 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2879050"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2879066"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2879072"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2879078"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2879084"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2879091"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2879097"></a><p>
4679 The MPAA is the American branch of the international Motion Picture
4680 Association. It was formed in 1922 as a trade association whose goal was to
4681 defend American movies against increasing domestic criticism.  The
4682 organization now represents not only filmmakers but producers and
4683 distributors of entertainment for television, video, and cable. Its board is
4684 made up of the chairmen and presidents of the seven major producers and
4685 distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States:
4686 Walt Disney, Sony Pictures Entertainment, MGM, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth
4687 Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers.
4688 </p><p>
4689
4690
4691 Valenti is only the third president of the MPAA. No president before him has
4692 had as much influence over that organization, or over Washington. As a
4693 Texan, Valenti has mastered the single most important political skill of a
4694 Southerner&#8212;the ability to appear simple and slow while hiding a
4695 lightning-fast intellect. To this day, Valenti plays the simple, humble
4696 man. But this Harvard MBA, and author of four books, who finished high
4697 school at the age of fifteen and flew more than fifty combat missions in
4698 World War II, is no Mr. Smith. When Valenti went to Washington, he mastered
4699 the city in a quintessentially Washingtonian way.
4700 </p><p>
4701 In defending artistic liberty and the freedom of speech that our culture
4702 depends upon, the MPAA has done important good. In crafting the MPAA rating
4703 system, it has probably avoided a great deal of speech-regulating harm. But
4704 there is an aspect to the organization's mission that is both the most
4705 radical and the most important. This is the organization's effort,
4706 epitomized in Valenti's every act, to redefine the meaning of
4707 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span>
4708 </p><p>
4709 In 1982, Valenti's testimony to Congress captured the strategy perfectly:
4710 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4711 No matter the lengthy arguments made, no matter the charges and the
4712 counter-charges, no matter the tumult and the shouting, reasonable men and
4713 women will keep returning to the fundamental issue, the central theme which
4714 animates this entire debate: <span class="emphasis"><em>Creative property owners must be
4715 accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other property
4716 owners in the nation</em></span>. That is the issue.  That is the
4717 question. And that is the rostrum on which this entire hearing and the
4718 debates to follow must rest.<sup>[<a name="id2879168" href="#ftn.id2879168" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
4719 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4720
4721 The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's
4722 rhetoric, is brilliant and simple and brilliant because simple. The
4723 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">central theme</span>»</span> to which <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">reasonable men and
4724 women</span>»</span> will return is this: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative property owners must be
4725 accorded the same rights and protections resident in all other property
4726 owners in the nation.</span>»</span> There are no second-class citizens, Valenti
4727 might have continued. There should be no second-class property owners.
4728 </p><p>
4729 This claim has an obvious and powerful intuitive pull. It is stated with
4730 such clarity as to make the idea as obvious as the notion that we use
4731 elections to pick presidents. But in fact, there is no more extreme a claim
4732 made by <span class="emphasis"><em>anyone</em></span> who is serious in this debate than this
4733 claim of Valenti's. Jack Valenti, however sweet and however brilliant, is
4734 perhaps the nation's foremost extremist when it comes to the nature and
4735 scope of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span> His views have
4736 <span class="emphasis"><em>no</em></span> reasonable connection to our actual legal tradition,
4737 even if the subtle pull of his Texan charm has slowly redefined that
4738 tradition, at least in Washington.
4739 </p><p>
4740 While <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> is certainly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span>
4741 in a nerdy and precise sense that lawyers are trained to
4742 understand,<sup>[<a name="id2879237" href="#ftn.id2879237" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case,
4743 nor should it be, that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property owners</span>»</span> have been
4744 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other
4745 property owners.</span>»</span> Indeed, if creative property owners were given the
4746 same rights as all other property owners, that would effect a radical, and
4747 radically undesirable, change in our tradition.
4748 </p><p>
4749 Valenti knows this. But he speaks for an industry that cares squat for our
4750 tradition and the values it represents. He speaks for an industry that is
4751 instead fighting to restore the tradition that the British overturned in
4752 1710. In the world that Valenti's changes would create, a powerful few would
4753 exercise powerful control over how our creative culture would develop.
4754 </p><p>
4755
4756 I have two purposes in this chapter. The first is to convince you that,
4757 historically, Valenti's claim is absolutely wrong. The second is to convince
4758 you that it would be terribly wrong for us to reject our history.  We have
4759 always treated rights in creative property differently from the rights
4760 resident in all other property owners. They have never been the same. And
4761 they should never be the same, because, however counterintuitive this may
4762 seem, to make them the same would be to fundamentally weaken the opportunity
4763 for new creators to create.  Creativity depends upon the owners of
4764 creativity having less than perfect control.
4765 </p><p>
4766 Organizations such as the MPAA, whose board includes the most powerful of
4767 the old guard, have little interest, their rhetoric notwithstanding, in
4768 assuring that the new can displace them. No organization does. No person
4769 does. (Ask me about tenure, for example.)  But what's good for the MPAA is
4770 not necessarily good for America. A society that defends the ideals of free
4771 culture must preserve precisely the opportunity for new creativity to
4772 threaten the old.
4773 </p><p>
4774 <span class="strong"><strong>To get</strong></span> just a hint that there is
4775 something fundamentally wrong in Valenti's argument, we need look no further
4776 than the United States Constitution itself.
4777 </p><p>
4778 The framers of our Constitution loved <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> Indeed, so
4779 strongly did they love property that they built into the Constitution an
4780 important requirement. If the government takes your property&#8212;if it
4781 condemns your house, or acquires a slice of land from your farm&#8212;it is
4782 required, under the Fifth Amendment's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Takings Clause,</span>»</span> to pay
4783 you <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">just compensation</span>»</span> for that taking. The Constitution thus
4784 guarantees that property is, in a certain sense, sacred. It cannot
4785 <span class="emphasis"><em>ever</em></span> be taken from the property owner unless the
4786 government pays for the privilege.
4787 </p><p>
4788
4789 Yet the very same Constitution speaks very differently about what Valenti
4790 calls <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span> In the clause granting Congress the
4791 power to create <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property,</span>»</span> the Constitution
4792 <span class="emphasis"><em>requires</em></span> that after a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited time,</span>»</span>
4793 Congress take back the rights that it has granted and set the
4794 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> free to the public domain. Yet when
4795 Congress does this, when the expiration of a copyright term
4796 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">takes</span>»</span> your copyright and turns it over to the public domain,
4797 Congress does not have any obligation to pay <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">just
4798 compensation</span>»</span> for this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking.</span>»</span> Instead, the same
4799 Constitution that requires compensation for your land requires that you lose
4800 your <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> right without any compensation at all.
4801 </p><p>
4802 The Constitution thus on its face states that these two forms of property
4803 are not to be accorded the same rights. They are plainly to be treated
4804 differently. Valenti is therefore not just asking for a change in our
4805 tradition when he argues that creative-property owners should be accorded
4806 the same rights as every other property-right owner. He is effectively
4807 arguing for a change in our Constitution itself.
4808 </p><p>
4809 Arguing for a change in our Constitution is not necessarily wrong.  There
4810 was much in our original Constitution that was plainly wrong.  The
4811 Constitution of 1789 entrenched slavery; it left senators to be appointed
4812 rather than elected; it made it possible for the electoral college to
4813 produce a tie between the president and his own vice president (as it did in
4814 1800). The framers were no doubt extraordinary, but I would be the first to
4815 admit that they made big mistakes. We have since rejected some of those
4816 mistakes; no doubt there could be others that we should reject as well. So
4817 my argument is not simply that because Jefferson did it, we should, too.
4818 </p><p>
4819 Instead, my argument is that because Jefferson did it, we should at least
4820 try to understand <span class="emphasis"><em>why</em></span>. Why did the framers, fanatical
4821 property types that they were, reject the claim that creative property be
4822 given the same rights as all other property? Why did they require that for
4823 creative property there must be a public domain?
4824 </p><p>
4825 To answer this question, we need to get some perspective on the history of
4826 these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> rights, and the control that they
4827 enabled.  Once we see clearly how differently these rights have been
4828 defined, we will be in a better position to ask the question that should be
4829 at the core of this war: Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> creative property
4830 should be protected, but how. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> we will
4831 enforce the rights the law gives to creative-property owners, but what the
4832 particular mix of rights ought to be. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span>
4833 artists should be paid, but whether institutions designed to assure that
4834 artists get paid need also control how culture develops.
4835 </p><p>
4836
4837
4838
4839 To answer these questions, we need a more general way to talk about how
4840 property is protected. More precisely, we need a more general way than the
4841 narrow language of the law allows. In <em class="citetitle">Code and Other Laws of
4842 Cyberspace</em>, I used a simple model to capture this more general
4843 perspective. For any particular right or regulation, this model asks how
4844 four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the
4845 right or regulation. I represented it with this diagram:
4846 </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
4847 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>
4848 At the center of this picture is a regulated dot: the individual or group
4849 that is the target of regulation, or the holder of a right. (In each case
4850 throughout, we can describe this either as regulation or as a right.  For
4851 simplicity's sake, I will speak only of regulations.)  The ovals represent
4852 four ways in which the individual or group might be regulated&#8212; either
4853 constrained or, alternatively, enabled. Law is the most obvious constraint
4854 (to lawyers, at least). It constrains by threatening punishments after the
4855 fact if the rules set in advance are violated. So if, for example, you
4856 willfully infringe Madonna's copyright by copying a song from her latest CD
4857 and posting it on the Web, you can be punished with a $150,000 fine. The
4858 fine is an ex post punishment for violating an ex ante rule. It is imposed
4859 by the state.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2879125"></a>
4860 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2879516"></a><p>
4861 Norms are a different kind of constraint. They, too, punish an individual
4862 for violating a rule. But the punishment of a norm is imposed by a
4863 community, not (or not only) by the state. There may be no law against
4864 spitting, but that doesn't mean you won't be punished if you spit on the
4865 ground while standing in line at a movie. The punishment might not be harsh,
4866 though depending upon the community, it could easily be more harsh than many
4867 of the punishments imposed by the state. The mark of the difference is not
4868 the severity of the rule, but the source of the enforcement.
4869 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2879536"></a><p>
4870 The market is a third type of constraint. Its constraint is effected through
4871 conditions: You can do X if you pay Y; you'll be paid M if you do N. These
4872 constraints are obviously not independent of law or norms&#8212;it is
4873 property law that defines what must be bought if it is to be taken legally;
4874 it is norms that say what is appropriately sold. But given a set of norms,
4875 and a background of property and contract law, the market imposes a
4876 simultaneous constraint upon how an individual or group might behave.
4877 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2879545"></a><p>
4878 Finally, and for the moment, perhaps, most mysteriously,
4879 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture</span>»</span>&#8212;the physical world as one finds
4880 it&#8212;is a constraint on behavior.  A fallen bridge might constrain your
4881 ability to get across a river. Railroad tracks might constrain the ability
4882 of a community to integrate its social life. As with the market,
4883 architecture does not effect its constraint through ex post
4884 punishments. Instead, also as with the market, architecture effects its
4885 constraint through simultaneous conditions. These conditions are imposed not
4886 by courts enforcing contracts, or by police punishing theft, but by nature,
4887 by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture.</span>»</span> If a 500-pound boulder blocks your way, it
4888 is the law of gravity that enforces this constraint. If a $500 airplane
4889 ticket stands between you and a flight to New York, it is the market that
4890 enforces this constraint.
4891 </p><p>
4892
4893
4894
4895 So the first point about these four modalities of regulation is obvious:
4896 They interact. Restrictions imposed by one might be reinforced by
4897 another. Or restrictions imposed by one might be undermined by another.
4898 </p><p>
4899 The second point follows directly: If we want to understand the effective
4900 freedom that anyone has at a given moment to do any particular thing, we
4901 have to consider how these four modalities interact.  Whether or not there
4902 are other constraints (there may well be; my claim is not about
4903 comprehensiveness), these four are among the most significant, and any
4904 regulator (whether controlling or freeing)  must consider how these four in
4905 particular interact.
4906 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivespeed"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2879618"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2879624"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2879630"></a><p>
4907 So, for example, consider the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> to drive a car at a
4908 high speed. That freedom is in part restricted by laws: speed limits that
4909 say how fast you can drive in particular places at particular times. It is
4910 in part restricted by architecture: speed bumps, for example, slow most
4911 rational drivers; governors in buses, as another example, set the maximum
4912 rate at which the driver can drive. The freedom is in part restricted by the
4913 market: Fuel efficiency drops as speed increases, thus the price of gasoline
4914 indirectly constrains speed. And finally, the norms of a community may or
4915 may not constrain the freedom to speed. Drive at 50 mph by a school in your
4916 own neighborhood and you're likely to be punished by the neighbors. The same
4917 norm wouldn't be as effective in a different town, or at night.
4918 </p><p>
4919
4920 The final point about this simple model should also be fairly clear: While
4921 these four modalities are analytically independent, law has a special role
4922 in affecting the three.<sup>[<a name="id2879677" href="#ftn.id2879677" class="footnote">120</a>]</sup> The law, in
4923 other words, sometimes operates to increase or decrease the constraint of a
4924 particular modality.  Thus, the law might be used to increase taxes on
4925 gasoline, so as to increase the incentives to drive more slowly. The law
4926 might be used to mandate more speed bumps, so as to increase the difficulty
4927 of driving rapidly. The law might be used to fund ads that stigmatize
4928 reckless driving. Or the law might be used to require that other laws be
4929 more strict&#8212;a federal requirement that states decrease the speed
4930 limit, for example&#8212;so as to decrease the attractiveness of fast
4931 driving.
4932 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2879700"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.2. Law has a special role in affecting the three.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1361.png" alt="Law has a special role in affecting the three."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="id2879736"></a><p>
4933 These constraints can thus change, and they can be changed. To understand
4934 the effective protection of liberty or protection of property at any
4935 particular moment, we must track these changes over time. A restriction
4936 imposed by one modality might be erased by another. A freedom enabled by one
4937 modality might be displaced by another.<sup>[<a name="id2879751" href="#ftn.id2879751" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
4938 </p><div class="section" title="10.1. Hvorfor Hollywood har rett"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="hollywood"></a>10.1. Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</h2></div></div></div><p>
4939 The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just how,
4940 Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress and the
4941 courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that rallying makes
4942 sense.
4943 </p><p>
4944 Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the Internet:
4945 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1371"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.3. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="Copyright's regulation before the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="id2879870"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2879876"></a><p>
4946
4947
4948 There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
4949 limits the ability to copy and share content, by imposing penalties on those
4950 who copy and share content. Those penalties are reinforced by technologies
4951 that make it hard to copy and share content (architecture) and expensive to
4952 copy and share content (market). Finally, those penalties are mitigated by
4953 norms we all recognize&#8212;kids, for example, taping other kids'
4954 records. These uses of copyrighted material may well be infringement, but
4955 the norms of our society (before the Internet, at least) had no problem with
4956 this form of infringement.
4957 </p><p>
4958 Enter the Internet, or, more precisely, technologies such as MP3s and p2p
4959 sharing. Now the constraint of architecture changes dramatically, as does
4960 the constraint of the market. And as both the market and architecture relax
4961 the regulation of copyright, norms pile on. The happy balance (for the
4962 warriors, at least) of life before the Internet becomes an effective state
4963 of anarchy after the Internet.
4964 </p><p>
4965
4966 Thus the sense of, and justification for, the warriors' response.
4967 Technology has changed, the warriors say, and the effect of this change,
4968 when ramified through the market and norms, is that a balance of protection
4969 for the copyright owners' rights has been lost. This is Iraq after the fall
4970 of Saddam, but this time no government is justifying the looting that
4971 results.
4972 </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>
4973 Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the
4974 warriors. Indeed, in a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">White Paper</span>»</span> prepared by the Commerce
4975 Department (one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in 1995, this
4976 mix of regulatory modalities had already been identified and the strategy to
4977 respond already mapped. In response to the changes the Internet had
4978 effected, the White Paper argued (1) Congress should strengthen intellectual
4979 property law, (2) businesses should adopt innovative marketing techniques,
4980 (3) technologists should push to develop code to protect copyrighted
4981 material, and (4) educators should educate kids to better protect copyright.
4982 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2879953"></a><p>
4983
4984 This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed&#8212;if it was to
4985 preserve the particular balance that existed before the change induced by
4986 the Internet. And it's just what we should expect the content industry to
4987 push for. It is as American as apple pie to consider the happy life you have
4988 as an entitlement, and to look to the law to protect it if something comes
4989 along to change that happy life. Homeowners living in a flood plain have no
4990 hesitation appealing to the government to rebuild (and rebuild again) when a
4991 flood (architecture) wipes away their property (law). Farmers have no
4992 hesitation appealing to the government to bail them out when a virus
4993 (architecture) devastates their crop. Unions have no hesitation appealing to
4994 the government to bail them out when imports (market) wipe out the
4995 U.S. steel industry.
4996 </p><p>
4997 Thus, there's nothing wrong or surprising in the content industry's campaign
4998 to protect itself from the harmful consequences of a technological
4999 innovation. And I would be the last person to argue that the changing
5000 technology of the Internet has not had a profound effect on the content
5001 industry's way of doing business, or as John Seely Brown describes it, its
5002 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture of revenue.</span>»</span>
5003 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2880006"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2880011"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2880017"></a><p>
5004 But just because a particular interest asks for government support, it
5005 doesn't follow that support should be granted. And just because technology
5006 has weakened a particular way of doing business, it doesn't follow that the
5007 government should intervene to support that old way of doing
5008 business. Kodak, for example, has lost perhaps as much as 20 percent of
5009 their traditional film market to the emerging technologies of digital
5010 cameras.<sup>[<a name="id2880033" href="#ftn.id2880033" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
5011 government should ban digital cameras just to support Kodak? Highways have
5012 weakened the freight business for railroads. Does anyone think we should ban
5013 trucks from roads <span class="emphasis"><em>for the purpose of</em></span> protecting the
5014 railroads? Closer to the subject of this book, remote channel changers have
5015 weakened the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stickiness</span>»</span> of television advertising (if a
5016 boring commercial comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf ), and
5017 it may well be that this change has weakened the television advertising
5018 market. But does anyone believe we should regulate remotes to reinforce
5019 commercial television? (Maybe by limiting them to function only once a
5020 second, or to switch to only ten channels within an hour?)
5021 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2880081"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2880088"></a><p>
5022 The obvious answer to these obviously rhetorical questions is no.  In a free
5023 society, with a free market, supported by free enterprise and free trade,
5024 the government's role is not to support one way of doing business against
5025 others. Its role is not to pick winners and protect them against loss. If
5026 the government did this generally, then we would never have any progress. As
5027 Microsoft chairman Bill Gates wrote in 1991, in a memo criticizing software
5028 patents, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">established companies have an interest in excluding future
5029 competitors.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2880107" href="#ftn.id2880107" class="footnote">123</a>]</sup> And relative to a
5030 startup, established companies also have the means. (Think RCA and FM
5031 radio.) A world in which competitors with new ideas must fight not only the
5032 market but also the government is a world in which competitors with new
5033 ideas will not succeed. It is a world of stasis and increasingly
5034 concentrated stagnation. It is the Soviet Union under Brezhnev.
5035 </p><p>
5036 Thus, while it is understandable for industries threatened with new
5037 technologies that change the way they do business to look to the government
5038 for protection, it is the special duty of policy makers to guarantee that
5039 that protection not become a deterrent to progress. It is the duty of policy
5040 makers, in other words, to assure that the changes they create, in response
5041 to the request of those hurt by changing technology, are changes that
5042 preserve the incentives and opportunities for innovation and change.
5043 </p><p>
5044 In the context of laws regulating speech&#8212;which include, obviously,
5045 copyright law&#8212;that duty is even stronger. When the industry
5046 complaining about changing technologies is asking Congress to respond in a
5047 way that burdens speech and creativity, policy makers should be especially
5048 wary of the request. It is always a bad deal for the government to get into
5049 the business of regulating speech markets. The risks and dangers of that
5050 game are precisely why our framers created the First Amendment to our
5051 Constitution: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Congress shall make no law &#8230; abridging the
5052 freedom of speech.</span>»</span> So when Congress is being asked to pass laws that
5053 would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">abridge</span>»</span> the freedom of speech, it should ask&#8212;
5054 carefully&#8212;whether such regulation is justified.
5055 </p><p>
5056
5057 My argument just now, however, has nothing to do with whether the changes
5058 that are being pushed by the copyright warriors are
5059 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">justified.</span>»</span> My argument is about their effect. For before we
5060 get to the question of justification, a hard question that depends a great
5061 deal upon your values, we should first ask whether we understand the effect
5062 of the changes the content industry wants.
5063 </p><p>
5064 Her kommer metaforen som vil forklare argumentet.
5065 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxddt"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2880192"></a><p>
5066 In 1873, the chemical DDT was first synthesized. In 1948, Swiss chemist Paul
5067 Hermann Müller won the Nobel Prize for his work demonstrating the
5068 insecticidal properties of DDT. By the 1950s, the insecticide was widely
5069 used around the world to kill disease-carrying pests. It was also used to
5070 increase farm production.
5071 </p><p>
5072 No one doubts that killing disease-carrying pests or increasing crop
5073 production is a good thing. No one doubts that the work of Müller was
5074 important and valuable and probably saved lives, possibly millions.
5075 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2880223"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2880229"></a><p>
5076 But in 1962, Rachel Carson published <em class="citetitle">Silent Spring</em>,
5077 which argued that DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having
5078 unintended environmental consequences. Birds were losing the ability to
5079 reproduce.  Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed.
5080 </p><p>
5081 No one set out to destroy the environment. Paul Müller certainly did not aim
5082 to harm any birds. But the effort to solve one set of problems produced
5083 another set which, in the view of some, was far worse than the problems that
5084 were originally attacked. Or more accurately, the problems DDT caused were
5085 worse than the problems it solved, at least when considering the other, more
5086 environmentally friendly ways to solve the problems that DDT was meant to
5087 solve.
5088 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2880261"></a><p>
5089
5090 It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James Boyle
5091 appeals when he argues that we need an <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">environmentalism</span>»</span> for
5092 culture.<sup>[<a name="id2880277" href="#ftn.id2880277" class="footnote">124</a>]</sup> His point, and the point I
5093 want to develop in the balance of this chapter, is not that the aims of
5094 copyright are flawed. Or that authors should not be paid for their work. Or
5095 that music should be given away <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for free.</span>»</span> The point is that
5096 some of the ways in which we might protect authors will have unintended
5097 consequences for the cultural environment, much like DDT had for the natural
5098 environment. And just as criticism of DDT is not an endorsement of malaria
5099 or an attack on farmers, so, too, is criticism of one particular set of
5100 regulations protecting copyright not an endorsement of anarchy or an attack
5101 on authors.  It is an environment of creativity that we seek, and we should
5102 be aware of our actions' effects on the environment.
5103 </p><p>
5104 My argument, in the balance of this chapter, tries to map exactly this
5105 effect. No doubt the technology of the Internet has had a dramatic effect on
5106 the ability of copyright owners to protect their content. But there should
5107 also be little doubt that when you add together the changes in copyright law
5108 over time, plus the change in technology that the Internet is undergoing
5109 just now, the net effect of these changes will not be only that copyrighted
5110 work is effectively protected. Also, and generally missed, the net effect of
5111 this massive increase in protection will be devastating to the environment
5112 for creativity.
5113 </p><p>
5114 In a line: To kill a gnat, we are spraying DDT with consequences for free
5115 culture that will be far more devastating than that this gnat will be lost.
5116 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2880327"></a></div><div class="section" title="10.2. Opphav"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="beginnings"></a>10.2. Opphav</h2></div></div></div><p>
5117 America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
5118 English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative
5119 property</span>»</span> rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English
5120 aim to avoid overly powerful publishers.
5121 </p><p>
5122 The power to establish <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> rights is granted to
5123 Congress in a way that, for our Constitution, at least, is very odd. Article
5124 I, section 8, clause 8 of our Constitution states that:
5125 </p><p>
5126
5127 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
5128 by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
5129 to their respective Writings and Discoveries.  We can call this the
5130 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Progress Clause,</span>»</span> for notice what this clause does not say. It
5131 does not say Congress has the power to grant <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property
5132 rights.</span>»</span> It says that Congress has the power <span class="emphasis"><em>to promote
5133 progress</em></span>. The grant of power is its purpose, and its purpose is a
5134 public one, not the purpose of enriching publishers, nor even primarily the
5135 purpose of rewarding authors.
5136 </p><p>
5137 The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw in
5138 chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">6</a>, the
5139 English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a few would not
5140 exercise disproportionate control over culture by exercising
5141 disproportionate control over publishing. We can assume the framers followed
5142 the English for a similar purpose. Indeed, unlike the English, the framers
5143 reinforced that objective, by requiring that copyrights extend <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to
5144 Authors</span>»</span> only.
5145 </p><p>
5146 The design of the Progress Clause reflects something about the
5147 Constitution's design in general. To avoid a problem, the framers built
5148 structure. To prevent the concentrated power of publishers, they built a
5149 structure that kept copyrights away from publishers and kept them short. To
5150 prevent the concentrated power of a church, they banned the federal
5151 government from establishing a church. To prevent concentrating power in the
5152 federal government, they built structures to reinforce the power of the
5153 states&#8212;including the Senate, whose members were at the time selected
5154 by the states, and an electoral college, also selected by the states, to
5155 select the president. In each case, a <span class="emphasis"><em>structure</em></span> built
5156 checks and balances into the constitutional frame, structured to prevent
5157 otherwise inevitable concentrations of power.
5158 </p><p>
5159 I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call
5160 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond
5161 anything they ever considered. To begin to understand what they did, we need
5162 to put our <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> in context: We need to see how it has
5163 changed in the 210 years since they first struck its design.
5164 </p><p>
5165
5166 Some of these changes come from the law: some in light of changes in
5167 technology, and some in light of changes in technology given a particular
5168 concentration of market power. In terms of our model, we started here:
5169 </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>
5170 Vi kommer til å ende opp her:
5171 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1442"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.6. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Opphavsrett</span>»</span> i dag.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1442.png" alt="Opphavsrett i dag."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5172
5173 La meg forklare hvordan.
5174
5175 </p></div><div class="section" title="10.3. Loven: Varighet"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawduration"></a>10.3. Loven: Varighet</h2></div></div></div><p>
5176 When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it faced
5177 the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that the English
5178 had confronted in 1774. Many states had passed laws protecting creative
5179 property, and some believed that these laws simply supplemented common law
5180 rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="id2880508" href="#ftn.id2880508" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
5181 domain in the United States in 1790. If copyrights were protected by the
5182 common law, then there was no simple way to know whether a work published in
5183 the United States was controlled or free. Just as in England, this lingering
5184 uncertainty would make it hard for publishers to rely upon a public domain
5185 to reprint and distribute works.
5186 </p><p>
5187 That uncertainty ended after Congress passed legislation granting
5188 copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law, federal
5189 protections for copyrighted works displaced any state law protections.  Just
5190 as in England the Statute of Anne eventually meant that the copyrights for
5191 all English works expired, a federal statute meant that any state copyrights
5192 expired as well.
5193 </p><p>
5194 In 1790, Congress enacted the first copyright law. It created a federal
5195 copyright and secured that copyright for fourteen years. If the author was
5196 alive at the end of that fourteen years, then he could opt to renew the
5197 copyright for another fourteen years. If he did not renew the copyright, his
5198 work passed into the public domain.
5199 </p><p>
5200 Selv om det ble skapt mange verker i USA i de første 10 årene til
5201 republikken, så ble kun 5 prosent av verkene registrert under det føderale
5202 opphavsrettsregimet.  Av alle verker skapt i USA både før 1790 og fra 1790
5203 fram til 1800, så ble 95 prosent øyeblikkelig allemannseie (public
5204 domain). Resten ble allemannseie etter maksimalt 20 år, og som oftest etter
5205 14 år.<sup>[<a name="id2880576" href="#ftn.id2880576" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
5206 </p><p>
5207
5208 Dette fornyelsessystemet var en avgjørende del av det amerikanske systemet
5209 for opphavsrett.  Det sikret at maksimal vernetid i opphavsretten bare ble
5210 gitt til verker der det var ønsket. Etter den første perioden på fjorten år,
5211 hvis forfatteren ikke så verdien av å fornye sin opphavsrett, var det heller
5212 ikke verdt det for samfunnet å håndheve opphavsretten.
5213 </p><p>
5214 Fourteen years may not seem long to us, but for the vast majority of
5215 copyright owners at that time, it was long enough: Only a small minority of
5216 them renewed their copyright after fourteen years; the balance allowed their
5217 work to pass into the public domain.<sup>[<a name="id2880643" href="#ftn.id2880643" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
5218 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2880673"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2880682"></a><p>
5219 Even today, this structure would make sense. Most creative work has an
5220 actual commercial life of just a couple of years. Most books fall out of
5221 print after one year.<sup>[<a name="id2880696" href="#ftn.id2880696" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
5222 happens, the used books are traded free of copyright regulation. Thus the
5223 books are no longer <span class="emphasis"><em>effectively</em></span> controlled by
5224 copyright. The only practical commercial use of the books at that time is to
5225 sell the books as used books; that use&#8212;because it does not involve
5226 publication&#8212;is effectively free.
5227 </p><p>
5228 In the first hundred years of the Republic, the term of copyright was
5229 changed once. In 1831, the term was increased from a maximum of 28 years to
5230 a maximum of 42 by increasing the initial term of copyright from 14 years to
5231 28 years. In the next fifty years of the Republic, the term increased once
5232 again. In 1909, Congress extended the renewal term of 14 years to 28 years,
5233 setting a maximum term of 56 years.
5234 </p><p>
5235 Then, beginning in 1962, Congress started a practice that has defined
5236 copyright law since. Eleven times in the last forty years, Congress has
5237 extended the terms of existing copyrights; twice in those forty years,
5238 Congress extended the term of future copyrights. Initially, the extensions
5239 of existing copyrights were short, a mere one to two years.  In 1976,
5240 Congress extended all existing copyrights by nineteen years.  And in 1998,
5241 in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Congress extended the term
5242 of existing and future copyrights by twenty years.
5243 </p><p>
5244
5245 The effect of these extensions is simply to toll, or delay, the passing of
5246 works into the public domain. This latest extension means that the public
5247 domain will have been tolled for thirty-nine out of fifty-five years, or 70
5248 percent of the time since 1962. Thus, in the twenty years after the Sonny
5249 Bono Act, while one million patents will pass into the public domain, zero
5250 copyrights will pass into the public domain by virtue of the expiration of a
5251 copyright term.
5252 </p><p>
5253 The effect of these extensions has been exacerbated by another,
5254 little-noticed change in the copyright law. Remember I said that the framers
5255 established a two-part copyright regime, requiring a copyright owner to
5256 renew his copyright after an initial term. The requirement of renewal meant
5257 that works that no longer needed copyright protection would pass more
5258 quickly into the public domain. The works remaining under protection would
5259 be those that had some continuing commercial value.
5260 </p><p>
5261 The United States abandoned this sensible system in 1976. For all works
5262 created after 1978, there was only one copyright term&#8212;the maximum
5263 term. For <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natural</span>»</span> authors, that term was life plus fifty
5264 years. For corporations, the term was seventy-five years. Then, in 1992,
5265 Congress abandoned the renewal requirement for all works created before
5266 1978. All works still under copyright would be accorded the maximum term
5267 then available. After the Sonny Bono Act, that term was ninety-five years.
5268 </p><p>
5269 This change meant that American law no longer had an automatic way to assure
5270 that works that were no longer exploited passed into the public domain. And
5271 indeed, after these changes, it is unclear whether it is even possible to
5272 put works into the public domain. The public domain is orphaned by these
5273 changes in copyright law. Despite the requirement that terms be
5274 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited,</span>»</span> we have no evidence that anything will limit them.
5275 </p><p>
5276 The effect of these changes on the average duration of copyright is
5277 dramatic. In 1973, more than 85 percent of copyright owners failed to renew
5278 their copyright. That meant that the average term of copyright in 1973 was
5279 just 32.2 years. Because of the elimination of the renewal requirement, the
5280 average term of copyright is now the maximum term.  In thirty years, then,
5281 the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.<sup>[<a name="id2880805" href="#ftn.id2880805" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
5282 </p></div><div class="section" title="10.4. Loven: Virkeområde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawscope"></a>10.4. Loven: Virkeområde</h2></div></div></div><p>
5283 The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">scope</span>»</span> of a copyright is the range of rights granted by
5284 the law.  The scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those
5285 changes are not necessarily bad. But we should understand the extent of the
5286 changes if we're to keep this debate in context.
5287 </p><p>
5288 In 1790, that scope was very narrow. Copyright covered only <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">maps,
5289 charts, and books.</span>»</span> That means it didn't cover, for example, music or
5290 architecture. More significantly, the right granted by a copyright gave the
5291 author the exclusive right to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">publish</span>»</span> copyrighted works. That
5292 means someone else violated the copyright only if he republished the work
5293 without the copyright owner's permission. Finally, the right granted by a
5294 copyright was an exclusive right to that particular book. The right did not
5295 extend to what lawyers call <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative works.</span>»</span> It would not,
5296 therefore, interfere with the right of someone other than the author to
5297 translate a copyrighted book, or to adapt the story to a different form
5298 (such as a drama based on a published book).
5299 </p><p>
5300 This, too, has changed dramatically. While the contours of copyright today
5301 are extremely hard to describe simply, in general terms, the right covers
5302 practically any creative work that is reduced to a tangible form. It covers
5303 music as well as architecture, drama as well as computer programs. It gives
5304 the copyright owner of that creative work not only the exclusive right to
5305 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">publish</span>»</span> the work, but also the exclusive right of control
5306 over any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span> of that work. And most significant for our
5307 purposes here, the right gives the copyright owner control over not only his
5308 or her particular work, but also any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative work</span>»</span> that
5309 might grow out of the original work. In this way, the right covers more
5310 creative work, protects the creative work more broadly, and protects works
5311 that are based in a significant way on the initial creative work.
5312 </p><p>
5313
5314 At the same time that the scope of copyright has expanded, procedural
5315 limitations on the right have been relaxed. I've already described the
5316 complete removal of the renewal requirement in 1992. In addition to the
5317 renewal requirement, for most of the history of American copyright law,
5318 there was a requirement that a work be registered before it could receive
5319 the protection of a copyright. There was also a requirement that any
5320 copyrighted work be marked either with that famous © or the word
5321 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>. And for most of the history of American
5322 copyright law, there was a requirement that works be deposited with the
5323 government before a copyright could be secured.
5324 </p><p>
5325 The reason for the registration requirement was the sensible understanding
5326 that for most works, no copyright was required. Again, in the first ten
5327 years of the Republic, 95 percent of works eligible for copyright were never
5328 copyrighted. Thus, the rule reflected the norm: Most works apparently didn't
5329 need copyright, so registration narrowed the regulation of the law to the
5330 few that did. The same reasoning justified the requirement that a work be
5331 marked as copyrighted&#8212;that way it was easy to know whether a copyright
5332 was being claimed. The requirement that works be deposited was to assure
5333 that after the copyright expired, there would be a copy of the work
5334 somewhere so that it could be copied by others without locating the original
5335 author.
5336 </p><p>
5337 All of these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">formalities</span>»</span> were abolished in the American
5338 system when we decided to follow European copyright law. There is no
5339 requirement that you register a work to get a copyright; the copyright now
5340 is automatic; the copyright exists whether or not you mark your work with a
5341 ©; and the copyright exists whether or not you actually make a copy
5342 available for others to copy.
5343 </p><p>
5344 Vurder et praktisk eksempel for å forstå omfanget av disse forskjellene.
5345 </p><p>
5346 If, in 1790, you wrote a book and you were one of the 5 percent who actually
5347 copyrighted that book, then the copyright law protected you against another
5348 publisher's taking your book and republishing it without your
5349 permission. The aim of the act was to regulate publishers so as to prevent
5350 that kind of unfair competition. In 1790, there were 174 publishers in the
5351 United States.<sup>[<a name="id2880958" href="#ftn.id2880958" class="footnote">130</a>]</sup> The Copyright Act was
5352 thus a tiny regulation of a tiny proportion of a tiny part of the creative
5353 market in the United States&#8212;publishers.
5354 </p><p>
5355
5356
5357 The act left other creators totally unregulated. If I copied your poem by
5358 hand, over and over again, as a way to learn it by heart, my act was totally
5359 unregulated by the 1790 act. If I took your novel and made a play based upon
5360 it, or if I translated it or abridged it, none of those activities were
5361 regulated by the original copyright act. These creative activities remained
5362 free, while the activities of publishers were restrained.
5363 </p><p>
5364 Today the story is very different: If you write a book, your book is
5365 automatically protected. Indeed, not just your book. Every e-mail, every
5366 note to your spouse, every doodle, <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> creative act
5367 that's reduced to a tangible form&#8212;all of this is automatically
5368 copyrighted.  There is no need to register or mark your work. The protection
5369 follows the creation, not the steps you take to protect it.
5370 </p><p>
5371 That protection gives you the right (subject to a narrow range of fair use
5372 exceptions) to control how others copy the work, whether they copy it to
5373 republish it or to share an excerpt.
5374 </p><p>
5375 That much is the obvious part. Any system of copyright would control
5376 competing publishing. But there's a second part to the copyright of today
5377 that is not at all obvious. This is the protection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative
5378 rights.</span>»</span> If you write a book, no one can make a movie out of your
5379 book without permission. No one can translate it without permission.
5380 CliffsNotes can't make an abridgment unless permission is granted. All of
5381 these derivative uses of your original work are controlled by the copyright
5382 holder. The copyright, in other words, is now not just an exclusive right to
5383 your writings, but an exclusive right to your writings and a large
5384 proportion of the writings inspired by them.
5385 </p><p>
5386 It is this derivative right that would seem most bizarre to our framers,
5387 though it has become second nature to us. Initially, this expansion was
5388 created to deal with obvious evasions of a narrower copyright.  If I write a
5389 book, can you change one word and then claim a copyright in a new and
5390 different book? Obviously that would make a joke of the copyright, so the
5391 law was properly expanded to include those slight modifications as well as
5392 the verbatim original work.
5393 </p><p>
5394
5395 In preventing that joke, the law created an astonishing power within a free
5396 culture&#8212;at least, it's astonishing when you understand that the law
5397 applies not just to the commercial publisher but to anyone with a
5398 computer. I understand the wrong in duplicating and selling someone else's
5399 work. But whatever <span class="emphasis"><em>that</em></span> wrong is, transforming someone
5400 else's work is a different wrong. Some view transformation as no wrong at
5401 all&#8212;they believe that our law, as the framers penned it, should not
5402 protect derivative rights at all.<sup>[<a name="id2881045" href="#ftn.id2881045" class="footnote">131</a>]</sup>
5403 Whether or not you go that far, it seems plain that whatever wrong is
5404 involved is fundamentally different from the wrong of direct piracy.
5405 </p><p>
5406 Yet copyright law treats these two different wrongs in the same way. I can
5407 go to court and get an injunction against your pirating my book. I can go to
5408 court and get an injunction against your transformative use of my
5409 book.<sup>[<a name="id2881094" href="#ftn.id2881094" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
5410 creative work are treated the same.
5411 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2881124"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2881131"></a><p>
5412 This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should you be
5413 able to write a movie that takes my story and makes money from it without
5414 paying me or crediting me? Or if Disney creates a creature called
5415 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mickey Mouse,</span>»</span> why should you be able to make Mickey Mouse
5416 toys and be the one to trade on the value that Disney originally created?
5417 </p><p>
5418 These are good arguments, and, in general, my point is not that the
5419 derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower: simply to
5420 make clear that this expansion is a significant change from the rights
5421 originally granted.
5422 </p></div><div class="section" title="10.5. Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawreach"></a>10.5. Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</h2></div></div></div><p>
5423 Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
5424 copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users, and
5425 authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making copies,
5426 and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id2881172" href="#ftn.id2881172" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
5427 </p><p>
5428
5429
5430 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copies.</span>»</span> That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for
5431 <span class="emphasis"><em>copy</em></span>right law to regulate. But as with Jack Valenti's
5432 argument at the start of this chapter, that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span>
5433 deserves the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">same rights</span>»</span> as all other property, it is the
5434 <span class="emphasis"><em>obvious</em></span> that we need to be most careful about. For
5435 while it may be obvious that in the world before the Internet, copies were
5436 the obvious trigger for copyright law, upon reflection, it should be obvious
5437 that in the world with the Internet, copies should <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span>
5438 be the trigger for copyright law. More precisely, they should not
5439 <span class="emphasis"><em>always</em></span> be the trigger for copyright law.
5440 </p><p>
5441 This is perhaps the central claim of this book, so let me take this very
5442 slowly so that the point is not easily missed. My claim is that the Internet
5443 should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which the law of
5444 copyright automatically applies,<sup>[<a name="id2881251" href="#ftn.id2881251" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
5445 because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never
5446 contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright
5447 law.
5448 </p><p>
5449 We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely empty
5450 circle.
5451 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1521"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.7. Alle potensielle bruk av en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1521.png" alt="Alle potensielle bruk av en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksusetypes"></a><p>
5452
5453
5454 Think about a book in real space, and imagine this circle to represent all
5455 its potential <span class="emphasis"><em>uses</em></span>. Most of these uses are unregulated
5456 by copyright law, because the uses don't create a copy. If you read a book,
5457 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you give someone the book,
5458 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you resell a book, that act
5459 is not regulated (copyright law expressly states that after the first sale
5460 of a book, the copyright owner can impose no further conditions on the
5461 disposition of the book). If you sleep on the book or use it to hold up a
5462 lamp or let your puppy chew it up, those acts are not regulated by copyright
5463 law, because those acts do not make a copy.
5464 </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>
5465 Obviously, however, some uses of a copyrighted book are regulated by
5466 copyright law. Republishing the book, for example, makes a copy. It is
5467 therefore regulated by copyright law. Indeed, this particular use stands at
5468 the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work. It is the
5469 paradigmatic use properly regulated by copyright regulation (see first
5470 diagram on next page).
5471 </p><p>
5472 Til slutt er det en tynn skive av ellers regulert kopierings-bruk som
5473 forblir uregluert på grunn av at loven anser dette som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
5474 bruk</span>»</span>.
5475 </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
5476 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>
5477 These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law treats as
5478 unregulated because public policy demands that they remain unregulated.  You
5479 are free to quote from this book, even in a review that is quite negative,
5480 without my permission, even though that quoting makes a copy. That copy
5481 would ordinarily give the copyright owner the exclusive right to say whether
5482 the copy is allowed or not, but the law denies the owner any exclusive right
5483 over such <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair uses</span>»</span> for public policy (and possibly First
5484 Amendment) reasons.
5485 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1542"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.10. Uregulert kopiering anses som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1542.png" alt="Uregulert kopiering anses som rimelig bruk."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p> </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1551"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.11. Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
5486 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>
5487
5488
5489 In real space, then, the possible uses of a book are divided into three
5490 sorts: (1) unregulated uses, (2) regulated uses, and (3) regulated uses that
5491 are nonetheless deemed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair</span>»</span> regardless of the copyright
5492 owner's views.
5493 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2881433"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2881441"></a><p>
5494 Enter the Internet&#8212;a distributed, digital network where every use of a
5495 copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id2881182" href="#ftn.id2881182" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
5496 because of this single, arbitrary feature of the design of a digital
5497 network, the scope of category 1 changes dramatically. Uses that before were
5498 presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated. No longer is
5499 there a set of presumptively unregulated uses that define a freedom
5500 associated with a copyrighted work. Instead, each use is now subject to the
5501 copyright, because each use also makes a copy&#8212;category 1 gets sucked
5502 into category 2. And those who would defend the unregulated uses of
5503 copyrighted work must look exclusively to category 3, fair uses, to bear the
5504 burden of this shift.
5505 </p><p>
5506
5507 So let's be very specific to make this general point clear. Before the
5508 Internet, if you purchased a book and read it ten times, there would be no
5509 plausible <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>-related argument that the copyright
5510 owner could make to control that use of her book. Copyright law would have
5511 nothing to say about whether you read the book once, ten times, or every
5512 night before you went to bed. None of those instances of
5513 use&#8212;reading&#8212; could be regulated by copyright law because none of
5514 those uses produced a copy.
5515 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2881491"></a><p>
5516 But the same book as an e-book is effectively governed by a different set of
5517 rules. Now if the copyright owner says you may read the book only once or
5518 only once a month, then <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright law</em></span> would aid the
5519 copyright owner in exercising this degree of control, because of the
5520 accidental feature of copyright law that triggers its application upon there
5521 being a copy. Now if you read the book ten times and the license says you
5522 may read it only five times, then whenever you read the book (or any portion
5523 of it) beyond the fifth time, you are making a copy of the book contrary to
5524 the copyright owner's wish.
5525 </p><p>
5526 There are some people who think this makes perfect sense. My aim just now is
5527 not to argue about whether it makes sense or not. My aim is only to make
5528 clear the change. Once you see this point, a few other points also become
5529 clear:
5530 </p><p>
5531 First, making category 1 disappear is not anything any policy maker ever
5532 intended. Congress did not think through the collapse of the presumptively
5533 unregulated uses of copyrighted works. There is no evidence at all that
5534 policy makers had this idea in mind when they allowed our policy here to
5535 shift. Unregulated uses were an important part of free culture before the
5536 Internet.
5537 </p><p>
5538 Second, this shift is especially troubling in the context of transformative
5539 uses of creative content. Again, we can all understand the wrong in
5540 commercial piracy. But the law now purports to regulate
5541 <span class="emphasis"><em>any</em></span> transformation you make of creative work using a
5542 machine. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copy and paste</span>»</span> and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>»</span>
5543 become crimes. Tinkering with a story and releasing it to others exposes the
5544 tinkerer to at least a requirement of justification.  However troubling the
5545 expansion with respect to copying a particular work, it is extraordinarily
5546 troubling with respect to transformative uses of creative work.
5547 </p><p>
5548
5549 Third, this shift from category 1 to category 2 puts an extraordinary burden
5550 on category 3 (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>) that fair use never before had to
5551 bear.  If a copyright owner now tried to control how many times I could read
5552 a book on-line, the natural response would be to argue that this is a
5553 violation of my fair use rights. But there has never been any litigation
5554 about whether I have a fair use right to read, because before the Internet,
5555 reading did not trigger the application of copyright law and hence the need
5556 for a fair use defense. The right to read was effectively protected before
5557 because reading was not regulated.
5558 </p><p>
5559 This point about fair use is totally ignored, even by advocates for free
5560 culture. We have been cornered into arguing that our rights depend upon fair
5561 use&#8212;never even addressing the earlier question about the expansion in
5562 effective regulation. A thin protection grounded in fair use makes sense
5563 when the vast majority of uses are <span class="emphasis"><em>unregulated</em></span>. But
5564 when everything becomes presumptively regulated, then the protections of
5565 fair use are not enough.
5566 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising2"></a><p>
5567 The case of Video Pipeline is a good example. Video Pipeline was in the
5568 business of making <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trailer</span>»</span> advertisements for movies
5569 available to video stores. The video stores displayed the trailers as a way
5570 to sell videos. Video Pipeline got the trailers from the film distributors,
5571 put the trailers on tape, and sold the tapes to the retail stores.
5572 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2881618"></a><p>
5573 The company did this for about fifteen years. Then, in 1997, it began to
5574 think about the Internet as another way to distribute these previews.  The
5575 idea was to expand their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">selling by sampling</span>»</span> technique by
5576 giving on-line stores the same ability to enable <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">browsing.</span>»</span>
5577 Just as in a bookstore you can read a few pages of a book before you buy the
5578 book, so, too, you would be able to sample a bit from the movie on-line
5579 before you bought it.
5580 </p><p>
5581
5582 In 1998, Video Pipeline informed Disney and other film distributors that it
5583 intended to distribute the trailers through the Internet (rather than
5584 sending the tapes) to distributors of their videos. Two years later, Disney
5585 told Video Pipeline to stop. The owner of Video Pipeline asked Disney to
5586 talk about the matter&#8212;he had built a business on distributing this
5587 content as a way to help sell Disney films; he had customers who depended
5588 upon his delivering this content. Disney would agree to talk only if Video
5589 Pipeline stopped the distribution immediately.  Video Pipeline thought it
5590 was within their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> rights to distribute the clips as
5591 they had. So they filed a lawsuit to ask the court to declare that these
5592 rights were in fact their rights.
5593 </p><p>
5594 Disney countersued&#8212;for $100 million in damages. Those damages were
5595 predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">willfully
5596 infringed</span>»</span> on Disney's copyright. When a court makes a finding of
5597 willful infringement, it can award damages not on the basis of the actual
5598 harm to the copyright owner, but on the basis of an amount set in the
5599 statute. Because Video Pipeline had distributed seven hundred clips of
5600 Disney movies to enable video stores to sell copies of those movies, Disney
5601 was now suing Video Pipeline for $100 million.
5602 </p><p>
5603 Disney has the right to control its property, of course. But the video
5604 stores that were selling Disney's films also had some sort of right to be
5605 able to sell the films that they had bought from Disney. Disney's claim in
5606 court was that the stores were allowed to sell the films and they were
5607 permitted to list the titles of the films they were selling, but they were
5608 not allowed to show clips of the films as a way of selling them without
5609 Disney's permission.
5610 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2881690"></a><p>
5611 Now, you might think this is a close case, and I think the courts would
5612 consider it a close case. My point here is to map the change that gives
5613 Disney this power. Before the Internet, Disney couldn't really control how
5614 people got access to their content. Once a video was in the marketplace, the
5615 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">first-sale doctrine</span>»</span> would free the seller to use the video as
5616 he wished, including showing portions of it in order to engender sales of
5617 the entire movie video. But with the Internet, it becomes possible for
5618 Disney to centralize control over access to this content. Because each use
5619 of the Internet produces a copy, use on the Internet becomes subject to the
5620 copyright owner's control. The technology expands the scope of effective
5621 control, because the technology builds a copy into every transaction.
5622 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2881717"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2881724"></a><p>
5623
5624
5625 No doubt, a potential is not yet an abuse, and so the potential for control
5626 is not yet the abuse of control. Barnes &amp; Noble has the right to say you
5627 can't touch a book in their store; property law gives them that right.  But
5628 the market effectively protects against that abuse. If Barnes &amp; Noble
5629 banned browsing, then consumers would choose other bookstores.  Competition
5630 protects against the extremes. And it may well be (my argument so far does
5631 not even question this) that competition would prevent any similar danger
5632 when it comes to copyright. Sure, publishers exercising the rights that
5633 authors have assigned to them might try to regulate how many times you read
5634 a book, or try to stop you from sharing the book with anyone. But in a
5635 competitive market such as the book market, the dangers of this happening
5636 are quite slight.
5637 </p><p>
5638 Again, my aim so far is simply to map the changes that this changed
5639 architecture enables. Enabling technology to enforce the control of
5640 copyright means that the control of copyright is no longer defined by
5641 balanced policy. The control of copyright is simply what private owners
5642 choose. In some contexts, at least, that fact is harmless. But in some
5643 contexts it is a recipe for disaster.
5644 </p></div><div class="section" title="10.6. Arkitektur og lov: Makt"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="lawforce"></a>10.6. Arkitektur og lov: Makt</h2></div></div></div><p>
5645 The disappearance of unregulated uses would be change enough, but a second
5646 important change brought about by the Internet magnifies its
5647 significance. This second change does not affect the reach of copyright
5648 regulation; it affects how such regulation is enforced.
5649 </p><p>
5650 In the world before digital technology, it was generally the law that
5651 controlled whether and how someone was regulated by copyright law.  The law,
5652 meaning a court, meaning a judge: In the end, it was a human, trained in the
5653 tradition of the law and cognizant of the balances that tradition embraced,
5654 who said whether and how the law would restrict your freedom.
5655 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2881822"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
5656 Det er en berømt historie om en kamp mellom Marx-brødrene (the Marx
5657 Brothers) og Warner Brothers.  Marx-brødrene planla å lage en parodi av
5658 <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>. Warner Brothers protesterte.  De skrev et
5659 ufint brev til Marx-brødrene og advarte dem om at det ville få seriøse
5660 juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.<sup>[<a name="id2881866" href="#ftn.id2881866" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
5661 </p><p>
5662 Dette fikk Marx-brødrene til å svare tilbake med samme mynt.  De advarte
5663 Warner Brothers om at Marx-brødrene <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var brødre lenge før dere var
5664 det</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2881893" href="#ftn.id2881893" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> Marx-brødrene eide derfor
5665 ordet <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>, og hvis Warner Brothers insisterte på
5666 å forsøke å kontrollere <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>, så ville
5667 Marx-brødrene insistere på kontroll over <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>.
5668 </p><p>
5669 Det var en absurd og hul trussel, selvfølgelig, fordi Warner Brothers, på
5670 samme måte som Marx-brødrene, visste at ingen domstol noensinne ville
5671 håndheve et slikt dumt krav. Denne ekstremismen var irrelevant for de ekte
5672 friheter som alle (inkludert Warner Brothers) nøt godt av.
5673 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksoninternet"></a><p>
5674 On the Internet, however, there is no check on silly rules, because on the
5675 Internet, increasingly, rules are enforced not by a human but by a machine:
5676 Increasingly, the rules of copyright law, as interpreted by the copyright
5677 owner, get built into the technology that delivers copyrighted content. It
5678 is code, rather than law, that rules. And the problem with code regulations
5679 is that, unlike law, code has no shame. Code would not get the humor of the
5680 Marx Brothers. The consequence of that is not at all funny.
5681 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2881963"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2881971"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
5682 La oss se på livet til min Adobe eBook Reader.
5683 </p><p>
5684 En ebok er en bok levert i elektronisk form.  En Adobe eBook er ikke en bok
5685 som Adobe har publisert.  Adobe produserer kun programvaren som utgivere
5686 bruker å levere e-bøker.  Den bidrar med teknologien, og utgiveren leverer
5687 innholdet ved hjelp av teknologien.
5688 </p><p>
5689 On the next page is a picture of an old version of my Adobe eBook Reader.
5690 </p><p>
5691
5692 As you can see, I have a small collection of e-books within this e-book
5693 library. Some of these books reproduce content that is in the public domain:
5694 <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, for example, is in the public domain.
5695 Some of them reproduce content that is not in the public domain: My own book
5696 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> is not yet within the public
5697 domain.  Consider <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> first. If you click on
5698 my e-book copy of <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, you'll see a fancy
5699 cover, and then a button at the bottom called Permissions.
5700 </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>
5701 If you click on the Permissions button, you'll see a list of the permissions
5702 that the publisher purports to grant with this book.
5703 </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>
5704
5705
5706 According to my eBook Reader, I have the permission to copy to the clipboard
5707 of the computer ten text selections every ten days. (So far, I've copied no
5708 text to the clipboard.)  I also have the permission to print ten pages from
5709 the book every ten days. Lastly, I have the permission to use the Read Aloud
5710 button to hear <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> read aloud through the
5711 computer.
5712 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2882087"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2882093"></a><p>
5713 Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen):
5714 Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em>.
5715 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.14. E-bok av Aristoteles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Politikk</span>»</span></b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1621.png" alt="E-bok av Aristoteles Politikk"></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5716 According to its permissions, no printing or copying is permitted at
5717 all. But fortunately, you can use the Read Aloud button to hear the book.
5718 </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>
5719 Finally (and most embarrassingly), here are the permissions for the original
5720 e-book version of my last book, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>:
5721 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1631"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.16. Liste med tillatelser for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Future of Ideas</span>»</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1631.png" alt="Liste med tillatelser for The Future of Ideas."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5722 Ingen kopiering, ingen utskrift, og våg ikke å prøve å lytte til denne
5723 boken!
5724 </p><p>
5725 Now, the Adobe eBook Reader calls these controls
5726 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span>&#8212; as if the publisher has the power to
5727 control how you use these works.  For works under copyright, the copyright
5728 owner certainly does have the power&#8212;up to the limits of the copyright
5729 law. But for work not under copyright, there is no such copyright
5730 power.<sup>[<a name="id2882184" href="#ftn.id2882184" class="footnote">138</a>]</sup> When my e-book of
5731 <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> says I have the permission to copy only
5732 ten text selections into the memory every ten days, what that really means
5733 is that the eBook Reader has enabled the publisher to control how I use the
5734 book on my computer, far beyond the control that the law would enable.
5735 </p><p>
5736 The control comes instead from the code&#8212;from the technology within
5737 which the e-book <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lives.</span>»</span> Though the e-book says that these are
5738 permissions, they are not the sort of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span> that most
5739 of us deal with. When a teenager gets <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permission</span>»</span> to stay out
5740 till midnight, she knows (unless she's Cinderella) that she can stay out
5741 till 2 A.M., but will suffer a punishment if she's caught. But when the
5742 Adobe eBook Reader says I have the permission to make ten copies of the text
5743 into the computer's memory, that means that after I've made ten copies, the
5744 computer will not make any more. The same with the printing restrictions:
5745 After ten pages, the eBook Reader will not print any more pages.  It's the
5746 same with the silly restriction that says that you can't use the Read Aloud
5747 button to read my book aloud&#8212;it's not that the company will sue you if
5748 you do; instead, if you push the Read Aloud button with my book, the machine
5749 simply won't read aloud.
5750 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2882230"></a><p>
5751
5752
5753 These are <span class="emphasis"><em>controls</em></span>, not permissions. Imagine a world
5754 where the Marx Brothers sold word processing software that, when you tried
5755 to type <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Warner Brothers,</span>»</span> erased <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Brothers</span>»</span> from
5756 the sentence.
5757 </p><p>
5758 This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright
5759 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> as copyright <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span>. The
5760 controls over access to content will not be controls that are ratified by
5761 courts; the controls over access to content will be controls that are coded
5762 by programmers. And whereas the controls that are built into the law are
5763 always to be checked by a judge, the controls that are built into the
5764 technology have no similar built-in check.
5765 </p><p>
5766 How significant is this? Isn't it always possible to get around the controls
5767 built into the technology? Software used to be sold with technologies that
5768 limited the ability of users to copy the software, but those were trivial
5769 protections to defeat. Why won't it be trivial to defeat these protections
5770 as well?
5771 </p><p>
5772 We've only scratched the surface of this story. Return to the Adobe eBook
5773 Reader.
5774 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2882297"></a><p>
5775 Early in the life of the Adobe eBook Reader, Adobe suffered a public
5776 relations nightmare. Among the books that you could download for free on the
5777 Adobe site was a copy of <em class="citetitle">Alice's Adventures in
5778 Wonderland</em>.  This wonderful book is in the public domain. Yet
5779 when you clicked on Permissions for that book, you got the following report:
5780 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1641"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.17. Liste med tillatelser for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alice i Eventyrland</span>»</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1641.png" alt="Liste med tillatelser for Alice i Eventyrland."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5781 Here was a public domain children's book that you were not allowed to copy,
5782 not allowed to lend, not allowed to give, and, as the
5783 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span> indicated, not allowed to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">read
5784 aloud</span>»</span>!
5785 </p><p>
5786 The public relations nightmare attached to that final permission.  For the
5787 text did not say that you were not permitted to use the Read Aloud button;
5788 it said you did not have the permission to read the book aloud. That led
5789 some people to think that Adobe was restricting the right of parents, for
5790 example, to read the book to their children, which seemed, to say the least,
5791 absurd.
5792 </p><p>
5793 Adobe responded quickly that it was absurd to think that it was trying to
5794 restrict the right to read a book aloud. Obviously it was only restricting
5795 the ability to use the Read Aloud button to have the book read aloud. But
5796 the question Adobe never did answer is this: Would Adobe thus agree that a
5797 consumer was free to use software to hack around the restrictions built into
5798 the eBook Reader? If some company (call it Elcomsoft) developed a program to
5799 disable the technological protection built into an Adobe eBook so that a
5800 blind person, say, could use a computer to read the book aloud, would Adobe
5801 agree that such a use of an eBook Reader was fair? Adobe didn't answer
5802 because the answer, however absurd it might seem, is no.
5803 </p><p>
5804 The point is not to blame Adobe. Indeed, Adobe is among the most innovative
5805 companies developing strategies to balance open access to content with
5806 incentives for companies to innovate. But Adobe's technology enables
5807 control, and Adobe has an incentive to defend this control.  That incentive
5808 is understandable, yet what it creates is often crazy.
5809 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2882383"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2882391"></a><p>
5810 To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite story
5811 of mine that makes the same point.
5812 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo1"></a><p>
5813 Consider the robotic dog made by Sony named <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Aibo.</span>»</span> The Aibo
5814 learns tricks, cuddles, and follows you around. It eats only electricity and
5815 that doesn't leave that much of a mess (at least in your house).
5816 </p><p>
5817
5818 The Aibo is expensive and popular. Fans from around the world have set up
5819 clubs to trade stories. One fan in particular set up a Web site to enable
5820 information about the Aibo dog to be shared. This fan set up aibopet.com
5821 (and aibohack.com, but that resolves to the same site), and on that site he
5822 provided information about how to teach an Aibo to do tricks in addition to
5823 the ones Sony had taught it.
5824 </p><p>
5825 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Teach</span>»</span> here has a special meaning. Aibos are just cute
5826 computers.  You teach a computer how to do something by programming it
5827 differently.  So to say that aibopet.com was giving information about how to
5828 teach the dog to do new tricks is just to say that aibopet.com was giving
5829 information to users of the Aibo pet about how to hack their computer
5830 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">dog</span>»</span> to make it do new tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
5831 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2882476"></a><p>
5832 If you're not a programmer or don't know many programmers, the word
5833 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> has a particularly unfriendly
5834 connotation. Nonprogrammers hack bushes or weeds. Nonprogrammers in horror
5835 movies do even worse. But to programmers, or coders, as I call them,
5836 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> is a much more positive
5837 term. <em class="citetitle">Hack</em> just means code that enables the program
5838 to do something it wasn't originally intended or enabled to do. If you buy a
5839 new printer for an old computer, you might find the old computer doesn't
5840 run, or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">drive,</span>»</span> the printer. If you discovered that, you'd
5841 later be happy to discover a hack on the Net by someone who has written a
5842 driver to enable the computer to drive the printer you just bought.
5843 </p><p>
5844 Some hacks are easy. Some are unbelievably hard. Hackers as a community like
5845 to challenge themselves and others with increasingly difficult
5846 tasks. There's a certain respect that goes with the talent to hack
5847 well. There's a well-deserved respect that goes with the talent to hack
5848 ethically.
5849 </p><p>
5850 The Aibo fan was displaying a bit of both when he hacked the program and
5851 offered to the world a bit of code that would enable the Aibo to dance
5852 jazz. The dog wasn't programmed to dance jazz. It was a clever bit of
5853 tinkering that turned the dog into a more talented creature than Sony had
5854 built.
5855 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2882526"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2882534"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2882542"></a><p>
5856
5857 I've told this story in many contexts, both inside and outside the United
5858 States. Once I was asked by a puzzled member of the audience, is it
5859 permissible for a dog to dance jazz in the United States? We forget that
5860 stories about the backcountry still flow across much of the world. So let's
5861 just be clear before we continue: It's not a crime anywhere (anymore) to
5862 dance jazz. Nor is it a crime to teach your dog to dance jazz. Nor should it
5863 be a crime (though we don't have a lot to go on here) to teach your robot
5864 dog to dance jazz. Dancing jazz is a completely legal activity. One imagines
5865 that the owner of aibopet.com thought, <span class="emphasis"><em>What possible problem could
5866 there be with teaching a robot dog to dance?</em></span>
5867 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2882582"></a><p>
5868 Let's put the dog to sleep for a minute, and turn to a pony show&#8212; not
5869 literally a pony show, but rather a paper that a Princeton academic named Ed
5870 Felten prepared for a conference. This Princeton academic is well known and
5871 respected. He was hired by the government in the Microsoft case to test
5872 Microsoft's claims about what could and could not be done with its own
5873 code. In that trial, he demonstrated both his brilliance and his
5874 coolness. Under heavy badgering by Microsoft lawyers, Ed Felten stood his
5875 ground. He was not about to be bullied into being silent about something he
5876 knew very well.
5877 </p><p>
5878 But Felten's bravery was really tested in April 2001.<sup>[<a name="id2882607" href="#ftn.id2882607" class="footnote">139</a>]</sup> He and a group of colleagues were working on a
5879 paper to be submitted at conference.  The paper was intended to describe the
5880 weakness in an encryption system being developed by the Secure Digital Music
5881 Initiative as a technique to control the distribution of music.
5882 </p><p>
5883 The SDMI coalition had as its goal a technology to enable content owners to
5884 exercise much better control over their content than the Internet, as it
5885 originally stood, granted them. Using encryption, SDMI hoped to develop a
5886 standard that would allow the content owner to say <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">this music cannot
5887 be copied,</span>»</span> and have a computer respect that command.  The technology
5888 was to be part of a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trusted system</span>»</span> of control that would get
5889 content owners to trust the system of the Internet much more.
5890 </p><p>
5891 When SDMI thought it was close to a standard, it set up a competition.  In
5892 exchange for providing contestants with the code to an SDMI-encrypted bit of
5893 content, contestants were to try to crack it and, if they did, report the
5894 problems to the consortium.
5895 </p><p>
5896
5897
5898 Felten and his team figured out the encryption system quickly. He and the
5899 team saw the weakness of this system as a type: Many encryption systems
5900 would suffer the same weakness, and Felten and his team thought it
5901 worthwhile to point this out to those who study encryption.
5902 </p><p>
5903 Let's review just what Felten was doing. Again, this is the United
5904 States. We have a principle of free speech. We have this principle not just
5905 because it is the law, but also because it is a really great idea. A
5906 strongly protected tradition of free speech is likely to encourage a wide
5907 range of criticism. That criticism is likely, in turn, to improve the
5908 systems or people or ideas criticized.
5909 </p><p>
5910 What Felten and his colleagues were doing was publishing a paper describing
5911 the weakness in a technology. They were not spreading free music, or
5912 building and deploying this technology. The paper was an academic essay,
5913 unintelligible to most people. But it clearly showed the weakness in the
5914 SDMI system, and why SDMI would not, as presently constituted, succeed.
5915 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo2"></a><p>
5916 What links these two, aibopet.com and Felten, is the letters they then
5917 received. Aibopet.com received a letter from Sony about the aibopet.com
5918 hack. Though a jazz-dancing dog is perfectly legal, Sony wrote:
5919 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5920 Your site contains information providing the means to circumvent AIBO-ware's
5921 copy protection protocol constituting a violation of the anti-circumvention
5922 provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
5923 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2882783"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2882791"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2882799"></a><p>
5924 And though an academic paper describing the weakness in a system of
5925 encryption should also be perfectly legal, Felten received a letter from an
5926 RIAA lawyer that read:
5927 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5928
5929 Any disclosure of information gained from participating in the Public
5930 Challenge would be outside the scope of activities permitted by the
5931 Agreement and could subject you and your research team to actions under the
5932 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">DMCA</span>»</span>).
5933 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5934 In both cases, this weirdly Orwellian law was invoked to control the spread
5935 of information. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act made spreading such
5936 information an offense.
5937 </p><p>
5938 The DMCA was enacted as a response to copyright owners' first fear about
5939 cyberspace. The fear was that copyright control was effectively dead; the
5940 response was to find technologies that might compensate.  These new
5941 technologies would be copyright protection technologies&#8212; technologies
5942 to control the replication and distribution of copyrighted material. They
5943 were designed as <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> to modify the original
5944 <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> of the Internet, to reestablish some protection
5945 for copyright owners.
5946 </p><p>
5947 The DMCA was a bit of law intended to back up the protection of this code
5948 designed to protect copyrighted material. It was, we could say,
5949 <span class="emphasis"><em>legal code</em></span> intended to buttress <span class="emphasis"><em>software
5950 code</em></span> which itself was intended to support the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal
5951 code of copyright</em></span>.
5952 </p><p>
5953 But the DMCA was not designed merely to protect copyrighted works to the
5954 extent copyright law protected them. Its protection, that is, did not end at
5955 the line that copyright law drew. The DMCA regulated devices that were
5956 designed to circumvent copyright protection measures. It was designed to ban
5957 those devices, whether or not the use of the copyrighted material made
5958 possible by that circumvention would have been a copyright violation.
5959 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2882880"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2882886"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2882892"></a><p>
5960
5961 Aibopet.com and Felten make the point. The Aibo hack circumvented a
5962 copyright protection system for the purpose of enabling the dog to dance
5963 jazz. That enablement no doubt involved the use of copyrighted material. But
5964 as aibopet.com's site was noncommercial, and the use did not enable
5965 subsequent copyright infringements, there's no doubt that aibopet.com's hack
5966 was fair use of Sony's copyrighted material. Yet fair use is not a defense
5967 to the DMCA. The question is not whether the use of the copyrighted material
5968 was a copyright violation. The question is whether a copyright protection
5969 system was circumvented.
5970 </p><p>
5971 The threat against Felten was more attenuated, but it followed the same line
5972 of reasoning. By publishing a paper describing how a copyright protection
5973 system could be circumvented, the RIAA lawyer suggested, Felten himself was
5974 distributing a circumvention technology.  Thus, even though he was not
5975 himself infringing anyone's copyright, his academic paper was enabling
5976 others to infringe others' copyright.
5977 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2882937"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs2"></a><p>
5978 The bizarreness of these arguments is captured in a cartoon drawn in 1981 by
5979 Paul Conrad. At that time, a court in California had held that the VCR could
5980 be banned because it was a copyright-infringing technology: It enabled
5981 consumers to copy films without the permission of the copyright owner. No
5982 doubt there were uses of the technology that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka
5983 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>,</span>»</span> for example, had testified
5984 in that case that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers'
5985 Neighborhood.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2882972"></a>
5986 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5987 Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
5988 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> at hours when some children cannot use it. I
5989 think that it's a real service to families to be able to record such
5990 programs and show them at appropriate times. I have always felt that with
5991 the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the
5992 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> off-the-air, and I'm speaking for the
5993 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> because that's what I produce, that they then
5994 become much more active in the programming of their family's television
5995 life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My
5996 whole approach in broadcasting has always been <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You are an important
5997 person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.</span>»</span> Maybe
5998 I'm going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to
5999 be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is
6000 important.<sup>[<a name="id2883011" href="#ftn.id2883011" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
6001 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6002
6003
6004 Even though there were uses that were legal, because there were some uses
6005 that were illegal, the court held the companies producing the VCR
6006 responsible.
6007 </p><p>
6008 This led Conrad to draw the cartoon below, which we can adopt to the DMCA.
6009 <a class="indexterm" name="id2883060"></a>
6010 </p><p>
6011 No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
6012 </p><p>
6013 The anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA target copyright circumvention
6014 technologies. Circumvention technologies can be used for different
6015 ends. They can be used, for example, to enable massive pirating of
6016 copyrighted material&#8212;a bad end. Or they can be used to enable the use
6017 of particular copyrighted materials in ways that would be considered fair
6018 use&#8212;a good end.
6019 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxhandguns"></a><p>
6020
6021 A handgun can be used to shoot a police officer or a child. Most would agree
6022 such a use is bad. Or a handgun can be used for target practice or to
6023 protect against an intruder. At least some would say that such a use would
6024 be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good and bad uses.
6025 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1711-vcr-handgun-cartoonfig"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1711.png" alt="VCR/handgun cartoon."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="id2883119"></a><p>
6026 The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world where guns
6027 are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and circumvention
6028 technologies) are illegal. Flash: <span class="emphasis"><em>No one ever died from copyright
6029 circumvention</em></span>. Yet the law bans circumvention technologies
6030 absolutely, despite the potential that they might do some good, but permits
6031 guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do.
6032 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2883138"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2883147"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2883155"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2883161"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2883167"></a><p>
6033 The Aibo and RIAA examples demonstrate how copyright owners are changing the
6034 balance that copyright law grants. Using code, copyright owners restrict
6035 fair use; using the DMCA, they punish those who would attempt to evade the
6036 restrictions on fair use that they impose through code. Technology becomes a
6037 means by which fair use can be erased; the law of the DMCA backs up that
6038 erasing.
6039 </p><p>
6040 This is how <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> becomes <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span>. The
6041 controls built into the technology of copy and access protection become
6042 rules the violation of which is also a violation of the law. In this way,
6043 the code extends the law&#8212;increasing its regulation, even if the
6044 subject it regulates (activities that would otherwise plainly constitute
6045 fair use) is beyond the reach of the law. Code becomes law; code extends the
6046 law; code thus extends the control that copyright owners effect&#8212;at
6047 least for those copyright holders with the lawyers who can write the nasty
6048 letters that Felten and aibopet.com received.
6049 </p><p>
6050 There is one final aspect of the interaction between architecture and law
6051 that contributes to the force of copyright's regulation. This is the ease
6052 with which infringements of the law can be detected. For contrary to the
6053 rhetoric common at the birth of cyberspace that on the Internet, no one
6054 knows you're a dog, increasingly, given changing technologies deployed on
6055 the Internet, it is easy to find the dog who committed a legal wrong. The
6056 technologies of the Internet are open to snoops as well as sharers, and the
6057 snoops are increasingly good at tracking down the identity of those who
6058 violate the rules.
6059 </p><p>
6060
6061
6062 For example, imagine you were part of a <em class="citetitle">Star Trek</em> fan
6063 club. You gathered every month to share trivia, and maybe to enact a kind of
6064 fan fiction about the show. One person would play Spock, another, Captain
6065 Kirk. The characters would begin with a plot from a real story, then simply
6066 continue it.<sup>[<a name="id2883228" href="#ftn.id2883228" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
6067 </p><p>
6068 Before the Internet, this was, in effect, a totally unregulated activity.
6069 No matter what happened inside your club room, you would never be interfered
6070 with by the copyright police. You were free in that space to do as you
6071 wished with this part of our culture. You were allowed to build on it as you
6072 wished without fear of legal control.
6073 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2883256"></a><p>
6074 But if you moved your club onto the Internet, and made it generally
6075 available for others to join, the story would be very different. Bots
6076 scouring the Net for trademark and copyright infringement would quickly find
6077 your site. Your posting of fan fiction, depending upon the ownership of the
6078 series that you're depicting, could well inspire a lawyer's threat. And
6079 ignoring the lawyer's threat would be extremely costly indeed.  The law of
6080 copyright is extremely efficient. The penalties are severe, and the process
6081 is quick.
6082 </p><p>
6083 This change in the effective force of the law is caused by a change in the
6084 ease with which the law can be enforced. That change too shifts the law's
6085 balance radically. It is as if your car transmitted the speed at which you
6086 traveled at every moment that you drove; that would be just one step before
6087 the state started issuing tickets based upon the data you transmitted. That
6088 is, in effect, what is happening here.
6089 </p></div><div class="section" title="10.7. Marked: Konsentrasjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="marketconcentration"></a>10.7. Marked: Konsentrasjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
6090
6091 So copyright's duration has increased dramatically&#8212;tripled in the past
6092 thirty years. And copyright's scope has increased as well&#8212;from
6093 regulating only publishers to now regulating just about everyone. And
6094 copyright's reach has changed, as every action becomes a copy and hence
6095 presumptively regulated. And as technologists find better ways to control
6096 the use of content, and as copyright is increasingly enforced through
6097 technology, copyright's force changes, too. Misuse is easier to find and
6098 easier to control. This regulation of the creative process, which began as a
6099 tiny regulation governing a tiny part of the market for creative work, has
6100 become the single most important regulator of creativity there is. It is a
6101 massive expansion in the scope of the government's control over innovation
6102 and creativity; it would be totally unrecognizable to those who gave birth
6103 to copyright's control.
6104 </p><p>
6105 Still, in my view, all of these changes would not matter much if it weren't
6106 for one more change that we must also consider. This is a change that is in
6107 some sense the most familiar, though its significance and scope are not well
6108 understood. It is the one that creates precisely the reason to be concerned
6109 about all the other changes I have described.
6110 </p><p>
6111 This is the change in the concentration and integration of the media.  In
6112 the past twenty years, the nature of media ownership has undergone a radical
6113 alteration, caused by changes in legal rules governing the media.  Before
6114 this change happened, the different forms of media were owned by separate
6115 media companies. Now, the media is increasingly owned by only a few
6116 companies. Indeed, after the changes that the FCC announced in June 2003,
6117 most expect that within a few years, we will live in a world where just
6118 three companies control more than percent of the media.
6119 </p><p>
6120 Det er her to sorter endringer: omfanget av konsentrasjon, og dens natur.
6121 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2883341"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2883346"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2883352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2883358"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2883365"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2883371"></a><p>
6122 Changes in scope are the easier ones to describe. As Senator John McCain
6123 summarized the data produced in the FCC's review of media ownership,
6124 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five companies control 85 percent of our media
6125 sources.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2883385" href="#ftn.id2883385" class="footnote">142</a>]</sup> The five recording
6126 labels of Universal Music Group, BMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music
6127 Group, and EMI control 84.8 percent of the U.S. music market.<sup>[<a name="id2883397" href="#ftn.id2883397" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five largest cable companies pipe
6128 programming to 74 percent of the cable subscribers
6129 nationwide.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2883415" href="#ftn.id2883415" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup>
6130 </p><p>
6131
6132 The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation, the
6133 nation's largest radio broadcasting conglomerate owned fewer than
6134 seventy-five stations. Today <span class="emphasis"><em>one</em></span> company owns more than
6135 1,200 stations.  During that period of consolidation, the total number of
6136 radio owners dropped by 34 percent. Today, in most markets, the two largest
6137 broadcasters control 74 percent of that market's revenues. Overall, just
6138 four companies control 90 percent of the nation's radio advertising
6139 revenues.
6140 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2883447"></a><p>
6141 Newspaper ownership is becoming more concentrated as well.  Today, there are
6142 six hundred fewer daily newspapers in the United States than there were
6143 eighty years ago, and ten companies control half of the nation's
6144 circulation. There are twenty major newspaper publishers in the United
6145 States. The top ten film studios receive 99 percent of all film revenue. The
6146 ten largest cable companies account for 85 percent of all cable
6147 revenue. This is a market far from the free press the framers sought to
6148 protect. Indeed, it is a market that is quite well protected&#8212; by the
6149 market.
6150 </p><p>
6151 Concentration in size alone is one thing. The more invidious change is in
6152 the nature of that concentration. As author James Fallows put it in a recent
6153 article about Rupert Murdoch, <a class="indexterm" name="id2883460"></a>
6154 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6155 Murdoch's companies now constitute a production system unmatched in its
6156 integration. They supply content&#8212;Fox movies &#8230; Fox TV shows
6157 &#8230; Fox-controlled sports broadcasts, plus newspapers and books. They
6158 sell the content to the public and to advertisers&#8212;in newspapers, on
6159 the broadcast network, on the cable channels. And they operate the physical
6160 distribution system through which the content reaches the
6161 customers. Murdoch's satellite systems now distribute News Corp. content in
6162 Europe and Asia; if Murdoch becomes DirecTV's largest single owner, that
6163 system will serve the same function in the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2883485" href="#ftn.id2883485" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
6164 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6165 The pattern with Murdoch is the pattern of modern media. Not just large
6166 companies owning many radio stations, but a few companies owning as many
6167 outlets of media as possible. A picture describes this pattern better than a
6168 thousand words could do:
6169 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1761-pattern-modern-media-ownership"></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>
6170
6171
6172 Betyr denne konsentrasjonen noe?  Påvirker det hva som blir laget, eller hva
6173 som blir distribuert?  Eller er det bare en mer effektiv måte å produsere og
6174 distribuere innhold?
6175 </p><p>
6176 Mitt syn var at konsentrasjonen ikke betød noe.  Jeg tenkte det ikke var noe
6177 mer enn en mer effektiv finansiell struktur.  Men nå, etter å ha lest og
6178 hørt på en haug av skapere prøve å overbevise meg om det motsatte, har jeg
6179 begynt å endre mening.
6180 </p><p>
6181 Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen
6182 er viktig.
6183 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2883569"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2883575"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2883581"></a><p>
6184 I 1969 laget Norman Lear en polit for <em class="citetitle">All in the
6185 Family</em>.  Han tok piloten til ABC, og nettverket likte det ikke.
6186 Da sa til Lear at det var for på kanten.  Gjør det om igjen. Lear lagde
6187 piloten på nytt, mer på kanten enn den første.  ABC ble fra seg.  Du får
6188 ikke med deg poenget, fortalte de Lear.  Vi vil ha det mindre på kanten,
6189 ikke mer.
6190 </p><p>
6191 I stedet for å føye seg, to Lear ganske enkelt serien sin til noen andre.
6192 CBS var glad for å ha seriene, og ABC kunne ikke stoppe Lear fra å gå til
6193 andre.  Opphavsretten som Lear hadde sikret uavhengighet fra
6194 nettverk-kontroll.<sup>[<a name="id2883614" href="#ftn.id2883614" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
6195 </p><p>
6196
6197
6198
6199 The network did not control those copyrights because the law forbade the
6200 networks from controlling the content they syndicated. The law required a
6201 separation between the networks and the content producers; that separation
6202 would guarantee Lear freedom. And as late as 1992, because of these rules,
6203 the vast majority of prime time television&#8212;75 percent of it&#8212;was
6204 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">independent</span>»</span> of the networks.
6205 </p><p>
6206 In 1994, the FCC abandoned the rules that required this independence.  After
6207 that change, the networks quickly changed the balance.  In 1985, there were
6208 twenty-five independent television production studios; in 2002, only five
6209 independent television studios remained. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In 1992, only 15 percent of
6210 new series were produced for a network by a company it controlled. Last
6211 year, the percentage of shows produced by controlled companies more than
6212 quintupled to 77 percent.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In 1992, 16 new series were
6213 produced independently of conglomerate control, last year there was
6214 one.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2883676" href="#ftn.id2883676" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of
6215 prime time television was owned by the networks that ran it. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the
6216 ten-year period between 1992 and 2002, the number of prime time television
6217 hours per week produced by network studios increased over 200%, whereas the
6218 number of prime time television hours per week produced by independent
6219 studios decreased 63%.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2883704" href="#ftn.id2883704" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
6220 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2883711"></a><p>
6221 Today, another Norman Lear with another <em class="citetitle">All in the
6222 Family</em> would find that he had the choice either to make the show
6223 less edgy or to be fired: The content of any show developed for a network is
6224 increasingly owned by the network.
6225 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2883727"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2883734"></a><p>
6226 Mens antall kanaler har økt dramatisk, har eierskapet til disse kanalene
6227 snevret inn fra få til stadig færre.  Som Barry Diller sa til Bill Moyers,
6228 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6229 Well, if you have companies that produce, that finance, that air on their
6230 channel and then distribute worldwide everything that goes through their
6231 controlled distribution system, then what you get is fewer and fewer actual
6232 voices participating in the process. [We u]sed to have dozens and dozens of
6233 thriving independent production companies producing television programs. Now
6234 you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="id2883760" href="#ftn.id2883760" class="footnote">149</a>]</sup>
6235 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6236 This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of such large
6237 and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous.  Increasingly
6238 safe. Increasingly sterile. The product of news shows from networks like
6239 this is increasingly tailored to the message the network wants to
6240 convey. This is not the communist party, though from the inside, it must
6241 feel a bit like the communist party. No one can question without risk of
6242 consequence&#8212;not necessarily banishment to Siberia, but punishment
6243 nonetheless. Independent, critical, different views are quashed. This is not
6244 the environment for a democracy.
6245 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2883787"></a><p>
6246 Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
6247 affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the
6248 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Innovator's Dilemma</span>»</span>: the fact that large traditional firms
6249 find it rational to ignore new, breakthrough technologies that compete with
6250 their core business.  The same analysis could help explain why large,
6251 traditional media companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural
6252 trends.<sup>[<a name="id2883818" href="#ftn.id2883818" class="footnote">150</a>]</sup> Lumbering giants not only
6253 don't, but should not, sprint. Yet if the field is only open to the giants,
6254 there will be far too little sprinting.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2883849"></a>
6255 </p><p>
6256 I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media market to say
6257 with certainty what concentration and integration will do. The efficiencies
6258 are important, and the effect on culture is hard to measure.
6259 </p><p>
6260 But there is a quintessentially obvious example that does strongly suggest
6261 the concern.
6262 </p><p>
6263 In addition to the copyright wars, we're in the middle of the drug
6264 wars. Government policy is strongly directed against the drug cartels;
6265 criminal and civil courts are filled with the consequences of this battle.
6266 </p><p>
6267
6268 Let me hereby disqualify myself from any possible appointment to any
6269 position in government by saying I believe this war is a profound mistake. I
6270 am not pro drugs. Indeed, I come from a family once wrecked by
6271 drugs&#8212;though the drugs that wrecked my family were all quite legal. I
6272 believe this war is a profound mistake because the collateral damage from it
6273 is so great as to make waging the war insane.  When you add together the
6274 burdens on the criminal justice system, the desperation of generations of
6275 kids whose only real economic opportunities are as drug warriors, the
6276 queering of constitutional protections because of the constant surveillance
6277 this war requires, and, most profoundly, the total destruction of the legal
6278 systems of many South American nations because of the power of the local
6279 drug cartels, I find it impossible to believe that the marginal benefit in
6280 reduced drug consumption by Americans could possibly outweigh these costs.
6281 </p><p>
6282 You may not be convinced. That's fine. We live in a democracy, and it is
6283 through votes that we are to choose policy. But to do that, we depend
6284 fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about these issues.
6285 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising3"></a><p>
6286 Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched a
6287 media campaign as part of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">war on drugs.</span>»</span> The campaign
6288 produced scores of short film clips about issues related to illegal
6289 drugs. In one series (the Nick and Norm series) two men are in a bar,
6290 discussing the idea of legalizing drugs as a way to avoid some of the
6291 collateral damage from the war. One advances an argument in favor of drug
6292 legalization. The other responds in a powerful and effective way against the
6293 argument of the first. In the end, the first guy changes his mind (hey, it's
6294 television). The plug at the end is a damning attack on the pro-legalization
6295 campaign.
6296 </p><p>
6297 Fair enough. It's a good ad. Not terribly misleading. It delivers its
6298 message well. It's a fair and reasonable message.
6299 </p><p>
6300 But let's say you think it is a wrong message, and you'd like to run a
6301 countercommercial. Say you want to run a series of ads that try to
6302 demonstrate the extraordinary collateral harm that comes from the drug
6303 war. Can you do it?
6304 </p><p>
6305
6306 Well, obviously, these ads cost lots of money. Assume you raise the
6307 money. Assume a group of concerned citizens donates all the money in the
6308 world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your message will be
6309 heard then?
6310 </p><p>
6311 No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
6312 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">controversial</span>»</span> ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
6313 uncontroversial; ads disagreeing with the government are controversial.
6314 This selectivity might be thought inconsistent with the First Amendment, but
6315 the Supreme Court has held that stations have the right to choose what they
6316 run. Thus, the major channels of commercial media will refuse one side of a
6317 crucial debate the opportunity to present its case.  And the courts will
6318 defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.<sup>[<a name="id2883969" href="#ftn.id2883969" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
6319 </p><p>
6320 I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well&#8212;if we lived in a
6321 media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the media throws
6322 that condition into doubt. If a handful of companies control access to the
6323 media, and that handful of companies gets to decide which political
6324 positions it will allow to be promoted on its channels, then in an obvious
6325 and important way, concentration matters. You might like the positions the
6326 handful of companies selects. But you should not like a world in which a
6327 mere few get to decide which issues the rest of us get to know about.
6328 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2883883"></a></div><div class="section" title="10.8. Sammen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="together"></a>10.8. Sammen</h2></div></div></div><p>
6329 There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the copyright
6330 warriors that the government should <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protect my property.</span>»</span> In
6331 the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No
6332 sane sort who is not an anarchist could disagree.
6333 </p><p>
6334
6335 But when we see how dramatically this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> has
6336 changed&#8212; when we recognize how it might now interact with both
6337 technology and markets to mean that the effective constraint on the liberty
6338 to cultivate our culture is dramatically different&#8212;the claim begins to
6339 seem less innocent and obvious. Given (1) the power of technology to
6340 supplement the law's control, and (2) the power of concentrated markets to
6341 weaken the opportunity for dissent, if strictly enforcing the massively
6342 expanded <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> rights granted by copyright fundamentally
6343 changes the freedom within this culture to cultivate and build upon our
6344 past, then we have to ask whether this property should be redefined.
6345 </p><p>
6346 Not starkly. Or absolutely. My point is not that we should abolish copyright
6347 or go back to the eighteenth century. That would be a total mistake,
6348 disastrous for the most important creative enterprises within our culture
6349 today.
6350 </p><p>
6351 But there is a space between zero and one, Internet culture
6352 notwithstanding.  And these massive shifts in the effective power of
6353 copyright regulation, tied to increased concentration of the content
6354 industry and resting in the hands of technology that will increasingly
6355 enable control over the use of culture, should drive us to consider whether
6356 another adjustment is called for. Not an adjustment that increases
6357 copyright's power. Not an adjustment that increases its term. Rather, an
6358 adjustment to restore the balance that has traditionally defined copyright's
6359 regulation&#8212;a weakening of that regulation, to strengthen creativity.
6360 </p><p>
6361 Copyright law has not been a rock of Gibraltar. It's not a set of constant
6362 commitments that, for some mysterious reason, teenagers and geeks now
6363 flout. Instead, copyright power has grown dramatically in a short period of
6364 time, as the technologies of distribution and creation have changed and as
6365 lobbyists have pushed for more control by copyright holders. Changes in the
6366 past in response to changes in technology suggest that we may well need
6367 similar changes in the future. And these changes have to be
6368 <span class="emphasis"><em>reductions</em></span> in the scope of copyright, in response to
6369 the extraordinary increase in control that technology and the market enable.
6370 </p><p>
6371
6372 For the single point that is lost in this war on pirates is a point that we
6373 see only after surveying the range of these changes. When you add together
6374 the effect of changing law, concentrated markets, and changing technology,
6375 together they produce an astonishing conclusion: <span class="emphasis"><em>Never in our
6376 history have fewer had a legal right to control more of the development of
6377 our culture than now</em></span>.
6378 </p><p>
6379 Not when copyrights were perpetual, for when copyrights were perpetual, they
6380 affected only that precise creative work. Not when only publishers had the
6381 tools to publish, for the market then was much more diverse. Not when there
6382 were only three television networks, for even then, newspapers, film
6383 studios, radio stations, and publishers were independent of the
6384 networks. <span class="emphasis"><em>Never</em></span> has copyright protected such a wide
6385 range of rights, against as broad a range of actors, for a term that was
6386 remotely as long. This form of regulation&#8212;a tiny regulation of a tiny
6387 part of the creative energy of a nation at the founding&#8212;is now a
6388 massive regulation of the overall creative process. Law plus technology plus
6389 the market now interact to turn this historically benign regulation into the
6390 most significant regulation of culture that our free society has
6391 known.<sup>[<a name="id2884213" href="#ftn.id2884213" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
6392 </p><p>
6393 <span class="strong"><strong>This has been</strong></span> a long chapter. Its point
6394 can now be briefly stated.
6395 </p><p>
6396 At the start of this book, I distinguished between commercial and
6397 noncommercial culture. In the course of this chapter, I have distinguished
6398 between copying a work and transforming it. We can now combine these two
6399 distinctions and draw a clear map of the changes that copyright law has
6400 undergone.  In 1790, the law looked like this:
6401 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t2"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left"> </th><th align="left">Publisere</th><th align="left">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Kommersiell</td><td align="left">©</td><td align="left">Fri</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="left">Fri</td><td align="left">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
6402
6403 The act of publishing a map, chart, and book was regulated by copyright
6404 law. Nothing else was. Transformations were free. And as copyright attached
6405 only with registration, and only those who intended to benefit commercially
6406 would register, copying through publishing of noncommercial work was also
6407 free.
6408 </p><p>
6409 På slutten av det nittende århundre hadde loven blitt endret til dette:
6410 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t3"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left"> </th><th align="left">Publisere</th><th align="left">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Kommersiell</td><td align="left">©</td><td align="left">©</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="left">Fri</td><td align="left">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
6411 Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law&#8212;if published,
6412 which again, given the economics of publishing at the time, means if offered
6413 commercially. But noncommercial publishing and transformation were still
6414 essentially free.
6415 </p><p>
6416 In 1909 the law changed to regulate copies, not publishing, and after this
6417 change, the scope of the law was tied to technology. As the technology of
6418 copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law expanded.  Thus by 1975,
6419 as photocopying machines became more common, we could say the law began to
6420 look like this:
6421 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t4"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left"> </th><th align="left">Kopiere</th><th align="left">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Kommersiell</td><td align="left">©</td><td align="left">©</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="left">©/Fri</td><td align="left">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
6422 The law was interpreted to reach noncommercial copying through, say, copy
6423 machines, but still much of copying outside of the commercial market
6424 remained free. But the consequence of the emergence of digital technologies,
6425 especially in the context of a digital network, means that the law now looks
6426 like this:
6427 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t5"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left"> </th><th align="left">Kopiere</th><th align="left">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Kommersiell</td><td align="left">©</td><td align="left">©</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="left">©</td><td align="left">©</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
6428
6429 Every realm is governed by copyright law, whereas before most creativity was
6430 not. The law now regulates the full range of creativity&#8212; commercial or
6431 not, transformative or not&#8212;with the same rules designed to regulate
6432 commercial publishers.
6433 </p><p>
6434 Obviously, copyright law is not the enemy. The enemy is regulation that does
6435 no good. So the question that we should be asking just now is whether
6436 extending the regulations of copyright law into each of these domains
6437 actually does any good.
6438 </p><p>
6439 I have no doubt that it does good in regulating commercial copying.  But I
6440 also have no doubt that it does more harm than good when regulating (as it
6441 regulates just now) noncommercial copying and, especially, noncommercial
6442 transformation. And increasingly, for the reasons sketched especially in
6443 chapters <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a> and
6444 <a class="xref" href="#transformers" title="Kapittel åtte: Omformerne">8</a>, one might
6445 well wonder whether it does more harm than good for commercial
6446 transformation.  More commercial transformative work would be created if
6447 derivative rights were more sharply restricted.
6448 </p><p>
6449 The issue is therefore not simply whether copyright is property. Of course
6450 copyright is a kind of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property,</span>»</span> and of course, as with any
6451 property, the state ought to protect it. But first impressions
6452 notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all property
6453 rights<sup>[<a name="id2884573" href="#ftn.id2884573" class="footnote">153</a>]</sup>)  has been crafted to balance
6454 the important need to give authors and artists incentives with the equally
6455 important need to assure access to creative work. This balance has always
6456 been struck in light of new technologies.  And for almost half of our
6457 tradition, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> did not control <span class="emphasis"><em>at
6458 all</em></span> the freedom of others to build upon or transform a creative
6459 work. American culture was born free, and for almost 180 years our country
6460 consistently protected a vibrant and rich free culture.
6461 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2884614"></a><p>
6462
6463 We achieved that free culture because our law respected important limits on
6464 the scope of the interests protected by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> The very
6465 birth of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> as a statutory right recognized those
6466 limits, by granting copyright owners protection for a limited time only (the
6467 story of chapter 6). The tradition of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> is animated by
6468 a similar concern that is increasingly under strain as the costs of
6469 exercising any fair use right become unavoidably high (the story of chapter
6470 7). Adding statutory rights where markets might stifle innovation is another
6471 familiar limit on the property right that copyright is (chapter 8). And
6472 granting archives and libraries a broad freedom to collect, claims of
6473 property notwithstanding, is a crucial part of guaranteeing the soul of a
6474 culture (chapter 9). Free cultures, like free markets, are built with
6475 property. But the nature of the property that builds a free culture is very
6476 different from the extremist vision that dominates the debate today.
6477 </p><p>
6478 Free culture is increasingly the casualty in this war on piracy. In response
6479 to a real, if not yet quantified, threat that the technologies of the
6480 Internet present to twentieth-century business models for producing and
6481 distributing culture, the law and technology are being transformed in a way
6482 that will undermine our tradition of free culture. The property right that
6483 is copyright is no longer the balanced right that it was, or was intended to
6484 be. The property right that is copyright has become unbalanced, tilted
6485 toward an extreme. The opportunity to create and transform becomes weakened
6486 in a world in which creation requires permission and creativity must check
6487 with a lawyer.
6488 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879168" href="#id2879168" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
6489
6490
6491 Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearings on H.R. 4783, H.R.  4794,
6492 H.R. 4808, H.R. 5250, H.R. 5488, and H.R. 5705 Before the Subcommittee on
6493 Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the Committee
6494 on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, 97th Cong., 2nd
6495 sess. (1982): 65 (testimony of Jack Valenti).
6496 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879237" href="#id2879237" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
6497
6498
6499 Lawyers speak of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> not as an absolute thing, but as a
6500 bundle of rights that are sometimes associated with a particular
6501 object. Thus, my <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property right</span>»</span> to my car gives me the right
6502 to exclusive use, but not the right to drive at 150 miles an hour. For the
6503 best effort to connect the ordinary meaning of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> to
6504 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawyer talk,</span>»</span> see Bruce Ackerman, <em class="citetitle">Private Property
6505 and the Constitution</em> (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977),
6506 26&#8211;27.
6507 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879677" href="#id2879677" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
6508
6509
6510 By describing the way law affects the other three modalities, I don't mean
6511 to suggest that the other three don't affect law. Obviously, they do. Law's
6512 only distinction is that it alone speaks as if it has a right
6513 self-consciously to change the other three. The right of the other three is
6514 more timidly expressed.  See Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other
6515 Laws of Cyberspace</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90&#8211;95;
6516 Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The New Chicago School,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal
6517 of Legal Studies</em>, June 1998.
6518 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879751" href="#id2879751" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
6519
6520 Some people object to this way of talking about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">liberty.</span>»</span> They
6521 object because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at
6522 any particular moment are constraints imposed exclusively by the
6523 government. For instance, if a storm destroys a bridge, these people think
6524 it is meaningless to say that one's liberty has been restrained. A bridge
6525 has washed out, and it's harder to get from one place to another. To talk
6526 about this as a loss of freedom, they say, is to confuse the stuff of
6527 politics with the vagaries of ordinary life.  I don't mean to deny the value
6528 in this narrower view, which depends upon the context of the inquiry. I do,
6529 however, mean to argue against any insistence that this narrower view is the
6530 only proper view of liberty. As I argued in <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, we
6531 come from a long tradition of political thought with a broader focus than
6532 the narrow question of what the government did when.  John Stuart Mill
6533 defended freedom of speech, for example, from the tyranny of narrow minds,
6534 not from the fear of government prosecution; John Stuart Mill, <em class="citetitle">On
6535 Liberty</em> (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co., 1978), 19.  John
6536 R. Commons famously defended the economic freedom of labor from constraints
6537 imposed by the market; John R. Commons, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to Work,</span>»</span> in
6538 Malcom Rutherford and Warren J. Samuels, eds., <em class="citetitle">John R. Commons:
6539 Selected Essays</em> (London: Routledge: 1997), 62. The Americans
6540 with Disabilities Act increases the liberty of people with physical
6541 disabilities by changing the architecture of certain public places, thereby
6542 making access to those places easier; 42 <em class="citetitle">United States
6543 Code</em>, section 12101 (2000).  Each of these interventions to
6544 change existing conditions changes the liberty of a particular group. The
6545 effect of those interventions should be accounted for in order to understand
6546 the effective liberty that each of these groups might face.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2879805"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2879814"></a>
6547 <a class="indexterm" name="id2879821"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2879828"></a>
6548 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880033" href="#id2880033" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
6549
6550
6551 See Geoffrey Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a
6552 Bridge?</span>»</span> BusinessWeek online, 2 August 1999, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #23</a>. For a more recent
6553 analysis of Kodak's place in the market, see Chana R. Schoenberger,
6554 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Can Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?</span>»</span> Forbes.com, 6 October
6555 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6556 #24</a>.
6557 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880107" href="#id2880107" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
6558
6559
6560 Fred Warshofsky, <em class="citetitle">The Patent Wars</em> (New York: Wiley,
6561 1994), 170&#8211;71.
6562 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880277" href="#id2880277" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
6563
6564
6565 Se for eksempel James Boyle, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Politics of Intellectual Property:
6566 Environmentalism for the Net?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Duke Law
6567 Journal</em> 47 (1997): 87.
6568 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880508" href="#id2880508" class="para">125</a>] </sup>
6569
6570 William W. Crosskey, <em class="citetitle">Politics and the Constitution in the History
6571 of the United States</em> (London: Cambridge University Press, 1953),
6572 vol. 1, 485&#8211;86: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the
6573 supreme Law of the Land,' <span class="emphasis"><em>the perpetual rights which authors had,
6574 or were supposed by some to have, under the Common Law</em></span></span>»</span>
6575 (emphasis added).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2880526"></a>
6576 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880576" href="#id2880576" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
6577
6578
6579 Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790 to
6580 1799, only 556 copyright registrations were filed; John Tebbel, <em class="citetitle">A
6581 History of Book Publishing in the United States</em>, vol. 1,
6582 <em class="citetitle">The Creation of an Industry, 1630&#8211;1865</em> (New
6583 York: Bowker, 1972), 141. Of the 21,000 imprints recorded before 1790, only
6584 twelve were copyrighted under the 1790 act; William J. Maher,
6585 <em class="citetitle">Copyright Term, Retrospective Extension and the Copyright Law of
6586 1790 in Historical Context</em>, 7&#8211;10 (2002), available at
6587 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #25</a>.  Thus, the
6588 overwhelming majority of works fell immediately into the public domain. Even
6589 those works that were copyrighted fell into the public domain quickly,
6590 because the term of copyright was short. The initial term of copyright was
6591 fourteen years, with the option of renewal for an additional fourteen
6592 years. Copyright Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880643" href="#id2880643" class="para">127</a>] </sup>
6593
6594
6595 Few copyright holders ever chose to renew their copyrights. For instance, of
6596 the 25,006 copyrights registered in 1883, only 894 were renewed in 1910. For
6597 a year-by-year analysis of copyright renewal rates, see Barbara A. Ringer,
6598 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Studies on
6599 Copyright</em>, vol. 1 (New York: Practicing Law Institute, 1963),
6600 618. For a more recent and comprehensive analysis, see William M. Landes and
6601 Richard A.  Posner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span>
6602 <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 471,
6603 498&#8211;501, and accompanying figures.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880696" href="#id2880696" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
6604
6605
6606 Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880805" href="#id2880805" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
6607
6608
6609 These statistics are understated. Between the years 1910 and 1962 (the first
6610 year the renewal term was extended), the average term was never more than
6611 thirty-two years, and averaged thirty years. See Landes and Posner,
6612 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span> loc. cit.
6613 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880958" href="#id2880958" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
6614
6615
6616 See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Poets, Pirates, and the
6617 Creation of American Literature,</span>»</span> 29 <em class="citetitle">New York University
6618 Journal of International Law and Politics</em> 255 (1997), and James
6619 Gilraeth, ed., Federal Copyright Records, 1790&#8211;1800 (U.S. G.P.O.,
6620 1987).
6621
6622 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881045" href="#id2881045" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
6623
6624 Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Copyright Cage</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Legal
6625 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="id2881075"></a>
6626 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881094" href="#id2881094" class="para">132</a>] </sup>
6627
6628 Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument about
6629 the difference that copyright law should draw (from the perspective of the
6630 First Amendment) between mere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span> and derivative
6631 works. See Jed Rubenfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's
6632 Constitutionality,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 112
6633 (2002): 1&#8211;60 (see especially pp. 53&#8211;59).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2881112"></a>
6634 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881172" href="#id2881172" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
6635
6636
6637 This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly
6638 regulates more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span>&#8212;a public performance of a
6639 copyrighted song, for example, is regulated even though performance per se
6640 doesn't make a copy; 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section
6641 106(4). And it certainly sometimes doesn't regulate a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy</span>»</span>;
6642 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 112(a). But the
6643 presumption under the existing law (which regulates <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies;</span>»</span>
6644 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 102) is that if there
6645 is a copy, there is a right.
6646 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881251" href="#id2881251" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
6647
6648
6649 Thus, my argument is not that in each place that copyright law extends, we
6650 should repeal it. It is instead that we should have a good argument for its
6651 extending where it does, and should not determine its reach on the basis of
6652 arbitrary and automatic changes caused by technology.
6653 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881182" href="#id2881182" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
6654
6655
6656 I don't mean <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nature</span>»</span> in the sense that it couldn't be
6657 different, but rather that its present instantiation entails a copy. Optical
6658 networks need not make copies of content they transmit, and a digital
6659 network could be designed to delete anything it copies so that the same
6660 number of copies remain.
6661 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881866" href="#id2881866" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
6662
6663
6664 Se David Lange, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recognizing the Public Domain</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Law
6665 and Contemporary Problems</em> 44 (1981): 172&#8211;73.
6666 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881893" href="#id2881893" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
6667
6668 <a class="indexterm" name="id2881896"></a> Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan,
6669 <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and Copywrongs</em>, 1&#8211;3.
6670 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882184" href="#id2882184" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
6671
6672
6673 In principle, a contract might impose a requirement on me. I might, for
6674 example, buy a book from you that includes a contract that says I will read
6675 it only three times, or that I promise to read it three times. But that
6676 obligation (and the limits for creating that obligation) would come from the
6677 contract, not from copyright law, and the obligations of contract would not
6678 necessarily pass to anyone who subsequently acquired the book.
6679 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882607" href="#id2882607" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
6680
6681 See Pamela Samuelson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to
6682 Science,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan
6683 I. Koerner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Play Dead: Sony Muzzles the Techies Who Teach a Robot Dog
6684 New Tricks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Prospect</em>, January 2002;
6685 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Court Dismisses Computer Scientists' Challenge to DMCA,</span>»</span>
6686 <em class="citetitle">Intellectual Property Litigation Reporter</em>, 11
6687 December 2001; Bill Holland, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright Act Raising Free-Speech
6688 Concerns,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Billboard</em>, May 2001; Janelle Brown,
6689 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is the RIAA Running Scared?</span>»</span> Salon.com, April 2001; Electronic
6690 Frontier Foundation, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Frequently Asked Questions about
6691 <em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
6692 Legal Case,</span>»</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #27</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2882662"></a>
6693 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883011" href="#id2883011" class="para">140</a>] </sup>
6694
6695 <a class="indexterm" name="id2883014"></a> <em class="citetitle">Sony Corporation of
6696 America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>.,
6697 464 U.S. 417, 455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers never changed his view about the
6698 VCR. See James Lardner, <em class="citetitle">Fast Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese,
6699 and the Onslaught of the VCR</em> (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987),
6700 270&#8211;71.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2881909"></a>
6701 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883228" href="#id2883228" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
6702
6703
6704 For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Legal
6705 Fictions, Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,</span>»</span>
6706 <em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17
6707 (1997): 651.
6708 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883385" href="#id2883385" class="para">142</a>] </sup>
6709
6710
6711 FCC Oversight: Hearing Before the Senate Commerce, Science and
6712 Transportation Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (22 May 2003)  (statement
6713 of Senator John McCain).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883397" href="#id2883397" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
6714
6715
6716 Lynette Holloway, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to
6717 Slide,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
6718 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883415" href="#id2883415" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
6719
6720
6721 Molly Ivins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,</span>»</span>
6722 <em class="citetitle">Charleston Gazette</em>, 31 May 2003.
6723 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883485" href="#id2883485" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
6724
6725 James Fallows, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Age of Murdoch</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Atlantic
6726 Monthly</em> (September 2003): 89.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2883504"></a>
6727 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883614" href="#id2883614" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
6728
6729
6730 Leonard Hill, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Axis of Access,</span>»</span> remarks before Weidenbaum
6731 Center Forum, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry,</span>»</span>
6732 St. Louis, Missouri, 3 April 2003 (transcript of prepared remarks available
6733 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #28</a>; for the Lear
6734 story, not included in the prepared remarks, see <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #29</a>).
6735 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883676" href="#id2883676" class="para">147</a>] </sup>
6736
6737
6738 NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media
6739 Ownership Before the Senate Commerce Committee, 108th Cong., 1st
6740 sess. (2003) (testimony of Gene Kimmelman on behalf of Consumers Union and
6741 the Consumer Federation of America), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #30</a>. Kimmelman quotes
6742 Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West, in her Remarks
6743 at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia, 27 February 2003.
6744 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883704" href="#id2883704" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
6745
6746
6747 ibid.
6748 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883760" href="#id2883760" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
6749
6750
6751 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Now with
6752 Bill Moyers</em>, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, redigert avskrift
6753 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6754 #31</a>.
6755 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883818" href="#id2883818" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
6756
6757
6758 Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
6759 Revolutionary National Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do
6760 Business</em> (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press,
6761 1997). Christensen acknowledges that the idea was first suggested by Dean
6762 Kim Clark. See Kim B. Clark, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Interaction of Design Hierarchies
6763 and Market Concepts in Technological Evolution,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Research
6764 Policy</em> 14 (1985): 235&#8211;51. For a more recent study, see
6765 Richard Foster and Sarah Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">Creative Destruction: Why
6766 Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market&#8212;and How to
6767 Successfully Transform Them</em> (New York: Currency/Doubleday,
6768 2001).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883969" href="#id2883969" class="para">151</a>] </sup>
6769
6770 The Marijuana Policy Project, in February 2003, sought to place ads that
6771 directly responded to the Nick and Norm series on stations within the
6772 Washington, D.C., area. Comcast rejected the ads as <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">against [their]
6773 policy.</span>»</span> The local NBC affiliate, WRC, rejected the ads without
6774 reviewing them. The local ABC affiliate, WJOA, originally agreed to run the
6775 ads and accepted payment to do so, but later decided not to run the ads and
6776 returned the collected fees. Interview with Neal Levine, 15 October 2003.
6777 These restrictions are, of course, not limited to drug policy. See, for
6778 example, Nat Ives, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">On the Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet
6779 with Rejection from TV Networks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
6780 Times</em>, 13 March 2003, C4.  Outside of election-related air time
6781 there is very little that the FCC or the courts are willing to do to even
6782 the playing field. For a general overview, see Rhonda Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ad Hoc
6783 Access: The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
6784 Radio,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law and Policy Review</em> 6 (1988):
6785 449&#8211;79, and for a more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the
6786 courts, see <em class="citetitle">Radio-Television News Directors
6787 Association</em> v. <em class="citetitle">FCC</em>, 184 F. 3d 872
6788 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as the
6789 networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San Francisco transit
6790 authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni diesel buses. Phillip
6791 Matier and Andrew Ross, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni Rejects
6792 Ad,</span>»</span> SFGate.com, 16 June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #32</a>. The ground was that
6793 the criticism was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">too controversial.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2884032"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2884041"></a>
6794 <a class="indexterm" name="id2884047"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2884053"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2884060"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2884066"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2884072"></a>
6795 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2884213" href="#id2884213" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
6796
6797 <a class="indexterm" name="id2884222"></a> Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende
6798 poeng i hans <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fire kapitulasjoner</span>»</span> for åndsverksloven i den
6799 digitale tidsalder. Se Vaidhyanathan, 159&#8211;60.
6800 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2884573" href="#id2884573" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
6801
6802 It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist movement
6803 to demonstrate that all property rights are always crafted to balance public
6804 and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Disintegration of
6805 Property,</span>»</span> in <em class="citetitle">Nomos XXII: Property</em>, J. Roland
6806 Pennock and John W.  Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press,
6807 1980).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2884589"></a>
6808 </p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Del III. Nøtter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-puzzles"></a>Del III. Nøtter</h1></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxchimera"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwells"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtcotb"></a><p>
6809 <span class="strong"><strong>In a well-known</strong></span> short story by
6810 H. G. Wells, a mountain climber named Nunez trips (literally, down an ice
6811 slope) into an unknown and isolated valley in the Peruvian
6812 Andes.<sup>[<a name="id2884744" href="#ftn.id2884744" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is extraordinarily
6813 beautiful, with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sweet water, pasture, an even climate, slopes of rich
6814 brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an excellent fruit.</span>»</span> But
6815 the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this as an opportunity. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In
6816 the Country of the Blind,</span>»</span> he tells himself, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the One-Eyed Man
6817 is King.</span>»</span> So he resolves to live with the villagers to explore life
6818 as a king.
6819 </p><p>
6820 Things don't go quite as he planned. He tries to explain the idea of sight
6821 to the villagers. They don't understand. He tells them they are
6822 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">blind.</span>»</span> They don't have the word
6823 <em class="citetitle">blind</em>. They think he's just thick.  Indeed, as they
6824 increasingly notice the things he can't do (hear the sound of grass being
6825 stepped on, for example), they increasingly try to control him. He, in turn,
6826 becomes increasingly frustrated. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">`You don't understand,' he cried, in
6827 a voice that was meant to be great and resolute, and which broke. `You are
6828 blind and I can see. Leave me alone!'</span>»</span>
6829 </p><p>
6830
6831
6832 The villagers don't leave him alone. Nor do they see (so to speak) the
6833 virtue of his special power. Not even the ultimate target of his affection,
6834 a young woman who to him seems <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the most beautiful thing in the whole
6835 of creation,</span>»</span> understands the beauty of sight. Nunez's description of
6836 what he sees <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">seemed to her the most poetical of fancies, and she
6837 listened to his description of the stars and the mountains and her own sweet
6838 white-lit beauty as though it was a guilty indulgence.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">She
6839 did not believe,</span>»</span> Wells tells us, and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">she could only half
6840 understand, but she was mysteriously delighted.</span>»</span>
6841 </p><p>
6842 When Nunez announces his desire to marry his <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mysteriously
6843 delighted</span>»</span> love, the father and the village object. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You see,
6844 my dear,</span>»</span> her father instructs, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">he's an idiot. He has
6845 delusions. He can't do anything right.</span>»</span> They take Nunez to the
6846 village doctor.
6847 </p><p>
6848 After a careful examination, the doctor gives his opinion. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">His brain
6849 is affected,</span>»</span> he reports.
6850 </p><p>
6851 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What affects it?</span>»</span> the father asks.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Those queer things
6852 that are called the eyes &#8230; are diseased &#8230; in such a way as to
6853 affect his brain.</span>»</span>
6854 </p><p>
6855 The doctor continues: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I think I may say with reasonable certainty
6856 that in order to cure him completely, all that we need to do is a simple and
6857 easy surgical operation&#8212;namely, to remove these irritant bodies [the
6858 eyes].</span>»</span>
6859 </p><p>
6860 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Thank Heaven for science!</span>»</span> says the father to the doctor. They
6861 inform Nunez of this condition necessary for him to be allowed his bride.
6862 (You'll have to read the original to learn what happens in the end. I
6863 believe in free culture, but never in giving away the end of a story.)
6864 </p><p>
6865
6866 <span class="strong"><strong>It sometimes</strong></span> happens that the eggs of
6867 twins fuse in the mother's womb. That fusion produces a
6868 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">chimera.</span>»</span> A chimera is a single creature with two sets of
6869 DNA. The DNA in the blood, for example, might be different from the DNA of
6870 the skin. This possibility is an underused plot for murder
6871 mysteries. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But the DNA shows with 100 percent certainty that she was
6872 not the person whose blood was at the scene. &#8230;</span>»</span>
6873 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2884907"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2884915"></a><p>
6874 Before I had read about chimeras, I would have said they were impossible.  A
6875 single person can't have two sets of DNA. The very idea of DNA is that it is
6876 the code of an individual. Yet in fact, not only can two individuals have
6877 the same set of DNA (identical twins), but one person can have two different
6878 sets of DNA (a chimera). Our understanding of a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">person</span>»</span> should
6879 reflect this reality.
6880 </p><p>
6881 The more I work to understand the current struggle over copyright and
6882 culture, which I've sometimes called unfairly, and sometimes not unfairly
6883 enough, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the copyright wars,</span>»</span> the more I think we're dealing
6884 with a chimera. For example, in the battle over the question <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What is
6885 p2p file sharing?</span>»</span> both sides have it right, and both sides have it
6886 wrong.  One side says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">File sharing is just like two kids taping each
6887 others' records&#8212;the sort of thing we've been doing for the last thirty
6888 years without any question at all.</span>»</span> That's true, at least in
6889 part. When I tell my best friend to try out a new CD that I've bought, but
6890 rather than just send the CD, I point him to my p2p server, that is, in all
6891 relevant respects, just like what every executive in every recording company
6892 no doubt did as a kid: sharing music.
6893 </p><p>
6894 But the description is also false in part. For when my p2p server is on a
6895 p2p network through which anyone can get access to my music, then sure, my
6896 friends can get access, but it stretches the meaning of
6897 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friends</span>»</span> beyond recognition to say <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">my ten thousand best
6898 friends</span>»</span> can get access. Whether or not sharing my music with my best
6899 friend is what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">we have always been allowed to do,</span>»</span> we have not
6900 always been allowed to share music with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">our ten thousand best
6901 friends.</span>»</span>
6902 </p><p>
6903 Likewise, when the other side says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">File sharing is just like walking
6904 into a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out with
6905 it,</span>»</span> that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett (finally)
6906 releases a new album, rather than buying it, I go to Kazaa and find a free
6907 copy to take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower.
6908 <a class="indexterm" name="id2884999"></a>
6909 </p><p>
6910
6911
6912
6913 But it is not quite stealing from Tower. After all, when I take a CD from
6914 Tower Records, Tower has one less CD to sell. And when I take a CD from
6915 Tower Records, I get a bit of plastic and a cover, and something to show on
6916 my shelves. (And, while we're at it, we could also note that when I take a
6917 CD from Tower Records, the maximum fine that might be imposed on me, under
6918 California law, at least, is $1,000.  According to the RIAA, by contrast, if
6919 I download a ten-song CD, I'm liable for $1,500,000 in damages.)
6920 </p><p>
6921 The point is not that it is as neither side describes. The point is that it
6922 is both&#8212;both as the RIAA describes it and as Kazaa describes it. It is
6923 a chimera. And rather than simply denying what the other side asserts, we
6924 need to begin to think about how we should respond to this chimera. What
6925 rules should govern it?
6926 </p><p>
6927 We could respond by simply pretending that it is not a chimera. We could,
6928 with the RIAA, decide that every act of file sharing should be a felony. We
6929 could prosecute families for millions of dollars in damages just because
6930 file sharing occurred on a family computer. And we can get universities to
6931 monitor all computer traffic to make sure that no computer is used to commit
6932 this crime. These responses might be extreme, but each of them has either
6933 been proposed or actually implemented.<sup>[<a name="id2885040" href="#ftn.id2885040" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
6934
6935 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2885146"></a><p>
6936 Alternatively, we could respond to file sharing the way many kids act as
6937 though we've responded. We could totally legalize it. Let there be no
6938 copyright liability, either civil or criminal, for making copyrighted
6939 content available on the Net. Make file sharing like gossip: regulated, if
6940 at all, by social norms but not by law.
6941 </p><p>
6942 Either response is possible. I think either would be a mistake.  Rather than
6943 embrace one of these two extremes, we should embrace something that
6944 recognizes the truth in both. And while I end this book with a sketch of a
6945 system that does just that, my aim in the next chapter is to show just how
6946 awful it would be for us to adopt the zero-tolerance extreme. I believe
6947 <span class="emphasis"><em>either</em></span> extreme would be worse than a reasonable
6948 alternative.  But I believe the zero-tolerance solution would be the worse
6949 of the two extremes.
6950 </p><p>
6951
6952
6953
6954 Yet zero tolerance is increasingly our government's policy. In the middle of
6955 the chaos that the Internet has created, an extraordinary land grab is
6956 occurring. The law and technology are being shifted to give content holders
6957 a kind of control over our culture that they have never had before. And in
6958 this extremism, many an opportunity for new innovation and new creativity
6959 will be lost.
6960 </p><p>
6961 I'm not talking about the opportunities for kids to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">steal</span>»</span>
6962 music. My focus instead is the commercial and cultural innovation that this
6963 war will also kill. We have never seen the power to innovate spread so
6964 broadly among our citizens, and we have just begun to see the innovation
6965 that this power will unleash. Yet the Internet has already seen the passing
6966 of one cycle of innovation around technologies to distribute content. The
6967 law is responsible for this passing. As the vice president for global public
6968 policy at one of these new innovators, eMusic.com, put it when criticizing
6969 the DMCA's added protection for copyrighted material,
6970 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6971 eMusic opposes music piracy. We are a distributor of copyrighted material,
6972 and we want to protect those rights.
6973 </p><p>
6974 But building a technology fortress that locks in the clout of the major
6975 labels is by no means the only way to protect copyright interests, nor is it
6976 necessarily the best. It is simply too early to answer that question. Market
6977 forces operating naturally may very well produce a totally different
6978 industry model.
6979 </p><p>
6980 This is a critical point. The choices that industry sectors make with
6981 respect to these systems will in many ways directly shape the market for
6982 digital media and the manner in which digital media are distributed. This in
6983 turn will directly influence the options that are available to consumers,
6984 both in terms of the ease with which they will be able to access digital
6985 media and the equipment that they will require to do so. Poor choices made
6986 this early in the game will retard the growth of this market, hurting
6987 everyone's interests.<sup>[<a name="id2885234" href="#ftn.id2885234" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
6988 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6989 In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of
6990 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the major labels.</span>»</span> Its position on these matters has now
6991 changed.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2885260"></a>
6992 </p><p>
6993 Reversing our tradition of tolerance now will not merely quash piracy. It
6994 will sacrifice values that are important to this culture, and will kill
6995 opportunities that could be extraordinarily valuable.
6996 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2884744" href="#id2884744" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
6997
6998
6999 H. G. Wells, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Country of the Blind</span>»</span> (1904, 1911). Se
7000 H. G. Wells, <em class="citetitle">The Country of the Blind and Other
7001 Stories</em>, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New York: Oxford University
7002 Press, 1996).
7003 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885040" href="#id2885040" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
7004
7005 <a class="indexterm" name="id2885043"></a> For an excellent summary, see the
7006 report prepared by GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society
7007 at Harvard Law School, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster
7008 World,</span>»</span> 27 June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #33</a>. Reps. John Conyers
7009 Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) have introduced a bill that
7010 would treat unauthorized on-line copying as a felony offense with
7011 punishments ranging as high as five years imprisonment; see Jon Healey,
7012 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">House Bill Aims to Up Stakes on Piracy,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los
7013 Angeles Times</em>, 17 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #34</a>. Civil penalties are
7014 currently set at $150,000 per copied song. For a recent (and unsuccessful)
7015 legal challenge to the RIAA's demand that an ISP reveal the identity of a
7016 user accused of sharing more than 600 songs through a family computer, see
7017 <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Verizon Internet Services (In
7018 re. Verizon Internet Services)</em>, 240 F.  Supp. 2d 24
7019 (D.D.C. 2003). Such a user could face liability ranging as high as $90
7020 million. Such astronomical figures furnish the RIAA with a powerful arsenal
7021 in its prosecution of file sharers. Settlements ranging from $12,000 to
7022 $17,500 for four students accused of heavy file sharing on university
7023 networks must have seemed a mere pittance next to the $98 billion the RIAA
7024 could seek should the matter proceed to court. See Elizabeth Young,
7025 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Downloading Could Lead to Fines,</span>»</span> redandblack.com, August
7026 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7027 #35</a>. For an example of the RIAA's targeting of student file sharing,
7028 and of the subpoenas issued to universities to reveal student file-sharer
7029 identities, see James Collins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to
7030 Name Students,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 8 August 2003,
7031 D3, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7032 #36</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2885132"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2885138"></a>
7033 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885234" href="#id2885234" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
7034
7035
7036 WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
7037 Entertainment on the Internet and Other Media: Hearing Before the
7038 Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, House
7039 Committee on Commerce, 106th Cong. 29 (1999) (statement of Peter Harter,
7040 vice president, Global Public Policy and Standards, EMusic.com), available
7041 in LEXIS, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony File.  </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel tolv: Skader"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="harms"></a>Kapittel tolv: Skader</h2></div></div></div><p>
7042 <span class="strong"><strong>To fight</strong></span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> to
7043 protect <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property,</span>»</span> the content industry has launched a
7044 war. Lobbying and lots of campaign contributions have now brought the
7045 government into this war. As with any war, this one will have both direct
7046 and collateral damage. As with any war of prohibition, these damages will be
7047 suffered most by our own people.
7048 </p><p>
7049 My aim so far has been to describe the consequences of this war, in
7050 particular, the consequences for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free culture.</span>»</span> But my aim now
7051 is to extend this description of consequences into an argument. Is this war
7052 justified?
7053 </p><p>
7054 In my view, it is not. There is no good reason why this time, for the first
7055 time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the power of
7056 the property called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>»</span> is at its greatest
7057 in our history.
7058 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2885327"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2885333"></a><p>
7059 Yet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">common sense</span>»</span> does not see it this way. Common sense is
7060 still on the side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme
7061 claims of control in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical
7062 rejection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> still has play.
7063 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2885352"></a><p>
7064
7065
7066 There will be many consequences of continuing this war. I want to describe
7067 just three. All three might be said to be unintended. I am quite confident
7068 the third is unintended. I'm less sure about the first two. The first two
7069 protect modern RCAs, but there is no Howard Armstrong in the wings to fight
7070 today's monopolists of culture.
7071 </p><div class="section" title="12.1. Constraining Creators"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="constrain"></a>12.1. Constraining Creators</h2></div></div></div><p>
7072 In the next ten years we will see an explosion of digital technologies.
7073 These technologies will enable almost anyone to capture and share
7074 content. Capturing and sharing content, of course, is what humans have done
7075 since the dawn of man. It is how we learn and communicate. But capturing and
7076 sharing through digital technology is different. The fidelity and power are
7077 different. You could send an e-mail telling someone about a joke you saw on
7078 Comedy Central, or you could send the clip. You could write an essay about
7079 the inconsistencies in the arguments of the politician you most love to
7080 hate, or you could make a short film that puts statement against
7081 statement. You could write a poem to express your love, or you could weave
7082 together a string&#8212;a mash-up&#8212; of songs from your favorite artists
7083 in a collage and make it available on the Net.
7084 </p><p>
7085 This digital <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>»</span> is in part an extension of
7086 the capturing and sharing that has always been integral to our culture, and
7087 in part it is something new. It is continuous with the Kodak, but it
7088 explodes the boundaries of Kodak-like technologies. The technology of
7089 digital <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>»</span> promises a world of
7090 extraordinarily diverse creativity that can be easily and broadly
7091 shared. And as that creativity is applied to democracy, it will enable a
7092 broad range of citizens to use technology to express and criticize and
7093 contribute to the culture all around.
7094 </p><p>
7095
7096 Teknologien har dermed gitt oss en mulighet til å gjøre noe med kultur som
7097 bare har vært mulig for enkeltpersoner i små grupper, isolert fra andre
7098 grupper. Forestill deg en gammel mann som forteller en historie til en
7099 samling med naboer i en liten landsby.  Forestill deg så den samme
7100 historiefortellingen utvidet til å nå over hele verden.
7101 </p><p>
7102 Yet all this is possible only if the activity is presumptively legal. In the
7103 current regime of legal regulation, it is not. Forget file sharing for a
7104 moment. Think about your favorite amazing sites on the Net. Web sites that
7105 offer plot summaries from forgotten television shows; sites that catalog
7106 cartoons from the 1960s; sites that mix images and sound to criticize
7107 politicians or businesses; sites that gather newspaper articles on remote
7108 topics of science or culture. There is a vast amount of creative work spread
7109 across the Internet. But as the law is currently crafted, this work is
7110 presumptively illegal.
7111 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2885445"></a><p>
7112 That presumption will increasingly chill creativity, as the examples of
7113 extreme penalties for vague infringements continue to proliferate. It is
7114 impossible to get a clear sense of what's allowed and what's not, and at the
7115 same time, the penalties for crossing the line are astonishingly harsh.  The
7116 four students who were threatened by the RIAA ( Jesse Jordan of chapter 3
7117 was just one) were threatened with a $98 billion lawsuit for building search
7118 engines that permitted songs to be copied. Yet World-Com&#8212;which
7119 defrauded investors of $11 billion, resulting in a loss to investors in
7120 market capitalization of over $200 billion&#8212;received a fine of a mere
7121 $750 million.<sup>[<a name="id2885462" href="#ftn.id2885462" class="footnote">157</a>]</sup> And under legislation
7122 being pushed in Congress right now, a doctor who negligently removes the
7123 wrong leg in an operation would be liable for no more than $250,000 in
7124 damages for pain and suffering.<sup>[<a name="id2885500" href="#ftn.id2885500" class="footnote">158</a>]</sup> Can
7125 common sense recognize the absurdity in a world where the maximum fine for
7126 downloading two songs off the Internet is more than the fine for a doctor's
7127 negligently butchering a patient?
7128 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2885545"></a><p>
7129 The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high
7130 penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never
7131 be exercised, or never be exercised in the open. We drive this creative
7132 process underground by branding the modern-day Walt Disneys
7133 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates.</span>»</span> We make it impossible for businesses to rely upon a
7134 public domain, because the boundaries of the public domain are designed to
7135 be unclear. It never pays to do anything except pay for the right to create,
7136 and hence only those who can pay are allowed to create. As was the case in
7137 the Soviet Union, though for very different reasons, we will begin to see a
7138 world of underground art&#8212;not because the message is necessarily
7139 political, or because the subject is controversial, but because the very act
7140 of creating the art is legally fraught. Already, exhibits of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegal
7141 art</span>»</span> tour the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2885563" href="#ftn.id2885563" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In
7142 what does their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegality</span>»</span> consist? In the act of mixing the
7143 culture around us with an expression that is critical or reflective.
7144 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2885609"></a><p>
7145 Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the changing
7146 law. I described that change in detail in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>. But an even bigger part has to do with
7147 the increasing ease with which infractions can be tracked. As users of
7148 file-sharing systems discovered in 2002, it is a trivial matter for
7149 copyright owners to get courts to order Internet service providers to reveal
7150 who has what content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a
7151 list of the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that
7152 anyone could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
7153 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2885637"></a><p>
7154 Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether his painting
7155 infringed on someone else's work; but the modern-day painter, using the
7156 tools of Photoshop, sharing content on the Web, must worry all the
7157 time. Images are all around, but the only safe images to use in the act of
7158 creation are those purchased from Corbis or another image farm. And in
7159 purchasing, censoring happens. There is a free market in pencils; we needn't
7160 worry about its effect on creativity. But there is a highly regulated,
7161 monopolized market in cultural icons; the right to cultivate and transform
7162 them is not similarly free.
7163 </p><p>
7164 Lawyers rarely see this because lawyers are rarely empirical. As I described
7165 in chapter <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, in
7166 response to the story about documentary filmmaker Jon Else, I have been
7167 lectured again and again by lawyers who insist Else's use was fair use, and
7168 hence I am wrong to say that the law regulates such a use.
7169 </p><p>
7170
7171
7172
7173 But fair use in America simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend
7174 your right to create. And as lawyers love to forget, our system for
7175 defending rights such as fair use is astonishingly bad&#8212;in practically
7176 every context, but especially here. It costs too much, it delivers too
7177 slowly, and what it delivers often has little connection to the justice
7178 underlying the claim. The legal system may be tolerable for the very rich.
7179 For everyone else, it is an embarrassment to a tradition that prides itself
7180 on the rule of law.
7181 </p><p>
7182 Judges and lawyers can tell themselves that fair use provides adequate
7183 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">breathing room</span>»</span> between regulation by the law and the access
7184 the law should allow. But it is a measure of how out of touch our legal
7185 system has become that anyone actually believes this. The rules that
7186 publishers impose upon writers, the rules that film distributors impose upon
7187 filmmakers, the rules that newspapers impose upon journalists&#8212; these
7188 are the real laws governing creativity. And these rules have little
7189 relationship to the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">law</span>»</span> with which judges comfort themselves.
7190 </p><p>
7191 For in a world that threatens $150,000 for a single willful infringement of
7192 a copyright, and which demands tens of thousands of dollars to even defend
7193 against a copyright infringement claim, and which would never return to the
7194 wrongfully accused defendant anything of the costs she suffered to defend
7195 her right to speak&#8212;in that world, the astonishingly broad regulations
7196 that pass under the name <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> silence speech and
7197 creativity. And in that world, it takes a studied blindness for people to
7198 continue to believe they live in a culture that is free.
7199 </p><p>
7200 As Jed Horovitz, the businessman behind Video Pipeline, said to me,
7201 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7202
7203 We're losing [creative] opportunities right and left. Creative people are
7204 being forced not to express themselves. Thoughts are not being
7205 expressed. And while a lot of stuff may [still] be created, it still won't
7206 get distributed. Even if the stuff gets made &#8230; you're not going to
7207 get it distributed in the mainstream media unless you've got a little note
7208 from a lawyer saying, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This has been cleared.</span>»</span> You're not even
7209 going to get it on PBS without that kind of permission. That's the point at
7210 which they control it.
7211 </p></blockquote></div></div><div class="section" title="12.2. Constraining Innovators"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="innovators"></a>12.2. Constraining Innovators</h2></div></div></div><p>
7212 The story of the last section was a crunchy-lefty story&#8212;creativity
7213 quashed, artists who can't speak, yada yada yada. Maybe that doesn't get you
7214 going. Maybe you think there's enough weird art out there, and enough
7215 expression that is critical of what seems to be just about everything.  And
7216 if you think that, you might think there's little in this story to worry
7217 you.
7218 </p><p>
7219 But there's an aspect of this story that is not lefty in any sense.  Indeed,
7220 it is an aspect that could be written by the most extreme promarket
7221 ideologue. And if you're one of these sorts (and a special one at that, 188
7222 pages into a book like this), then you can see this other aspect by
7223 substituting <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free market</span>»</span> every place I've spoken of
7224 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free culture.</span>»</span> The point is the same, even if the interests
7225 affecting culture are more fundamental.
7226 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2885782"></a><p>
7227 The charge I've been making about the regulation of culture is the same
7228 charge free marketers make about regulating markets. Everyone, of course,
7229 concedes that some regulation of markets is necessary&#8212;at a minimum, we
7230 need rules of property and contract, and courts to enforce both. Likewise,
7231 in this culture debate, everyone concedes that at least some framework of
7232 copyright is also required. But both perspectives vehemently insist that
7233 just because some regulation is good, it doesn't follow that more regulation
7234 is better. And both perspectives are constantly attuned to the ways in which
7235 regulation simply enables the powerful industries of today to protect
7236 themselves against the competitors of tomorrow.
7237 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2885791"></a><p>
7238
7239 This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy
7240 that I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>. The consequence of this massive threat of liability
7241 tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is that innovators who want to
7242 innovate in this space can safely innovate only if they have the sign-off
7243 from last generation's dominant industries.  That lesson has been taught
7244 through a series of cases that were designed and executed to teach venture
7245 capitalists a lesson. That lesson&#8212;what former Napster CEO Hank Barry
7246 calls a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nuclear pall</span>»</span> that has fallen over the
7247 Valley&#8212;has been learned.
7248 </p><p>
7249 Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in
7250 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> and which has progressed in a way
7251 that even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
7252 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2885850"></a><p>
7253 In 1997, Michael Roberts launched a company called MP3.com.  MP3.com was
7254 keen to remake the music business. Their goal was not just to facilitate new
7255 ways to get access to content. Their goal was also to facilitate new ways to
7256 create content. Unlike the major labels, MP3.com offered creators a venue to
7257 distribute their creativity, without demanding an exclusive engagement from
7258 the creators.
7259 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2885867"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsprefdata"></a><p>
7260 To make this system work, however, MP3.com needed a reliable way to
7261 recommend music to its users. The idea behind this alternative was to
7262 leverage the revealed preferences of music listeners to recommend new
7263 artists. If you like Lyle Lovett, you're likely to enjoy Bonnie Raitt. And
7264 so on.
7265 </p><p>
7266 This idea required a simple way to gather data about user preferences.
7267 MP3.com came up with an extraordinarily clever way to gather this preference
7268 data. In January 2000, the company launched a service called
7269 my.mp3.com. Using software provided by MP3.com, a user would sign into an
7270 account and then insert into her computer a CD. The software would identify
7271 the CD, and then give the user access to that content.  So, for example, if
7272 you inserted a CD by Jill Sobule, then wherever you were&#8212;at work or at
7273 home&#8212;you could get access to that music once you signed into your
7274 account. The system was therefore a kind of music-lockbox.
7275 </p><p>
7276
7277 No doubt some could use this system to illegally copy content. But that
7278 opportunity existed with or without MP3.com. The aim of the my.mp3.com
7279 service was to give users access to their own content, and as a by-product,
7280 by seeing the content they already owned, to discover the kind of content
7281 the users liked.
7282 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2885924"></a><p>
7283 To make this system function, however, MP3.com needed to copy 50,000 CDs to
7284 a server. (In principle, it could have been the user who uploaded the music,
7285 but that would have taken a great deal of time, and would have produced a
7286 product of questionable quality.) It therefore purchased 50,000 CDs from a
7287 store, and started the process of making copies of those CDs. Again, it
7288 would not serve the content from those copies to anyone except those who
7289 authenticated that they had a copy of the CD they wanted to access. So while
7290 this was 50,000 copies, it was 50,000 copies directed at giving customers
7291 something they had already bought.
7292 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxvivendiuniversal"></a><p>
7293 Nine days after MP3.com launched its service, the five major labels, headed
7294 by the RIAA, brought a lawsuit against MP3.com. MP3.com settled with four of
7295 the five. Nine months later, a federal judge found MP3.com to have been
7296 guilty of willful infringement with respect to the fifth. Applying the law
7297 as it is, the judge imposed a fine against MP3.com of $118 million. MP3.com
7298 then settled with the remaining plaintiff, Vivendi Universal, paying over
7299 $54 million. Vivendi purchased MP3.com just about a year later.
7300 </p><p>
7301 Den delen av historien har jeg fortalt før.  Nå kommer konklusjonen.
7302 </p><p>
7303 After Vivendi purchased MP3.com, Vivendi turned around and filed a
7304 malpractice lawsuit against the lawyers who had advised it that they had a
7305 good faith claim that the service they wanted to offer would be considered
7306 legal under copyright law. This lawsuit alleged that it should have been
7307 obvious that the courts would find this behavior illegal; therefore, this
7308 lawsuit sought to punish any lawyer who had dared to suggest that the law
7309 was less restrictive than the labels demanded.
7310 </p><p>
7311
7312 Den åpenbare hensikten med dette søksmålet (som ble avsluttet med et forlik
7313 for et uspesifisert beløp like etter at saken ikke lenger fikk
7314 pressedekning), var å sende en melding som ikke kan misforstås til advokater
7315 som gir råd til klienter på dette området: Det er ikke bare dine klienter
7316 som får lide hvis innholdsindustrien retter sine våpen mot dem.  Det får
7317 også du.  Så de av dere som tror loven burde være mindre restriktiv bør
7318 innse at et slikt syn på loven vil koste deg og ditt firma dyrt.
7319 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2886005"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2886017"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2886023"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2886030"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2886037"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2886043"></a><p>
7320 This strategy is not just limited to the lawyers. In April 2003, Universal
7321 and EMI brought a lawsuit against Hummer Winblad, the venture capital firm
7322 (VC) that had funded Napster at a certain stage of its development, its
7323 cofounder ( John Hummer), and general partner (Hank Barry).<sup>[<a name="id2886057" href="#ftn.id2886057" class="footnote">160</a>]</sup> The claim here, as well, was that the VC should
7324 have recognized the right of the content industry to control how the
7325 industry should develop. They should be held personally liable for funding a
7326 company whose business turned out to be beyond the law. Here again, the aim
7327 of the lawsuit is transparent: Any VC now recognizes that if you fund a
7328 company whose business is not approved of by the dinosaurs, you are at risk
7329 not just in the marketplace, but in the courtroom as well.  Your investment
7330 buys you not only a company, it also buys you a lawsuit.  So extreme has the
7331 environment become that even car manufacturers are afraid of technologies
7332 that touch content. In an article in <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>,
7333 Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW:
7334 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2886113"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2886120"></a><p>
7335 I asked why, with all the storage capacity and computer power in the car,
7336 there was no way to play MP3 files. I was told that BMW engineers in Germany
7337 had rigged a new vehicle to play MP3s via the car's built-in sound system,
7338 but that the company's marketing and legal departments weren't comfortable
7339 with pushing this forward for release stateside. Even today, no new cars are
7340 sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. &#8230; <sup>[<a name="id2885738" href="#ftn.id2885738" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
7341 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7342 Dette er verden til mafiaen&#8212;fylt med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">penger eller
7343 livet</span>»</span>-trusler, som ikke er regulert av domstolene men av trusler som
7344 loven gir rettighetsinnehaver mulighet til å komme med. Det er et system som
7345 åpenbart og nødvendigvis vil kvele ny innovasjon. Det er vanskelig nok å
7346 starte et selskap. Det blir helt umulig hvis selskapet er stadig truet av
7347 søksmål.
7348 </p><p>
7349
7350
7351
7352 The point is not that businesses should have a right to start illegal
7353 enterprises. The point is the definition of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegal.</span>»</span> The law
7354 is a mess of uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply to
7355 new technologies. Yet by reversing our tradition of judicial deference, and
7356 by embracing the astonishingly high penalties that copyright law imposes,
7357 that uncertainty now yields a reality which is far more conservative than is
7358 right. If the law imposed the death penalty for parking tickets, we'd not
7359 only have fewer parking tickets, we'd also have much less driving. The same
7360 principle applies to innovation. If innovation is constantly checked by this
7361 uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation
7362 and much less creativity.
7363 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2886210"></a><p>
7364 The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
7365 use. Whatever the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">real</span>»</span> law is, realism about the effect of
7366 law in both contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation
7367 will systematically stifle creativity and innovation. It will protect some
7368 industries and some creators, but it will harm industry and creativity
7369 generally. Free market and free culture depend upon vibrant competition.
7370 Yet the effect of the law today is to stifle just this kind of competition.
7371 The effect is to produce an overregulated culture, just as the effect of too
7372 much control in the market is to produce an overregulatedregulated market.
7373 </p><p>
7374
7375 The building of a permission culture, rather than a free culture, is the
7376 first important way in which the changes I have described will burden
7377 innovation. A permission culture means a lawyer's culture&#8212;a culture in
7378 which the ability to create requires a call to your lawyer. Again, I am not
7379 antilawyer, at least when they're kept in their proper place. I am certainly
7380 not antilaw. But our profession has lost the sense of its limits. And
7381 leaders in our profession have lost an appreciation of the high costs that
7382 our profession imposes upon others. The inefficiency of the law is an
7383 embarrassment to our tradition. And while I believe our profession should
7384 therefore do everything it can to make the law more efficient, it should at
7385 least do everything it can to limit the reach of the law where the law is
7386 not doing any good. The transaction costs buried within a permission culture
7387 are enough to bury a wide range of creativity.  Someone needs to do a lot of
7388 justifying to justify that result.
7389 </p><p>
7390 <span class="strong"><strong>The uncertainty</strong></span> of the law is one burden
7391 on innovation. There is a second burden that operates more directly. This is
7392 the effort by many in the content industry to use the law to directly
7393 regulate the technology of the Internet so that it better protects their
7394 content.
7395 </p><p>
7396 The motivation for this response is obvious. The Internet enables the
7397 efficient spread of content. That efficiency is a feature of the Internet's
7398 design. But from the perspective of the content industry, this feature is a
7399 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bug.</span>»</span> The efficient spread of content means that content
7400 distributors have a harder time controlling the distribution of content.
7401 One obvious response to this efficiency is thus to make the Internet less
7402 efficient. If the Internet enables <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> then, this
7403 response says, we should break the kneecaps of the Internet.
7404 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2886299"></a><p>
7405 The examples of this form of legislation are many. At the urging of the
7406 content industry, some in Congress have threatened legislation that would
7407 require computers to determine whether the content they access is protected
7408 or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<sup>[<a name="id2886313" href="#ftn.id2886313" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
7409 explore a mandatory <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>»</span> that would be required on
7410 any device capable of transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and
7411 that would disable the copying of any content that is marked with a
7412 broadcast flag. Other members of Congress have proposed immunizing content
7413 providers from liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt
7414 down copyright violators and disable their machines.<sup>[<a name="id2886343" href="#ftn.id2886343" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
7415 </p><p>
7416
7417 In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the code, why
7418 not regulate the code to remove the problem. But any regulation of technical
7419 infrastructure will always be tuned to the particular technology of the
7420 day. It will impose significant burdens and costs on the technology, but
7421 will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly those requirements.
7422 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2886364"></a><p>
7423 In March 2002, a broad coalition of technology companies, led by Intel,
7424 tried to get Congress to see the harm that such legislation would
7425 impose.<sup>[<a name="id2886376" href="#ftn.id2886376" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
7426 not that copyright should not be protected. Instead, they argued, any
7427 protection should not do more harm than good.
7428 </p><p>
7429 <span class="strong"><strong>There is one</strong></span> more obvious way in which
7430 this war has harmed innovation&#8212;again, a story that will be quite
7431 familiar to the free market crowd.
7432 </p><p>
7433 Copyright may be property, but like all property, it is also a form of
7434 regulation. It is a regulation that benefits some and harms others.  When
7435 done right, it benefits creators and harms leeches. When done wrong, it is
7436 regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
7437 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2886411"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2886420"></a><p>
7438 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, despite this feature of copyright as regulation, and
7439 subject to important qualifications outlined by Jessica Litman in her book
7440 <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em>,<sup>[<a name="id2886444" href="#ftn.id2886444" class="footnote">165</a>]</sup> overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10
7441 details, when new technologies have come along, Congress has struck a
7442 balance to assure that the new is protected from the old. Compulsory, or
7443 statutory, licenses have been one part of that strategy. Free use (as in the
7444 case of the VCR) has been another.
7445 </p><p>
7446 But that pattern of deference to new technologies has now changed with the
7447 rise of the Internet. Rather than striking a balance between the claims of a
7448 new technology and the legitimate rights of content creators, both the
7449 courts and Congress have imposed legal restrictions that will have the
7450 effect of smothering the new to benefit the old.
7451 </p><p>
7452 The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<sup>[<a name="id2886481" href="#ftn.id2886481" class="footnote">166</a>]</sup> It has been mirrored in the responses threatened
7453 and actually implemented by Congress. I won't catalog all of those responses
7454 here.<sup>[<a name="id2886524" href="#ftn.id2886524" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
7455 captures the flavor of them all. This is the story of the demise of Internet
7456 radio.
7457 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2886589"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2886599"></a><p>
7458
7459
7460
7461 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Kapittel fire: «Pirater»">4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording artist
7462 doesn't get paid for that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radio performance</span>»</span> unless he or she
7463 is also the composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had recorded a
7464 version of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span>&#8212;to memorialize her famous
7465 performance before President Kennedy at Madison Square Garden&#8212; then
7466 whenever that recording was played on the radio, the current copyright
7467 owners of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> would get some money, whereas
7468 Marilyn Monroe would not.
7469 </p><p>
7470 The reasoning behind this balance struck by Congress makes some sense. The
7471 justification was that radio was a kind of advertising. The recording artist
7472 thus benefited because by playing her music, the radio station was making it
7473 more likely that her records would be purchased.  Thus, the recording artist
7474 got something, even if only indirectly.  Probably this reasoning had less to
7475 do with the result than with the power of radio stations: Their lobbyists
7476 were quite good at stopping any efforts to get Congress to require
7477 compensation to the recording artists.
7478 </p><p>
7479 Enter Internet radio. Like regular radio, Internet radio is a technology to
7480 stream content from a broadcaster to a listener. The broadcast travels
7481 across the Internet, not across the ether of radio spectrum.  Thus, I can
7482 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tune in</span>»</span> to an Internet radio station in Berlin while sitting
7483 in San Francisco, even though there's no way for me to tune in to a regular
7484 radio station much beyond the San Francisco metropolitan area.
7485 </p><p>
7486 This feature of the architecture of Internet radio means that there are
7487 potentially an unlimited number of radio stations that a user could tune in
7488 to using her computer, whereas under the existing architecture for broadcast
7489 radio, there is an obvious limit to the number of broadcasters and clear
7490 broadcast frequencies. Internet radio could therefore be more competitive
7491 than regular radio; it could provide a wider range of selections. And
7492 because the potential audience for Internet radio is the whole world, niche
7493 stations could easily develop and market their content to a relatively large
7494 number of users worldwide. According to some estimates, more than eighty
7495 million users worldwide have tuned in to this new form of radio.
7496 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2886681"></a><p>
7497
7498
7499
7500 Internet radio is thus to radio what FM was to AM. It is an improvement
7501 potentially vastly more significant than the FM improvement over AM, since
7502 not only is the technology better, so, too, is the competition. Indeed,
7503 there is a direct parallel between the fight to establish FM radio and the
7504 fight to protect Internet radio. As one author describes Howard Armstrong's
7505 struggle to enable FM radio,
7506 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7507 An almost unlimited number of FM stations was possible in the shortwaves,
7508 thus ending the unnatural restrictions imposed on radio in the crowded
7509 longwaves. If FM were freely developed, the number of stations would be
7510 limited only by economics and competition rather than by technical
7511 restrictions. &#8230; Armstrong likened the situation that had grown up in
7512 radio to that following the invention of the printing press, when
7513 governments and ruling interests attempted to control this new instrument of
7514 mass communications by imposing restrictive licenses on it. This tyranny was
7515 broken only when it became possible for men freely to acquire printing
7516 presses and freely to run them. FM in this sense was as great an invention
7517 as the printing presses, for it gave radio the opportunity to strike off its
7518 shackles.<sup>[<a name="id2886136" href="#ftn.id2886136" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
7519 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7520 This potential for FM radio was never realized&#8212;not because Armstrong
7521 was wrong about the technology, but because he underestimated the power of
7522 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vested interests, habits, customs and legislation</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2886736" href="#ftn.id2886736" class="footnote">169</a>]</sup> to retard the growth of this competing technology.
7523 </p><p>
7524 Now the very same claim could be made about Internet radio. For again, there
7525 is no technical limitation that could restrict the number of Internet radio
7526 stations. The only restrictions on Internet radio are those imposed by the
7527 law. Copyright law is one such law. So the first question we should ask is,
7528 what copyright rules would govern Internet radio?
7529 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments2"></a><p>
7530
7531 But here the power of the lobbyists is reversed. Internet radio is a new
7532 industry. The recording artists, on the other hand, have a very powerful
7533 lobby, the RIAA. Thus when Congress considered the phenomenon of Internet
7534 radio in 1995, the lobbyists had primed Congress to adopt a different rule
7535 for Internet radio than the rule that applies to terrestrial radio. While
7536 terrestrial radio does not have to pay our hypothetical Marilyn Monroe when
7537 it plays her hypothetical recording of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> on the
7538 air, <span class="emphasis"><em>Internet radio does</em></span>. Not only is the law not
7539 neutral toward Internet radio&#8212;the law actually burdens Internet radio
7540 more than it burdens terrestrial radio.
7541 </p><p>
7542 This financial burden is not slight. As Harvard law professor William Fisher
7543 estimates, if an Internet radio station distributed adfree popular music to
7544 (on average) ten thousand listeners, twenty-four hours a day, the total
7545 artist fees that radio station would owe would be over $1 million a
7546 year.<sup>[<a name="id2886802" href="#ftn.id2886802" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
7547 broadcasting the same content would pay no equivalent fee.
7548 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2886860"></a><p>
7549 The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were
7550 proposed, an Internet radio station (but not a terrestrial radio station)
7551 would have to collect the following data from <span class="emphasis"><em>every listening
7552 transaction</em></span>:
7553 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
7554 navn på tjenesten,
7555 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7556 kanalen til programmet (AM/FM-stasjoner bruker stasjons-ID);
7557 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7558 type program (fra arkivet/i løkke/direkte);
7559 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7560 dato for sending;
7561 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7562 tidspunkt for sending;
7563 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7564 tidssone til opprinnelsen for sending;
7565 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7566 numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program;
7567 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7568 varigheten av sending (til nærmeste sekund):
7569 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7570 lydinnspilling-tittel;
7571 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7572 ISRC-kode for opptaket;
7573 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7574 release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of
7575 compilation albums, the release year of the album and copy- right date of
7576 the track;
7577 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7578 spillende plateartist;
7579 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7580 tittel på album i butikker;
7581 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7582 plateselskap;
7583 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7584 UPC-koden for albumet i butikker;
7585 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7586 katalognummer;
7587 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7588 informasjon om opphavsrettsinnehaver;
7589 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7590 musikksjanger for kanal eller programmet (stasjonsformat);
7591 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7592 navn på tjenesten eller selskap;
7593 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7594 kanal eller program;
7595 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7596 date and time that the user logged in (in the user's time zone);
7597 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7598 date and time that the user logged out (in the user's time zone);
7599 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7600 time zone where the signal was received (user);
7601 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7602 unik bruker-identifikator;
7603 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7604 landet til brukeren som mottok sendingene.
7605 </p></li></ol></div><p>
7606 The Librarian of Congress eventually suspended these reporting requirements,
7607 pending further study. And he also changed the original rates set by the
7608 arbitration panel charged with setting rates. But the basic difference
7609 between Internet radio and terrestrial radio remains: Internet radio has to
7610 pay a <span class="emphasis"><em>type of copyright fee</em></span> that terrestrial radio does
7611 not.
7612 </p><p>
7613 Why? What justifies this difference? Was there any study of the economic
7614 consequences from Internet radio that would justify these differences? Was
7615 the motive to protect artists against piracy?
7616 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2887044"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex2"></a><p>
7617 In a rare bit of candor, one RIAA expert admitted what seemed obvious to
7618 everyone at the time. As Alex Alben, vice president for Public Policy at
7619 Real Networks, told me,
7620 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7621
7622 The RIAA, which was representing the record labels, presented some testimony
7623 about what they thought a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, and
7624 it was much higher. It was ten times higher than what radio stations pay to
7625 perform the same songs for the same period of time. And so the attorneys
7626 representing the webcasters asked the RIAA, &#8230; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How do you come
7627 up with a rate that's so much higher? Why is it worth more than radio?
7628 Because here we have hundreds of thousands of webcasters who want to pay,
7629 and that should establish the market rate, and if you set the rate so high,
7630 you're going to drive the small webcasters out of business. &#8230;</span>»</span>
7631 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2887081"></a><p>
7632 And the RIAA experts said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, we don't really model this as an
7633 industry with thousands of webcasters, <span class="emphasis"><em>we think it should be an
7634 industry with, you know, five or seven big players who can pay a high rate
7635 and it's a stable, predictable market</em></span>.</span>»</span> (Emphasis added.)
7636 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2887118"></a><p>
7637 Translation: The aim is to use the law to eliminate competition, so that
7638 this platform of potentially immense competition, which would cause the
7639 diversity and range of content available to explode, would not cause pain to
7640 the dinosaurs of old. There is no one, on either the right or the left, who
7641 should endorse this use of the law. And yet there is practically no one, on
7642 either the right or the left, who is doing anything effective to prevent it.
7643 </p></div><div class="section" title="12.3. Corrupting Citizens"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="corruptingcitizens"></a>12.3. Corrupting Citizens</h2></div></div></div><p>
7644 Overregulation stifles creativity. It smothers innovation. It gives
7645 dinosaurs a veto over the future. It wastes the extraordinary opportunity
7646 for a democratic creativity that digital technology enables.
7647 </p><p>
7648 In addition to these important harms, there is one more that was important
7649 to our forebears, but seems forgotten today. Overregulation corrupts
7650 citizens and weakens the rule of law.
7651 </p><p>
7652
7653 The war that is being waged today is a war of prohibition. As with every war
7654 of prohibition, it is targeted against the behavior of a very large number
7655 of citizens. According to <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, 43
7656 million Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<sup>[<a name="id2887176" href="#ftn.id2887176" class="footnote">171</a>]</sup> According to the RIAA, the behavior of those 43 million Americans
7657 is a felony. We thus have a set of rules that transform 20 percent of
7658 America into criminals. As the RIAA launches lawsuits against not only the
7659 Napsters and Kazaas of the world, but against students building search
7660 engines, and increasingly against ordinary users downloading content, the
7661 technologies for sharing will advance to further protect and hide illegal
7662 use. It is an arms race or a civil war, with the extremes of one side
7663 inviting a more extreme response by the other.
7664 </p><p>
7665 The content industry's tactics exploit the failings of the American legal
7666 system. When the RIAA brought suit against Jesse Jordan, it knew that in
7667 Jordan it had found a scapegoat, not a defendant. The threat of having to
7668 pay either all the money in the world in damages ($15,000,000) or almost all
7669 the money in the world to defend against paying all the money in the world
7670 in damages ($250,000 in legal fees)  led Jordan to choose to pay all the
7671 money he had in the world ($12,000) to make the suit go away. The same
7672 strategy animates the RIAA's suits against individual users. In September
7673 2003, the RIAA sued 261 individuals&#8212;including a twelve-year-old girl
7674 living in public housing and a seventy-year-old man who had no idea what
7675 file sharing was.<sup>[<a name="id2886793" href="#ftn.id2886793" class="footnote">172</a>]</sup> As these scapegoats
7676 discovered, it will always cost more to defend against these suits than it
7677 would cost to simply settle. (The twelve year old, for example, like Jesse
7678 Jordan, paid her life savings of $2,000 to settle the case.) Our law is an
7679 awful system for defending rights. It is an embarrassment to our
7680 tradition. And the consequence of our law as it is, is that those with the
7681 power can use the law to quash any rights they oppose.
7682 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2887247"></a><p>
7683 Wars of prohibition are nothing new in America. This one is just something
7684 more extreme than anything we've seen before. We experimented with alcohol
7685 prohibition, at a time when the per capita consumption of alcohol was 1.5
7686 gallons per capita per year. The war against drinking initially reduced that
7687 consumption to just 30 percent of its preprohibition levels, but by the end
7688 of prohibition, consumption was up to 70 percent of the preprohibition
7689 level. Americans were drinking just about as much, but now, a vast number
7690 were criminals.<sup>[<a name="id2887265" href="#ftn.id2887265" class="footnote">173</a>]</sup> We have launched a war
7691 on drugs aimed at reducing the consumption of regulated narcotics that 7
7692 percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.<sup>[<a name="id2887284" href="#ftn.id2887284" class="footnote">174</a>]</sup> That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in 1979 of 14 percent of
7693 the population. We regulate automobiles to the point where the vast majority
7694 of Americans violate the law every day. We run such a complex tax system
7695 that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.<sup>[<a name="id2887302" href="#ftn.id2887302" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free
7696 society,</span>»</span> but an endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated
7697 within our society. And as a result, a huge proportion of Americans
7698 regularly violate at least some law.
7699 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2887326"></a><p>
7700 This state of affairs is not without consequence. It is a particularly
7701 salient issue for teachers like me, whose job it is to teach law students
7702 about the importance of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ethics.</span>»</span> As my colleague Charlie
7703 Nesson told a class at Stanford, each year law schools admit thousands of
7704 students who have illegally downloaded music, illegally consumed alcohol and
7705 sometimes drugs, illegally worked without paying taxes, illegally driven
7706 cars. These are kids for whom behaving illegally is increasingly the
7707 norm. And then we, as law professors, are supposed to teach them how to
7708 behave ethically&#8212;how to say no to bribes, or keep client funds
7709 separate, or honor a demand to disclose a document that will mean that your
7710 case is over. Generations of Americans&#8212;more significantly in some
7711 parts of America than in others, but still, everywhere in America
7712 today&#8212;can't live their lives both normally and legally, since
7713 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">normally</span>»</span> entails a certain degree of illegality.
7714 </p><p>
7715 The response to this general illegality is either to enforce the law more
7716 severely or to change the law. We, as a society, have to learn how to make
7717 that choice more rationally. Whether a law makes sense depends, in part, at
7718 least, upon whether the costs of the law, both intended and collateral,
7719 outweigh the benefits. If the costs, intended and collateral, do outweigh
7720 the benefits, then the law ought to be changed.  Alternatively, if the costs
7721 of the existing system are much greater than the costs of an alternative,
7722 then we have a good reason to consider the alternative.
7723 </p><p>
7724
7725
7726
7727 My point is not the idiotic one: Just because people violate a law, we
7728 should therefore repeal it. Obviously, we could reduce murder statistics
7729 dramatically by legalizing murder on Wednesdays and Fridays. But that
7730 wouldn't make any sense, since murder is wrong every day of the week. A
7731 society is right to ban murder always and everywhere.
7732 </p><p>
7733 My point is instead one that democracies understood for generations, but
7734 that we recently have learned to forget. The rule of law depends upon people
7735 obeying the law. The more often, and more repeatedly, we as citizens
7736 experience violating the law, the less we respect the law. Obviously, in
7737 most cases, the important issue is the law, not respect for the law. I don't
7738 care whether the rapist respects the law or not; I want to catch and
7739 incarcerate the rapist. But I do care whether my students respect the
7740 law. And I do care if the rules of law sow increasing disrespect because of
7741 the extreme of regulation they impose.  Twenty million Americans have come
7742 of age since the Internet introduced this different idea of
7743 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sharing.</span>»</span> We need to be able to call these twenty million
7744 Americans <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">citizens,</span>»</span> not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">felons.</span>»</span>
7745 </p><p>
7746 When at least forty-three million citizens download content from the
7747 Internet, and when they use tools to combine that content in ways
7748 unauthorized by copyright holders, the first question we should be asking is
7749 not how best to involve the FBI. The first question should be whether this
7750 particular prohibition is really necessary in order to achieve the proper
7751 ends that copyright law serves. Is there another way to assure that artists
7752 get paid without transforming forty-three million Americans into felons?
7753 Does it make sense if there are other ways to assure that artists get paid
7754 without transforming America into a nation of felons?
7755 </p><p>
7756 This abstract point can be made more clear with a particular example.
7757 </p><p>
7758
7759 We all own CDs. Many of us still own phonograph records. These pieces of
7760 plastic encode music that in a certain sense we have bought.  The law
7761 protects our right to buy and sell that plastic: It is not a copyright
7762 infringement for me to sell all my classical records at a used record store
7763 and buy jazz records to replace them. That <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> of the
7764 recordings is free.
7765 </p><p>
7766 But as the MP3 craze has demonstrated, there is another use of phonograph
7767 records that is effectively free. Because these recordings were made without
7768 copy-protection technologies, I am <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> to copy, or
7769 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rip,</span>»</span> music from my records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed,
7770 Apple Corporation went so far as to suggest that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> was
7771 a right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rip, Mix,
7772 Burn</span>»</span> capacities of digital technologies.
7773 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2887469"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsmix"></a><p>
7774 This <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a
7775 large process at home of ripping all of my and my wife's CDs, and storing
7776 them in one archive. Then, using Apple's iTunes, or a wonderful program
7777 called Andromeda, we can build different play lists of our music: Bach,
7778 Baroque, Love Songs, Love Songs of Significant Others&#8212;the potential is
7779 endless. And by reducing the costs of mixing play lists, these technologies
7780 help build a creativity with play lists that is itself independently
7781 valuable. Compilations of songs are creative and meaningful in their own
7782 right.
7783 </p><p>
7784 This use is enabled by unprotected media&#8212;either CDs or records.  But
7785 unprotected media also enable file sharing. File sharing threatens (or so
7786 the content industry believes) the ability of creators to earn a fair return
7787 from their creativity. And thus, many are beginning to experiment with
7788 technologies to eliminate unprotected media. These technologies, for
7789 example, would enable CDs that could not be ripped. Or they might enable spy
7790 programs to identify ripped content on people's machines.
7791 </p><p>
7792
7793 If these technologies took off, then the building of large archives of your
7794 own music would become quite difficult. You might hang in hacker circles,
7795 and get technology to disable the technologies that protect the
7796 content. Trading in those technologies is illegal, but maybe that doesn't
7797 bother you much. In any case, for the vast majority of people, these
7798 protection technologies would effectively destroy the archiving use of
7799 CDs. The technology, in other words, would force us all back to the world
7800 where we either listened to music by manipulating pieces of plastic or were
7801 part of a massively complex <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">digital rights management</span>»</span> system.
7802 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2887540"></a><p>
7803 If the only way to assure that artists get paid were the elimination of the
7804 ability to freely move content, then these technologies to interfere with
7805 the freedom to move content would be justifiable. But what if there were
7806 another way to assure that artists are paid, without locking down any
7807 content? What if, in other words, a different system could assure
7808 compensation to artists while also preserving the freedom to move content
7809 easily?
7810 </p><p>
7811 My point just now is not to prove that there is such a system. I offer a
7812 version of such a system in the last chapter of this book. For now, the only
7813 point is the relatively uncontroversial one: If a different system achieved
7814 the same legitimate objectives that the existing copyright system achieved,
7815 but left consumers and creators much more free, then we'd have a very good
7816 reason to pursue this alternative&#8212;namely, freedom.  The choice, in
7817 other words, would not be between property and piracy; the choice would be
7818 between different property systems and the freedoms each allowed.
7819 </p><p>
7820 I believe there is a way to assure that artists are paid without turning
7821 forty-three million Americans into felons. But the salient feature of this
7822 alternative is that it would lead to a very different market for producing
7823 and distributing creativity. The dominant few, who today control the vast
7824 majority of the distribution of content in the world, would no longer
7825 exercise this extreme of control. Rather, they would go the way of the
7826 horse-drawn buggy.
7827 </p><p>
7828 Except that this generation's buggy manufacturers have already saddled
7829 Congress, and are riding the law to protect themselves against this new form
7830 of competition. For them the choice is between fortythree million Americans
7831 as criminals and their own survival.
7832 </p><p>
7833
7834 It is understandable why they choose as they do. It is not understandable
7835 why we as a democracy continue to choose as we do. Jack Valenti is charming;
7836 but not so charming as to justify giving up a tradition as deep and
7837 important as our tradition of free culture.
7838 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2887603"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxisps"></a><p>
7839 <span class="strong"><strong>There's one more</strong></span> aspect to this
7840 corruption that is particularly important to civil liberties, and follows
7841 directly from any war of prohibition.  As Electronic Frontier Foundation
7842 attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">collateral
7843 damage</span>»</span> that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">arises whenever you turn a very large percentage
7844 of the population into criminals.</span>»</span> This is the collateral damage to
7845 civil liberties generally.
7846 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2887647"></a><p>
7847 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis du kan behandle noen som en antatt lovbryter</span>»</span>, forklarer
7848 von Lohmann,
7849 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7850 then all of a sudden a lot of basic civil liberty protections evaporate to
7851 one degree or another. &#8230; If you're a copyright infringer, how can you
7852 hope to have any privacy rights? If you're a copyright infringer, how can
7853 you hope to be secure against seizures of your computer? How can you hope to
7854 continue to receive Internet access? &#8230; Our sensibilities change as
7855 soon as we think, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh, well, but that person's a criminal, a
7856 lawbreaker.</span>»</span> Well, what this campaign against file sharing has done
7857 is turn a remarkable percentage of the American Internet-using population
7858 into <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawbreakers.</span>»</span>
7859 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7860 And the consequence of this transformation of the American public into
7861 criminals is that it becomes trivial, as a matter of due process, to
7862 effectively erase much of the privacy most would presume.
7863 </p><p>
7864 Users of the Internet began to see this generally in 2003 as the RIAA
7865 launched its campaign to force Internet service providers to turn over the
7866 names of customers who the RIAA believed were violating copyright
7867 law. Verizon fought that demand and lost. With a simple request to a judge,
7868 and without any notice to the customer at all, the identity of an Internet
7869 user is revealed.
7870 </p><p>
7871
7872 The RIAA then expanded this campaign, by announcing a general strategy to
7873 sue individual users of the Internet who are alleged to have downloaded
7874 copyrighted music from file-sharing systems. But as we've seen, the
7875 potential damages from these suits are astronomical: If a family's computer
7876 is used to download a single CD's worth of music, the family could be liable
7877 for $2 million in damages. That didn't stop the RIAA from suing a number of
7878 these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.<sup>[<a name="id2887713" href="#ftn.id2887713" class="footnote">176</a>]</sup>
7879
7880 </p><p>
7881 Even this understates the espionage that is being waged by the RIAA. A
7882 report from CNN late last summer described a strategy the RIAA had adopted
7883 to track Napster users.<sup>[<a name="id2887773" href="#ftn.id2887773" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> Using a
7884 sophisticated hashing algorithm, the RIAA took what is in effect a
7885 fingerprint of every song in the Napster catalog. Any copy of one of those
7886 MP3s will have the same <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fingerprint.</span>»</span>
7887 </p><p>
7888 So imagine the following not-implausible scenario: Imagine a friend gives a
7889 CD to your daughter&#8212;a collection of songs just like the cassettes you
7890 used to make as a kid. You don't know, and neither does your daughter, where
7891 these songs came from. But she copies these songs onto her computer. She
7892 then takes her computer to college and connects it to a college network, and
7893 if the college network is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cooperating</span>»</span> with the RIAA's
7894 espionage, and she hasn't properly protected her content from the network
7895 (do you know how to do that yourself ?), then the RIAA will be able to
7896 identify your daughter as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminal.</span>»</span> And under the rules
7897 that universities are beginning to deploy,<sup>[<a name="id2887820" href="#ftn.id2887820" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer
7898 network.  She can, in some cases, be expelled.
7899 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2887898"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2887909"></a><p>
7900
7901 Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire a
7902 lawyer for her (at $300 per hour, if you're lucky), and she can plead that
7903 she didn't know anything about the source of the songs or that they came
7904 from Napster. And it may well be that the university believes her. But the
7905 university might not believe her. It might treat this
7906 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">contraband</span>»</span> as presumptive of guilt. And as any number of
7907 college students have already learned, our presumptions about innocence
7908 disappear in the middle of wars of prohibition. This war is no different.
7909 Says von Lohmann,
7910 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7911 So when we're talking about numbers like forty to sixty million Americans
7912 that are essentially copyright infringers, you create a situation where the
7913 civil liberties of those people are very much in peril in a general
7914 matter. [I don't] think [there is any] analog where you could randomly
7915 choose any person off the street and be confident that they were committing
7916 an unlawful act that could put them on the hook for potential felony
7917 liability or hundreds of millions of dollars of civil liability. Certainly
7918 we all speed, but speeding isn't the kind of an act for which we routinely
7919 forfeit civil liberties. Some people use drugs, and I think that's the
7920 closest analog, [but] many have noted that the war against drugs has eroded
7921 all of our civil liberties because it's treated so many Americans as
7922 criminals. Well, I think it's fair to say that file sharing is an order of
7923 magnitude larger number of Americans than drug use. &#8230; If forty to
7924 sixty million Americans have become lawbreakers, then we're really on a
7925 slippery slope to lose a lot of civil liberties for all forty to sixty
7926 million of them.
7927 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7928 When forty to sixty million Americans are considered
7929 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminals</span>»</span> under the law, and when the law could achieve the
7930 same objective&#8212; securing rights to authors&#8212;without these
7931 millions being considered <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminals,</span>»</span> who is the villain?
7932 Americans or the law? Which is American, a constant war on our own people or
7933 a concerted effort through our democracy to change our law?
7934 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885462" href="#id2885462" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
7935
7936 Se Lynne W. Jeter, <em class="citetitle">Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at
7937 WorldCom</em> (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley &amp; Sons, 2003), 176, 204;
7938 for detaljer om dette forliket, se pressemelding fra MCI, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">MCI Wins
7939 U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement</span>»</span> (7. juli 2003),
7940 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7941 #37</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2885487"></a>
7942 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885500" href="#id2885500" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
7943  The bill, modeled after California's tort reform model, was passed in the
7944 House of Representatives but defeated in a Senate vote in July 2003. For an
7945 overview, see Tanya Albert, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be
7946 Back,' Say Tort Reformers,</span>»</span> amednews.com, 28 July 2003, available at
7947 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #38</a>, and
7948 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Senate Turns Back Malpractice Caps,</span>»</span> CBSNews.com, 9 July 2003,
7949 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7950 #39</a>. President Bush has continued to urge tort reform in recent
7951 months.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2885531"></a>
7952 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885563" href="#id2885563" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
7953
7954
7955
7956 Se Danit Lidor, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Artists Just Wanna Be Free</span>»</span>,
7957 <em class="citetitle">Wired</em>, 7. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #40</a>. For en oversikt over
7958 utstillingen, se <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7959 #41</a>.
7960 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886057" href="#id2886057" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
7961
7962
7963 See Joseph Menn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,</span>»</span>
7964 <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 23 April 2003. For a parallel
7965 argument about the effects on innovation in the distribution of music, see
7966 Janelle Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Music Revolution Will Not Be Digitized,</span>»</span>
7967 Salon.com, 1 June 2001, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #42</a>.  See also Jon Healey,
7968 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Online Music Services Besieged,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
7969 Times</em>, 28 May 2001.
7970 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885738" href="#id2885738" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
7971
7972 Rafe Needleman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Driving in Cars with MP3s</span>»</span>,
7973 <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>, 16. juni 2003, tilgjengelig via <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #43</a>. Jeg er Dr. Mohammad
7974 Al-Ubaydli takknemlig mot for dette eksemplet.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2886156"></a>
7975 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886313" href="#id2886313" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
7976
7977 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span>
7978 GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law
7979 School (2003), 33&#8211;35, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.
7980 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886343" href="#id2886343" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
7981
7982
7983 GartnerG2, 26&#8211;27.
7984 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886376" href="#id2886376" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
7985
7986
7987 See David McGuire, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy,</span>»</span>
7988 Newsbytes, February 2002 (Entertainment).
7989 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886444" href="#id2886444" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
7990
7991 Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
7992 Prometheus Books, 2001).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2886452"></a>
7993 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886481" href="#id2886481" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
7994
7995 <a class="indexterm" name="id2886484"></a> The only circuit court exception is
7996 found in <em class="citetitle">Recording Industry Association of America
7997 (RIAA)</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Diamond Multimedia Systems</em>, 180
7998 F. 3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999). There the court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit
7999 reasoned that makers of a portable MP3 player were not liable for
8000 contributory copyright infringement for a device that is unable to record or
8001 redistribute music (a device whose only copying function is to render
8002 portable a music file already stored on a user's hard drive).  At the
8003 district court level, the only exception is found in
8004 <em class="citetitle">Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,
8005 Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Grokster, Ltd</em>., 259 F. Supp. 2d
8006 1029 (C.D.  Cal., 2003), where the court found the link between the
8007 distributor and any given user's conduct too attenuated to make the
8008 distributor liable for contributory or vicarious infringement liability.
8009 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886524" href="#id2886524" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
8010
8011 <a class="indexterm" name="id2886528"></a> For example, in July 2002,
8012 Representative Howard Berman introduced the Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention
8013 Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize copyright holders from liability for
8014 damage done to computers when the copyright holders use technology to stop
8015 copyright infringement. In August 2002, Representative Billy Tauzin
8016 introduced a bill to mandate that technologies capable of rebroadcasting
8017 digital copies of films broadcast on TV (i.e., computers) respect a
8018 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>»</span> that would disable copying of that
8019 content. And in March of the same year, Senator Fritz Hollings introduced
8020 the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, which mandated
8021 copyright protection technology in all digital media devices. See GartnerG2,
8022 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span> 27 June
8023 2003, 33&#8211;34, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2886565"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2886571"></a>
8024 <a class="indexterm" name="id2886578"></a>
8025 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886136" href="#id2886136" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
8026
8027
8028 Lessing, 239.
8029 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886736" href="#id2886736" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
8030
8031
8032 Ibid., 229.
8033 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886802" href="#id2886802" class="para">170</a>] </sup>
8034
8035 This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright Arbitration
8036 Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an example offered by
8037 Professor William Fisher. Conference Proceedings, iLaw (Stanford), 3 July
8038 2003, on file with author. Professors Fisher and Zittrain submitted
8039 testimony in the CARP proceeding that was ultimately rejected.  See Jonathan
8040 Zittrain, Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral
8041 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
8042 analysis making a similar point, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright as
8043 Entry Policy: The Case of Digital Distribution,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Antitrust
8044 Bulletin</em> (Summer/Fall 2002): 461: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This was not confusion,
8045 these are just old-fashioned entry barriers. Analog radio stations are
8046 protected from digital entrants, reducing entry in radio and diversity. Yes,
8047 this is done in the name of getting royalties to copyright holders, but,
8048 absent the play of powerful interests, that could have been done in a
8049 media-neutral way.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2886840"></a>
8050 <a class="indexterm" name="id2886850"></a>
8051 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887176" href="#id2887176" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
8052
8053 Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Music Downloading Deluge,</span>»</span>
8054 Pew Internet and American Life Project (24 April 2001), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #46</a>.  The Pew Internet and
8055 American Life Project reported that 37 million Americans had downloaded
8056 music files from the Internet by early 2001.
8057 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886793" href="#id2886793" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
8058
8059
8060 Alex Pham, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA
8061 Case,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 10 September 2003,
8062 Business.
8063 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887265" href="#id2887265" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
8064
8065
8066 Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alcohol Consumption During
8067 Prohibition,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81,
8068 no. 2 (1991): 242.
8069 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887284" href="#id2887284" class="para">174</a>] </sup>
8070
8071
8072 National Drug Control Policy: Hearing Before the House Government Reform
8073 Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (5 March 2003) (statement of John
8074 P. Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy).
8075 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887302" href="#id2887302" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
8076
8077
8078 See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tax
8079 Compliance,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature</em> 36
8080 (1998): 818 (survey of compliance literature).
8081 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887713" href="#id2887713" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
8082
8083
8084 See Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single
8085 Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>»</span>
8086 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10 September 2003, E1; Chris Cobbs,
8087 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Worried Parents Pull Plug on File `Stealing'; With the Music Industry
8088 Cracking Down on File Swapping, Parents are Yanking Software from Home PCs
8089 to Avoid Being Sued,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel
8090 Tribune</em>, 30 August 2003, C1; Jefferson Graham, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recording
8091 Industry Sues Parents,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 15
8092 September 2003, 4D; John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">She Says She's No Music Pirate. No
8093 Snoop Fan, Either,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 25
8094 September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is Brianna a Criminal?</span>»</span>
8095 <em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
8096 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887773" href="#id2887773" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
8097
8098
8099 Se Nick Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
8100 Age</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #49</a>.
8101 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887820" href="#id2887820" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
8102
8103
8104 See Jeff Adler, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not
8105 Penitent,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 18 May 2003, City
8106 Weekly, 1; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Four Students Sued over Music Sites;
8107 Industry Group Targets File Sharing at Colleges,</span>»</span>
8108 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 4 April 2003, E1; Elizabeth
8109 Armstrong, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Students `Rip, Mix, Burn' at Their Own Risk,</span>»</span>
8110 <em class="citetitle">Christian Science Monitor</em>, 2 September 2003, 20;
8111 Robert Becker and Angela Rozas, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Pirate Hunt Turns to Loyola;
8112 Two Students Names Are Handed Over; Lawsuit Possible,</span>»</span>
8113 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 16 July 2003, 1C; Beth Cox,
8114 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Trains Antipiracy Guns on Universities,</span>»</span>
8115 <em class="citetitle">Internet News</em>, 30 January 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #48</a>; Benny Evangelista,
8116 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Download Warning 101: Freshman Orientation This Fall to Include
8117 Record Industry Warnings Against File Sharing,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San
8118 Francisco Chronicle</em>, 11 August 2003, E11; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Raid, Letters
8119 Are Weapons at Universities,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 26
8120 September 2000, 3D.
8121 </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>
8122 <span class="strong"><strong>Så her</strong></span> er bildet: Du står på siden av
8123 veien. Bilen din er på brann. Du er sint og opprørt fordi du delvis bidro
8124 til å starte brannen. Nå vet du ikke hvordan du slokker den.  Ved siden av
8125 deg er en bøtte, fylt med bensin. Bensin vil åpenbart ikke slukke brannen.
8126 </p><p>
8127 Mens du tenker over situasjonen, kommer noen andre forbi.  I panikk griper
8128 hun bøtta, og før du har hatt sjansen til å be henne stoppe&#8212;eller før
8129 hun forstår hvorfor hun bør stoppe&#8212;er bøtten i svevet.  Bensinen er på
8130 tur mot den brennende bilen.  Og brannen som bensinen kommer til å fyre opp
8131 vil straks sette fyr på alt i omgivelsene.
8132 </p><p>
8133 <span class="strong"><strong>En krig</strong></span> om opphavsrett pågår over
8134 alt&#8212; og vi fokuserer alle på feil ting.  Det er ingen tvil om at
8135 dagens teknologier truer eksisterende virksomheter.  Uten tvil kan de true
8136 artister.  Men teknologier endrer seg.  Industrien og teknologer har en
8137 rekke måter å bruke teknologi til å beskytte dem selv mot dagens trusler på
8138 Internet.  Dette er en brann som overlatt til seg selv vil brenne ut.
8139 </p><p>
8140
8141
8142 Likevel er ikke besluttningstagere villig til å la denne brannen i fred.
8143 Ladet med masse penger fra lobbyister er de lystne på å gå i mellom for å
8144 fjerne problemet slik de oppfatter det.  Men problemet slik de oppfatter det
8145 er ikke den reelle trusselen som denne kulturen står med ansiktet mot.  For
8146 mens vi ser på denne lille brannen i hjørnet er det en massiv endring i
8147 hvordan kultur blir skapt som pågår over alt.
8148 </p><p>
8149 På en eller annen måte må vi klare å snu oppmerksomheten mot dette mer
8150 viktige og fundametale problemet.  Vi må finne en måte å unngå å helle
8151 bensin på denne brannen.
8152 </p><p>
8153 Vi har ikke funne denne måten ennå.  Istedet synes vi å være fanget i en
8154 enklere og sort-hvit tenkning.  Uansett hvor mange folk som presser på for å
8155 gjøre rammen for debatten litt bredere, er det dette enkle sort-hvit-synet
8156 som består.  Vi kjører sakte forbi og stirrer på brannen når vi i stedet
8157 burde holde øynene på veien.
8158 </p><p>
8159 Denne utfordringen har vært livet mitt de siste årene.  Det har også vært
8160 min falitt.  I de to neste kapittlene, beskriver jeg en liten innsats, så
8161 langt uten suksess, på å finne en måte å endre fokus på denne debatten.  Vi
8162 må forstå disse mislyktede forsøkene hvis vi skal forstå hva som kreves for
8163 å lykkes.
8164 </p></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel tretten: Eldred"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred"></a>Kapittel tretten: Eldred</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxhawthornenathaniel"></a><p>
8165 <span class="strong"><strong>In 1995</strong></span>, a father was frustrated that his
8166 daughters didn't seem to like Hawthorne. No doubt there was more than one
8167 such father, but at least one did something about it. Eric Eldred, a retired
8168 computer programmer living in New Hampshire, decided to put Hawthorne on the
8169 Web. An electronic version, Eldred thought, with links to pictures and
8170 explanatory text, would make this nineteenth-century author's work come
8171 alive.
8172 </p><p>
8173 It didn't work&#8212;at least for his daughters. They didn't find Hawthorne
8174 any more interesting than before. But Eldred's experiment gave birth to a
8175 hobby, and his hobby begat a cause: Eldred would build a library of public
8176 domain works by scanning these works and making them available for free.
8177 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdisneywalt5"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2888174"></a><p>
8178
8179 Eldred's library was not simply a copy of certain public domain works,
8180 though even a copy would have been of great value to people across the world
8181 who can't get access to printed versions of these works. Instead, Eldred was
8182 producing derivative works from these public domain works. Just as Disney
8183 turned Grimm into stories more accessible to the twentieth century, Eldred
8184 transformed Hawthorne, and many others, into a form more
8185 accessible&#8212;technically accessible&#8212;today.
8186 </p><p>
8187 Eldred's freedom to do this with Hawthorne's work grew from the same source
8188 as Disney's. Hawthorne's <em class="citetitle">Scarlet Letter</em> had passed
8189 into the public domain in 1907. It was free for anyone to take without the
8190 permission of the Hawthorne estate or anyone else. Some, such as Dover Press
8191 and Penguin Classics, take works from the public domain and produce printed
8192 editions, which they sell in bookstores across the country. Others, such as
8193 Disney, take these stories and turn them into animated cartoons, sometimes
8194 successfully (<em class="citetitle">Cinderella</em>), sometimes not
8195 (<em class="citetitle">The Hunchback of Notre Dame</em>, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
8196 Planet</em>). These are all commercial publications of public domain
8197 works.
8198 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2888230"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2888241"></a><p>
8199 The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of public
8200 domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally thousands of
8201 others. Hundreds of thousands from across the world have discovered this
8202 platform of expression and now use it to share works that are, by law, free
8203 for the taking. This has produced what we might call the
8204 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">noncommercial publishing industry,</span>»</span> which before the Internet
8205 was limited to people with large egos or with political or social
8206 causes. But with the Internet, it includes a wide range of individuals and
8207 groups dedicated to spreading culture generally.<sup>[<a name="id2888268" href="#ftn.id2888268" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
8208 </p><p>
8209 As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In 1998, Robert Frost's collection
8210 of poems <em class="citetitle">New Hampshire</em> was slated to pass into the
8211 public domain. Eldred wanted to post that collection in his free public
8212 library.  But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, in 1998, for the
8213 eleventh time in forty years, Congress extended the terms of existing
8214 copyrights&#8212;this time by twenty years. Eldred would not be free to add
8215 any works more recent than 1923 to his collection until 2019.  Indeed, no
8216 copyrighted work would pass into the public domain until that year (and not
8217 even then, if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, in the same
8218 period, more than 1 million patents will pass into the public domain.
8219 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2888309"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2888325"></a><p>
8220
8221
8222 This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), enacted in
8223 memory of the congressman and former musician Sonny Bono, who, his widow,
8224 Mary Bono, says, believed that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrights should be
8225 forever.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2888340" href="#ftn.id2888340" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
8226
8227 </p><p>
8228 Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
8229 civil disobedience. In a series of interviews, Eldred announced that he
8230 would publish as planned, CTEA notwithstanding. But because of a second law
8231 passed in 1998, the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act, his act of publishing
8232 would make Eldred a felon&#8212;whether or not anyone complained. This was a
8233 dangerous strategy for a disabled programmer to undertake.
8234 </p><p>
8235 It was here that I became involved in Eldred's battle. I was a
8236 constitutional scholar whose first passion was constitutional
8237 interpretation.  And though constitutional law courses never focus upon the
8238 Progress Clause of the Constitution, it had always struck me as importantly
8239 different. As you know, the Constitution says,
8240 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
8241 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science &#8230; by
8242 securing for limited Times to Authors &#8230; exclusive Right to their
8243 &#8230; Writings. &#8230;
8244 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8245 As I've described, this clause is unique within the power-granting clause of
8246 Article I, section 8 of our Constitution. Every other clause granting power
8247 to Congress simply says Congress has the power to do something&#8212;for
8248 example, to regulate <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>»</span> or
8249 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">declare War.</span>»</span> But here, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">something</span>»</span> is
8250 something quite specific&#8212;to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">promote &#8230;
8251 Progress</span>»</span>&#8212;through means that are also specific&#8212; by
8252 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">securing</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive Rights</span>»</span> (i.e., copyrights)
8253 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for limited Times.</span>»</span>
8254 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2888440"></a><p>
8255
8256 In the past forty years, Congress has gotten into the practice of extending
8257 existing terms of copyright protection. What puzzled me about this was, if
8258 Congress has the power to extend existing terms, then the Constitution's
8259 requirement that terms be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited</span>»</span> will have no practical
8260 effect. If every time a copyright is about to expire, Congress has the power
8261 to extend its term, then Congress can achieve what the Constitution plainly
8262 forbids&#8212;perpetual terms <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">on the installment plan,</span>»</span> as
8263 Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it.
8264 </p><p>
8265 As an academic, my first response was to hit the books. I remember sitting
8266 late at the office, scouring on-line databases for any serious consideration
8267 of the question. No one had ever challenged Congress's practice of extending
8268 existing terms. That failure may in part be why Congress seemed so
8269 untroubled in its habit. That, and the fact that the practice had become so
8270 lucrative for Congress. Congress knows that copyright owners will be willing
8271 to pay a great deal of money to see their copyright terms extended. And so
8272 Congress is quite happy to keep this gravy train going.
8273 </p><p>
8274 For this is the core of the corruption in our present system of
8275 government. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Corruption</span>»</span> not in the sense that representatives
8276 are bribed.  Rather, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">corruption</span>»</span> in the sense that the system
8277 induces the beneficiaries of Congress's acts to raise and give money to
8278 Congress to induce it to act. There's only so much time; there's only so
8279 much Congress can do. Why not limit its actions to those things it must
8280 do&#8212;and those things that pay? Extending copyright terms pays.
8281 </p><p>
8282 If that's not obvious to you, consider the following: Say you're one of the
8283 very few lucky copyright owners whose copyright continues to make money one
8284 hundred years after it was created. The Estate of Robert Frost is a good
8285 example. Frost died in 1963. His poetry continues to be extraordinarily
8286 valuable. Thus the Robert Frost estate benefits greatly from any extension
8287 of copyright, since no publisher would pay the estate any money if the poems
8288 Frost wrote could be published by anyone for free.
8289 </p><p>
8290 So imagine the Robert Frost estate is earning $100,000 a year from three of
8291 Frost's poems. And imagine the copyright for those poems is about to
8292 expire. You sit on the board of the Robert Frost estate.  Your financial
8293 adviser comes to your board meeting with a very grim report:
8294 </p><p>
8295
8296 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Next year,</span>»</span> the adviser announces, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">our copyrights in
8297 works A, B, and C will expire. That means that after next year, we will no
8298 longer be receiving the annual royalty check of $100,000 from the publishers
8299 of those works.</span>»</span>
8300 </p><p>
8301 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">There's a proposal in Congress, however,</span>»</span> she continues,
8302 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">that could change this. A few congressmen are floating a bill to
8303 extend the terms of copyright by twenty years. That bill would be
8304 extraordinarily valuable to us. So we should hope this bill passes.</span>»</span>
8305 </p><p>
8306 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hope?</span>»</span> a fellow board member says. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Can't we be doing
8307 something about it?</span>»</span>
8308 </p><p>
8309 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, obviously, yes,</span>»</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We could
8310 contribute to the campaigns of a number of representatives to try to assure
8311 that they support the bill.</span>»</span>
8312 </p><p>
8313 You hate politics. You hate contributing to campaigns. So you want to know
8314 whether this disgusting practice is worth it. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much would we get
8315 if this extension were passed?</span>»</span> you ask the adviser. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much
8316 is it worth?</span>»</span>
8317 </p><p>
8318 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well,</span>»</span> the adviser says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">if you're confident that you
8319 will continue to get at least $100,000 a year from these copyrights, and you
8320 use the `discount rate' that we use to evaluate estate investments (6
8321 percent), then this law would be worth $1,146,000 to the estate.</span>»</span>
8322 </p><p>
8323 You're a bit shocked by the number, but you quickly come to the correct
8324 conclusion:
8325 </p><p>
8326 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">So you're saying it would be worth it for us to pay more than
8327 $1,000,000 in campaign contributions if we were confident those
8328 contributions would assure that the bill was passed?</span>»</span>
8329 </p><p>
8330 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Absolutely,</span>»</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">It is worth it to
8331 you to contribute up to the `present value' of the income you expect from
8332 these copyrights. Which for us means over $1,000,000.</span>»</span>
8333 </p><p>
8334
8335 You quickly get the point&#8212;you as the member of the board and, I trust,
8336 you the reader. Each time copyrights are about to expire, every beneficiary
8337 in the position of the Robert Frost estate faces the same choice: If they
8338 can contribute to get a law passed to extend copyrights, they will benefit
8339 greatly from that extension. And so each time copyrights are about to
8340 expire, there is a massive amount of lobbying to get the copyright term
8341 extended.
8342 </p><p>
8343 Thus a congressional perpetual motion machine: So long as legislation can be
8344 bought (albeit indirectly), there will be all the incentive in the world to
8345 buy further extensions of copyright.
8346 </p><p>
8347 In the lobbying that led to the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term
8348 Extension Act, this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theory</span>»</span> about incentives was proved
8349 real. Ten of the thirteen original sponsors of the act in the House received
8350 the maximum contribution from Disney's political action committee; in the
8351 Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2888666" href="#ftn.id2888666" class="footnote">181</a>]</sup> The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent
8352 over $1.5 million lobbying in the 1998 election cycle. They paid out more
8353 than $200,000 in campaign contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2888685" href="#ftn.id2888685" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to
8354 reelection campaigns in the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id2888704" href="#ftn.id2888704" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
8355
8356 </p><p>
8357 <span class="strong"><strong>Constitutional law</strong></span> is not oblivious to
8358 the obvious. Or at least, it need not be. So when I was considering Eldred's
8359 complaint, this reality about the never-ending incentives to increase the
8360 copyright term was central to my thinking. In my view, a pragmatic court
8361 committed to interpreting and applying the Constitution of our framers would
8362 see that if Congress has the power to extend existing terms, then there
8363 would be no effective constitutional requirement that terms be
8364 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> If they could extend it once, they would extend it
8365 again and again and again.
8366 </p><p>
8367
8368 It was also my judgment that <span class="emphasis"><em>this</em></span> Supreme Court would
8369 not allow Congress to extend existing terms. As anyone close to the Supreme
8370 Court's work knows, this Court has increasingly restricted the power of
8371 Congress when it has viewed Congress's actions as exceeding the power
8372 granted to it by the Constitution. Among constitutional scholars, the most
8373 famous example of this trend was the Supreme Court's decision in 1995 to
8374 strike down a law that banned the possession of guns near schools.
8375 </p><p>
8376 Since 1937, the Supreme Court had interpreted Congress's granted powers very
8377 broadly; so, while the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate
8378 only <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>»</span> (aka <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">interstate
8379 commerce</span>»</span>), the Supreme Court had interpreted that power to include
8380 the power to regulate any activity that merely affected interstate commerce.
8381 </p><p>
8382 As the economy grew, this standard increasingly meant that there was no
8383 limit to Congress's power to regulate, since just about every activity, when
8384 considered on a national scale, affects interstate commerce.  A Constitution
8385 designed to limit Congress's power was instead interpreted to impose no
8386 limit.
8387 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2888792"></a><p>
8388 The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed that in
8389 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The
8390 government had argued that possessing guns near schools affected interstate
8391 commerce. Guns near schools increase crime, crime lowers property values,
8392 and so on. In the oral argument, the Chief Justice asked the government
8393 whether there was any activity that would not affect interstate commerce
8394 under the reasoning the government advanced. The government said there was
8395 not; if Congress says an activity affects interstate commerce, then that
8396 activity affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court, the government
8397 said, was not in the position to second-guess Congress.
8398 </p><p>
8399 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We pause to consider the implications of the government's
8400 arguments,</span>»</span> the Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id2888828" href="#ftn.id2888828" class="footnote">184</a>]</sup> If anything Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be
8401 considered interstate commerce, then there would be no limit to Congress's
8402 power. The decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> was reaffirmed five
8403 years later in <em class="citetitle">United States</em>
8404 v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<sup>[<a name="id2888857" href="#ftn.id2888857" class="footnote">185</a>]</sup>
8405 </p><p>
8406
8407 If a principle were at work here, then it should apply to the Progress
8408 Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<sup>[<a name="id2888880" href="#ftn.id2888880" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
8409 And if it is applied to the Progress Clause, the principle should yield the
8410 conclusion that Congress can't extend an existing term. If Congress could
8411 extend an existing term, then there would be no <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stopping
8412 point</span>»</span> to Congress's power over terms, though the Constitution
8413 expressly states that there is such a limit. Thus, the same principle
8414 applied to the power to grant copyrights should entail that Congress is not
8415 allowed to extend the term of existing copyrights.
8416 </p><p>
8417 <span class="emphasis"><em>If</em></span>, that is, the principle announced in
8418 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for a principle.  Many believed the
8419 decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for politics&#8212;a
8420 conservative Supreme Court, which believed in states' rights, using its
8421 power over Congress to advance its own personal political preferences. But I
8422 rejected that view of the Supreme Court's decision. Indeed, shortly after
8423 the decision, I wrote an article demonstrating the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fidelity</span>»</span>
8424 in such an interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that the Supreme
8425 Court decides cases based upon its politics struck me as extraordinarily
8426 boring.  I was not going to devote my life to teaching constitutional law if
8427 these nine Justices were going to be petty politicians.
8428 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2888941"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2888951"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2888960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2888970"></a><p>
8429 <span class="strong"><strong>Now let's pause</strong></span> for a moment to make sure
8430 we understand what the argument in <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was not
8431 about. By insisting on the Constitution's limits to copyright, obviously
8432 Eldred was not endorsing piracy.  Indeed, in an obvious sense, he was
8433 fighting a kind of piracy&#8212;piracy of the public domain. When Robert
8434 Frost wrote his work and when Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse, the maximum
8435 copyright term was just fifty-six years. Because of interim changes, Frost
8436 and Disney had already enjoyed a seventy-five-year monopoly for their
8437 work. They had gotten the benefit of the bargain that the Constitution
8438 envisions: In exchange for a monopoly protected for fifty-six years, they
8439 created new work. But now these entities were using their
8440 power&#8212;expressed through the power of lobbyists' money&#8212;to get
8441 another twenty-year dollop of monopoly. That twenty-year dollop would be
8442 taken from the public domain. Eric Eldred was fighting a piracy that affects
8443 us all.
8444 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2888989"></a><p>
8445 Some people view the public domain with contempt. In their brief before the
8446 Supreme Court, the Nashville Songwriters Association wrote that the public
8447 domain is nothing more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2889020" href="#ftn.id2889020" class="footnote">187</a>]</sup> But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in
8448 our constitutional system, our law requires it. Some may not like the
8449 Constitution's requirements, but that doesn't make the Constitution a
8450 pirate's charter.
8451 </p><p>
8452 As we've seen, our constitutional system requires limits on copyright as a
8453 way to assure that copyright holders do not too heavily influence the
8454 development and distribution of our culture. Yet, as Eric Eldred discovered,
8455 we have set up a system that assures that copyright terms will be repeatedly
8456 extended, and extended, and extended. We have created the perfect storm for
8457 the public domain. Copyrights have not expired, and will not expire, so long
8458 as Congress is free to be bought to extend them again.
8459 </p><p>
8460 <span class="strong"><strong>It is valuable</strong></span> copyrights that are
8461 responsible for terms being extended.  Mickey Mouse and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rhapsody in
8462 Blue.</span>»</span> These works are too valuable for copyright owners to
8463 ignore. But the real harm to our society from copyright extensions is not
8464 that Mickey Mouse remains Disney's.  Forget Mickey Mouse. Forget Robert
8465 Frost. Forget all the works from the 1920s and 1930s that have continuing
8466 commercial value. The real harm of term extension comes not from these
8467 famous works. The real harm is to the works that are not famous, not
8468 commercially exploited, and no longer available as a result.
8469 </p><p>
8470 If you look at the work created in the first twenty years (1923 to 1942)
8471 affected by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 2 percent of that
8472 work has any continuing commercial value. It was the copyright holders for
8473 that 2 percent who pushed the CTEA through.  But the law and its effect were
8474 not limited to that 2 percent. The law extended the terms of copyright
8475 generally.<sup>[<a name="id2889092" href="#ftn.id2889092" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
8476
8477 </p><p>
8478
8479 Think practically about the consequence of this extension&#8212;practically,
8480 as a businessperson, and not as a lawyer eager for more legal work. In 1930,
8481 10,047 books were published. In 2000, 174 of those books were still in
8482 print. Let's say you were Brewster Kahle, and you wanted to make available
8483 to the world in your iArchive project the remaining 9,873. What would you
8484 have to do?
8485 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2889122"></a><p>
8486 Well, first, you'd have to determine which of the 9,873 books were still
8487 under copyright. That requires going to a library (these data are not
8488 on-line) and paging through tomes of books, cross-checking the titles and
8489 authors of the 9,873 books with the copyright registration and renewal
8490 records for works published in 1930. That will produce a list of books still
8491 under copyright.
8492 </p><p>
8493 Then for the books still under copyright, you would need to locate the
8494 current copyright owners. How would you do that?
8495 </p><p>
8496 Most people think that there must be a list of these copyright owners
8497 somewhere. Practical people think this way. How could there be thousands and
8498 thousands of government monopolies without there being at least a list?
8499 </p><p>
8500 But there is no list. There may be a name from 1930, and then in 1959, of
8501 the person who registered the copyright. But just think practically about
8502 how impossibly difficult it would be to track down thousands of such
8503 records&#8212;especially since the person who registered is not necessarily
8504 the current owner. And we're just talking about 1930!
8505 </p><p>
8506 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But there isn't a list of who owns property generally,</span>»</span> the
8507 apologists for the system respond. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Why should there be a list of
8508 copyright owners?</span>»</span>
8509 </p><p>
8510 Well, actually, if you think about it, there <span class="emphasis"><em>are</em></span> plenty
8511 of lists of who owns what property. Think about deeds on houses, or titles
8512 to cars.  And where there isn't a list, the code of real space is pretty
8513 good at suggesting who the owner of a bit of property is. (A swing set in
8514 your backyard is probably yours.) So formally or informally, we have a
8515 pretty good way to know who owns what tangible property.
8516 </p><p>
8517
8518 So: You walk down a street and see a house. You can know who owns the house
8519 by looking it up in the courthouse registry. If you see a car, there is
8520 ordinarily a license plate that will link the owner to the car. If you see a
8521 bunch of children's toys sitting on the front lawn of a house, it's fairly
8522 easy to determine who owns the toys. And if you happen to see a baseball
8523 lying in a gutter on the side of the road, look around for a second for some
8524 kids playing ball. If you don't see any kids, then okay: Here's a bit of
8525 property whose owner we can't easily determine. It is the exception that
8526 proves the rule: that we ordinarily know quite well who owns what property.
8527 </p><p>
8528 Compare this story to intangible property. You go into a library.  The
8529 library owns the books. But who owns the copyrights? As I've already
8530 described, there's no list of copyright owners. There are authors' names, of
8531 course, but their copyrights could have been assigned, or passed down in an
8532 estate like Grandma's old jewelry. To know who owns what, you would have to
8533 hire a private detective. The bottom line: The owner cannot easily be
8534 located. And in a regime like ours, in which it is a felony to use such
8535 property without the property owner's permission, the property isn't going
8536 to be used.
8537 </p><p>
8538 The consequence with respect to old books is that they won't be digitized,
8539 and hence will simply rot away on shelves. But the consequence for other
8540 creative works is much more dire.
8541 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2889244"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2889250"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2889258"></a><p>
8542 Consider the story of Michael Agee, chairman of Hal Roach Studios, which
8543 owns the copyrights for the Laurel and Hardy films. Agee is a direct
8544 beneficiary of the Bono Act. The Laurel and Hardy films were made between
8545 1921 and 1951. Only one of these films, <em class="citetitle">The Lucky
8546 Dog</em>, is currently out of copyright. But for the CTEA, films made
8547 after 1923 would have begun entering the public domain. Because Agee
8548 controls the exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal
8549 of money. According to one estimate, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Roach has sold about 60,000
8550 videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent
8551 films.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2889283" href="#ftn.id2889283" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup>
8552 </p><p>
8553 Yet Agee opposed the CTEA. His reasons demonstrate a rare virtue in this
8554 culture: selflessness. He argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that
8555 the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act will, if left standing, destroy
8556 a whole generation of American film.
8557 </p><p>
8558
8559 His argument is straightforward. A tiny fraction of this work has any
8560 continuing commercial value. The rest&#8212;to the extent it survives at
8561 all&#8212;sits in vaults gathering dust. It may be that some of this work
8562 not now commercially valuable will be deemed to be valuable by the owners of
8563 the vaults. For this to occur, however, the commercial benefit from the work
8564 must exceed the costs of making the work available for distribution.
8565 </p><p>
8566 We can't know the benefits, but we do know a lot about the costs.  For most
8567 of the history of film, the costs of restoring film were very high; digital
8568 technology has lowered these costs substantially. While it cost more than
8569 $10,000 to restore a ninety-minute black-and-white film in 1993, it can now
8570 cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.<sup>[<a name="id2889340" href="#ftn.id2889340" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
8571
8572 </p><p>
8573 Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most important.
8574 Lawyers, too, are a cost, and increasingly, a very important one. In
8575 addition to preserving the film, a distributor needs to secure the rights.
8576 And to secure the rights for a film that is under copyright, you need to
8577 locate the copyright owner.
8578 </p><p>
8579 Or more accurately, <span class="emphasis"><em>owners</em></span>. As we've seen, there isn't
8580 only a single copyright associated with a film; there are many. There isn't
8581 a single person whom you can contact about those copyrights; there are as
8582 many as can hold the rights, which turns out to be an extremely large
8583 number. Thus the costs of clearing the rights to these films is
8584 exceptionally high.
8585 </p><p>
8586 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But can't you just restore the film, distribute it, and then pay the
8587 copyright owner when she shows up?</span>»</span> Sure, if you want to commit a
8588 felony. And even if you're not worried about committing a felony, when she
8589 does show up, she'll have the right to sue you for all the profits you have
8590 made. So, if you're successful, you can be fairly confident you'll be
8591 getting a call from someone's lawyer. And if you're not successful, you
8592 won't make enough to cover the costs of your own lawyer. Either way, you
8593 have to talk to a lawyer. And as is too often the case, saying you have to
8594 talk to a lawyer is the same as saying you won't make any money.
8595 </p><p>
8596
8597 For some films, the benefit of releasing the film may well exceed these
8598 costs. But for the vast majority of them, there is no way the benefit would
8599 outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old films, Agee
8600 argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until the copyright
8601 expires.
8602 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2889422"></a><p>
8603 But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will have
8604 expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and nitrate stock
8605 dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal canisters in which
8606 they are now stored will be filled with nothing more than dust.
8607 </p><p>
8608 <span class="strong"><strong>Of all the</strong></span> creative work produced by
8609 humans anywhere, a tiny fraction has continuing commercial value. For that
8610 tiny fraction, the copyright is a crucially important legal device. For that
8611 tiny fraction, the copyright creates incentives to produce and distribute
8612 the creative work. For that tiny fraction, the copyright acts as an
8613 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">engine of free expression.</span>»</span>
8614 </p><p>
8615 But even for that tiny fraction, the actual time during which the creative
8616 work has a commercial life is extremely short. As I've indicated, most books
8617 go out of print within one year. The same is true of music and
8618 film. Commercial culture is sharklike. It must keep moving.  And when a
8619 creative work falls out of favor with the commercial distributors, the
8620 commercial life ends.
8621 </p><p>
8622 Yet that doesn't mean the life of the creative work ends. We don't keep
8623 libraries of books in order to compete with Barnes &amp; Noble, and we don't
8624 have archives of films because we expect people to choose between spending
8625 Friday night watching new movies and spending Friday night watching a 1930
8626 news documentary. The noncommercial life of culture is important and
8627 valuable&#8212;for entertainment but also, and more importantly, for
8628 knowledge. To understand who we are, and where we came from, and how we have
8629 made the mistakes that we have, we need to have access to this history.
8630 </p><p>
8631
8632 Copyrights in this context do not drive an engine of free expression.  In
8633 this context, there is no need for an exclusive right. Copyrights in this
8634 context do no good.
8635 </p><p>
8636 Yet, for most of our history, they also did little harm. For most of our
8637 history, when a work ended its commercial life, there was no
8638 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright-related use</em></span> that would be inhibited by an
8639 exclusive right.  When a book went out of print, you could not buy it from a
8640 publisher.  But you could still buy it from a used book store, and when a
8641 used book store sells it, in America, at least, there is no need to pay the
8642 copyright owner anything. Thus, the ordinary use of a book after its
8643 commercial life ended was a use that was independent of copyright law.
8644 </p><p>
8645 The same was effectively true of film. Because the costs of restoring a
8646 film&#8212;the real economic costs, not the lawyer costs&#8212;were so high,
8647 it was never at all feasible to preserve or restore film. Like the remains
8648 of a great dinner, when it's over, it's over. Once a film passed out of its
8649 commercial life, it may have been archived for a bit, but that was the end
8650 of its life so long as the market didn't have more to offer.
8651 </p><p>
8652 In other words, though copyright has been relatively short for most of our
8653 history, long copyrights wouldn't have mattered for the works that lost
8654 their commercial value. Long copyrights for these works would not have
8655 interfered with anything.
8656 </p><p>
8657 But this situation has now changed.
8658 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital2"></a><p>
8659 One crucially important consequence of the emergence of digital technologies
8660 is to enable the archive that Brewster Kahle dreams of.  Digital
8661 technologies now make it possible to preserve and give access to all sorts
8662 of knowledge. Once a book goes out of print, we can now imagine digitizing
8663 it and making it available to everyone, forever. Once a film goes out of
8664 distribution, we could digitize it and make it available to everyone,
8665 forever. Digital technologies give new life to copyrighted material after it
8666 passes out of its commercial life. It is now possible to preserve and assure
8667 universal access to this knowledge and culture, whereas before it was not.
8668 </p><p>
8669
8670
8671 And now copyright law does get in the way. Every step of producing this
8672 digital archive of our culture infringes on the exclusive right of
8673 copyright. To digitize a book is to copy it. To do that requires permission
8674 of the copyright owner. The same with music, film, or any other aspect of
8675 our culture protected by copyright. The effort to make these things
8676 available to history, or to researchers, or to those who just want to
8677 explore, is now inhibited by a set of rules that were written for a
8678 radically different context.
8679 </p><p>
8680 Here is the core of the harm that comes from extending terms: Now that
8681 technology enables us to rebuild the library of Alexandria, the law gets in
8682 the way. And it doesn't get in the way for any useful
8683 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span> purpose, for the purpose of copyright is to
8684 enable the commercial market that spreads culture. No, we are talking about
8685 culture after it has lived its commercial life. In this context, copyright
8686 is serving no purpose <span class="emphasis"><em>at all</em></span> related to the spread of
8687 knowledge. In this context, copyright is not an engine of free
8688 expression. Copyright is a brake.
8689 </p><p>
8690 You may well ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But if digital technologies lower the costs for
8691 Brewster Kahle, then they will lower the costs for Random House, too.  So
8692 won't Random House do as well as Brewster Kahle in spreading culture
8693 widely?</span>»</span>
8694 </p><p>
8695 Maybe. Someday. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that
8696 publishers would be as complete as libraries. If Barnes &amp; Noble offered
8697 to lend books from its stores for a low price, would that eliminate the need
8698 for libraries? Only if you think that the only role of a library is to serve
8699 what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the market</span>»</span> would demand. But if you think the role of a
8700 library is bigger than this&#8212;if you think its role is to archive
8701 culture, whether there's a demand for any particular bit of that culture or
8702 not&#8212;then we can't count on the commercial market to do our library
8703 work for us.
8704 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2889620"></a><p>
8705 I would be the first to agree that it should do as much as it can: We should
8706 rely upon the market as much as possible to spread and enable culture. My
8707 message is absolutely not antimarket. But where we see the market is not
8708 doing the job, then we should allow nonmarket forces the freedom to fill the
8709 gaps. As one researcher calculated for American culture, 94 percent of the
8710 films, books, and music produced between and 1946 is not commercially
8711 available. However much you love the commercial market, if access is a
8712 value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.<sup>[<a name="id2889648" href="#ftn.id2889648" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
8713
8714 </p><p>
8715 <span class="strong"><strong>In January 1999</strong></span>, we filed a lawsuit on
8716 Eric Eldred's behalf in federal district court in Washington, D.C., asking
8717 the court to declare the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
8718 unconstitutional. The two central claims that we made were (1)  that
8719 extending existing terms violated the Constitution's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited
8720 Times</span>»</span> requirement, and (2) that extending terms by another twenty
8721 years violated the First Amendment.
8722 </p><p>
8723 The district court dismissed our claims without even hearing an argument.  A
8724 panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also dismissed our
8725 claims, though after hearing an extensive argument. But that decision at
8726 least had a dissent, by one of the most conservative judges on that
8727 court. That dissent gave our claims life.
8728 </p><p>
8729 Judge David Sentelle said the CTEA violated the requirement that copyrights
8730 be for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited Times</span>»</span> only. His argument was as elegant as it
8731 was simple: If Congress can extend existing terms, then there is no
8732 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stopping point</span>»</span> to Congress's power under the Copyright
8733 Clause. The power to extend existing terms means Congress is not required to
8734 grant terms that are <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> Thus, Judge Sentelle argued,
8735 the court had to interpret the term <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited Times</span>»</span> to give it
8736 meaning. And the best interpretation, Judge Sentelle argued, would be to
8737 deny Congress the power to extend existing terms.
8738 </p><p>
8739 We asked the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as a whole to hear the
8740 case. Cases are ordinarily heard in panels of three, except for important
8741 cases or cases that raise issues specific to the circuit as a whole, where
8742 the court will sit <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en banc</span>»</span> to hear the case.
8743 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2889736"></a><p>
8744
8745 The Court of Appeals rejected our request to hear the case en banc.  This
8746 time, Judge Sentelle was joined by the most liberal member of the
8747 D.C. Circuit, Judge David Tatel. Both the most conservative and the most
8748 liberal judges in the D.C. Circuit believed Congress had overstepped its
8749 bounds.
8750 </p><p>
8751 It was here that most expected Eldred v. Ashcroft would die, for the Supreme
8752 Court rarely reviews any decision by a court of appeals. (It hears about one
8753 hundred cases a year, out of more than five thousand appeals.) And it
8754 practically never reviews a decision that upholds a statute when no other
8755 court has yet reviewed the statute.
8756 </p><p>
8757 But in February 2002, the Supreme Court surprised the world by granting our
8758 petition to review the D.C. Circuit opinion. Argument was set for October of
8759 2002. The summer would be spent writing briefs and preparing for argument.
8760 </p><p>
8761 <span class="strong"><strong>It is over</strong></span> a year later as I write these
8762 words. It is still astonishingly hard. If you know anything at all about
8763 this story, you know that we lost the appeal. And if you know something more
8764 than just the minimum, you probably think there was no way this case could
8765 have been won. After our defeat, I received literally thousands of missives
8766 by well-wishers and supporters, thanking me for my work on behalf of this
8767 noble but doomed cause. And none from this pile was more significant to me
8768 than the e-mail from my client, Eric Eldred.
8769 </p><p>
8770 Men min klient og disse vennene tok feil. Denne saken kunne vært vunnet. Det
8771 burde ha vært vunnet.  Og uansett hvor hardt jeg prøver å fortelle den
8772 historien til meg selv, kan jeg aldri unnslippe troen på at det er min feil
8773 at vi ikke vant.
8774 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2889800"></a><p>
8775
8776 <span class="strong"><strong>Feil</strong></span> ble gjort tidlig, skjønt den ble
8777 først åpenbart på slutten. Vår sak hadde støtte hos en ekstraordinær
8778 advokat, Geoffrey Stewart, helt fra starten, og hos advokatfirmaet hadde han
8779 flyttet til, Jones, Day, Reavis og Pogue. Jones Day mottok mye press fra
8780 sine opphavsrettsbeskyttende klienter på grunn av sin støtte til oss.  De
8781 ignorert dette presset (noe veldig få advokatfirmaer noen sinne ville
8782 gjøre), og ga alt de hadde gjennom hele saken.
8783 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2889830"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2889837"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2889844"></a><p>
8784 Det var tre viktige advokater på saken fra Jones DaY. Geoff Stewart var den
8785 først, men siden ble Dan Bromberg og Don Ayer ganske involvert. Bromberg og
8786 Ayer spesielt hadde en felles oppfatning om hvordan denne saken ville bli
8787 vunnet: vi ville bare vinne, fortalte de gjentatte ganger til meg, hvis vi
8788 få problemet til å virke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">viktig</span>»</span> for Høyesterett. Det måtte
8789 synes som om dramatisk skade ble gjort til ytringsfriheten og fri kultur,
8790 ellers ville de aldri stemt mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">de mektigste mediaselskapene i
8791 verden</span>»</span>.
8792 </p><p>
8793 I hate this view of the law. Of course I thought the Sonny Bono Act was a
8794 dramatic harm to free speech and free culture. Of course I still think it
8795 is. But the idea that the Supreme Court decides the law based on how
8796 important they believe the issues are is just wrong. It might be
8797 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span> as in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">true,</span>»</span> I thought, but it is
8798 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">wrong</span>»</span> as in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">it just shouldn't be that way.</span>»</span> As
8799 I believed that any faithful interpretation of what the framers of our
8800 Constitution did would yield the conclusion that the CTEA was
8801 unconstitutional, and as I believed that any faithful interpretation of what
8802 the First Amendment means would yield the conclusion that the power to
8803 extend existing copyright terms is unconstitutional, I was not persuaded
8804 that we had to sell our case like soap.  Just as a law that bans the
8805 swastika is unconstitutional not because the Court likes Nazis but because
8806 such a law would violate the Constitution, so too, in my view, would the
8807 Court decide whether Congress's law was constitutional based on the
8808 Constitution, not based on whether they liked the values that the framers
8809 put in the Constitution.
8810 </p><p>
8811 In any case, I thought, the Court must already see the danger and the harm
8812 caused by this sort of law. Why else would they grant review? There was no
8813 reason to hear the case in the Supreme Court if they weren't convinced that
8814 this regulation was harmful. So in my view, we didn't need to persuade them
8815 that this law was bad, we needed to show why it was unconstitutional.
8816 </p><p>
8817
8818 There was one way, however, in which I felt politics would matter and in
8819 which I thought a response was appropriate. I was convinced that the Court
8820 would not hear our arguments if it thought these were just the arguments of
8821 a group of lefty loons. This Supreme Court was not about to launch into a
8822 new field of judicial review if it seemed that this field of review was
8823 simply the preference of a small political minority.  Although my focus in
8824 the case was not to demonstrate how bad the Sonny Bono Act was but to
8825 demonstrate that it was unconstitutional, my hope was to make this argument
8826 against a background of briefs that covered the full range of political
8827 views. To show that this claim against the CTEA was grounded in
8828 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> and not politics, then, we tried to gather the
8829 widest range of credible critics&#8212;credible not because they were rich
8830 and famous, but because they, in the aggregate, demonstrated that this law
8831 was unconstitutional regardless of one's politics.
8832 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2889955"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2889968"></a><p>
8833 The first step happened all by itself. Phyllis Schlafly's organization,
8834 Eagle Forum, had been an opponent of the CTEA from the very beginning.
8835 Mrs. Schlafly viewed the CTEA as a sellout by Congress. In November 1998,
8836 she wrote a stinging editorial attacking the Republican Congress for
8837 allowing the law to pass. As she wrote, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Do you sometimes wonder why
8838 bills that create a financial windfall to narrow special interests slide
8839 easily through the intricate legislative process, while bills that benefit
8840 the general public seem to get bogged down?</span>»</span> The answer, as the
8841 editorial documented, was the power of money.  Schlafly enumerated Disney's
8842 contributions to the key players on the committees. It was money, not
8843 justice, that gave Mickey Mouse twenty more years in Disney's control,
8844 Schlafly argued.
8845 </p><p>
8846 In the Court of Appeals, Eagle Forum was eager to file a brief supporting
8847 our position. Their brief made the argument that became the core claim in
8848 the Supreme Court: If Congress can extend the term of existing copyrights,
8849 there is no limit to Congress's power to set terms.  That strong
8850 conservative argument persuaded a strong conservative judge, Judge Sentelle.
8851 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2890004"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2890011"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2890018"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2890025"></a><p>
8852
8853 In the Supreme Court, the briefs on our side were about as diverse as it
8854 gets. They included an extraordinary historical brief by the Free Software
8855 Foundation (home of the GNU project that made GNU/ Linux possible). They
8856 included a powerful brief about the costs of uncertainty by Intel. There
8857 were two law professors' briefs, one by copyright scholars and one by First
8858 Amendment scholars. There was an exhaustive and uncontroverted brief by the
8859 world's experts in the history of the Progress Clause. And of course, there
8860 was a new brief by Eagle Forum, repeating and strengthening its arguments.
8861 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2890048"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2890055"></a><p>
8862 Those briefs framed a legal argument. Then to support the legal argument,
8863 there were a number of powerful briefs by libraries and archives, including
8864 the Internet Archive, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the
8865 National Writers Union.
8866 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2890070"></a><p>
8867 But two briefs captured the policy argument best. One made the argument I've
8868 already described: A brief by Hal Roach Studios argued that unless the law
8869 was struck, a whole generation of American film would disappear. The other
8870 made the economic argument absolutely clear.
8871 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2890084"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2890091"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2890098"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2890105"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2890112"></a><p>
8872 This economists' brief was signed by seventeen economists, including five
8873 Nobel Prize winners, including Ronald Coase, James Buchanan, Milton
8874 Friedman, Kenneth Arrow, and George Akerlof. The economists, as the list of
8875 Nobel winners demonstrates, spanned the political spectrum. Their
8876 conclusions were powerful: There was no plausible claim that extending the
8877 terms of existing copyrights would do anything to increase incentives to
8878 create. Such extensions were nothing more than
8879 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rent-seeking</span>»</span>&#8212;the fancy term economists use to describe
8880 special-interest legislation gone wild.
8881 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2890136"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2890143"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2890150"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2890156"></a><p>
8882
8883 The same effort at balance was reflected in the legal team we gathered to
8884 write our briefs in the case. The Jones Day lawyers had been with us from
8885 the start. But when the case got to the Supreme Court, we added three
8886 lawyers to help us frame this argument to this Court: Alan Morrison, a
8887 lawyer from Public Citizen, a Washington group that had made constitutional
8888 history with a series of seminal victories in the Supreme Court defending
8889 individual rights; my colleague and dean, Kathleen Sullivan, who had argued
8890 many cases in the Court, and who had advised us early on about a First
8891 Amendment strategy; and finally, former solicitor general Charles Fried.
8892 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2890181"></a><p>
8893 Fried was a special victory for our side. Every other former solicitor
8894 general was hired by the other side to defend Congress's power to give media
8895 companies the special favor of extended copyright terms. Fried was the only
8896 one who turned down that lucrative assignment to stand up for something he
8897 believed in. He had been Ronald Reagan's chief lawyer in the Supreme
8898 Court. He had helped craft the line of cases that limited Congress's power
8899 in the context of the Commerce Clause. And while he had argued many
8900 positions in the Supreme Court that I personally disagreed with, his joining
8901 the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument.
8902 </p><p>
8903 The government, in defending the statute, had its collection of friends, as
8904 well. Significantly, however, none of these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friends</span>»</span> included
8905 historians or economists. The briefs on the other side of the case were
8906 written exclusively by major media companies, congressmen, and copyright
8907 holders.
8908 </p><p>
8909 The media companies were not surprising. They had the most to gain from the
8910 law. The congressmen were not surprising either&#8212;they were defending
8911 their power and, indirectly, the gravy train of contributions such power
8912 induced. And of course it was not surprising that the copyright holders
8913 would defend the idea that they should continue to have the right to control
8914 who did what with content they wanted to control.
8915 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2890216"></a><p>
8916
8917 Dr. Seuss's representatives, for example, argued that it was better for the
8918 Dr. Seuss estate to control what happened to Dr. Seuss's work&#8212; better
8919 than allowing it to fall into the public domain&#8212;because if this
8920 creativity were in the public domain, then people could use it to
8921 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">glorify drugs or to create pornography.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2890244" href="#ftn.id2890244" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate,
8922 which defended its <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protection</span>»</span> of the work of George
8923 Gershwin. They refuse, for example, to license <em class="citetitle">Porgy and
8924 Bess</em> to anyone who refuses to use African Americans in the
8925 cast.<sup>[<a name="id2890270" href="#ftn.id2890270" class="footnote">193</a>]</sup> That's their view of how this
8926 part of American culture should be controlled, and they wanted this law to
8927 help them effect that control.
8928 </p><p>
8929 This argument made clear a theme that is rarely noticed in this debate.
8930 When Congress decides to extend the term of existing copyrights, Congress is
8931 making a choice about which speakers it will favor.  Famous and beloved
8932 copyright owners, such as the Gershwin estate and Dr. Seuss, come to
8933 Congress and say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Give us twenty years to control the speech about
8934 these icons of American culture. We'll do better with them than anyone
8935 else.</span>»</span> Congress of course likes to reward the popular and famous by
8936 giving them what they want. But when Congress gives people an exclusive
8937 right to speak in a certain way, that's just what the First Amendment is
8938 traditionally meant to block.
8939 </p><p>
8940 We argued as much in a final brief. Not only would upholding the CTEA mean
8941 that there was no limit to the power of Congress to extend
8942 copyrights&#8212;extensions that would further concentrate the market; it
8943 would also mean that there was no limit to Congress's power to play
8944 favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak.
8945 </p><p>
8946 <span class="strong"><strong>Between February</strong></span> and October, there was
8947 little I did beyond preparing for this case. Early on, as I said, I set the
8948 strategy.
8949 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2890328"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2890335"></a><p>
8950 The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we called
8951 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conservatives.</span>»</span> The other we called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
8952 Rest.</span>»</span> The Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice
8953 O'Connor, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas. These five
8954 had been the most consistent in limiting Congress's power. They were the
8955 five who had supported the <em class="citetitle">Lopez/Morrison</em> line of
8956 cases that said that an enumerated power had to be interpreted to assure
8957 that Congress's powers had limits.
8958 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2890364"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxginsburg"></a><p>
8959
8960 The Rest were the four Justices who had strongly opposed limits on
8961 Congress's power. These four&#8212;Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice
8962 Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer&#8212;had repeatedly argued that the
8963 Constitution gives Congress broad discretion to decide how best to implement
8964 its powers. In case after case, these justices had argued that the Court's
8965 role should be one of deference. Though the votes of these four justices
8966 were the votes that I personally had most consistently agreed with, they
8967 were also the votes that we were least likely to get.
8968 </p><p>
8969 In particular, the least likely was Justice Ginsburg's. In addition to her
8970 general view about deference to Congress (except where issues of gender are
8971 involved), she had been particularly deferential in the context of
8972 intellectual property protections. She and her daughter (an excellent and
8973 well-known intellectual property scholar) were cut from the same
8974 intellectual property cloth. We expected she would agree with the writings
8975 of her daughter: that Congress had the power in this context to do as it
8976 wished, even if what Congress wished made little sense.
8977 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2890413"></a><p>
8978 Close behind Justice Ginsburg were two justices whom we also viewed as
8979 unlikely allies, though possible surprises. Justice Souter strongly favored
8980 deference to Congress, as did Justice Breyer. But both were also very
8981 sensitive to free speech concerns. And as we strongly believed, there was a
8982 very important free speech argument against these retrospective extensions.
8983 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2890429"></a><p>
8984 The only vote we could be confident about was that of Justice
8985 Stevens. History will record Justice Stevens as one of the greatest judges
8986 on this Court. His votes are consistently eclectic, which just means that no
8987 simple ideology explains where he will stand. But he had consistently argued
8988 for limits in the context of intellectual property generally. We were fairly
8989 confident he would recognize limits here.
8990 </p><p>
8991 This analysis of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Rest</span>»</span> showed most clearly where our focus
8992 had to be: on the Conservatives. To win this case, we had to crack open
8993 these five and get at least a majority to go our way. Thus, the single
8994 overriding argument that animated our claim rested on the Conservatives'
8995 most important jurisprudential innovation&#8212;the argument that Judge
8996 Sentelle had relied upon in the Court of Appeals, that Congress's power must
8997 be interpreted so that its enumerated powers have limits.
8998 </p><p>
8999
9000 This then was the core of our strategy&#8212;a strategy for which I am
9001 responsible. We would get the Court to see that just as with the
9002 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, under the government's argument here,
9003 Congress would always have unlimited power to extend existing terms. If
9004 anything was plain about Congress's power under the Progress Clause, it was
9005 that this power was supposed to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> Our aim would be
9006 to get the Court to reconcile <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> with
9007 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>: If Congress's power to regulate commerce was
9008 limited, then so, too, must Congress's power to regulate copyright be
9009 limited.
9010 </p><p>
9011 <span class="strong"><strong>The argument</strong></span> on the government's side
9012 came down to this: Congress has done it before. It should be allowed to do
9013 it again. The government claimed that from the very beginning, Congress has
9014 been extending the term of existing copyrights. So, the government argued,
9015 the Court should not now say that practice is unconstitutional.
9016 </p><p>
9017 There was some truth to the government's claim, but not much. We certainly
9018 agreed that Congress had extended existing terms in 1831 and in 1909. And of
9019 course, in 1962, Congress began extending existing terms
9020 regularly&#8212;eleven times in forty years.
9021 </p><p>
9022 But this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">consistency</span>»</span> should be kept in perspective. Congress
9023 extended existing terms once in the first hundred years of the Republic.  It
9024 then extended existing terms once again in the next fifty. Those rare
9025 extensions are in contrast to the now regular practice of extending existing
9026 terms. Whatever restraint Congress had had in the past, that restraint was
9027 now gone. Congress was now in a cycle of extensions; there was no reason to
9028 expect that cycle would end. This Court had not hesitated to intervene where
9029 Congress was in a similar cycle of extension.  There was no reason it
9030 couldn't intervene here.
9031 </p><p>
9032
9033 <span class="strong"><strong>Oral argument</strong></span> was scheduled for the first
9034 week in October. I arrived in D.C. two weeks before the argument. During
9035 those two weeks, I was repeatedly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mooted</span>»</span> by lawyers who had
9036 volunteered to help in the case. Such <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">moots</span>»</span> are basically
9037 practice rounds, where wannabe justices fire questions at wannabe winners.
9038 </p><p>
9039 I was convinced that to win, I had to keep the Court focused on a single
9040 point: that if this extension is permitted, then there is no limit to the
9041 power to set terms. Going with the government would mean that terms would be
9042 effectively unlimited; going with us would give Congress a clear line to
9043 follow: Don't extend existing terms. The moots were an effective practice; I
9044 found ways to take every question back to this central idea.
9045 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2890567"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2890573"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2890580"></a><p>
9046 One moot was before the lawyers at Jones Day. Don Ayer was the skeptic. He
9047 had served in the Reagan Justice Department with Solicitor General Charles
9048 Fried. He had argued many cases before the Supreme Court. And in his review
9049 of the moot, he let his concern speak:
9050 </p><p>
9051 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I'm just afraid that unless they really see the harm, they won't be
9052 willing to upset this practice that the government says has been a
9053 consistent practice for two hundred years. You have to make them see the
9054 harm&#8212;passionately get them to see the harm. For if they don't see
9055 that, then we haven't any chance of winning.</span>»</span>
9056 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2890600"></a><p>
9057 He may have argued many cases before this Court, I thought, but he didn't
9058 understand its soul. As a clerk, I had seen the Justices do the right
9059 thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it was right. As a law
9060 professor, I had spent my life teaching my students that this Court does the
9061 right thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it is right. As I
9062 listened to Ayer's plea for passion in pressing politics, I understood his
9063 point, and I rejected it. Our argument was right. That was enough.  Let the
9064 politicians learn to see that it was also good.
9065 </p><p>
9066
9067 <span class="strong"><strong>The night before</strong></span> the argument, a line of
9068 people began to form in front of the Supreme Court. The case had become a
9069 focus of the press and of the movement to free culture. Hundreds stood in
9070 line for the chance to see the proceedings. Scores spent the night on the
9071 Supreme Court steps so that they would be assured a seat.
9072 </p><p>
9073 Not everyone has to wait in line. People who know the Justices can ask for
9074 seats they control. (I asked Justice Scalia's chambers for seats for my
9075 parents, for example.) Members of the Supreme Court bar can get a seat in a
9076 special section reserved for them. And senators and congressmen have a
9077 special place where they get to sit, too. And finally, of course, the press
9078 has a gallery, as do clerks working for the Justices on the Court. As we
9079 entered that morning, there was no place that was not taken. This was an
9080 argument about intellectual property law, yet the halls were filled. As I
9081 walked in to take my seat at the front of the Court, I saw my parents
9082 sitting on the left. As I sat down at the table, I saw Jack Valenti sitting
9083 in the special section ordinarily reserved for family of the Justices.
9084 </p><p>
9085 When the Chief Justice called me to begin my argument, I began where I
9086 intended to stay: on the question of the limits on Congress's power. This
9087 was a case about enumerated powers, I said, and whether those enumerated
9088 powers had any limit.
9089 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2890668"></a><p>
9090 Justice O'Connor stopped me within one minute of my opening.  The history
9091 was bothering her.
9092 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9093 justice o'connor: Congress has extended the term so often through the years,
9094 and if you are right, don't we run the risk of upsetting previous extensions
9095 of time? I mean, this seems to be a practice that began with the very first
9096 act.
9097 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9098 She was quite willing to concede <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">that this flies directly in the face
9099 of what the framers had in mind.</span>»</span> But my response again and again was
9100 to emphasize limits on Congress's power.
9101 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9102
9103 mr. lessig: Well, if it flies in the face of what the framers had in mind,
9104 then the question is, is there a way of interpreting their words that gives
9105 effect to what they had in mind, and the answer is yes.
9106 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9107 There were two points in this argument when I should have seen where the
9108 Court was going. The first was a question by Justice Kennedy, who observed,
9109 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9110 justice kennedy: Well, I suppose implicit in the argument that the '76 act,
9111 too, should have been declared void, and that we might leave it alone
9112 because of the disruption, is that for all these years the act has impeded
9113 progress in science and the useful arts.  I just don't see any empirical
9114 evidence for that.
9115 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9116 Here follows my clear mistake. Like a professor correcting a student, I
9117 answered,
9118 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9119 mr. lessig: Justice, we are not making an empirical claim at all.  Nothing
9120 in our Copyright Clause claim hangs upon the empirical assertion about
9121 impeding progress. Our only argument is this is a structural limit necessary
9122 to assure that what would be an effectively perpetual term not be permitted
9123 under the copyright laws.
9124 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2890747"></a><p>
9125 That was a correct answer, but it wasn't the right answer. The right answer
9126 was instead that there was an obvious and profound harm. Any number of
9127 briefs had been written about it. He wanted to hear it. And here was the
9128 place Don Ayer's advice should have mattered. This was a softball; my answer
9129 was a swing and a miss.
9130 </p><p>
9131 The second came from the Chief, for whom the whole case had been
9132 crafted. For the Chief Justice had crafted the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
9133 ruling, and we hoped that he would see this case as its second cousin.
9134 </p><p>
9135
9136 It was clear a second into his question that he wasn't at all sympathetic.
9137 To him, we were a bunch of anarchists. As he asked:
9138
9139
9140 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9141 chief justice: Well, but you want more than that. You want the right to copy
9142 verbatim other people's books, don't you?
9143 </p><p>
9144 mr. lessig: We want the right to copy verbatim works that should be in the
9145 public domain and would be in the public domain but for a statute that
9146 cannot be justified under ordinary First Amendment analysis or under a
9147 proper reading of the limits built into the Copyright Clause.
9148 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2890798"></a><p>
9149 Things went better for us when the government gave its argument; for now the
9150 Court picked up on the core of our claim. As Justice Scalia asked Solicitor
9151 General Olson,
9152 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9153 justice scalia: You say that the functional equivalent of an unlimited time
9154 would be a violation [of the Constitution], but that's precisely the
9155 argument that's being made by petitioners here, that a limited time which is
9156 extendable is the functional equivalent of an unlimited time.
9157 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9158 When Olson was finished, it was my turn to give a closing rebuttal.  Olson's
9159 flailing had revived my anger. But my anger still was directed to the
9160 academic, not the practical. The government was arguing as if this were the
9161 first case ever to consider limits on Congress's Copyright and Patent Clause
9162 power. Ever the professor and not the advocate, I closed by pointing out the
9163 long history of the Court imposing limits on Congress's power in the name of
9164 the Copyright and Patent Clause&#8212; indeed, the very first case striking
9165 a law of Congress as exceeding a specific enumerated power was based upon
9166 the Copyright and Patent Clause. All true. But it wasn't going to move the
9167 Court to my side.
9168 </p><p>
9169
9170 <span class="strong"><strong>As I left</strong></span> the court that day, I knew
9171 there were a hundred points I wished I could remake. There were a hundred
9172 questions I wished I had answered differently. But one way of thinking about
9173 this case left me optimistic.
9174 </p><p>
9175 The government had been asked over and over again, what is the limit? Over
9176 and over again, it had answered there is no limit. This was precisely the
9177 answer I wanted the Court to hear. For I could not imagine how the Court
9178 could understand that the government believed Congress's power was unlimited
9179 under the terms of the Copyright Clause, and sustain the government's
9180 argument. The solicitor general had made my argument for me. No matter how
9181 often I tried, I could not understand how the Court could find that
9182 Congress's power under the Commerce Clause was limited, but under the
9183 Copyright Clause, unlimited. In those rare moments when I let myself believe
9184 that we may have prevailed, it was because I felt this Court&#8212;in
9185 particular, the Conservatives&#8212;would feel itself constrained by the
9186 rule of law that it had established elsewhere.
9187 </p><p>
9188 <span class="strong"><strong>The morning</strong></span> of January 15, 2003, I was
9189 five minutes late to the office and missed the 7:00 A.M. call from the
9190 Supreme Court clerk. Listening to the message, I could tell in an instant
9191 that she had bad news to report.The Supreme Court had affirmed the decision
9192 of the Court of Appeals. Seven justices had voted in the majority. There
9193 were two dissents.
9194 </p><p>
9195 A few seconds later, the opinions arrived by e-mail. I took the phone off
9196 the hook, posted an announcement to our blog, and sat down to see where I
9197 had been wrong in my reasoning.
9198 </p><p>
9199 My <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. Here was a case that pitted all the money
9200 in the world against <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. And here was the last
9201 naïve law professor, scouring the pages, looking for reasoning.
9202 </p><p>
9203 I first scoured the opinion, looking for how the Court would distinguish the
9204 principle in this case from the principle in
9205 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The argument was nowhere to be found. The case
9206 was not even cited. The argument that was the core argument of our case did
9207 not even appear in the Court's opinion.
9208 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2890917"></a><p>
9209
9210
9211
9212 Justice Ginsburg simply ignored the enumerated powers argument.  Consistent
9213 with her view that Congress's power was not limited generally, she had found
9214 Congress's power not limited here.
9215 </p><p>
9216 Her opinion was perfectly reasonable&#8212;for her, and for Justice
9217 Souter. Neither believes in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. It would be too
9218 much to expect them to write an opinion that recognized, much less
9219 explained, the doctrine they had worked so hard to defeat.
9220 </p><p>
9221 But as I realized what had happened, I couldn't quite believe what I was
9222 reading. I had said there was no way this Court could reconcile limited
9223 powers with the Commerce Clause and unlimited powers with the Progress
9224 Clause. It had never even occurred to me that they could reconcile the two
9225 simply <span class="emphasis"><em>by not addressing the argument</em></span>. There was no
9226 inconsistency because they would not talk about the two together.  There was
9227 therefore no principle that followed from the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
9228 case: In that context, Congress's power would be limited, but in this
9229 context it would not.
9230 </p><p>
9231 Yet by what right did they get to choose which of the framers' values they
9232 would respect? By what right did they&#8212;the silent five&#8212;get to
9233 select the part of the Constitution they would enforce based on the values
9234 they thought important? We were right back to the argument that I said I
9235 hated at the start: I had failed to convince them that the issue here was
9236 important, and I had failed to recognize that however much I might hate a
9237 system in which the Court gets to pick the constitutional values that it
9238 will respect, that is the system we have.
9239 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2890967"></a><p>
9240 Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote very strong dissents. Stevens's opinion
9241 was crafted internal to the law: He argued that the tradition of
9242 intellectual property law should not support this unjustified extension of
9243 terms. He based his argument on a parallel analysis that had governed in the
9244 context of patents (so had we). But the rest of the Court discounted the
9245 parallel&#8212;without explaining how the very same words in the Progress
9246 Clause could come to mean totally different things depending upon whether
9247 the words were about patents or copyrights.  The Court let Justice Stevens's
9248 charge go unanswered.
9249 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2890937"></a><p>
9250
9251
9252 Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever written, was
9253 external to the Constitution. He argued that the term of copyrights has
9254 become so long as to be effectively unlimited. We had said that under the
9255 current term, a copyright gave an author 99.8 percent of the value of a
9256 perpetual term. Breyer said we were wrong, that the actual number was
9257 99.9997 percent of a perpetual term. Either way, the point was clear: If the
9258 Constitution said a term had to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited,</span>»</span> and the existing
9259 term was so long as to be effectively unlimited, then it was
9260 unconstitutional.
9261 </p><p>
9262 These two justices understood all the arguments we had made. But because
9263 neither believed in the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, neither was
9264 willing to push it as a reason to reject this extension. The case was
9265 decided without anyone having addressed the argument that we had carried
9266 from Judge Sentelle. It was <em class="citetitle">Hamlet</em> without the
9267 Prince.
9268 </p><p>
9269 <span class="strong"><strong>Defeat brings depression</strong></span>. They say it is
9270 a sign of health when depression gives way to anger. My anger came quickly,
9271 but it didn't cure the depression. This anger was of two sorts.
9272 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2891051"></a><p>
9273 It was first anger with the five <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Conservatives.</span>»</span> It would have
9274 been one thing for them to have explained why the principle of
9275 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> didn't apply in this case. That wouldn't have
9276 been a very convincing argument, I don't believe, having read it made by
9277 others, and having tried to make it myself. But it at least would have been
9278 an act of integrity.  These justices in particular have repeatedly said that
9279 the proper mode of interpreting the Constitution is
9280 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalism</span>»</span>&#8212;to first understand the framers' text,
9281 interpreted in their context, in light of the structure of the
9282 Constitution. That method had produced <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> and many
9283 other <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalist</span>»</span> rulings. Where was their
9284 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalism</span>»</span> now?
9285 </p><p>
9286
9287 Here, they had joined an opinion that never once tried to explain what the
9288 framers had meant by crafting the Progress Clause as they did; they joined
9289 an opinion that never once tried to explain how the structure of that clause
9290 would affect the interpretation of Congress's power. And they joined an
9291 opinion that didn't even try to explain why this grant of power could be
9292 unlimited, whereas the Commerce Clause would be limited. In short, they had
9293 joined an opinion that did not apply to, and was inconsistent with, their
9294 own method for interpreting the Constitution. This opinion may well have
9295 yielded a result that they liked. It did not produce a reason that was
9296 consistent with their own principles.
9297 </p><p>
9298 My anger with the Conservatives quickly yielded to anger with myself.  For I
9299 had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with a view of the law as
9300 it is.
9301 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2891118"></a><p>
9302 Most lawyers, and most law professors, have little patience for idealism
9303 about courts in general and this Supreme Court in particular.  Most have a
9304 much more pragmatic view. When Don Ayer said that this case would be won
9305 based on whether I could convince the Justices that the framers' values were
9306 important, I fought the idea, because I didn't want to believe that that is
9307 how this Court decides. I insisted on arguing this case as if it were a
9308 simple application of a set of principles.  I had an argument that followed
9309 in logic. I didn't need to waste my time showing it should also follow in
9310 popularity.
9311 </p><p>
9312
9313 As I read back over the transcript from that argument in October, I can see
9314 a hundred places where the answers could have taken the conversation in
9315 different directions, where the truth about the harm that this unchecked
9316 power will cause could have been made clear to this Court. Justice Kennedy
9317 in good faith wanted to be shown. I, idiotically, corrected his
9318 question. Justice Souter in good faith wanted to be shown the First
9319 Amendment harms. I, like a math teacher, reframed the question to make the
9320 logical point. I had shown them how they could strike this law of Congress
9321 if they wanted to. There were a hundred places where I could have helped
9322 them want to, yet my stubbornness, my refusal to give in, stopped me. I have
9323 stood before hundreds of audiences trying to persuade; I have used passion
9324 in that effort to persuade; but I refused to stand before this audience and
9325 try to persuade with the passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis
9326 on which a court should decide the issue.
9327 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2891178"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2891184"></a><p>
9328 Would it have been different if I had argued it differently? Would it have
9329 been different if Don Ayer had argued it? Or Charles Fried? Or Kathleen
9330 Sullivan?
9331 </p><p>
9332 My friends huddled around me to insist it would not. The Court was not
9333 ready, my friends insisted. This was a loss that was destined. It would take
9334 a great deal more to show our society why our framers were right. And when
9335 we do that, we will be able to show that Court.
9336 </p><p>
9337 Maybe, but I doubt it. These Justices have no financial interest in doing
9338 anything except the right thing. They are not lobbied. They have little
9339 reason to resist doing right. I can't help but think that if I had stepped
9340 down from this pretty picture of dispassionate justice, I could have
9341 persuaded.
9342 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2891213"></a><p>
9343 And even if I couldn't, then that doesn't excuse what happened in
9344 January. For at the start of this case, one of America's leading
9345 intellectual property professors stated publicly that my bringing this case
9346 was a mistake. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Court is not ready,</span>»</span> Peter Jaszi said; this
9347 issue should not be raised until it is.
9348 </p><p>
9349 After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly,
9350 that he was wrong. But if indeed that Court could not have been persuaded,
9351 then that is all the evidence that's needed to know that here again Peter
9352 was right. Either I was not ready to argue this case in a way that would do
9353 some good or they were not ready to hear this case in a way that would do
9354 some good. Either way, the decision to bring this case&#8212;a decision I
9355 had made four years before&#8212;was wrong.
9356 </p><p>
9357
9358 <span class="strong"><strong>While the reaction</strong></span> to the Sonny Bono Act
9359 itself was almost unanimously negative, the reaction to the Court's decision
9360 was mixed.  No one, at least in the press, tried to say that extending the
9361 term of copyright was a good idea. We had won that battle over ideas. Where
9362 the decision was praised, it was praised by papers that had been skeptical
9363 of the Court's activism in other cases. Deference was a good thing, even if
9364 it left standing a silly law. But where the decision was attacked, it was
9365 attacked because it left standing a silly and harmful law. <em class="citetitle">The
9366 New York Times</em> wrote in its editorial,
9367 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9368 In effect, the Supreme Court's decision makes it likely that we are seeing
9369 the beginning of the end of public domain and the birth of copyright
9370 perpetuity. The public domain has been a grand experiment, one that should
9371 not be allowed to die. The ability to draw freely on the entire creative
9372 output of humanity is one of the reasons we live in a time of such fruitful
9373 creative ferment.
9374 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9375 The best responses were in the cartoons. There was a gaggle of hilarious
9376 images&#8212;of Mickey in jail and the like. The best, from my view of the
9377 case, was Ruben Bolling's, reproduced on the next page (<a class="xref" href="#fig-18" title="Figur 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon">Figur 13.1, &#8220;Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon&#8221;</a>). The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">powerful and wealthy</span>»</span> line is a bit
9378 unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2891298"></a>
9379 </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="id2891322"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
9380 The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the quote from
9381 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>. That <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grand
9382 experiment</span>»</span> we call the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public domain</span>»</span> is over? When I
9383 can make light of it, I think, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Honey, I shrunk the
9384 Constitution.</span>»</span> But I can rarely make light of it. We had in our
9385 Constitution a commitment to free culture. In the case that I fathered, the
9386 Supreme Court effectively renounced that commitment. A better lawyer would
9387 have made them see differently.
9388 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888268" href="#id2888268" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
9389
9390
9391 There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to describe, but
9392 it's a strong one. One phenomenon that the Internet created was a world of
9393 noncommercial pornographers&#8212;people who were distributing porn but were
9394 not making money directly or indirectly from that distribution.  Such a
9395 class didn't exist before the Internet came into being because the costs of
9396 distributing porn were so high. Yet this new class of distributors got
9397 special attention in the Supreme Court, when the Court struck down the
9398 Communications Decency Act of 1996. It was partly because of the burden on
9399 noncommercial speakers that the statute was found to exceed Congress's
9400 power. The same point could have been made about noncommercial publishers
9401 after the advent of the Internet. The Eric Eldreds of the world before the
9402 Internet were extremely few. Yet one would think it at least as important to
9403 protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888340" href="#id2888340" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
9404
9405 <a class="indexterm" name="id2888346"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2888355"></a> The full text is: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
9406 protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would
9407 violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen
9408 our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is
9409 also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last forever less one
9410 day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress,</span>»</span> 144
9411 Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
9412 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888666" href="#id2888666" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
9413
9414 Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey
9415 Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years</span>»</span>,
9416 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17. oktober 1998, 22.
9417 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888685" href="#id2888685" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
9418
9419 Se Nick Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
9420 Age</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #49</a>.
9421 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888704" href="#id2888704" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
9422
9423
9424 Alan K. Ota, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars</span>»</span>,
9425 <em class="citetitle">Congressional Quarterly This Week</em>, 8. august 1990,
9426 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
9427 #50</a>.
9428 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888828" href="#id2888828" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
9429
9430 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>, 514
9431 U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
9432 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888857" href="#id2888857" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
9433
9434
9435 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>, 529
9436 U.S. 598 (2000).
9437 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888880" href="#id2888880" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
9438
9439
9440 If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle carries
9441 from one enumerated power to another. The animating point in the context of
9442 the Commerce Clause was that the interpretation offered by the government
9443 would allow the government unending power to regulate commerce&#8212;the
9444 limitation to interstate commerce notwithstanding. The same point is true in
9445 the context of the Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's
9446 interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate
9447 copyrights&#8212;the limitation to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited times</span>»</span>
9448 notwithstanding.
9449 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889020" href="#id2889020" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
9450
9451
9452 Brief of the Nashville Songwriters Association,
9453 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.
9454 186 (2003) (No. 01-618), n.10, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #51</a>.
9455 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889092" href="#id2889092" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
9456
9457 The figure of 2 percent is an extrapolation from the study by the
9458 Congressional Research Service, in light of the estimated renewal
9459 ranges. See Brief of Petitioners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9460 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 7, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #52</a>.
9461 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889283" href="#id2889283" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
9462
9463
9464 See David G. Savage, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright
9465 Law,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 6 October 2002; David
9466 Streitfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court
9467 Hears Arguments Today on Striking Down Copyright Extension,</span>»</span>
9468 <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 9 October 2002.
9469 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889340" href="#id2889340" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
9470
9471
9472 Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae Supporting the
9473 Petitoners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9474 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01- 618),
9475 12. See also Brief of Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of Petitioners by the
9476 Internet Archive, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9477 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #53</a>.
9478 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889648" href="#id2889648" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
9479
9480
9481 Jason Schultz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory</span>»</span>,
9482 20 December 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #54</a>.
9483 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2890244" href="#id2890244" class="para">192</a>] </sup>
9484
9485
9486 Brief of Amici Dr. Seuss Enterprise et al., <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9487 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.  (2003) (No. 01-618), 19.
9488 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2890270" href="#id2890270" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
9489
9490
9491 Dinitia Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse
9492 Joins the Fray,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March
9493 1998, B7.
9494 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred-ii"></a>Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</h2></div></div></div><p>
9495 <span class="strong"><strong>The day</strong></span> <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was
9496 decided, fate would have it that I was to travel to Washington, D.C. (The
9497 day the rehearing petition in <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was
9498 denied&#8212;meaning the case was really finally over&#8212;fate would have
9499 it that I was giving a speech to technologists at Disney World.)  This was a
9500 particularly long flight to my least favorite city. The drive into the city
9501 from Dulles was delayed because of traffic, so I opened up my computer and
9502 wrote an op-ed piece.
9503 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2891393"></a><p>
9504 It was an act of contrition. During the whole of the flight from San
9505 Francisco to Washington, I had heard over and over again in my head the same
9506 advice from Don Ayer: You need to make them see why it is important. And
9507 alternating with that command was the question of Justice Kennedy:
9508 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For all these years the act has impeded progress in science and the
9509 useful arts. I just don't see any empirical evidence for that.</span>»</span> And
9510 so, having failed in the argument of constitutional principle, finally, I
9511 turned to an argument of politics.
9512 </p><p>
9513
9514 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> published the piece. In it, I
9515 proposed a simple fix: Fifty years after a work has been published, the
9516 copyright owner would be required to register the work and pay a small
9517 fee. If he paid the fee, he got the benefit of the full term of
9518 copyright. If he did not, the work passed into the public domain.
9519 </p><p>
9520 We called this the Eldred Act, but that was just to give it a name.  Eric
9521 Eldred was kind enough to let his name be used once again, but as he said
9522 early on, it won't get passed unless it has another name.
9523 </p><p>
9524 Or another two names. For depending upon your perspective, this is either
9525 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Public Domain Enhancement Act</span>»</span> or the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright
9526 Term Deregulation Act.</span>»</span> Either way, the essence of the idea is clear
9527 and obvious: Remove copyright where it is doing nothing except blocking
9528 access and the spread of knowledge. Leave it for as long as Congress allows
9529 for those works where its worth is at least $1. But for everything else, let
9530 the content go.
9531 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2891454"></a><p>
9532 The reaction to this idea was amazingly strong. Steve Forbes endorsed it in
9533 an editorial. I received an avalanche of e-mail and letters expressing
9534 support. When you focus the issue on lost creativity, people can see the
9535 copyright system makes no sense. As a good Republican might say, here
9536 government regulation is simply getting in the way of innovation and
9537 creativity. And as a good Democrat might say, here the government is
9538 blocking access and the spread of knowledge for no good reason. Indeed,
9539 there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans on this
9540 issue. Anyone can recognize the stupid harm of the present system.
9541 </p><p>
9542 Indeed, many recognized the obvious benefit of the registration
9543 requirement.  For one of the hardest things about the current system for
9544 people who want to license content is that there is no obvious place to look
9545 for the current copyright owners. Since registration is not required, since
9546 marking content is not required, since no formality at all is required, it
9547 is often impossibly hard to locate copyright owners to ask permission to use
9548 or license their work. This system would lower these costs, by establishing
9549 at least one registry where copyright owners could be identified.
9550 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2891488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2891495"></a><p>
9551
9552 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, formalities in copyright law were removed in 1976,
9553 when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal requirement
9554 before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id2891516" href="#ftn.id2891516" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The
9555 Europeans are said to view copyright as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natural right.</span>»</span>
9556 Natural rights don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the
9557 Anglo-American tradition that required copyright owners to follow form if
9558 their rights were to be protected, did not, the Europeans thought, properly
9559 respect the dignity of the author. My right as a creator turns on my
9560 creativity, not upon the special favor of the government.
9561 </p><p>
9562 That's great rhetoric. It sounds wonderfully romantic. But it is absurd
9563 copyright policy. It is absurd especially for authors, because a world
9564 without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt
9565 Disney creativity</span>»</span> is destroyed when there is no simple way to know
9566 what's protected and what's not.
9567 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2891587"></a><p>
9568 The fight against formalities achieved its first real victory in Berlin in
9569 1908. International copyright lawyers amended the Berne Convention in 1908,
9570 to require copyright terms of life plus fifty years, as well as the
9571 abolition of copyright formalities. The formalities were hated because the
9572 stories of inadvertent loss were increasingly common. It was as if a Charles
9573 Dickens character ran all copyright offices, and the failure to dot an
9574 <em class="citetitle">i</em> or cross a <em class="citetitle">t</em> resulted in the
9575 loss of widows' only income.
9576 </p><p>
9577 These complaints were real and sensible. And the strictness of the
9578 formalities, especially in the United States, was absurd. The law should
9579 always have ways of forgiving innocent mistakes. There is no reason
9580 copyright law couldn't, as well. Rather than abandoning formalities totally,
9581 the response in Berlin should have been to embrace a more equitable system
9582 of registration.
9583 </p><p>
9584 Even that would have been resisted, however, because registration in the
9585 nineteenth and twentieth centuries was still expensive. It was also a
9586 hassle. The abolishment of formalities promised not only to save the
9587 starving widows, but also to lighten an unnecessary regulatory burden
9588 imposed upon creators.
9589 </p><p>
9590
9591 In addition to the practical complaint of authors in 1908, there was a moral
9592 claim as well. There was no reason that creative property should be a
9593 second-class form of property. If a carpenter builds a table, his rights
9594 over the table don't depend upon filing a form with the government.  He has
9595 a property right over the table <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">naturally,</span>»</span> and he can assert
9596 that right against anyone who would steal the table, whether or not he has
9597 informed the government of his ownership of the table.
9598 </p><p>
9599 This argument is correct, but its implications are misleading. For the
9600 argument in favor of formalities does not depend upon creative property
9601 being second-class property. The argument in favor of formalities turns upon
9602 the special problems that creative property presents.  The law of
9603 formalities responds to the special physics of creative property, to assure
9604 that it can be efficiently and fairly spread.
9605 </p><p>
9606 No one thinks, for example, that land is second-class property just because
9607 you have to register a deed with a court if your sale of land is to be
9608 effective. And few would think a car is second-class property just because
9609 you must register the car with the state and tag it with a license.  In both
9610 of those cases, everyone sees that there is an important reason to secure
9611 registration&#8212;both because it makes the markets more efficient and
9612 because it better secures the rights of the owner. Without a registration
9613 system for land, landowners would perpetually have to guard their
9614 property. With registration, they can simply point the police to a
9615 deed. Without a registration system for cars, auto theft would be much
9616 easier. With a registration system, the thief has a high burden to sell a
9617 stolen car. A slight burden is placed on the property owner, but those
9618 burdens produce a much better system of protection for property generally.
9619 </p><p>
9620 It is similarly special physics that makes formalities important in
9621 copyright law. Unlike a carpenter's table, there's nothing in nature that
9622 makes it relatively obvious who might own a particular bit of creative
9623 property. A recording of Lyle Lovett's latest album can exist in a billion
9624 places without anything necessarily linking it back to a particular
9625 owner. And like a car, there's no way to buy and sell creative property with
9626 confidence unless there is some simple way to authenticate who is the author
9627 and what rights he has. Simple transactions are destroyed in a world without
9628 formalities. Complex, expensive, <span class="emphasis"><em>lawyer</em></span> transactions
9629 take their place.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2891695"></a>
9630 </p><p>
9631 This was the understanding of the problem with the Sonny Bono Act that we
9632 tried to demonstrate to the Court. This was the part it didn't
9633 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">get.</span>»</span> Because we live in a system without formalities, there
9634 is no way easily to build upon or use culture from our past. If copyright
9635 terms were, as Justice Story said they would be, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">short,</span>»</span> then
9636 this wouldn't matter much. For fourteen years, under the framers' system, a
9637 work would be presumptively controlled. After fourteen years, it would be
9638 presumptively uncontrolled.
9639 </p><p>
9640 But now that copyrights can be just about a century long, the inability to
9641 know what is protected and what is not protected becomes a huge and obvious
9642 burden on the creative process. If the only way a library can offer an
9643 Internet exhibit about the New Deal is to hire a lawyer to clear the rights
9644 to every image and sound, then the copyright system is burdening creativity
9645 in a way that has never been seen before <span class="emphasis"><em>because there are no
9646 formalities</em></span>.
9647 </p><p>
9648 The Eldred Act was designed to respond to exactly this problem. If it is
9649 worth $1 to you, then register your work and you can get the longer
9650 term. Others will know how to contact you and, therefore, how to get your
9651 permission if they want to use your work. And you will get the benefit of an
9652 extended copyright term.
9653 </p><p>
9654 If it isn't worth it to you to register to get the benefit of an extended
9655 term, then it shouldn't be worth it for the government to defend your
9656 monopoly over that work either. The work should pass into the public domain
9657 where anyone can copy it, or build archives with it, or create a movie based
9658 on it. It should become free if it is not worth $1 to you.
9659 </p><p>
9660 Noen bekymrer seg over byrden på forfattere. Gjør ikke byrden med å
9661 registrere verket at beløpet $1 egentlig er misvisende?  Er ikke
9662 ekstraarbeidet verdt mer enn $1? Er ikke dette det virkelige problemet med
9663 registrering?
9664 </p><p>
9665
9666 It is. The hassle is terrible. The system that exists now is awful. I
9667 completely agree that the Copyright Office has done a terrible job (no doubt
9668 because they are terribly funded) in enabling simple and cheap
9669 registrations. Any real solution to the problem of formalities must address
9670 the real problem of <span class="emphasis"><em>governments</em></span> standing at the core of
9671 any system of formalities. In this book, I offer such a solution. That
9672 solution essentially remakes the Copyright Office. For now, assume it was
9673 Amazon that ran the registration system. Assume it was one-click
9674 registration.  The Eldred Act would propose a simple, one-click registration
9675 fifty years after a work was published. Based upon historical data, that
9676 system would move up to 98 percent of commercial work, commercial work that
9677 no longer had a commercial life, into the public domain within fifty
9678 years. What do you think?
9679 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2863873"></a><p>
9680 <span class="strong"><strong>Da Steve Forbes</strong></span> støttet idéen, begynte
9681 enkelte i Washington å følge med. Mange kontaktet meg med tips til
9682 representanter som kan være villig til å introdusere en Eldred-lov. og jeg
9683 hadde noen få som foreslo direkte at de kan være villige til å ta det første
9684 skrittet.
9685 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2863898"></a><p>
9686 En representant, Zoe Lofgren fra California, gikk så langt som å få
9687 lovforslaget utarbeidet. Utkastet løste noen problemer med internasjonal
9688 lov. Det påla de enklest mulige forutsetninger på innehaverne av
9689 opphavsretter. I mai 2003 så det ut som om loven skulle være introdusert.
9690 16. mai, postet jeg på Eldred Act-bloggen, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vi er nære</span>»</span>.  Det
9691 oppstod en generell reaksjon i blogg-samfunnet om at noe godt kunne skje
9692 her.
9693 </p><p>
9694 But at this stage, the lobbyists began to intervene. Jack Valenti and the
9695 MPAA general counsel came to the congresswoman's office to give the view of
9696 the MPAA. Aided by his lawyer, as Valenti told me, Valenti informed the
9697 congresswoman that the MPAA would oppose the Eldred Act. The reasons are
9698 embarrassingly thin. More importantly, their thinness shows something clear
9699 about what this debate is really about.
9700 </p><p>
9701
9702 The MPAA argued first that Congress had <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">firmly rejected the central
9703 concept in the proposed bill</span>»</span>&#8212;that copyrights be renewed. That
9704 was true, but irrelevant, as Congress's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">firm rejection</span>»</span> had
9705 occurred long before the Internet made subsequent uses much more likely.
9706 Second, they argued that the proposal would harm poor copyright
9707 owners&#8212;apparently those who could not afford the $1 fee. Third, they
9708 argued that Congress had determined that extending a copyright term would
9709 encourage restoration work. Maybe in the case of the small percentage of
9710 work covered by copyright law that is still commercially valuable, but again
9711 this was irrelevant, as the proposal would not cut off the extended term
9712 unless the $1 fee was not paid. Fourth, the MPAA argued that the bill would
9713 impose <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">enormous</span>»</span> costs, since a registration system is not
9714 free. True enough, but those costs are certainly less than the costs of
9715 clearing the rights for a copyright whose owner is not known. Fifth, they
9716 worried about the risks if the copyright to a story underlying a film were
9717 to pass into the public domain. But what risk is that? If it is in the
9718 public domain, then the film is a valid derivative use.
9719 </p><p>
9720 Finally, the MPAA argued that existing law enabled copyright owners to do
9721 this if they wanted. But the whole point is that there are thousands of
9722 copyright owners who don't even know they have a copyright to give. Whether
9723 they are free to give away their copyright or not&#8212;a controversial
9724 claim in any case&#8212;unless they know about a copyright, they're not
9725 likely to.
9726 </p><p>
9727 <span class="strong"><strong>At the beginning</strong></span> of this book, I told two
9728 stories about the law reacting to changes in technology. In the one, common
9729 sense prevailed.  In the other, common sense was delayed. The difference
9730 between the two stories was the power of the opposition&#8212;the power of
9731 the side that fought to defend the status quo. In both cases, a new
9732 technology threatened old interests. But in only one case did those
9733 interest's have the power to protect themselves against this new competitive
9734 threat.
9735 </p><p>
9736 Jeg brukte disse to tilfellene som en måte å ramme inn krigen som denne
9737 boken har handlet om.  For her er det også en ny teknologi som tvinger loven
9738 til å reagere.  Og her bør vi også spørre, er loven i tråd med eller i strid
9739 med sunn fornuft.  Hvis sunn fornuft støtter loven, hva forklarer denne
9740 sunne fornuften?
9741 </p><p>
9742
9743
9744
9745 When the issue is piracy, it is right for the law to back the copyright
9746 owners. The commercial piracy that I described is wrong and harmful, and the
9747 law should work to eliminate it. When the issue is p2p sharing, it is easy
9748 to understand why the law backs the owners still: Much of this sharing is
9749 wrong, even if much is harmless. When the issue is copyright terms for the
9750 Mickey Mouses of the world, it is possible still to understand why the law
9751 favors Hollywood: Most people don't recognize the reasons for limiting
9752 copyright terms; it is thus still possible to see good faith within the
9753 resistance.
9754 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2864030"></a><p>
9755 But when the copyright owners oppose a proposal such as the Eldred Act,
9756 then, finally, there is an example that lays bare the naked selfinterest
9757 driving this war. This act would free an extraordinary range of content that
9758 is otherwise unused. It wouldn't interfere with any copyright owner's desire
9759 to exercise continued control over his content. It would simply liberate
9760 what Kevin Kelly calls the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dark Content</span>»</span> that fills archives
9761 around the world. So when the warriors oppose a change like this, we should
9762 ask one simple question:
9763 </p><p>
9764 Hva ønsker denne industrien egentlig?
9765 </p><p>
9766 With very little effort, the warriors could protect their content. So the
9767 effort to block something like the Eldred Act is not really about protecting
9768 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> content. The effort to block the Eldred Act is an
9769 effort to assure that nothing more passes into the public domain. It is
9770 another step to assure that the public domain will never compete, that there
9771 will be no use of content that is not commercially controlled, and that
9772 there will be no commercial use of content that doesn't require
9773 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> permission first.
9774 </p><p>
9775 The opposition to the Eldred Act reveals how extreme the other side is. The
9776 most powerful and sexy and well loved of lobbies really has as its aim not
9777 the protection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> but the rejection of a tradition.
9778 Their aim is not simply to protect what is theirs. <span class="emphasis"><em>Their aim is to
9779 assure that all there is is what is theirs</em></span>.
9780 </p><p>
9781
9782 It is not hard to understand why the warriors take this view. It is not hard
9783 to see why it would benefit them if the competition of the public domain
9784 tied to the Internet could somehow be quashed. Just as RCA feared the
9785 competition of FM, they fear the competition of a public domain connected to
9786 a public that now has the means to create with it and to share its own
9787 creation.
9788 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2892295"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2892300"></a><p>
9789 Det som er vanskelig å forstå er hvorfor folket innehar dette synet. Det er
9790 som om loven gjorde at flymaskiner tok seg inn på annen manns eiendom.  MPAA
9791 står side om side med Causbyene og krever at deres fjerne og ubrukelige
9792 eierrettigheter blir respektert, slik at disse fjerne og glemte
9793 opphavsrettsinnehaverne kan blokkere fremgangen til andre.
9794 </p><p>
9795 All this seems to follow easily from this untroubled acceptance of the
9796 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> in intellectual property. Common sense supports it,
9797 and so long as it does, the assaults will rain down upon the technologies of
9798 the Internet. The consequence will be an increasing <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permission
9799 society.</span>»</span> The past can be cultivated only if you can identify the
9800 owner and gain permission to build upon his work. The future will be
9801 controlled by this dead (and often unfindable) hand of the past.
9802 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891516" href="#id2891516" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
9803
9804 <a class="indexterm" name="id2891522"></a> Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the
9805 Berne Convention, national copyright legislation sometimes made protection
9806 depend upon compliance with formalities such as registration, deposit, and
9807 affixation of notice of the author's claim of copyright. However, starting
9808 with the 1908 act, every text of the Convention has provided that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
9809 enjoyment and the exercise</span>»</span> of rights guaranteed by the Convention
9810 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">shall not be subject to any formality.</span>»</span> The prohibition
9811 against formalities is presently embodied in Article 5(2) of the Paris Text
9812 of the Berne Convention. Many countries continue to impose some form of
9813 deposit or registration requirement, albeit not as a condition of
9814 copyright. French law, for example, requires the deposit of copies of works
9815 in national repositories, principally the National Museum.  Copies of books
9816 published in the United Kingdom must be deposited in the British
9817 Library. The German Copyright Act provides for a Registrar of Authors where
9818 the author's true name can be filed in the case of anonymous or pseudonymous
9819 works. Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">International Intellectual Property Law,
9820 Cases and Materials</em> (New York: Foundation Press, 2001),
9821 153&#8211;54.  </p></div></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>Konklusjon</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxantiretroviraldrugs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhivaidstherapies"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxafricahivmed"></a><p>
9822 <span class="strong"><strong>Det er mer</strong></span> enn trettifem millioner
9823 mennesker over hele verden med AIDS-viruset. Tjuefem millioner av dem bor i
9824 Afrika sør for Sahara.  Sytten millioner har allerede dødd.  Sytten
9825 millioner afrikanere er prosentvis proporsjonalt med syv millioner
9826 amerikanere.  Viktigere er det at dette er 17 millioner afrikanere.
9827 </p><p>
9828 Det finnes ingen kur for AIDS, men det finnes medisiner som kan hemme
9829 sykdommens utvikling.  Disse antiretrovirale terapiene er fortsatt
9830 eksperimentelle, men de har hatt en dramatisk effekt allerede.  I USA øker
9831 AIDS-pasienter som regelmessig tar en cocktail av disse medisinene sin
9832 levealder med ti til tjue år. For noen gjøre medisinene sykdommen nesten
9833 usynlig.
9834 </p><p>
9835 Disse medisinene er dyre.  Da de ble først introdusert i USA, kostet de
9836 mellom $10 000 og $15 000 pr. person hvert år.  I dag koster noen
9837 av dem $25 000 pr. år.  Med disse prisene har, selvfølgelig, ingen
9838 afrikansk stat  råd til medisinen for det store flertall av sine innbyggere:
9839 $15 000 er tredve ganger brutto nasjonalprodukt pr. innbygger i
9840 Zimbabwe.  Med slike priser er disse medisinene fullstendig
9841 utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id2892435" href="#ftn.id2892435" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
9842 </p><p>
9843
9844
9845 Disse prisene er ikke høye fordi ingrediensene til medisinene er dyre.
9846 Disse prisene er høye fordi medisinene er beskyttet av patenter.
9847 Farmasiselskapene som produserer disse livreddende blandingene nyter minst
9848 tjue års monopol på sine oppfinnelser.  De bruker denne monopolmakten til å
9849 hente ut så mye de kan fra markedet.  Ved hjelp av denne makten holder de
9850 prisene høye.
9851 </p><p>
9852 Det er mange som er skeptiske til patenter, spesielt patenter på
9853 medisiner. Det er ikke jeg. Faktisk av alle forskningsområder som kan være
9854 støttet av patenter, er forskning på medisiner, etter min mening, det
9855 klareste tilfelle der patenter er nødvendig. Patenter gir et farmasøytiske
9856 firma en viss forsikring om at hvis det lykkes i å finne opp et nytt
9857 medikament som kan behandle en sykdom, vil det kunne tjene tilbake
9858 investeringen og mer til. Dette ber sosialt et ekstremt verdifullt
9859 insentiv. Jeg er den siste personen som vil argumentere for at loven skal
9860 avskaffe dette, i det minste uten andre endringer.
9861 </p><p>
9862 Men det er én ting å støtte patenter, selv patenter på medisiner. Det er en
9863 annen ting å avgjøre hvordan en best skal håndtere en krise. Og i det
9864 afrikanske ledere begynte å erkjenne ødeleggelsen AIDS brakte, begynte de å
9865 se etter måter å importere HIV-medisiner til kostnader betydelig under
9866 markedspris.
9867 </p><p>
9868 I 1997 forsøkte Sør-Afrika seg på en tilnærming.  Landet vedtok en lov som
9869 tillot import av patenterte medisiner som hadde blitt produsert og solgt i
9870 en annen nasjons marked med godkjenning fra patenteieren.  For eksempel,
9871 hvis medisinen var solgt i India, så kunne den bli importert inn til Afrika
9872 fra India.  Dette kalles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">parallellimport</span>»</span> og er generelt
9873 tillatt i internasjonal handelslovgivning, og spesifikt tillatt i den
9874 europeiske union.<sup>[<a name="id2892528" href="#ftn.id2892528" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
9875 </p><p>
9876 Men USA var imot lovendringen.  Og de nøyde seg ikke med å være imot. Som
9877 International Intellectual Property Association karakteriserte det,
9878 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Myndighetene i USA presset Sør-Afrika &#8230; til å ikke tillate
9879 tvungen lisensiering eller parallellimport</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2888424" href="#ftn.id2888424" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup> Gjennom kontoret til USAs handelsrepresentant
9880 (USTR), ba myndighetene Sør-Afrika om å endre loven&#8212;og for å legge
9881 press bak den forespørselen, listet USTR i 1998 opp Sør-Afrika som et land
9882 som burde vurderes for handelsrestriksjoner.  Samme år gikk mer enn førti
9883 farmasiselskaper til retten for å utfordre myndighetenes handlinger. USA
9884 fikk selskap av andre myndigheter fra EU.  Deres påstand, og påstanden til
9885 farmasiselskapene, var at Sør-Afrika brøt sine internasjonale forpliktelser
9886 ved å diskriminere mot en bestemt type patenter&#8212;farmasøytiske
9887 patenter.  Kravet fra disse myndighetene, med USA i spissen, var at
9888 Sør-Afrika skulle respektere disse patentene på samme måte som alle andre
9889 patenter, uavhengig av eventuell effekt på behandlingen av AIDS i
9890 Sør-Afrika.<sup>[<a name="id2892601" href="#ftn.id2892601" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
9891 </p><p>
9892 Vi bør sette intervensjonen til USA i sammenheng.  Det er ingen tvil om at
9893 patenter ikke er den viktigste årsaken til at Afrikanere ikke har tilgang
9894 til medisiner.  Fattigdom og den totale mangel på effektivt helsevesen betyr
9895 mer. Men uansett om patenter er en viktigste grunnen eller ikke, så har
9896 prisen på medisiner en effekt på etterspørselen, og patenter påvirker
9897 prisen. Så uansett, massiv eller marginal, så var det en effekt av våre
9898 myndigheters intervensjon for å stoppe flyten av medisiner inn til Afrika.
9899 </p><p>
9900 Ved å stoppe flyten av HIV-behandling til Afrika, sikret ikke myndighetene i
9901 USA medisiner til USA borgere. Dette er ikke som hvete (hvis de spise det så
9902 kan ikke vi spise det). Det som USA i effekt intervenerte for å stoppe, var
9903 flyten av kunnskap: Informasjon om hvordan en kan ta kjemikalier som finnes
9904 i Afrika og gjøre disse kjemikaliene om til medisiner som kan redde 15 til
9905 30 millioner liv.
9906 </p><p>
9907 Intervensjonen fra USA ville heller ikke beskytte fortjenesten til
9908 medisinselskapene i USA&#8212; i hvert fall ikke betydelig.  Det var jo ikke
9909 slik at disse landene hadde mulighet til å kjøpe medisinene til de prisene
9910 som medisinselskapene forlangte.  Igjen var afrikanerne for fattige til å ha
9911 råd til disse medisinene til de tilbudte prisene.  Å blokkere for
9912 parallellimport av disse medisinene ville ikke øke salget til de amerikanske
9913 selskapene betydelig.
9914 </p><p>
9915 I stedet var argumentet til fordel for restriksjoner på denne flyten av
9916 informasjon, som var nødvendig for å redde millioner av liv, et argument om
9917 eiendoms ukrenkelighet.<sup>[<a name="id2892695" href="#ftn.id2892695" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup>  Det var på
9918 grunn av at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span> ville bli krenket at disse
9919 medisinene ikke skulle flomme inn til Afrika.  Det var prinsippet om
9920 viktigheten av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span> som fikk disse
9921 myndighetsaktørene til å intervenere mot Sør-Afrikas mottiltak mot AIDS.
9922 </p><p>
9923 La oss ta et skritt tilbake for et øyeblikk.  En gang om tredve år vil våre
9924 barn se tilbake på oss og spørre, hvordan kunne vi la dette skje?  Hvordan
9925 kunne vi tillate å gjennomføre en politikk hvis direkte kostnad var få 15
9926 til 30 millioner afrikanere til å dø raskere, og hvis eneste virkelige
9927 fordel var å opprettholde <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ukrenkeligheten</span>»</span> til en idé?  Hva
9928 slags berettigelse kan noen sinne eksistere for en politikk som resulterer i
9929 så mange døde?  Hva slags galskap er det egentlig som tillater at så mange
9930 dør for slik en abstraksjon?
9931 </p><p>
9932 Noen skylder på farmasiselskapene.  Det gjør ikke jeg.  De er selskaper, og
9933 deres ledere er lovpålagt å tjene penger for selskapene.  De presser på for
9934 en bestemt patentpolitikk, ikke på grunn av idealer, men fordi det er dette
9935 som gjør at de tjener mest penger.  Og dette gjør kun at de tjener mest
9936 penger på grunn av en slags korrupsjon i vårt politiske system&#8212; en
9937 korrupsjon som farmasiselskapene helt klart ikke er ansvarlige for.
9938 </p><p>
9939 Denne korrupsjonen er våre egne politikeres manglende integritet.  For
9940 medisinprodusentene ville elske&#8212;sier de selv, og jeg tror dem &#8212;
9941 å selge sine medisiner så billig som de kan til land i Afrika og andre
9942 steder. Det er utfordringer de må løse å sikre at medisinene ikke kommer
9943 tilbake til USA, men dette er bare teknologiske utfordring. De kan bli
9944 overvunnet.
9945 </p><p>
9946
9947 Et annet problem kan derimot ikke løses. Det er frykten for at en politiker
9948 som skal vise seg og kaller inn lederne hos medisinprodusentene til høring i
9949 senatet eller representantenes hus og spør, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvordan har det seg at du
9950 kan selge HIV-medisinen i Afrika for bare $1 pr. pille, mens samme pille
9951 koster en amerikansker $1 500?</span>»</span> Da det ikke finnes et
9952 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kjapt svar</span>»</span> på det spørsmålet, ville effekten bli regulering
9953 av priser i Amerika.  Medisinprodusentene unngår dermed denne spiralen ved å
9954 sikre at det første steget ikke tas.  De forsterker idéen om at
9955 eierrettigheter skal være ukrenkelige.  De legger seg på en rasjonell
9956 strategi i en irrasjonell omgivelse, med den utilsiktede konsekvens at
9957 kanskje millioner dør.  Og den rasjonelle strategien rammes dermed inn ved
9958 hjel av dette ideal&#8212;helligheten til en idé som kalles
9959 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle rettigheter</span>»</span>.
9960 </p><p>
9961 Så når du konfronteres av ditt barns sunne fornuft, hva vil du si?  Når den
9962 sunne fornuften hos en generasjon endelig gjør opprør mot hva vi har gjort,
9963 hvordan vil vi rettferdiggjøre det?  Hva er argumentet?
9964 </p><p>
9965 En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk støtte til
9966 patentsystemet uten å måtte nå alle overalt på nøyaktig samme måte. På samme
9967 måte som en fornuftig opphavsrettspolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk
9968 støtte til et opphavsretts-system uten å måtte regulere spredningen av
9969 kultur perfekt og for alltid.  En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for
9970 og gi sterk støtte til et patentsystem uten å måtte blokkere spredning av
9971 medisiner til et land som uansett ikke er rikt nok til å ha råd til
9972 markedsprisen.  En fornuftig politikk kan en dermed si kunne være en
9973 balansert politikk.  For det meste av vår historie har både opphavsrett- og
9974 patentpolitikken i denne forstand vært balansert.
9975 </p><p>
9976 Men vi som kultur har mistet denne følelsen for balanse.  Vi har mistet det
9977 kritiske blikket som hjelper oss til å se forskjellen mellom sannhet og
9978 ekstremisme.  En slags eiendomsfundamentalisme, uten grunnlag i vår
9979 tradisjon, hersker nå i vår kultur&#8212;sært, og med konsekvenser mer
9980 alvorlig for spredningen av idéer og kultur enn nesten enhver annen politisk
9981 enkeltavgjørelse vi som demokrati kan fatte.
9982 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2892852"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2892930"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2892941"></a><p>
9983
9984 <span class="strong"><strong>En enkel idé</strong></span> blender oss, og under dekke
9985 av mørket skjer mye som de fleste av oss ville avvist hvis vi hadde fulgt
9986 med.  Så ukritisk aksepterer vi idéen om eierskap til idéer at vi ikke
9987 engang legger merke til hvor uhyrlig det er å nekte tilgang til idéer for et
9988 folk som dør uten dem.  Så ukritisk aksepterer vi idéen om eiendom til
9989 kulturen at vi ikke engang stiller spørsmål ved når kontrollen over denne
9990 eiendommen fjerner vår evne, som folk, til å utvikle vår kultur
9991 demokratisk.  Blindhet blir vår sunne fornuft, og utfordringen for enhver
9992 som vil gjenvinne retten til å dyrke vår kultur er å finne en måte å få
9993 denne sunne fornuften til å åpne sine øyne.
9994 </p><p>
9995 Så langt sover sunn fornuft.  Det er intet opprør.  Sunn fornuft ser ennå
9996 ikke hva det er å gjøre opprør mot.  Ekstremismen som nå dominerer denne
9997 debatten resonerer med idéer som virker naturlige, og resonansen er
9998 forsterket av våre moderne RCA-ene.  De fører en frenetisk krig for å
9999 bekjempe <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> og knuser kreativitetskultur.  De
10000 forsvarer idéen om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativt eierskap</span>»</span>, mens de endrer ekte
10001 skapere til moderne leilendinger.  De blir fornærmet av idéen om at
10002 rettigheter skulle være balanserte, selv om hver av hovedaktørene i denne
10003 innholdskrigen selv hadde fordeler av et mer balansert ideal.  Hykleriet
10004 rår.  Men i en by som Washington blir ikke hykleriet en gang lagt merke
10005 til.  Mektige lobbyister, kompliserte problemer og MTV-oppmerksomhetsspenn
10006 gir en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">perfekt storm</span>»</span> for fri kultur.
10007 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2893027"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2893037"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2893044"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2893051"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2893058"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2893065"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbiomedicalresearch"></a><p>
10008 <span class="strong"><strong>I august 2003</strong></span> brøt en kamp ut i USA om en
10009 avgjørelse fra World Intellectual Property Organiation om å avlyse et
10010 møte.<sup>[<a name="id2893097" href="#ftn.id2893097" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke
10011 med interressenter hadde WIPO bestemt å avholde et møte for å diskutere
10012 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape goder for
10013 felleskapet</span>»</span>.  Disse prosjektene som hadde lyktes i å produsere goder
10014 for fellesskapet uten å basere seg eksklusivt på bruken av proprietære
10015 immaterielle rettigheter.  Eksempler inkluderer internettet og verdensveven,
10016 begge som ble utviklet på grunnlag av protokoller i allemannseie.  Det hadde
10017 med en begynnende trend for å støtte åpne akademiske tidsskrifter, og
10018 inkluderte Public Library of Science-prosjektet som jeg beskriver i
10019 etterordet.  Det inkluderte et prosjekt for a utvikle
10020 enkeltnukleotidforskjeller (SNPs), som er antatt å få stor betydning i
10021 biomedisinsk forskning.  (Dette ideelle prosjektet besto av et konsortium av
10022 Wellcome Trust og farmasøytiske og teknologiske selskaper, inkludert
10023 Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb,
10024 Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola, Novartis, Pfizer, og
10025 Searle.)  Det inkluderte Globalt posisjonssystem (GPS) som Ronald Reagen
10026 frigjorde tidlig på 1980-tallet.  Og det inkluderte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og
10027 fri programvare</span>»</span>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2893195"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2893205"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2893211"></a>
10028 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2893220"></a><p>
10029 Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles
10030 perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell
10031 ekstremisme. I stedet, hos alle disse, ble immaterielle rettigheter
10032 balansert med avtaler om å holde tilgang åpen, eller for å legge
10033 begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
10034 </p><p>
10035 Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen
10036 ideell.<sup>[<a name="id2893248" href="#ftn.id2893248" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
10037 både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker.  De involverte i hovedsak
10038 vitenskapen, men fra mange perspektiver.  Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for
10039 denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som
10040 drev med immaterielle rettighetsspørsmål.
10041 </p><p>
10042
10043 Faktisk fikk jeg en gang offentlig kjeft for å ikke anerkjenne dette faktum
10044 om WIPO.  I februar 2003 leverte jeg et nøkkelforedrag på en forberedende
10045 konferanse for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).  På en
10046 pressekonferanse før innlegget, ble jeg spurt hva jeg skulle snakke om.  Jeg
10047 svarte at jeg skulle snakke litt om viktigheten av balanse rundt
10048 immaterielle verdier for utviklingen av informasjonssamfunnet.  Ordstyreren
10049 på arrangementet avbrøt meg da brått for å informere meg og journalistene
10050 tilstede at ingen spørsmål rundt immaterielle verdier ville bli diskutert av
10051 WSIS, da slike spørsmål kun skulle diskuteres i WIPO.  I innlegget jeg hadde
10052 forberedt var temaet om immaterielle verdier en forholdvis liten del av det
10053 hele.  Men etter denne forbløffende uttalelsen, gjorde jeg immaterielle
10054 verdier til hovedfokus for mitt innlegg.  Det var ikke mulig å snakke om et
10055 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">informasjonssamfunn</span>»</span> uten at en også snakket om andelen av
10056 informasjon og kultur som ikke er vernet av opphavsretten.  Mitt innlegg
10057 gjorde ikke min overivrige moderator veldig glad.  Og hun hadde uten tvil
10058 rett i at omfanget til vern av immaterielle rettigheter normalt hørte inn
10059 under WIPO.  Men etter mitt syn, kunne det ikke bli for mye diskusjon om
10060 hvor mye immaterielle rettigheter som trengs, siden etter mitt syn, hadde
10061 selve idéen om en balanse rundt immaterielle rettigheter hadde gått tapt.
10062 </p><p>
10063 Så uansett om WSIS kan diskutere balanse i intellektuell eiendom eller ikke,
10064 så hadde jeg trodd det var tatt for gitt at WIPO kunne og burde.  Og dermed
10065 møtet om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape
10066 fellesgoder</span>»</span> virker å passe perfekt for WIPOs agenda.
10067 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2893336"></a><p>
10068 Men det er ett prosjekt i listen som er svært kontroversielt, i hvert fall
10069 blant lobbyister. Dette prosjektet er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og fri
10070 programvare</span>»</span>. Microsoft spesielt er skeptisk til diskusjon om
10071 emnet. Fra deres perspektiv, ville en konferanse for å diskutere åpen
10072 kildekode og fri programvare være som en konferanse for å diskutere Apples
10073 operativsystem.  Både åpen kildekode og fri programvare konkurrerer med
10074 Microsofts programvare.  Og internasjonalt har mange myndigheter begynt å
10075 utforske krav om at de skal bruke åpen kildekode eller fri programvare, i
10076 stedet for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">proprietær programvare</span>»</span>, til sine egne interne
10077 behov.
10078 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2893372"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2893381"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2893388"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2893395"></a><p>
10079 Jeg mener ikke å gå inn i den debatten her.  Det er viktig kun for å gjøre
10080 det klart at skillet ikke er mellom kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell
10081 programvare.  Det er mange viktige selskaper som er fundamentalt avhengig av
10082 fri programvare, der IBM er den mest fremtredende.  IBM har i stadig større
10083 grad skiftet sitt fokus til GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, det mest berømte
10084 biten av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri programvare</span>»</span>&#8212;og IBM er helt klart en
10085 kommersiell aktør. Dermed er det å støtte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri programvare</span>»</span>
10086 ikke å motsette seg kommersielle aktører.  Det er i stedet å støtte en måte
10087 å drive programvareutvikling som er forskjellig fra Microsofts.<sup>[<a name="id2893429" href="#ftn.id2893429" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup>
10088 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2893491"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2893498"></a><p>
10089
10090 Mer viktig for våre formål, er at å støtte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og fri
10091 programvare</span>»</span> ikke er å motsette seg opphavsrett. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Åpen
10092 kildekode og fri programvare</span>»</span> er ikke programvare uten
10093 opphavsrettslig vern. Istedet, på samme måte som programvare fra Microsoft,
10094 insisterer opphavsrettsinnehaverne av fri programvare ganske sterkt at
10095 vilkårene i deres programvarelisens blir respektert av de som tar i bruk fri
10096 programvare.  Vilkårene i den lisensen er uten tvil forskjellig fra
10097 vilkårene i en proprietær programvarelisens.  For eksempel krever fri
10098 programvare lisensiert med den generelle offentlige lisensen (GPL), at
10099 kildekoden for programvare gjøres tilgjengelig for alle som endrer og
10100 videredistribuerer programvaren.  Men dette kravet er kun effektivt hvis
10101 opphavsrett råder over programvare.  Hvis opphavsretten ikke råder over
10102 programvare, så kunne ikke fri programvare pålegge slike krav på de som tar
10103 i bruk programvaren.  Den er dermed like avhengig av åndsverksloven som
10104 Microsoft.
10105 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2893553"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2893559"></a><p>
10106 Det er dermed forståelig at Microsoft, som utviklere av proprietær
10107 programvare, gikk imot et slikt WIPO-møte, og like fullt forståelig at de
10108 bruker sine lobbyister til å få USAs myndigheter til å gå imot møtet.  Og
10109 ganske riktig, det er akkurat dette som i følge rapporter hadde skjedd.  I
10110 følge Jonathan Krim i <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, lyktes
10111 Microsofts lobbyister i å få USAs myndigheter til å legge ned veto mot et
10112 slikt møte.<sup>[<a name="id2893589" href="#ftn.id2893589" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
10113 møtet avlyst.
10114 </p><p>
10115 Jeg klandrer ikke Microsoft for å gjøre det de kan for å fremme sine egne
10116 interesser i samsvar med loven. Og lobbyvirksomhet mot myndighetene er
10117 åpenbart i samsvar med loven. Det er ikke noe overraskende her med deres
10118 lobbyvirksomhet, og ikke veldig overraskende at den mektigste
10119 programvareprodusenten i USA har lyktes med sin lobbyvirksomhet.
10120 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2893624"></a><p>
10121 Det som var overraskende var USAs regjerings begrunnelse for å være imot
10122 møtet.  Igjen, sitert av Krim, forklarte Lois Boland, direktør for
10123 internasjonale forbindelser ved USAs patent og varemerkekontor, at
10124 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">programvare med åpen kildekode går imot til formålet til WIPO, som er
10125 å fremme immaterielle rettigheter.</span>»</span>.  Hun skal i følge sitatet ha
10126 sagt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Å holde et møte som har som formål å fraskrive seg eller
10127 frafalle slike rettigheter synes for oss å være i strid med formålene til
10128 WIPO.</span>»</span>
10129 </p><p>
10130 Disse utsagnene er forbløffende på flere nivåer.
10131 </p><p>
10132 For det første er de ganske enkelt ikke riktige.  Som jeg beskrev, er det
10133 meste av åpen kildekode og fri programvare fundamentalt avhengig av den
10134 immaterielle retten kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrett</span>»</span>.  Uten den vil
10135 begrensningene definert av disse lisensene ikke fungere. Dermed er det å si
10136 at de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">går imot</span>»</span> formålet om å fremme immaterielle rettigheter
10137 å avsløre en ekstraordinær mangel på forståelse&#8212;den type feil som er
10138 tilgivelig hos en førsteårs jusstudent, men pinlig fra en høyt plassert
10139 statstjenestemann som håndterer utfordringer rundt immaterielle rettigheter.
10140 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2893682"></a><p>
10141 For det andre, hvem har noen gang hevdet at WIPOs eksklusive mål var å
10142 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fremme</span>»</span> immaterielle rettigheter maksimalt?  Som jeg fikk
10143 kjeft om på den forberedende konferansen til WSIS, skal WIPO vurdere ikke
10144 bare hvordan best beskytte immaterielle rettigheter, men også hva som er den
10145 beste balansen rundt immaterielle rettigheter.  Som enhver økonom og advokat
10146 vet, er det vanskelige spørsmålet i immaterielle rettighetsjuss å finne den
10147 balansen.  Men at det skulle være en grense, trodde jeg, var ubestridt.  Man
10148 ønsker å spørre Ms. Boland om generelle medisiner (medisiner basert på
10149 medisiner med patenter som er utløpt) i strid med WIPOs oppdrag?  Svekker
10150 allemannseie immaterielle rettigheter?  Ville det vært bedre om internettets
10151 protokoller hadde vært patentert?
10152 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2893721"></a><p>
10153 For det tredje, selv om en tror at formålet med WIPO var å maksimere
10154 immaterielle rettigheter, så innehas immaterielle rettigheter, i vår
10155 tradisjon, av individer og selskaper.  De får bestemme hva som skal gjøres
10156 med disse rettighetene, igjen fordi det er <span class="emphasis"><em>de</em></span> som eier
10157 rettighetene. Hvis de ønsker å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frafalle</span>»</span> eller
10158 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frasi</span>»</span> seg sine rettigheter, så er det helt etter boka i vår
10159 tradisjon.  Når Bill Gates gir bort mer enn $20 milliarder til gode formål,
10160 så er ikke det uforenelig med målene til eiendomssystemet.  Det er heller
10161 tvert i mot, akkurat hva eiendomssysstemet er ment å oppnå, at individer har
10162 retten til å bestemme hva de vil gjøre med <span class="emphasis"><em>sin</em></span> eiendom.
10163 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxboland"></a><p>
10164
10165 Når Ms. Boland sier at det er noe galt med et møte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">som har som sitt
10166 formål å fraskrive eller frafalle slike rettigheter</span>»</span>, så sier hun at
10167 WIPO har en interesse i å påvirke valgene til enkeltpersoner som eier
10168 immaterielle rettigheter.  At på en eller annen WIPOs oppdrag bør være å
10169 stoppe individer fra å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fraskrive</span>»</span> eller
10170 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frafalle</span>»</span> seg sine immaterielle rettigheter.  At interessen
10171 til WIPO ikke bare er  maksimale immaterielle rettigheter, men også at de
10172 skal utøves på den mest ekstreme og restriktive mulig måten.
10173 </p><p>
10174 Det er en historie om akkurat et slikt eierskapssystem som er velkjent i den
10175 anglo-amerikansk tradisjon.  Det kalles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">føydalisme</span>»</span>. Under
10176 føydalismen var eiendommer ikke bare kontrollert av et relativt lite antall
10177 individer og aktører.  Men det føydale systemet hadde en sterk interesse i å
10178 sikre at landeier i systemet ikke svekke føydalismen ved å frigjøre folkene
10179 og eiendomene som de kontrollerte til det frie markedet.  Føydalismen var
10180 avhengig av maksimal kontroll og konsentrasjon.  Det sloss mot enhver frihet
10181 som kunne forstyrre denne kontrollen.
10182 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2893834"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2893840"></a><p>
10183 Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
10184 vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2893853" href="#ftn.id2893853" class="footnote">204</a>]</sup>
10185 Vi kommer til å få et informasjonssamfunn.  Så mye er sikkert.  Vårt eneste
10186 valg nå er hvorvidt dette informasjonssamfunnet skal være
10187 <span class="emphasis"><em>fritt</em></span> eller <span class="emphasis"><em>føydalt</em></span>.  Trenden er
10188 mot det føydale.
10189 </p><p>
10190 Da denne bataljen brøt ut, blogget jeg om dette.  En heftig debatt brøt ut i
10191 kommentarfeltet.  Ms. Boland hadde en rekke støttespillere som forsøkte å
10192 vise hvorfor hennes kommentarer ga mening.  Men det var spesielt en
10193 kommentar som gjorde meg trist.  En anonym kommentator skrev,
10194 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
10195
10196 George, du misforstår Lessig: Han snakker bare om verden slik den burde være
10197 (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">målet til WIPO, og målet til enhver regjering, bør være å fremme den
10198 riktige balansen for immaterielle rettigheter, ikke bare å fremme
10199 immaterielle rettigheter</span>»</span>), ikke som den er.  Hvis vi snakket om
10200 verden slik den er, så har naturligvis Boland ikke sagt noe galt.  Men i
10201 verden slik Lessig vil at den skal være, er det åpenbart at hun har sagt noe
10202 galt.  En må alltid være oppmerksom på forskjellen mellom Lessigs og vår
10203 verden.
10204 </p></blockquote></div><p>
10205 Jeg gikk glipp av ironien først gangen jeg leste den. Jeg lese den raskt og
10206 trodde forfatteren støttet idéen om at det våre myndigheter burde gjøre var
10207 å søke balanse. (Min kritikk av Ms Boland, selvfølgelig, var ikke om
10208 hvorvidt hun søkte balanse eller ikke; min kritikk var at hennes kommentarer
10209 avslørte en feil kun en førsteårs jusstudent burde kunne gjøre. Jeg har noen
10210 illusjon om ekstremismen hos våre myndigheter, uansett om de er
10211 republikanere eller demokrater. Min eneste tilsynelatende illusjon er
10212 hvorvidt våre myndigheter bør snakke sant eller ikke.)
10213 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2893944"></a><p>
10214 Det var derimot åpenbart at den som postet meldingen ikke støttet idéen.  I
10215 stedet latterliggjorde forfatteren selve idéen om at i den virkelig verden
10216 skulle <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">målet</span>»</span> til myndighetene være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">å fremme den
10217 riktige balanse</span>»</span> for immaterielle rettigheter.  Det var åpenbart
10218 tåpelig for ham.  Og det avslørte åpenbart, trodde han, min egen tåpelige
10219 utopisme.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Typisk for en akademiker</span>»</span>, kunne forfatteren like
10220 gjerne ha fortsatt.
10221 </p><p>
10222 Jeg forstår kritikken av akademisk utopisme.  Jeg mener også at utopisme er
10223 tåpelig, og jeg vil være blant de første til å gjøre narr av de absurde
10224 urealistiske idealer til akademikere gjennom historien (og ikke bare i vårt
10225 eget lands historie).
10226 </p><p>
10227 Men når det har blitt dumt å anta at rollen til våre myndigheter bør være å
10228 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">oppnå balanse</span>»</span>, da kan du regne meg blant de dumme, for det
10229 betyr at dette faktisk har blitt ganske seriøst.  Hvis det bør være åpenbart
10230 for alle at myndighetene ikke søker å oppnå balanse, at myndighetene ganske
10231 enkelt et verktøy for de mektigste lobbyistene, at idéen om å forvente bedre
10232 av myndighetene er absurd, at idéen om å kreve at myndighetene snakker sant
10233 og ikke lyver bare er naiv, hva har da vi, det mektigste demokratiet i
10234 verden, blitt?
10235 </p><p>
10236
10237 Det kan være galskap å forvente at en mektig myndigshetsperson skal si
10238 sannheten. Det kan være galskap å tro at myndighetenes politikk skal gjøre
10239 mer enn å tjene de mektigste interesser. Det kan være galskap å argumentere
10240 for å bevare en tradisjon som har vært en del av vår tradisjon for
10241 mesteparten av vår historie&#8212;fri kultur.
10242 </p><p>
10243 Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger.  Snart.
10244 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2894034"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2894041"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2894047"></a><p>
10245 <span class="strong"><strong>Det finnes øyeblikk</strong></span> av håp i denne
10246 kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte mindre strenge
10247 eierskapsregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere medieeierskap, dannet det
10248 seg en en ekstraordinær koalisjon på tvers av partiene for å bekjempe
10249 endringen. For kanskje første gang i historien organiserte interesser så
10250 forskjellige som NRA, ACLU, moveon.org, William Safire, Ted Turner og
10251 Codepink Women for Piece seg for å protestere på denne endringen i
10252 FCC-reglene.  Så mange som 700 000 brev ble sendt til FCC med krav om flere
10253 høringer og et annet resultat.
10254 </p><p>
10255 Disse protestene stoppet ikke FCC, men like etter stemte en bred koalisjon i
10256 senatet for å reversere avgjørelsen i FCC. De fiendtlige høringene som ledet
10257 til avstemmingen avslørte hvor mektig denne bevegelsen hadde blitt.  Det var
10258 ingen betydningsfull støtte for FCCs avgjørelse, mens det var bred og
10259 vedvarende støtte for å bekjempe ytterligere konsentrasjon i media.
10260 </p><p>
10261 Men selv denne bevegelsen går glipp av en viktig brikke i puslespillet.  Å
10262 være stor er ikke ille i seg selv. Frihet er ikke truet bare på grunn av at
10263 noen blir veldig rik, eller på grunn av at det bare er en håndfull store
10264 aktører.  Den dårlige kvaliteten til Big Macs eller Quartar Punders betyr
10265 ikke at du ikke kan få en god hamburger andre steder.
10266 </p><p>
10267 Faren med mediekonsentrasjon kommer ikke fra selve konsentrasjonen, men
10268 kommer fra føydalismen som denne konsentrasjonen fører til når den kobles
10269 til endringer i opphavsretten. Det er ikke kun at det er noen mektige
10270 selskaper som styrer en stadig voksende andel av mediene. Det er at denne
10271 konsentrasjonen kan påkalle en like oppsvulmet rekke
10272 rettigheter&#8212;eiendomsrettigheter i en historisk ekstrem form&#8212;som
10273 gjør størrelsen ille.
10274 </p><p>
10275 Det er derfor betydningsfullt at så mange vil kjempe for å kreve konkurranse
10276 og økt mangfold. Likevel, hvis kampanjen blir forstått til å kun gjelde
10277 størrelse, så er ikke det veldig overraskende. Vi amerikanere har en lang
10278 historie med å slåss mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stort</span>»</span>, klokt eller ikke. At vi kan
10279 være motivert til å slåss mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">store</span>»</span> igjen ikke noe nytt.
10280 </p><p>
10281 Det ville vært noe nytt, og noe veldig viktig, hvis like mange kan være med
10282 på en kampanje for å bekjempe økende ekstremisme bygget inn i idéen om
10283 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span>.  Ikke fordi balanse er fremmed for vår
10284 tradisjon. Jeg argumenterer for at balanse er vår tradisjon.  Men fordi
10285 evnen til å tenke kritisk på omfanget av alt som kalles
10286 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> ikke er lenger er godt trent i denne tradisjonen.
10287 </p><p>
10288 Hvis vi var Akilles, så ville dette være vår hæl. Dette ville være stedet
10289 for våre tragedie.
10290 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2894176"></a><p>
10291 <span class="strong"><strong>Mens jeg skriver</strong></span> disse avsluttende
10292 ordene, er nyhetene fylt med historier om at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre
10293 individer.<sup>[<a name="id2894194" href="#ftn.id2894194" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup>  Eminem har nettopp blitt
10294 saksøkt for å ha <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">samplet</span>»</span> noen andres musikk.<sup>[<a name="id2894263" href="#ftn.id2894263" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup>  Historien om hvordan Bob Dylan har
10295 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjålet</span>»</span> fra en japansk forfatter har nettopp gått verden
10296 over.<sup>[<a name="id2894288" href="#ftn.id2894288" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup>  En på innsiden i
10297 Hollywood&#8212;som insisterer på at han må forbli anonym&#8212;rapporterer
10298 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en utrolig samtale med disse studiofolkene.  De har fantastisk
10299 [gammelt] innhold som de ville elske å bruke, men det kan de ikke på grunn
10300 av at de først må klarere rettighetene.  De har hauger med ungdommer som
10301 kunne gjøre fantastiske ting med innholdet, men det vil først kreve hauger
10302 med advokater for å klarere det først</span>»</span>.  Kongressrepresentanter
10303 snakker om å gi datavirus politimyndighet for å ta ned datamaskiner som
10304 antas å bryte loven.  Universiteter truer med å utvise ungdommer som bruker
10305 en datamaskin for å dele innhold.
10306 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2894334"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2894341"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2894348"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2894354"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2894362"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2894368"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2894375"></a><p>
10307
10308 I mens på andre siden av Atlanteren har BBC nettopp annonsert at de vil
10309 bygge opp et <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativt arkiv</span>»</span> som britiske borgere kan laste
10310 ned BBC-innhold fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.<sup>[<a name="id2894398" href="#ftn.id2894398" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup> Og i Brasil har kulturministeren, Gilberto Gil, i
10311 seg selv en folkehelt i brasiliansk musikk, slått seg sammen med Creative
10312 Commons for å gi ut innhold og frie lisenser i dette latinamerikanske
10313 landet.<sup>[<a name="id2894424" href="#ftn.id2894424" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup>  Jeg har fortalt en mørk
10314 historie.  Sannheten er mer blandet.  En teknologi har gitt oss mer frihet.
10315 Sakte begynner noen å forstå at denne friheten trenger ikke å bety anarki.
10316 Vi kan få med oss fri kultur inn i det tjueførste århundre, uten at artister
10317 taper og uten at potensialet for digital teknologi blir knust.  Det vil
10318 kreve omtanke, og viktigere, det vil kreve at noen omformer RCA-ene av i dag
10319 til Causbyere.
10320 </p><p>
10321
10322 Sunn fornuft må gjøre opprør. Den må handle for å frigjøre kulturen. Og
10323 snart, hvis dette potensialet skal noen gang bli realisert.
10324
10325
10326
10327 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892435" href="#id2892435" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
10328
10329 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Final Report: Integrating
10330 Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy</span>»</span> (London, 2002),
10331 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10332 #55</a>. I følge en pressemelding fra verdens helseorganisasjon sendt ut
10333 9. juli 2002, mottar kun 320 000 av de 6 millioner som trenger medisiner i
10334 utviklingsland dem de trenger&#8212;og halvparten av dem er i Brasil.
10335 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892528" href="#id2892528" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
10336
10337 Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: <em class="citetitle">Who
10338 Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New Press, 2003),
10339 37.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2892538"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2892548"></a>
10340 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888424" href="#id2888424" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
10341
10342
10343 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10344 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, a
10345 Report Prepared for the World Intellectual Property Organization</em>
10346 (Washington, D.C., 2000), 14, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #56</a>. For a firsthand
10347 account of the struggle over South Africa, see Hearing Before the
10348 Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, House
10349 Committee on Government Reform, H. Rep., 1st sess., Ser. No. 106-126 (22
10350 July 1999), 150&#8211;57 (statement of James Love).
10351 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892601" href="#id2892601" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
10352
10353
10354 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10355 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, en
10356 rapport forberedt for the World Intellectual Property
10357 Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892695" href="#id2892695" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
10358
10359
10360
10361 See Sabin Russell, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's
10362 Needs at Odds with Firms' Profit Motive,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
10363 Chronicle</em>, 24 May 1999, A1, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #57</a> (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">compulsory
10364 licenses and gray markets pose a threat to the entire system of intellectual
10365 property protection</span>»</span>); Robert Weissman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">AIDS and Developing
10366 Countries: Democratizing Access to Essential Medicines,</span>»</span>
10367 <em class="citetitle">Foreign Policy in Focus</em> 4:23 (August 1999), available
10368 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #58</a> (describing
10369 U.S. policy); John A. Harrelson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents, and
10370 the HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between Intellectual
10371 Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Widener Law
10372 Symposium Journal</em> (Spring 2001): 175.
10373
10374 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893097" href="#id2893097" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
10375
10376 Jonathan Krim, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source</span>»</span>,
10377 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, august 2003, E1, tilgjengelig fra
10378 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #59</a>; William New,
10379 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Global Group's Shift on `Open Source' Meeting Spurs Stir</span>»</span>,
10380 <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19. august 2003,
10381 tilgjengelig  fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10382 #60</a>; William New, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks
10383 at WIPO</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>,
10384 19. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #61</a>.
10385 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893248" href="#id2893248" class="para">201</a>] </sup>
10386
10387 Jeg bør nevne at jeg var en av folkene som ba WIPO om dette møtet.
10388 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893429" href="#id2893429" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
10389
10390
10391 Microsofts posisjon om åpen kildekode og fri programvare er mer
10392 sofistikert.  De har flere ganger forklart at de har ikke noe problem med
10393 programvare som er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode</span>»</span> eller programvare som er
10394 allemannseie.  Microsofts prinsipielle motstand er mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri
10395 programvare</span>»</span> lisensiert med en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyleft</span>»</span>-lisens, som
10396 betyr at lisensen krever at de som lisensierer skal adoptere same vilkår for
10397 ethvert avledet verk.  Se Bradford L. Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Future of Software:
10398 Enabling the Marketplace to Decide</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Government Policy
10399 Toward Open Source Software</em> (Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings
10400 Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute for
10401 Public Policy Research, 2002), 69, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #62</a>. Se også Craig Mundie,
10402 Microsoft senior vice president, <em class="citetitle">The Commercial Software
10403 Model</em>, diskusjon ved New York University Stern School of
10404 Business (3. mai 2001), tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #63</a>.
10405 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893589" href="#id2893589" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
10406
10407
10408 Krim, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #64</a>.
10409 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893853" href="#id2893853" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
10410
10411 Se Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
10412 210&#8211;20.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2892594"></a>
10413 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894194" href="#id2894194" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
10414
10415
10416 John Borland, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers</span>»</span>, CNET News.com,
10417 september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #65</a>; Paul R. La Monica,
10418 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Industry Sues Swappers</span>»</span>, CNN/Money, 8 september 2003,
10419 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10420 #66</a>; Soni Sangha og Phyllis Furman sammen med Robert Gearty,
10421 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sued for a Song, N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old Among 261 Cited as Sharers</span>»</span>,
10422 <em class="citetitle">New York Daily News</em>, 9. september 2003, 3; Frank
10423 Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in
10424 Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants</span>»</span>,
10425 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10. september 2003, E1; Katie Dean,
10426 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Wired
10427 News</em>, 10. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #67</a>.
10428 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894263" href="#id2894263" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
10429
10430
10431 Jon Wiederhorn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eminem Gets Sued &#8230; by a Little Old
10432 Lady</span>»</span>, mtv.com, 17. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #68</a>.
10433 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894288" href="#id2894288" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
10434
10435
10436
10437 Kenji Hall, Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for
10438 Dylan Songs</span>»</span>, Kansascity.com, 9. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #69</a>.
10439
10440 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894398" href="#id2894398" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
10441
10442 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public</span>»</span>, pressemelding
10443 fra BBC, 24. august 2003, tilgjengelig  fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #70</a>.
10444 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894424" href="#id2894424" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
10445
10446
10447 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative Commons and Brazil</span>»</span>, Creative Commons Weblog,
10448 6. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #71</a>.
10449 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Etterord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-afterword"></a>Etterord</h2></div></div></div><p>
10450
10451
10452
10453 <span class="strong"><strong>I hvert fall</strong></span> noen av de som har lest helt
10454 hit vil være enig med meg om at noe må gjøres for å endre retningen vi
10455 holder.  Balansen i denne boken kartlegger hva som kan gjøres.
10456 </p><p>
10457 Jeg deler dette kartet i to deler: det som enhver kan gjøre nå, og det som
10458 krever hjelp fra lovgiverne.  Hvis det er en lærdom vi kan trekke fra
10459 historien om å endre på sunn fornuft, så er det at det krever å endre
10460 hvordan mange mennesker tenker på den aktuelle saken.
10461 </p><p>
10462 Det betyr at denne bevegelsen må starte i gatene.  Det må rekrutteres et
10463 signifikant antall foreldre, lærere, bibliotekarer, skapere, forfattere,
10464 musikere, filmskapere, forskere&#8212;som alle må fortelle denne historien
10465 med sine egne ord, og som kan fortelle sine naboer hvorfor denne kampen er
10466 så viktig.
10467 </p><p>
10468 Når denne bevegelsen har hatt sin effekt i gatene, så er det et visst håp om
10469 at det kan ha effekt i Washington.  Vi er fortsatt et demokrati. Hva folk
10470 mener betyr noe.  Ikke så mye som det burde, i hvert fall når en RCA står
10471 imot, men likevel, det betyr noe.  Og dermed vil jeg skissere, i den andre
10472 delen som følger, endringer som kongressen kunne gjøre for å bedre sikre en
10473 fri kultur.
10474 </p><div class="section" title="16.1. Oss, nå"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="usnow"></a>16.1. Oss, nå</h2></div></div></div><p>
10475 <span class="strong"><strong>Common sense</strong></span> is with the copyright
10476 warriors because the debate so far has been framed at the extremes&#8212;as
10477 a grand either/or: either property or anarchy, either total control or
10478 artists won't be paid. If that really is the choice, then the warriors
10479 should win.
10480 </p><p>
10481 The mistake here is the error of the excluded middle. There are extremes in
10482 this debate, but the extremes are not all that there is. There are those who
10483 believe in maximal copyright&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span>&#8212;
10484 and those who reject copyright&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved.</span>»</span> The
10485 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts believe that you should ask
10486 permission before you <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> a copyrighted work in any way. The
10487 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts believe you should be able to do
10488 with content as you wish, regardless of whether you have permission or not.
10489 </p><p>
10490
10491 When the Internet was first born, its initial architecture effectively
10492 tilted in the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>»</span> direction. Content could be
10493 copied perfectly and cheaply; rights could not easily be controlled. Thus,
10494 regardless of anyone's desire, the effective regime of copyright under the
10495 original design of the Internet was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved.</span>»</span>
10496 Content was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taken</span>»</span> regardless of the rights. Any rights were
10497 effectively unprotected.
10498 </p><p>
10499 This initial character produced a reaction (opposite, but not quite equal)
10500 by copyright owners. That reaction has been the topic of this book. Through
10501 legislation, litigation, and changes to the network's design, copyright
10502 holders have been able to change the essential character of the environment
10503 of the original Internet. If the original architecture made the effective
10504 default <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved,</span>»</span> the future architecture will make
10505 the effective default <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">all rights reserved.</span>»</span> The architecture
10506 and law that surround the Internet's design will increasingly produce an
10507 environment where all use of content requires permission.  The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut
10508 and paste</span>»</span> world that defines the Internet today will become a
10509 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">get permission to cut and paste</span>»</span> world that is a creator's
10510 nightmare.
10511 </p><p>
10512 What's needed is a way to say something in the middle&#8212;neither
10513 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">all rights reserved</span>»</span> nor <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>»</span> but
10514 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">some rights reserved</span>»</span>&#8212; and thus a way to respect
10515 copyrights but enable creators to free content as they see fit. In other
10516 words, we need a way to restore a set of freedoms that we could just take
10517 for granted before.
10518 </p><div class="section" title="16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="examples"></a>16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="browsing"></a><p>
10519 If you step back from the battle I've been describing here, you will
10520 recognize this problem from other contexts. Think about privacy. Before the
10521 Internet, most of us didn't have to worry much about data about our lives
10522 that we broadcast to the world. If you walked into a bookstore and browsed
10523 through some of the works of Karl Marx, you didn't need to worry about
10524 explaining your browsing habits to your neighbors or boss. The
10525 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> of your browsing habits was assured.
10526 </p><p>
10527 Hva gjorde at det var sikret?
10528 </p><p>
10529 Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, your privacy was
10530 assured because of an inefficient architecture for gathering data and hence
10531 a market constraint (cost) on anyone who wanted to gather that data. If you
10532 were a suspected spy for North Korea, working for the CIA, no doubt your
10533 privacy would not be assured.  But that's because the CIA would (we hope)
10534 find it valuable enough to spend the thousands required to track you. But
10535 for most of us (again, we can hope), spying doesn't pay. The highly
10536 inefficient architecture of real space means we all enjoy a fairly robust
10537 amount of privacy. That privacy is guaranteed to us by friction. Not by law
10538 (there is no law protecting <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> in public places), and in
10539 many places, not by norms (snooping and gossip are just fun), but instead,
10540 by the costs that friction imposes on anyone who would want to spy.
10541 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2894735"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2894742"></a><p>
10542 Enter the Internet, where the cost of tracking browsing in particular has
10543 become quite tiny. If you're a customer at Amazon, then as you browse the
10544 pages, Amazon collects the data about what you've looked at. You know this
10545 because at the side of the page, there's a list of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">recently
10546 viewed</span>»</span> pages. Now, because of the architecture of the Net and the
10547 function of cookies on the Net, it is easier to collect the data than
10548 not. The friction has disappeared, and hence any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span>
10549 protected by the friction disappears, too.
10550 </p><p>
10551 Amazon, of course, is not the problem. But we might begin to worry about
10552 libraries. If you're one of those crazy lefties who thinks that people
10553 should have the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span> to browse in a library without the
10554 government knowing which books you look at (I'm one of those lefties, too),
10555 then this change in the technology of monitoring might concern you. If it
10556 becomes simple to gather and sort who does what in electronic spaces, then
10557 the friction-induced privacy of yesterday disappears.
10558 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2894783"></a><p>
10559
10560 It is this reality that explains the push of many to define
10561 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> on the Internet. It is the recognition that
10562 technology can remove what friction before gave us that leads many to push
10563 for laws to do what friction did.<sup>[<a name="id2894806" href="#ftn.id2894806" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup> And
10564 whether you're in favor of those laws or not, it is the pattern that is
10565 important here. We must take affirmative steps to secure a kind of freedom
10566 that was passively provided before. A change in technology now forces those
10567 who believe in privacy to affirmatively act where, before, privacy was given
10568 by default.
10569 </p><p>
10570 A similar story could be told about the birth of the free software
10571 movement. When computers with software were first made available
10572 commercially, the software&#8212;both the source code and the
10573 binaries&#8212; was free. You couldn't run a program written for a Data
10574 General machine on an IBM machine, so Data General and IBM didn't care much
10575 about controlling their software.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2894848"></a>
10576 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2894860"></a><p>
10577 Dette var verden Richard Stallman ble født inn i, og mens han var forsker
10578 ved MIT, lærte han til å elske samfunnet som utviklet seg når en var fri til
10579 å utforske og fikle med programvaren som kjørte på datamaskiner. Av den
10580 smarte sorten selv, og en talentfull programmerer, begynte Stallman å basere
10581 seg frihet til å legge til eller endre på andre personers arbeid.
10582 </p><p>
10583 In an academic setting, at least, that's not a terribly radical idea. In a
10584 math department, anyone would be free to tinker with a proof that someone
10585 offered. If you thought you had a better way to prove a theorem, you could
10586 take what someone else did and change it. In a classics department, if you
10587 believed a colleague's translation of a recently discovered text was flawed,
10588 you were free to improve it. Thus, to Stallman, it seemed obvious that you
10589 should be free to tinker with and improve the code that ran a machine. This,
10590 too, was knowledge. Why shouldn't it be open for criticism like anything
10591 else?
10592 </p><p>
10593 No one answered that question. Instead, the architecture of revenue for
10594 computing changed. As it became possible to import programs from one system
10595 to another, it became economically attractive (at least in the view of some)
10596 to hide the code of your program. So, too, as companies started selling
10597 peripherals for mainframe systems. If I could just take your printer driver
10598 and copy it, then that would make it easier for me to sell a printer to the
10599 market than it was for you.
10600 </p><p>
10601
10602 Thus, the practice of proprietary code began to spread, and by the early
10603 1980s, Stallman found himself surrounded by proprietary code.  The world of
10604 free software had been erased by a change in the economics of computing. And
10605 as he believed, if he did nothing about it, then the freedom to change and
10606 share software would be fundamentally weakened.
10607 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2894918"></a><p>
10608 Derfor, i 1984, startet Stallmann på et prosjekt for å bygge et fritt
10609 operativsystem, slik i hvert fall en flik av fri programvare skulle
10610 overleve.  Dette var starten på GNU-prosjektet, som
10611 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Linux</span>»</span>-kjernen til Linus Torvalds senere ble lagt til i for å
10612 produsere GNU/Linux-operativsystemet. <a class="indexterm" name="id2894940"></a>
10613 <a class="indexterm" name="id2894947"></a>
10614 </p><p>
10615 Stallman's technique was to use copyright law to build a world of software
10616 that must be kept free. Software licensed under the Free Software
10617 Foundation's GPL cannot be modified and distributed unless the source code
10618 for that software is made available as well. Thus, anyone building upon
10619 GPL'd software would have to make their buildings free as well. This would
10620 assure, Stallman believed, that an ecology of code would develop that
10621 remained free for others to build upon. His fundamental goal was freedom;
10622 innovative creative code was a byproduct.
10623 </p><p>
10624 Stallman was thus doing for software what privacy advocates now do for
10625 privacy. He was seeking a way to rebuild a kind of freedom that was taken
10626 for granted before. Through the affirmative use of licenses that bind
10627 copyrighted code, Stallman was affirmatively reclaiming a space where free
10628 software would survive. He was actively protecting what before had been
10629 passively guaranteed.
10630 </p><p>
10631 Finally, consider a very recent example that more directly resonates with
10632 the story of this book. This is the shift in the way academic and scientific
10633 journals are produced.
10634 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxacademocjournals"></a><p>
10635
10636 As digital technologies develop, it is becoming obvious to many that
10637 printing thousands of copies of journals every month and sending them to
10638 libraries is perhaps not the most efficient way to distribute
10639 knowledge. Instead, journals are increasingly becoming electronic, and
10640 libraries and their users are given access to these electronic journals
10641 through password-protected sites. Something similar to this has been
10642 happening in law for almost thirty years: Lexis and Westlaw have had
10643 electronic versions of case reports available to subscribers to their
10644 service.  Although a Supreme Court opinion is not copyrighted, and anyone is
10645 free to go to a library and read it, Lexis and Westlaw are also free to
10646 charge users for the privilege of gaining access to that Supreme Court
10647 opinion through their respective services.
10648 </p><p>
10649 There's nothing wrong in general with this, and indeed, the ability to
10650 charge for access to even public domain materials is a good incentive for
10651 people to develop new and innovative ways to spread knowledge.  The law has
10652 agreed, which is why Lexis and Westlaw have been allowed to flourish. And if
10653 there's nothing wrong with selling the public domain, then there could be
10654 nothing wrong, in principle, with selling access to material that is not in
10655 the public domain.
10656 </p><p>
10657 But what if the only way to get access to social and scientific data was
10658 through proprietary services? What if no one had the ability to browse this
10659 data except by paying for a subscription?
10660 </p><p>
10661 As many are beginning to notice, this is increasingly the reality with
10662 scientific journals. When these journals were distributed in paper form,
10663 libraries could make the journals available to anyone who had access to the
10664 library. Thus, patients with cancer could become cancer experts because the
10665 library gave them access. Or patients trying to understand the risks of a
10666 certain treatment could research those risks by reading all available
10667 articles about that treatment. This freedom was therefore a function of the
10668 institution of libraries (norms) and the technology of paper journals
10669 (architecture)&#8212;namely, that it was very hard to control access to a
10670 paper journal.
10671 </p><p>
10672 As journals become electronic, however, the publishers are demanding that
10673 libraries not give the general public access to the journals. This means
10674 that the freedoms provided by print journals in public libraries begin to
10675 disappear. Thus, as with privacy and with software, a changing technology
10676 and market shrink a freedom taken for granted before.
10677 </p><p>
10678 This shrinking freedom has led many to take affirmative steps to restore the
10679 freedom that has been lost. The Public Library of Science (PLoS), for
10680 example, is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making scientific research
10681 available to anyone with a Web connection. Authors of scientific work submit
10682 that work to the Public Library of Science.  That work is then subject to
10683 peer review. If accepted, the work is then deposited in a public, electronic
10684 archive and made permanently available for free. PLoS also sells a print
10685 version of its work, but the copyright for the print journal does not
10686 inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2895086"></a>
10687 </p><p>
10688 This is one of many such efforts to restore a freedom taken for granted
10689 before, but now threatened by changing technology and markets.  There's no
10690 doubt that this alternative competes with the traditional publishers and
10691 their efforts to make money from the exclusive distribution of content. But
10692 competition in our tradition is presumptively a good&#8212;especially when
10693 it helps spread knowledge and science.
10694 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2895098"></a></div><div class="section" title="16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="oneidea"></a>16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcc"></a><p>
10695 Den samme strategien kan brukes på kultur, som et svar på den økende
10696 kontrollen som gjennomføres gjennom lov og teknologi.
10697 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2895150"></a><p>
10698 Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation
10699 established in Massachusetts, but with its home at Stanford University. Its
10700 aim is to build a layer of <span class="emphasis"><em>reasonable</em></span> copyright on top
10701 of the extremes that now reign. It does this by making it easy for people to
10702 build upon other people's work, by making it simple for creators to express
10703 the freedom for others to take and build upon their work. Simple tags, tied
10704 to human-readable descriptions, tied to bulletproof licenses, make this
10705 possible.
10706 </p><p>
10707
10708 <span class="emphasis"><em>Simple</em></span>&#8212;which means without a middleman, or
10709 without a lawyer.  By developing a free set of licenses that people can
10710 attach to their content, Creative Commons aims to mark a range of content
10711 that can easily, and reliably, be built upon. These tags are then linked to
10712 machine-readable versions of the license that enable computers automatically
10713 to identify content that can easily be shared. These three expressions
10714 together&#8212;a legal license, a human-readable description, and
10715 machine-readable tags&#8212;constitute a Creative Commons license. A
10716 Creative Commons license constitutes a grant of freedom to anyone who
10717 accesses the license, and more importantly, an expression of the ideal that
10718 the person associated with the license believes in something different than
10719 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All</span>»</span> or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No</span>»</span> extremes. Content is marked with
10720 the CC mark, which does not mean that copyright is waived, but that certain
10721 freedoms are given.
10722 </p><p>
10723 These freedoms are beyond the freedoms promised by fair use. Their precise
10724 contours depend upon the choices the creator makes. The creator can choose a
10725 license that permits any use, so long as attribution is given. She can
10726 choose a license that permits only noncommercial use.  She can choose a
10727 license that permits any use so long as the same freedoms are given to other
10728 uses (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">share and share alike</span>»</span>). Or any use so long as no
10729 derivative use is made. Or any use at all within developing nations. Or any
10730 sampling use, so long as full copies are not made. Or lastly, any
10731 educational use.
10732 </p><p>
10733 These choices thus establish a range of freedoms beyond the default of
10734 copyright law. They also enable freedoms that go beyond traditional fair
10735 use. And most importantly, they express these freedoms in a way that
10736 subsequent users can use and rely upon without the need to hire a
10737 lawyer. Creative Commons thus aims to build a layer of content, governed by
10738 a layer of reasonable copyright law, that others can build upon. Voluntary
10739 choice of individuals and creators will make this content available. And
10740 that content will in turn enable us to rebuild a public domain.
10741 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2895233"></a><p>
10742
10743 This is just one project among many within the Creative Commons.  And of
10744 course, Creative Commons is not the only organization pursuing such
10745 freedoms. But the point that distinguishes the Creative Commons from many is
10746 that we are not interested only in talking about a public domain or in
10747 getting legislators to help build a public domain. Our aim is to build a
10748 movement of consumers and producers of content (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">content
10749 conducers,</span>»</span> as attorney Mia Garlick calls them)  who help build the
10750 public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the importance of the public
10751 domain to other creativity.
10752 </p><p>
10753 The aim is not to fight the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts. The
10754 aim is to complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a
10755 culture are produced by insane and unintended consequences of laws written
10756 centuries ago, applied to a technology that only Jefferson could have
10757 imagined. The rules may well have made sense against a background of
10758 technologies from centuries ago, but they do not make sense against the
10759 background of digital technologies. New rules&#8212;with different freedoms,
10760 expressed in ways so that humans without lawyers can use them&#8212;are
10761 needed. Creative Commons gives people a way effectively to begin to build
10762 those rules.
10763 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline2"></a><p>
10764 Why would creators participate in giving up total control? Some participate
10765 to better spread their content. Cory Doctorow, for example, is a science
10766 fiction author. His first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
10767 Kingdom</em>, was released on-line and for free, under a Creative
10768 Commons license, on the same day that it went on sale in bookstores.
10769 </p><p>
10770 Why would a publisher ever agree to this? I suspect his publisher reasoned
10771 like this: There are two groups of people out there: (1)  those who will buy
10772 Cory's book whether or not it's on the Internet, and (2) those who may never
10773 hear of Cory's book, if it isn't made available for free on the
10774 Internet. Some part of (1) will download Cory's book instead of buying
10775 it. Call them bad-(1)s. Some part of (2)  will download Cory's book, like
10776 it, and then decide to buy it. Call them (2)-goods.  If there are more
10777 (2)-goods than bad-(1)s, the strategy of releasing Cory's book free on-line
10778 will probably <span class="emphasis"><em>increase</em></span> sales of Cory's book.
10779 </p><p>
10780 Indeed, the experience of his publisher clearly supports that conclusion.
10781 The book's first printing was exhausted months before the publisher had
10782 expected. This first novel of a science fiction author was a total success.
10783 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2895329"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895336"></a><p>
10784
10785 The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content was
10786 confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner, who wrote a
10787 book about the free software movement titled <em class="citetitle">Free for
10788 All</em>, made an electronic version of his book free on-line under a
10789 Creative Commons license after the book went out of print. He then monitored
10790 used book store prices for the book. As predicted, as the number of
10791 downloads increased, the used book price for his book increased, as well.
10792 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2895361"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895372"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895379"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895386"></a><p>
10793 These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary
10794 content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the Commons. There
10795 are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other reasons. Many who use
10796 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sampling license</span>»</span> do so because anything else would be
10797 hypocritical. The sampling license says that others are free, for commercial
10798 or noncommercial purposes, to sample content from the licensed work; they
10799 are just not free to make full copies of the licensed work available to
10800 others. This is consistent with their own art&#8212;they, too, sample from
10801 others. Because the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal</em></span> costs of sampling are so high
10802 (Walter Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born
10803 sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not
10804 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allow</span>»</span> Public Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs
10805 are so high<sup>[<a name="id2895419" href="#ftn.id2895419" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), these artists release
10806 into the creative environment content that others can build upon, so that
10807 their form of creativity might grow.
10808 </p><p>
10809 Finally, there are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons
10810 license just because they want to express to others the importance of
10811 balance in this debate. If you just go along with the system as it is, you
10812 are effectively saying you believe in the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span>
10813 model. Good for you, but many do not. Many believe that however appropriate
10814 that rule is for Hollywood and freaks, it is not an appropriate description
10815 of how most creators view the rights associated with their content. The
10816 Creative Commons license expresses this notion of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Some Rights
10817 Reserved,</span>»</span> and gives many the chance to say it to others.
10818 </p><p>
10819
10820 In the first six months of the Creative Commons experiment, over 1 million
10821 objects were licensed with these free-culture licenses. The next step is
10822 partnerships with middleware content providers to help them build into their
10823 technologies simple ways for users to mark their content with Creative
10824 Commons freedoms. Then the next step is to watch and celebrate creators who
10825 build content based upon content set free.
10826 </p><p>
10827 These are first steps to rebuilding a public domain. They are not mere
10828 arguments; they are action. Building a public domain is the first step to
10829 showing people how important that domain is to creativity and
10830 innovation. Creative Commons relies upon voluntary steps to achieve this
10831 rebuilding. They will lead to a world in which more than voluntary steps are
10832 possible.
10833 </p><p>
10834 Creative Commons is just one example of voluntary efforts by individuals and
10835 creators to change the mix of rights that now govern the creative field. The
10836 project does not compete with copyright; it complements it. Its aim is not
10837 to defeat the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and
10838 creators to exercise their rights more flexibly and cheaply. That
10839 difference, we believe, will enable creativity to spread more easily.
10840 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2895496"></a></div></div><div class="section" title="16.2. Dem, snart"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="themsoon"></a>16.2. Dem, snart</h2></div></div></div><p>
10841 <span class="strong"><strong>We will</strong></span> not reclaim a free culture by
10842 individual action alone. It will also take important reforms of laws. We
10843 have a long way to go before the politicians will listen to these ideas and
10844 implement these reforms.  But that also means that we have time to build
10845 awareness around the changes that we need.
10846 </p><p>
10847 In this chapter, I outline five kinds of changes: four that are general, and
10848 one that's specific to the most heated battle of the day, music. Each is a
10849 step, not an end. But any of these steps would carry us a long way to our
10850 end.
10851 </p><div class="section" title="16.2.1. 1. Flere formaliteter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="formalities"></a>16.2.1. 1. Flere formaliteter</h3></div></div></div><p>
10852 If you buy a house, you have to record the sale in a deed. If you buy land
10853 upon which to build a house, you have to record the purchase in a deed.  If
10854 you buy a car, you get a bill of sale and register the car. If you buy an
10855 airplane ticket, it has your name on it.
10856 </p><p>
10857
10858
10859 These are all formalities associated with property. They are requirements
10860 that we all must bear if we want our property to be protected.
10861 </p><p>
10862 In contrast, under current copyright law, you automatically get a copyright,
10863 regardless of whether you comply with any formality. You don't have to
10864 register. You don't even have to mark your content. The default is control,
10865 and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">formalities</span>»</span> are banished.
10866 </p><p>
10867 Why?
10868 </p><p>
10869 As I suggested in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, the motivation to abolish formalities was a good
10870 one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities imposed a burden
10871 on copyright holders without much benefit. Thus, it was progress when the
10872 law relaxed the formal requirements that a copyright owner must bear to
10873 protect and secure his work. Those formalities were getting in the way.
10874 </p><p>
10875 But the Internet changes all this. Formalities today need not be a
10876 burden. Rather, the world without formalities is the world that burdens
10877 creativity. Today, there is no simple way to know who owns what, or with
10878 whom one must deal in order to use or build upon the creative work of
10879 others. There are no records, there is no system to trace&#8212; there is no
10880 simple way to know how to get permission. Yet given the massive increase in
10881 the scope of copyright's rule, getting permission is a necessary step for
10882 any work that builds upon our past. And thus, the <span class="emphasis"><em>lack</em></span>
10883 of formalities forces many into silence where they otherwise could speak.
10884 </p><p>
10885 The law should therefore change this requirement<sup>[<a name="id2895621" href="#ftn.id2895621" class="footnote">212</a>]</sup>&#8212;but it should not change it by going back to the old, broken
10886 system. We should require formalities, but we should establish a system that
10887 will create the incentives to minimize the burden of these formalities.
10888 </p><p>
10889 The important formalities are three: marking copyrighted work, registering
10890 copyrights, and renewing the claim to copyright. Traditionally, the first of
10891 these three was something the copyright owner did; the second two were
10892 something the government did. But a revised system of formalities would
10893 banish the government from the process, except for the sole purpose of
10894 approving standards developed by others.
10895 </p><div class="section" title="16.2.1.1. Registrering og fornying"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a name="registration"></a>16.2.1.1. Registrering og fornying</h4></div></div></div><p>
10896 Under the old system, a copyright owner had to file a registration with the
10897 Copyright Office to register or renew a copyright. When filing that
10898 registration, the copyright owner paid a fee. As with most government
10899 agencies, the Copyright Office had little incentive to minimize the burden
10900 of registration; it also had little incentive to minimize the fee.  And as
10901 the Copyright Office is not a main target of government policymaking, the
10902 office has historically been terribly underfunded. Thus, when people who
10903 know something about the process hear this idea about formalities, their
10904 first reaction is panic&#8212;nothing could be worse than forcing people to
10905 deal with the mess that is the Copyright Office.
10906 </p><p>
10907 Yet it is always astonishing to me that we, who come from a tradition of
10908 extraordinary innovation in governmental design, can no longer think
10909 innovatively about how governmental functions can be designed.  Just because
10910 there is a public purpose to a government role, it doesn't follow that the
10911 government must actually administer the role. Instead, we should be creating
10912 incentives for private parties to serve the public, subject to standards
10913 that the government sets.
10914 </p><p>
10915 In the context of registration, one obvious model is the Internet.  There
10916 are at least 32 million Web sites registered around the world.  Domain name
10917 owners for these Web sites have to pay a fee to keep their registration
10918 alive. In the main top-level domains (.com, .org, .net), there is a central
10919 registry. The actual registrations are, however, performed by many competing
10920 registrars. That competition drives the cost of registering down, and more
10921 importantly, it drives the ease with which registration occurs up.
10922 </p><p>
10923
10924 We should adopt a similar model for the registration and renewal of
10925 copyrights. The Copyright Office may well serve as the central registry, but
10926 it should not be in the registrar business. Instead, it should establish a
10927 database, and a set of standards for registrars. It should approve
10928 registrars that meet its standards. Those registrars would then compete with
10929 one another to deliver the cheapest and simplest systems for registering and
10930 renewing copyrights. That competition would substantially lower the burden
10931 of this formality&#8212;while producing a database of registrations that
10932 would facilitate the licensing of content.
10933 </p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.1.2. Merking"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a name="marking"></a>16.2.1.2. Merking</h4></div></div></div><p>
10934 It used to be that the failure to include a copyright notice on a creative
10935 work meant that the copyright was forfeited. That was a harsh punishment for
10936 failing to comply with a regulatory rule&#8212;akin to imposing the death
10937 penalty for a parking ticket in the world of creative rights.  Here again,
10938 there is no reason that a marking requirement needs to be enforced in this
10939 way. And more importantly, there is no reason a marking requirement needs to
10940 be enforced uniformly across all media.
10941 </p><p>
10942 The aim of marking is to signal to the public that this work is copyrighted
10943 and that the author wants to enforce his rights. The mark also makes it easy
10944 to locate a copyright owner to secure permission to use the work.
10945 </p><p>
10946 One of the problems the copyright system confronted early on was that
10947 different copyrighted works had to be differently marked. It wasn't clear
10948 how or where a statue was to be marked, or a record, or a film. A new
10949 marking requirement could solve these problems by recognizing the
10950 differences in media, and by allowing the system of marking to evolve as
10951 technologies enable it to. The system could enable a special signal from the
10952 failure to mark&#8212;not the loss of the copyright, but the loss of the
10953 right to punish someone for failing to get permission first.
10954 </p><p>
10955
10956 Let's start with the last point. If a copyright owner allows his work to be
10957 published without a copyright notice, the consequence of that failure need
10958 not be that the copyright is lost. The consequence could instead be that
10959 anyone has the right to use this work, until the copyright owner complains
10960 and demonstrates that it is his work and he doesn't give
10961 permission.<sup>[<a name="id2895750" href="#ftn.id2895750" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
10962 work would therefore be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use unless someone complains.</span>»</span> If
10963 someone does complain, then the obligation would be to stop using the work
10964 in any new work from then on though no penalty would attach for existing
10965 uses.  This would create a strong incentive for copyright owners to mark
10966 their work.
10967 </p><p>
10968 That in turn raises the question about how work should best be marked. Here
10969 again, the system needs to adjust as the technologies evolve. The best way
10970 to ensure that the system evolves is to limit the Copyright Office's role to
10971 that of approving standards for marking content that have been crafted
10972 elsewhere.
10973 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2895796"></a><p>
10974 For example, if a recording industry association devises a method for
10975 marking CDs, it would propose that to the Copyright Office. The Copyright
10976 Office would hold a hearing, at which other proposals could be made. The
10977 Copyright Office would then select the proposal that it judged preferable,
10978 and it would base that choice <span class="emphasis"><em>solely</em></span> upon the
10979 consideration of which method could best be integrated into the registration
10980 and renewal system. We would not count on the government to innovate; but we
10981 would count on the government to keep the product of innovation in line with
10982 its other important functions.
10983 </p><p>
10984 Finally, marking content clearly would simplify registration requirements.
10985 If photographs were marked by author and year, there would be little reason
10986 not to allow a photographer to reregister, for example, all photographs
10987 taken in a particular year in one quick step. The aim of the formality is
10988 not to burden the creator; the system itself should be kept as simple as
10989 possible.
10990 </p><p>
10991 The objective of formalities is to make things clear. The existing system
10992 does nothing to make things clear. Indeed, it seems designed to make things
10993 unclear.
10994 </p><p>
10995 If formalities such as registration were reinstated, one of the most
10996 difficult aspects of relying upon the public domain would be removed.  It
10997 would be simple to identify what content is presumptively free; it would be
10998 simple to identify who controls the rights for a particular kind of content;
10999 it would be simple to assert those rights, and to renew that assertion at
11000 the appropriate time.
11001 </p></div></div><div class="section" title="16.2.2. 2. Kortere vernetid"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="shortterms"></a>16.2.2. 2. Kortere vernetid</h3></div></div></div><p>
11002 Vernetiden i opphavsretten har gått fra fjorten år til nittifem år der
11003 selskap har forfatterskapet , og livstiden til forfatteren pluss sytti år
11004 for individuelle forfattere.
11005 </p><p>
11006 In <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>, I proposed a
11007 seventy-five-year term, granted in five-year increments with a requirement
11008 of renewal every five years.  That seemed radical enough at the time. But
11009 after we lost <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
11010 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, the proposals became even more
11011 radical. <em class="citetitle">The Economist</em> endorsed a proposal for a
11012 fourteen-year copyright term.<sup>[<a name="id2895893" href="#ftn.id2895893" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup> Others
11013 have proposed tying the term to the term for patents.
11014 </p><p>
11015 I agree with those who believe that we need a radical change in copyright's
11016 term. But whether fourteen years or seventy-five, there are four principles
11017 that are important to keep in mind about copyright terms.
11018 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
11019
11020
11021 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it short:</em></span> The term should be as long as necessary
11022 to give incentives to create, but no longer. If it were tied to very strong
11023 protections for authors (so authors were able to reclaim rights from
11024 publishers), rights to the same work (not derivative works) might be
11025 extended further. The key is not to tie the work up with legal regulations
11026 when it no longer benefits an author.
11027 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11028
11029
11030
11031 <span class="emphasis"><em>Gjør det enkelt:</em></span> Skillelinjen mellom verker uten
11032 opphavsrettslig vern og innhold som er beskyttet må forbli klart.  Advokater
11033 liker uklarheten som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> og forskjellen mellom
11034 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">idéer</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">uttrykk</span>»</span> har.  Denne type lovverk gir
11035 dem en masse arbeid.  Men de som skrev grunnloven hadde en enklere idé:
11036 vernet versus ikke vernet. Verdien av korte vernetider er at det er lite
11037 behov for å bygge inn unntak i opphavsretten når vernetiden holdes kort.  En
11038 klar og aktiv <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">advokat-fri sone</span>»</span> gjør komplesiteten av
11039 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">idé/uttrykk</span>»</span> mindre nødvendig å
11040 håndtere.
11041
11042 </p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="id2896003"></a><p>
11043
11044 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it alive:</em></span> Copyright should have to be renewed.
11045 Especially if the maximum term is long, the copyright owner should be
11046 required to signal periodically that he wants the protection continued. This
11047 need not be an onerous burden, but there is no reason this monopoly
11048 protection has to be granted for free. On average, it takes ninety minutes
11049 for a veteran to apply for a pension.<sup>[<a name="id2896022" href="#ftn.id2896022" class="footnote">215</a>]</sup>
11050 If we make veterans suffer that burden, I don't see why we couldn't require
11051 authors to spend ten minutes every fifty years to file a single form.
11052 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11053
11054
11055 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it prospective:</em></span> Whatever the term of copyright
11056 should be, the clearest lesson that economists teach is that a term once
11057 given should not be extended. It might have been a mistake in 1923 for the
11058 law to offer authors only a fifty-six-year term. I don't think so, but it's
11059 possible. If it was a mistake, then the consequence was that we got fewer
11060 authors to create in 1923 than we otherwise would have. But we can't correct
11061 that mistake today by increasing the term. No matter what we do today, we
11062 will not increase the number of authors who wrote in 1923. Of course, we can
11063 increase the reward that those who write now get (or alternatively, increase
11064 the copyright burden that smothers many works that are today invisible). But
11065 increasing their reward will not increase their creativity in 1923.  What's
11066 not done is not done, and there's nothing we can do about that now.  </p></li></ol></div><p>
11067 Disse endringene vil sammen gi en <span class="emphasis"><em>gjennomsnittlig</em></span>
11068 opphavsrettslig vernetid som er mye kortere enn den gjeldende vernetiden.
11069 Frem til 1976 var gjennomsnittlig vernetid kun 32.2 år.  Vårt mål bør være
11070 det samme.
11071 </p><p>
11072 Uten tvil vil ekstremistene kalle disse idéene
11073 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikale</span>»</span>. (Tross alt, så kaller jeg dem
11074 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ekstremister</span>»</span>.) Men igjen, vernetiden jeg anbefalte var lengre
11075 enn vernetiden under Richard Nixon. hvor <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikalt</span>»</span> kan det
11076 være å be om en mer sjenerøs opphavsrettighet enn da Richard Nixon var
11077 president?
11078 </p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="freefairuse"></a>16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2896133"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2896140"></a><p>
11079 As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally granted
11080 property owners the right to control their property from the ground to the
11081 heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property rights quickly
11082 changed. There was no fuss, no constitutional challenge.  It made no sense
11083 anymore to grant that much control, given the emergence of that new
11084 technology.
11085 </p><p>
11086 Our Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive
11087 right</span>»</span> to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">their writings.</span>»</span> Congress has given authors
11088 an exclusive right to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">their writings</span>»</span> plus any derivative
11089 writings (made by others) that are sufficiently close to the author's
11090 original work. Thus, if I write a book, and you base a movie on that book, I
11091 have the power to deny you the right to release that movie, even though that
11092 movie is not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">my writing.</span>»</span>
11093 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2896183"></a><p>
11094 Congress granted the beginnings of this right in 1870, when it expanded the
11095 exclusive right of copyright to include a right to control translations and
11096 dramatizations of a work.<sup>[<a name="id2896195" href="#ftn.id2896195" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> The courts
11097 have expanded it slowly through judicial interpretation ever since. This
11098 expansion has been commented upon by one of the law's greatest judges, Judge
11099 Benjamin Kaplan.
11100 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
11101 So inured have we become to the extension of the monopoly to a large range
11102 of so-called derivative works, that we no longer sense the oddity of
11103 accepting such an enlargement of copyright while yet intoning the
11104 abracadabra of idea and expression.<sup>[<a name="id2896220" href="#ftn.id2896220" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
11105 </p></blockquote></div><p>
11106 I think it's time to recognize that there are airplanes in this field and
11107 the expansiveness of these rights of derivative use no longer make
11108 sense. More precisely, they don't make sense for the period of time that a
11109 copyright runs. And they don't make sense as an amorphous grant.  Consider
11110 each limitation in turn.
11111 </p><p>
11112 <span class="emphasis"><em>Term:</em></span> If Congress wants to grant a derivative right,
11113 then that right should be for a much shorter term. It makes sense to protect
11114 John Grisham's right to sell the movie rights to his latest novel (or at
11115 least I'm willing to assume it does); but it does not make sense for that
11116 right to run for the same term as the underlying copyright. The derivative
11117 right could be important in inducing creativity; it is not important long
11118 after the creative work is done.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2896251"></a>
11119 </p><p>
11120 <span class="emphasis"><em>Scope:</em></span> Likewise should the scope of derivative rights
11121 be narrowed.  Again, there are some cases in which derivative rights are
11122 important.  Those should be specified. But the law should draw clear lines
11123 around regulated and unregulated uses of copyrighted material. When all
11124 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">reuse</span>»</span> of creative material was within the control of
11125 businesses, perhaps it made sense to require lawyers to negotiate the
11126 lines. It no longer makes sense for lawyers to negotiate the lines. Think
11127 about all the creative possibilities that digital technologies enable; now
11128 imagine pouring molasses into the machines. That's what this general
11129 requirement of permission does to the creative process. Smothers it.
11130 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2896283"></a><p>
11131 This was the point that Alben made when describing the making of the Clint
11132 Eastwood CD. While it makes sense to require negotiation for foreseeable
11133 derivative rights&#8212;turning a book into a movie, or a poem into a
11134 musical score&#8212;it doesn't make sense to require negotiation for the
11135 unforeseeable. Here, a statutory right would make much more sense.
11136 </p><p>
11137 In each of these cases, the law should mark the uses that are protected, and
11138 the presumption should be that other uses are not protected.  This is the
11139 reverse of the recommendation of my colleague Paul Goldstein.<sup>[<a name="id2896306" href="#ftn.id2896306" class="footnote">218</a>]</sup> His view is that the law should be written so that
11140 expanded protections follow expanded uses.
11141 </p><p>
11142 Goldstein's analysis would make perfect sense if the cost of the legal
11143 system were small. But as we are currently seeing in the context of the
11144 Internet, the uncertainty about the scope of protection, and the incentives
11145 to protect existing architectures of revenue, combined with a strong
11146 copyright, weaken the process of innovation.
11147 </p><p>
11148
11149 The law could remedy this problem either by removing protection beyond the
11150 part explicitly drawn or by granting reuse rights upon certain statutory
11151 conditions. Either way, the effect would be to free a great deal of culture
11152 to others to cultivate. And under a statutory rights regime, that reuse
11153 would earn artists more income.
11154 </p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.4. 4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="liberatemusic"></a>16.2.4. 4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</h3></div></div></div><p>
11155 The battle that got this whole war going was about music, so it wouldn't be
11156 fair to end this book without addressing the issue that is, to most people,
11157 most pressing&#8212;music. There is no other policy issue that better
11158 teaches the lessons of this book than the battles around the sharing of
11159 music.
11160 </p><p>
11161 The appeal of file-sharing music was the crack cocaine of the Internet's
11162 growth. It drove demand for access to the Internet more powerfully than any
11163 other single application. It was the Internet's killer app&#8212;possibly in
11164 two senses of that word. It no doubt was the application that drove demand
11165 for bandwidth. It may well be the application that drives demand for
11166 regulations that in the end kill innovation on the network.
11167 </p><p>
11168 The aim of copyright, with respect to content in general and music in
11169 particular, is to create the incentives for music to be composed, performed,
11170 and, most importantly, spread. The law does this by giving an exclusive
11171 right to a composer to control public performances of his work, and to a
11172 performing artist to control copies of her performance.
11173 </p><p>
11174 File-sharing networks complicate this model by enabling the spread of
11175 content for which the performer has not been paid. But of course, that's not
11176 all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»">5</a>, they enable four
11177 different kinds of sharing:
11178 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
11179
11180
11181 Det er noen som bruker delingsnettverk som erstatninger for å kjøpe CDer.
11182 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11183
11184
11185 There are also some who are using sharing networks to sample, on the way to
11186 purchasing CDs.
11187 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11188
11189
11190
11191
11192 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk til å få tilgang til innhold som
11193 ikke lenger er i salg, men fortsatt er vernet av opphavsrett eller som ville
11194 ha vært altfor vanskelig å få kjøpt via nettet.
11195 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11196
11197
11198 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk for å få tilgang til innhold som
11199 ikke er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, eller for å få tilgang som
11200 opphavsrettsinnehaveren åpenbart går god for.
11201 </p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2896463"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2896472"></a><p>
11202 Any reform of the law needs to keep these different uses in focus. It must
11203 avoid burdening type D even if it aims to eliminate type A. The eagerness
11204 with which the law aims to eliminate type A, moreover, should depend upon
11205 the magnitude of type B. As with VCRs, if the net effect of sharing is
11206 actually not very harmful, the need for regulation is significantly
11207 weakened.
11208 </p><p>
11209 As I said in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»">5</a>, the actual harm caused by sharing is controversial.  For
11210 the purposes of this chapter, however, I assume the harm is real. I assume,
11211 in other words, that type A sharing is significantly greater than type B,
11212 and is the dominant use of sharing networks.
11213 </p><p>
11214 Uansett, det er et avgjørende faktum om den gjeldende teknologiske
11215 omgivelsen som vi må huske på hvis vi skal forstå hvordan loven bør reagere.
11216 </p><p>
11217 Today, file sharing is addictive. In ten years, it won't be. It is addictive
11218 today because it is the easiest way to gain access to a broad range of
11219 content.  It won't be the easiest way to get access to a broad range of
11220 content in ten years. Today, access to the Internet is cumbersome and
11221 slow&#8212;we in the United States are lucky to have broadband service at
11222 1.5 MBs, and very rarely do we get service at that speed both up and
11223 down. Although wireless access is growing, most of us still get access
11224 across wires. Most only gain access through a machine with a keyboard. The
11225 idea of the always on, always connected Internet is mainly just an idea.
11226 </p><p>
11227
11228 But it will become a reality, and that means the way we get access to the
11229 Internet today is a technology in transition. Policy makers should not make
11230 policy on the basis of technology in transition. They should make policy on
11231 the basis of where the technology is going. The question should not be, how
11232 should the law regulate sharing in this world? The question should be, what
11233 law will we require when the network becomes the network it is clearly
11234 becoming? That network is one in which every machine with electricity is
11235 essentially on the Net; where everywhere you are&#8212;except maybe the
11236 desert or the Rockies&#8212;you can instantaneously be connected to the
11237 Internet. Imagine the Internet as ubiquitous as the best cell-phone service,
11238 where with the flip of a device, you are connected.
11239 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2896533"></a><p>
11240 In that world, it will be extremely easy to connect to services that give
11241 you access to content on the fly&#8212;such as Internet radio, content that
11242 is streamed to the user when the user demands. Here, then, is the critical
11243 point: When it is <span class="emphasis"><em>extremely</em></span> easy to connect to services
11244 that give access to content, it will be <span class="emphasis"><em>easier</em></span> to
11245 connect to services that give you access to content than it will be to
11246 download and store content <span class="emphasis"><em>on the many devices you will have for
11247 playing content</em></span>. It will be easier, in other words, to subscribe
11248 than it will be to be a database manager, as everyone in the
11249 download-sharing world of Napster-like technologies essentially is. Content
11250 services will compete with content sharing, even if the services charge
11251 money for the content they give access to. Already cell-phone services in
11252 Japan offer music (for a fee) streamed over cell phones (enhanced with plugs
11253 for headphones). The Japanese are paying for this content even though
11254 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> content is available in the form of MP3s across the
11255 Web.<sup>[<a name="id2896588" href="#ftn.id2896588" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
11256
11257 </p><p>
11258
11259 This point about the future is meant to suggest a perspective on the
11260 present: It is emphatically temporary. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem</span>»</span> with file
11261 sharing&#8212;to the extent there is a real problem&#8212;is a problem that
11262 will increasingly disappear as it becomes easier to connect to the
11263 Internet.  And thus it is an extraordinary mistake for policy makers today
11264 to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">solving</span>»</span> this problem in light of a technology that will
11265 be gone tomorrow.  The question should not be how to regulate the Internet
11266 to eliminate file sharing (the Net will evolve that problem away). The
11267 question instead should be how to assure that artists get paid, during this
11268 transition between twentieth-century models for doing business and
11269 twenty-first-century technologies.
11270 </p><p>
11271 The answer begins with recognizing that there are different
11272 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problems</span>»</span> here to solve. Let's start with type D
11273 content&#8212;uncopyrighted content or copyrighted content that the artist
11274 wants shared. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem</span>»</span> with this content is to make sure
11275 that the technology that would enable this kind of sharing is not rendered
11276 illegal. You can think of it this way: Pay phones are used to deliver ransom
11277 demands, no doubt.  But there are many who need to use pay phones who have
11278 nothing to do with ransoms. It would be wrong to ban pay phones in order to
11279 eliminate kidnapping.
11280 </p><p>
11281 Type C content raises a different <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem.</span>»</span> This is content
11282 that was, at one time, published and is no longer available. It may be
11283 unavailable because the artist is no longer valuable enough for the record
11284 label he signed with to carry his work. Or it may be unavailable because the
11285 work is forgotten. Either way, the aim of the law should be to facilitate
11286 the access to this content, ideally in a way that returns something to the
11287 artist.
11288 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2896667"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2896676"></a><p>
11289 Again, the model here is the used book store. Once a book goes out of print,
11290 it may still be available in libraries and used book stores. But libraries
11291 and used book stores don't pay the copyright owner when someone reads or
11292 buys an out-of-print book. That makes total sense, of course, since any
11293 other system would be so burdensome as to eliminate the possibility of used
11294 book stores' existing. But from the author's perspective, this
11295 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sharing</span>»</span> of his content without his being compensated is less
11296 than ideal.
11297 </p><p>
11298 The model of used book stores suggests that the law could simply deem
11299 out-of-print music fair game. If the publisher does not make copies of the
11300 music available for sale, then commercial and noncommercial providers would
11301 be free, under this rule, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">share</span>»</span> that content, even though
11302 the sharing involved making a copy. The copy here would be incidental to the
11303 trade; in a context where commercial publishing has ended, trading music
11304 should be as free as trading books.
11305 </p><p>
11306
11307
11308
11309 Alternatively, the law could create a statutory license that would ensure
11310 that artists get something from the trade of their work. For example, if the
11311 law set a low statutory rate for the commercial sharing of content that was
11312 not offered for sale by a commercial publisher, and if that rate were
11313 automatically transferred to a trust for the benefit of the artist, then
11314 businesses could develop around the idea of trading this content, and
11315 artists would benefit from this trade.
11316 </p><p>
11317 This system would also create an incentive for publishers to keep works
11318 available commercially. Works that are available commercially would not be
11319 subject to this license. Thus, publishers could protect the right to charge
11320 whatever they want for content if they kept the work commercially
11321 available. But if they don't keep it available, and instead, the computer
11322 hard disks of fans around the world keep it alive, then any royalty owed for
11323 such copying should be much less than the amount owed a commercial
11324 publisher.
11325 </p><p>
11326 The hard case is content of types A and B, and again, this case is hard only
11327 because the extent of the problem will change over time, as the technologies
11328 for gaining access to content change. The law's solution should be as
11329 flexible as the problem is, understanding that we are in the middle of a
11330 radical transformation in the technology for delivering and accessing
11331 content.
11332 </p><p>
11333 Så her er en løsning som i første omgang kan virke veldig undelig for begge
11334 sider i denne krigen, men som jeg tror vil gi mer mening når en får tenkt
11335 seg om.
11336 </p><p>
11337 Stripped of the rhetoric about the sanctity of property, the basic claim of
11338 the content industry is this: A new technology (the Internet)  has harmed a
11339 set of rights that secure copyright. If those rights are to be protected,
11340 then the content industry should be compensated for that harm. Just as the
11341 technology of tobacco harmed the health of millions of Americans, or the
11342 technology of asbestos caused grave illness to thousands of miners, so, too,
11343 has the technology of digital networks harmed the interests of the content
11344 industry.
11345 </p><p>
11346
11347
11348 Jeg elsker internett, så jeg liker ikke å sammenligne det med tobakk eller
11349 asbest.  Men analogien er rimelig når en ser det fra lovens perspektiv. Og
11350 det foreslår en rimelig respons: I stedet for å forsøke å ødelegge internett
11351 eller p2p-teknologien som i dag skader innholdsleverandører på internett, så
11352 bør vi finne en relativt enkel måte å kompensere de som blir skadelidende.
11353 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpromisestokeepfisher"></a><p>
11354 The idea would be a modification of a proposal that has been floated by
11355 Harvard law professor William Fisher.<sup>[<a name="id2896806" href="#ftn.id2896806" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
11356 Fisher suggests a very clever way around the current impasse of the
11357 Internet. Under his plan, all content capable of digital transmission would
11358 (1) be marked with a digital watermark (don't worry about how easy it is to
11359 evade these marks; as you'll see, there's no incentive to evade them). Once
11360 the content is marked, then entrepreneurs would develop (2) systems to
11361 monitor how many items of each content were distributed. On the basis of
11362 those numbers, then (3) artists would be compensated. The compensation would
11363 be paid for by (4) an appropriate tax.
11364 </p><p>
11365 Fisher's proposal is careful and comprehensive. It raises a million
11366 questions, most of which he answers well in his upcoming book,
11367 <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep</em>. The modification that I would make
11368 is relatively simple: Fisher imagines his proposal replacing the existing
11369 copyright system.  I imagine it complementing the existing system. The aim
11370 of the proposal would be to facilitate compensation to the extent that harm
11371 could be shown. This compensation would be temporary, aimed at facilitating
11372 a transition between regimes. And it would require renewal after a period of
11373 years. If it continues to make sense to facilitate free exchange of content,
11374 supported through a taxation system, then it can be continued. If this form
11375 of protection is no longer necessary, then the system could lapse into the
11376 old system of controlling access.
11377 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2897024"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2897035"></a><p>
11378
11379 Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim is
11380 not just to ensure that artists are paid, but also to ensure that the system
11381 supports the widest range of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">semiotic democracy</span>»</span> possible. But
11382 the aims of semiotic democracy would be satisfied if the other changes I
11383 described were accomplished&#8212;in particular, the limits on derivative
11384 uses. A system that simply charges for access would not greatly burden
11385 semiotic democracy if there were few limitations on what one was allowed to
11386 do with the content itself.
11387 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2897057"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2897070"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2897077"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2897084"></a><p>
11388 No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of
11389 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">harm</span>»</span> to an industry. But the difficulty of making that
11390 calculation would be outweighed by the benefit of facilitating
11391 innovation. This background system to compensate would also not need to
11392 interfere with innovative proposals such as Apple's MusicStore. As experts
11393 predicted when Apple launched the MusicStore, it could beat
11394 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> by being easier than free is. This has proven correct:
11395 Apple has sold millions of songs at even the very high price of 99 cents a
11396 song. (At 99 cents, the cost is the equivalent of a per-song CD price,
11397 though the labels have none of the costs of a CD to pay.) Apple's move was
11398 countered by Real Networks, offering music at just 79 cents a song. And no
11399 doubt there will be a great deal of competition to offer and sell music
11400 on-line.
11401 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2897118"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2897125"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2897134"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2897141"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2897150"></a><p>
11402 This competition has already occurred against the background of
11403 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> music from p2p systems. As the sellers of cable
11404 television have known for thirty years, and the sellers of bottled water for
11405 much more than that, there is nothing impossible at all about
11406 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">competing with free.</span>»</span> Indeed, if anything, the competition
11407 spurs the competitors to offer new and better products. This is precisely
11408 what the competitive market was to be about. Thus in Singapore, though
11409 piracy is rampant, movie theaters are often luxurious&#8212;with
11410 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">first class</span>»</span> seats, and meals served while you watch a
11411 movie&#8212;as they struggle and succeed in finding ways to compete with
11412 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free.</span>»</span>
11413 </p><p>
11414 Dette konkurranseregimet, med en sikringsmekanisme for å sikre at kunstnere
11415 ikke taper, ville bidra mye til nyskapning innen levering av
11416 innhold. Konkurransen ville fortsette å redusere type-A-deling.  Det ville
11417 inspirere en ekstraordinær rekke av nye innovatører&#8212;som ville ha
11418 retten til a bruke innhold, og ikke lenger frykte usikre og barbarisk
11419 strenge straffer fra loven.
11420 </p><p>
11421 Oppsummert, så er dette mitt forslag:
11422 </p><p>
11423
11424
11425
11426 Internett er i endring. Vi bør ikke regulere en teknologi i endring. Vi bør
11427 i stedet regulere for å minimere skaden påført interesser som er berørt av
11428 denne teknologiske endringen, samtidig vi muliggjør, og oppmuntrer, den mest
11429 effektive teknologien vi kan lage.
11430 </p><p>
11431 Vi kan minimere skaden og samtidig maksimere fordelen med innovasjon ved å
11432 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
11433
11434
11435 garantere retten til å engasjere seg i type-D-deling;
11436 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11437
11438
11439 tillate ikke-kommersiell type-C-deling uten erstatningsansvar, og
11440 kommersiell type-C-deling med en lav og fast rate fastsatt ved lov.
11441 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11442
11443
11444 mens denne overgangen pågår, skattlegge og kompensere for type-A-deling, i
11445 den grad faktiske skade kan påvises.
11446 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11447 Men hva om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>»</span> ikke forsvinner?  Hva om det
11448 finnes et konkurranseutsatt marked som tilbyr innhold til en lav kostnad,
11449 men et signifikant antall av forbrukere fortsetter å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span>
11450 innhold uten å betale?  Burde loven gjøre noe da?
11451 </p><p>
11452 Ja, det bør den.  Men, nok en gang, hva den bør gjøre avhenger hvordan
11453 realitetene utvikler seg. Disse endringene fjerner kanskje ikke all
11454 type-A-deling. Men det virkelige spørmålet er ikke om de eliminerer deling i
11455 abstrakt betydning.  Det virkelige spørsmålet er hvilken effekt det har på
11456 markedet.  Er det bedre (a) å ha en teknologi som er 95 prosent sikker og
11457 gir et marked av størrelse <em class="citetitle">x</em>, eller (b) å ha en
11458 teknologi som er 50 prosent sikker, og som gir et marked som er fem ganger
11459 større enn <em class="citetitle">x</em>?  Mindre sikker kan gi mer uautorisert
11460 deling, men det vil sannsynligvis også gi et mye større marked for
11461 autorisert deling. Det viktigste er å sikre kunstneres kompensasjon uten å
11462 ødelegge internettet.  Når det er på plass, kan det hende det er riktig å
11463 finne måter å spore opp de smålige piratene.
11464 </p><p>
11465
11466 Men vi er langt unna å spikke problemet ned til dette delsettet av
11467 type-A-delere.  Og vårt fokus inntil er der bør ikke være å finne måter å
11468 ødelegge internettet.  Var fokus inntil vi er der bør være hvordan sikre at
11469 artister får betalt, mens vi beskytter rommet for nyskapning og kreativitet
11470 som internettet er.
11471 </p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.5. 5. Spark en masse advokater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="firelawyers"></a>16.2.5. 5. Spark en masse advokater</h3></div></div></div><p>
11472 Jeg er en advokat. Jeg lever av å utdanne advokater. Jeg tror på loven. Jeg
11473 tror på åndsverksloven. Jeg har faktisk viet livet til å jobbe med loven,
11474 ikke fordi det er mye penger å tjene, men fordi det innebærer idealer som
11475 jeg elsker å leve opp til.
11476 </p><p>
11477 Likevel har mye av denne boken vært kritikk av advokater, eller rollen
11478 advokater har spilt i denne debatten.  Loven taler om idealer, mens det er
11479 min oppfatning av vår yrkesgruppe er blitt for knyttet til klienten.  Og i
11480 en verden der rike klienter har sterke synspunkter vil uviljen hos vår
11481 yrkesgruppe til å stille spørsmål med eller protestere mot dette sterke
11482 synet ødelegge loven.
11483 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2897369"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2897375"></a><p>
11484 Indisiene for slik bøyning er overbevisene.  Jeg er angrepet som en
11485 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikal</span>»</span> av mange innenfor yrket, og likevel er meningene jeg
11486 argumenterer for nøyaktig de meningene til mange av de mest moderate og
11487 betydningsfulle personene i historien til denne delen av loven. Mange trodde
11488 for eksempel at vår utfordring til lovforslaget om å utvide opphavsrettens
11489 vernetid var galskap.  Mens bare tredve år siden mente den dominerende
11490 foreleser og utøver i opphavsrettsfeltet, Melville Nimmer, at den var
11491 åpenbar.<sup>[<a name="id2897406" href="#ftn.id2897406" class="footnote">221</a>]</sup>
11492
11493 </p><p>
11494 Min kritikk av rollen som advokater har spilt i denne debatten handler
11495 imidlertid ikke bare om en profesjonell skjevhet. Det handler enda viktigere
11496 om vår manglende evne til å faktisk ta inn over oss hva loven koster.
11497 </p><p>
11498 Økonomer er forventet å være gode til å forstå utgifter og inntekter.  Men
11499 som oftest antar økonomene uten peiling på hvordan det juridiske systemet
11500 egentlig fungerer, at transaksjonskostnaden i det juridiske systemet er
11501 lav.<sup>[<a name="id2897445" href="#ftn.id2897445" class="footnote">222</a>]</sup>  De ser et system som har
11502 eksistert i hundrevis av år, og de antar at det fungerer slik grunnskolens
11503 samfunnsfagsundervisning lærte dem at det fungerer.
11504 </p><p>
11505
11506
11507 Men det juridiske systemet fungerer ikke. Eller for å være mer nøyaktig, det
11508 fungerer kun for de med mest ressurser.  Det er ikke fordi systemet er
11509 korrupt. Jeg tror overhodet ikke vårt juridisk system (på føderalt nivå, i
11510 hvert fall) er korrupt. Jeg mener ganske enkelt at på grunn av at kostnadene
11511 med vårt juridiske systemet er så hårreisende høyt vil en praktisk talt
11512 aldri oppnå rettferdighet.
11513 </p><p>
11514 Disse kostnadene forstyrrer fri kultur på mange vis.  En advokats tid
11515 faktureres hos de største firmaene for mer enn $400 pr. time. Hvor mye tid
11516 bør en slik advokat bruke på å lese sakene nøye, eller undersøke obskure
11517 rettskilder.  Svaret er i økende grad: svært lite. Jussen er avhengig av
11518 nøye formulering og utvikling av doktrine, men nøye formulering og utvikling
11519 av doktrine er avhengig av nøyaktig arbeid.  Men nøyaktig arbeid koster for
11520 mye, bortsett fra i de mest høyprofilerte og kostbare sakene.
11521 </p><p>
11522 Kostbarheten, klomsetheten og tilfeldigheten til dette systemet håner vår
11523 tradisjon. Og advokater, såvel som akademikere, bør se det som sin plikt å
11524 endre hvordan loven praktiseres&#8212; eller bedre, endre loven slik at den
11525 fungerer. Det er galt at systemet fungerer godt bare for den øverste
11526 1-prosenten av klientene.  Det kan gjøres radikalt mer effektivt, og billig,
11527 og dermed radikalt mer rettferdig.
11528 </p><p>
11529 Men inntil en slik reform er gjennomført, bør vi som samfunn holde lover
11530 unna områder der vi vet den bare vil skade.  Og det er nettopp det loven
11531 altfor ofte vil gjøre hvis for mye av vår kultur er lovregulert.
11532 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2897546"></a><p>
11533 Tenk på de fantastiske tingene ditt barn kan gjøre eller lage med digital
11534 teknologi&#8212;filmen, musikken, web-siden, bloggen. Eller tenk på de
11535 fantastiske tingene ditt fellesskap kunne få til med digital
11536 teknologi&#8212;en wiki, oppsetting av låve, kampanje til å endre noe. Tenk
11537 på alle de kreative tingene, og tenk deretter på kald sirup helt inn i
11538 maskinene. Dette er hva et hvert regime som krever tillatelser fører
11539 til. Dette er virkeligheten slik den var i Brezhnevs Russland.
11540 </p><p>
11541
11542 Loven bør regulere i visse områder av kulturen&#8212;men det bør regulere
11543 kultur bare der reguleringen bidrar positivt. Likevel tester advokater
11544 sjeldent sin kraft, eller kraften som de fremmer, mot dette enkle pragmatisk
11545 spørsmålet: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vil det bidra positivt?</span>»</span>.  Når de blir utfordret
11546 om det utvidede rekkevidden til loven, er advokat-svaret, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvorfor
11547 ikke?</span>»</span>
11548 </p><p>
11549 Vi burde spørre: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvorfor?</span>»</span>. Vis meg hvorfor din regulering av
11550 kultur er nødvendig og vis meg hvordan reguleringen bidrar positivt.  Før du
11551 kan vise meg begge, holde advokatene din unna.
11552 </p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894806" href="#id2894806" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
11553
11554
11555
11556 See, for example, Marc Rotenberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Information Practices and the
11557 Architecture of Privacy (What Larry Doesn't Get),</span>»</span>
11558 <em class="citetitle">Stanford Technology Law Review</em> 1 (2001):
11559 par. 6&#8211;18, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a> (describing examples in
11560 which technology defines privacy policy). See also Jeffrey Rosen,
11561 <em class="citetitle">The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious
11562 Age</em> (New York: Random House, 2004) (mapping tradeoffs between
11563 technology and privacy).</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2895419" href="#id2895419" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
11564
11565
11566 <em class="citetitle">Willful Infringement: A Report from the Front Lines of the Real
11567 Culture Wars</em> (2003), produced by Jed Horovitz, directed by Greg
11568 Hittelman, a Fiat Lucre production, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a>.
11569 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2895621" href="#id2895621" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
11570
11571
11572 The proposal I am advancing here would apply to American works only.
11573 Obviously, I believe it would be beneficial for the same idea to be adopted
11574 by other countries as well.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2895750" href="#id2895750" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
11575
11576
11577 There would be a complication with derivative works that I have not solved
11578 here. In my view, the law of derivatives creates a more complicated system
11579 than is justified by the marginal incentive it creates.
11580 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2895893" href="#id2895893" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
11581
11582
11583
11584 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Radical Rethink</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 366:8308
11585 (25. januar 2003): 15, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #74</a>.
11586 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896022" href="#id2896022" class="para">215</a>] </sup>
11587
11588
11589 Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation
11590 and/or Pension, VA Form 21-526 (OMB Approved No. 2900-0001), tilgjengelig
11591 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #75</a>.
11592 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896195" href="#id2896195" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
11593
11594
11595 Benjamin Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">An Unhurried View of Copyright</em> (New
11596 York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 32.
11597 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896220" href="#id2896220" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
11598
11599 Ibid., 56.
11600 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896306" href="#id2896306" class="para">218</a>] </sup>
11601
11602 Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the
11603 Celestial Jukebox</em> (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003),
11604 187&#8211;216.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2894821"></a>
11605 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896588" href="#id2896588" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
11606
11607
11608 For eksempel, se, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Media Watch</span>»</span>, The J@pan
11609 Inc. Newsletter, 3 April 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #76</a>.
11610 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896806" href="#id2896806" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
11611
11612 <a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments3"></a> William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital
11613 Music: Problems and Possibilities</em> (sist revidert: 10. oktober
11614 2000), tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11615 #77</a>; William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep: Technology, Law,
11616 and the Future of Entertainment</em> (kommer) (Stanford: Stanford
11617 University Press, 2004), kap. 6, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #78</a>. Professor Netanel har
11618 foreslått en relatert idé som ville gjøre at opphavsretten ikke gjelder
11619 ikke-kommersiell deling fra og ville etablere kompenasjon til kunstnere for
11620 å balansere eventuelle tap. Se Neil Weinstock Netanel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Impose a
11621 Noncommercial Use Levy to Allow Free P2P File Sharing</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig
11622 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #79</a>. For andre
11623 forslag, se Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Who's Holding Back Broadband?</span>»</span>
11624 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 8. january 2002, A17; Philip
11625 S. Corwin på vegne av Sharman Networks, Et brev til Senator Joseph R. Biden,
11626 Jr., leder i the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 26. februar. 2002,
11627 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11628 #80</a>; Serguei Osokine, <em class="citetitle">A Quick Case for Intellectual
11629 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,
11630 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kazaa, Verizon Propose to Pay Artists Directly</span>»</span>,
11631 <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 13. mai 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #82</a>; Steven M. Cherry,
11632 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Getting Copyright Right</span>»</span>, IEEE Spectrum Online, 1. juli 2002,
11633 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11634 #83</a>; Declan McCullagh, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Verizon's Copyright Campaign</span>»</span>,
11635 CNET News.com, 27. august 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #84</a>.  Forslaget fra Fisher
11636 er ganske likt forslaget til Richard Stallman når det gjelder DAT.  I
11637 motsetning til Fishers forslag, ville Stallmanns forslag ikke betale
11638 kunstnere proposjonalt, selv om mer populære artister ville få mer betalt
11639 enn mindre populære.  Slik det er typisk med Stallman, la han fram sitt
11640 forslag omtrent ti år før dagens debatt. Se <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #85</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2896960"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2896967"></a>
11641 <a class="indexterm" name="id2896974"></a>
11642 <a class="indexterm" name="id2896981"></a>
11643 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2897406" href="#id2897406" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
11644
11645
11646 Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright's First Amendment</span>»</span> (Melville
11647 B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture), <em class="citetitle">UCLA law Review</em> 48
11648 (2001): 1057, 1069&#8211;70.
11649 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2897445" href="#id2897445" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
11650
11651 Et godt eksempel er arbeidet til professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz bør få
11652 ros for sin nøye gjennomgang av data om opphavsrettsbrudd, som fikk ham til
11653 å stille spørsmål med sin egen uttalte posisjon&#8212;to ganger.  I starten
11654 forutsa han at nedlasting ville påføre industrien vesentlig skade.  Han
11655 endret så sitt syn etter i lys av dataene, og han har siden endret sitt syn
11656 på nytt.  Sammenlign Stan J. Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network
11657 Economy: The True Forces That Drive the Digital Marketplace</em> (New
11658 York: Amacom, 2002), (gikk igjennom hans originale syn men uttrykte skepsis)
11659 med Stan J.  Liebowitz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Will MP3s Annihilate the Record
11660 Industry?</span>»</span> artikkelutkast, juni 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #86</a>.  Den nøye analysen til
11661 Liebowitz er ekstremt verdifull i sin estimering av effekten av
11662 fildelingsteknologi.  Etter mitt syn underestimerer han forøvrig kostnaden
11663 til det juridiske system.  Se, for eksempel,
11664 <em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174&#8211;76.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2897421"></a>
11665 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Notater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>Notater</h2></div></div></div><p>
11666 I denne teksten er det referanser til lenker på verdensveven.  Og som alle
11667 som har forsøkt å bruke nettet vet, så vil disse lenkene være svært
11668 ustabile.  Jeg har forsøkt å motvirke denne ustabiliteten ved å omdirigere
11669 lesere til den originale kilden gjennom en nettside som hører til denne
11670 boken.  For hver lenke under, så kan du gå til http://free-culture.cc/notes
11671 og finne den originale kilden ved å klikke på nummeret etter #-tegnet.  Hvis
11672 den originale lenken fortsatt er i live, så vil du bli omdirigert til den
11673 lenken.  Hvis den originale lenken har forsvunnet, så vil du bli omdirigert
11674 til en passende referanse til materialet.
11675 </p></div><div class="chapter" title="Takk til"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>Takk til</h2></div></div></div><p>
11676 Denne boken er produktet av en lang og så langt mislykket kamp som begynte
11677 da jeg leste om Eric Eldreds krig for å sørge for at bøker forble
11678 frie. Eldreds innsats bidro til å lansere en bevegelse, fri
11679 kultur-bevegelsen, og denne boken er tilegnet ham.
11680 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2897699"></a><p>
11681 Jeg fikk veiledning på ulike steder fra venner og akademikere, inkludert
11682 Glenn Brown, Peter DiCola, Jennifer Mnookin, Richard Posner, Mark Rose og
11683 Kathleen Sullivan. Og jeg fikk korreksjoner og veiledning fra mange
11684 fantastiske studenter ved Stanford Law School og Stanford University. Det
11685 inkluderer Andrew B. Coan, John Eden, James P. Fellers, Christopher
11686 Guzelian, Erica Goldberg, Robert Hallman, Andrew Harris, Matthew Kahn,
11687 Brian-Link, Ohad Mayblum, Alina Ng og Erica Platt. Jeg er særlig takknemlig
11688 overfor Catherine Crump og Harry Surden, som hjalp til med å styre deres
11689 forskning og til Laura Lynch, som briljant håndterte hæren de samlet, samt
11690 bidro med sitt egen kritisk blikk på mye av dette.
11691 </p><p>
11692
11693 Yuko Noguchi hjalp meg å forstå lovene i Japan, så vel som Japans
11694 kultur. Jeg er henne takknemlig, og til de mange i Japan som hjalp meg med
11695 forundersøkelsene til denne boken: Joi Ito, Takayuki Matsutani, Naoto
11696 Misaki, Michihiro Sasaki, Hiromichi Tanaka, Hiroo Yamagata og Yoshihiro
11697 Yonezawa.  Jeg er også takknemlig til professor Nobuhiro Nakayama og Tokyo
11698 University Business Law Center, som ga meg muligheten til å bruke tid i
11699 Japan, og Tadashi Shiraishi og Kiyokazu Yamagami for deres generøse hjelp
11700 mens jeg var der.
11701 </p><p>
11702 Dette er de tradisjonelle former for hjelp som akademikere regelmessig
11703 trekker på. Men i tillegg til dem, har Internett gjort det mulig å motta råd
11704 og korrigering fra mange som jeg har aldri møtt.  Blant de som har svart med
11705 svært nyttig råd etter forespørsler om boken på bloggen min er Dr. Muhammed
11706 Al-Ubaydli, David Gerstein og Peter Dimauro, I tillegg en lang liste med de
11707 som hadde spesifikke idéer om måter å utvikle mine argumenter på.  De
11708 inkluderte Richard Bondi, Steven Cherry, David Coe, Nik Cubrilovic, Bob
11709 Devine, Charles Eicher, Thomas Guida, Elihu M. Gerson, Jeremy Hunsinger,
11710 Vaughn Iverson, John Karabaic, Jeff Keltner, James Lindenschmidt,
11711 K. L. Mann, Mark Manning, Nora McCauley, Jeffrey McHugh, Evan McMullen, Fred
11712 Norton, John Pormann, Pedro A. D.  Rezende, Shabbir Safdar, Saul Schleimer,
11713 Clay Shirky, Adam Shostack, Kragen Sitaker, Chris Smith, Bruce Steinberg,
11714 Andrzej Jan Taramina, Sean Walsh, Matt Wasserman, Miljenko Williams,
11715 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Wink,</span>»</span> Roger Wood, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ximmbo da Jazz,</span>»</span> og Richard
11716 Yanco. (jeg beklager hvis jeg gikk glipp av noen, med datamaskiner kommer
11717 feil og en krasj i e-postsystemet mitt gjorde at jeg mistet en haug med
11718 flotte svar.)
11719 </p><p>
11720 Richard Stallman og Michael Carroll har begge lest hele boken i utkast, og
11721 hver av dem har bidratt med svært nyttige korreksjoner og råd. Michael hjalp
11722 meg å se mer tydelig betydningen av regulering for avledede verker . Og
11723 Richard korrigerte en pinlig stor mengde feil.  Selv om mitt arbeid er
11724 delvis inspirert av Stallmans, er han ikke enig med meg på vesentlige steder
11725 i denne boken.
11726 </p><p>
11727 Til slutt, og for evig, er jeg Bettina takknemlig, som alltid har insistert
11728 på at det ville være endeløs lykke utenfor disse kampene, og som alltid har
11729 hatt rett.  Denne trege eleven er som alltid takknemlig for hennes
11730 evigvarende tålmodighet og kjærlighet.
11731 </p></div><div class="index" title="Indeks"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2897831"></a>Indeks</h2></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Symboler</h3><dl><dt>60 Minutes, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</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>Africa, medications for HIV patients in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>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: Omformerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>allemannseie (public domain)</dt><dd><dl><dt>definert, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>public projects in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>traditional term for conversion to, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Andromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>åndsverkslov</dt><dd><dl><dt>Engelsk, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Japansk, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>kreativitet hindret av, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>on republishing vs. transformation of original work, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>som beskyttelse for skapere, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>animasjonsfilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>antiretroviral drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Apple Corporation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>archive.org, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(se også Internett-arkivet)</dt></dl></dd><dt>Aristoteles, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>arkitektur, begrensninger med opphav i, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>arkiver, digitale, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Armstrong, Edwin Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>artister</dt><dd><dl><dt>musikkindustriens betaling til, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>retrospective compilations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Asia, kommersiell piratvirksomhet i, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>AT&amp;T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>automatiske piano, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>avledede verker</dt><dd><dl><dt>piratvirksomhet vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Barnes &amp; Noble, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>BBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bern-konvensjonen (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>bilder, eierskap til, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>biler, MP3-lydsystem i, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>biomedisinsk forskning, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Bitiske parlamentet, det, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>blogger (Web-logger), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>bøker</dt><dd><dl><dt>Engelsk åndsverkslov utviklet for, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>gratis online-utgivelser av, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>på internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>selge på nytt, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>totalt antall, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>tre typer bruk av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>utsolgt fra forlaget, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>bokselgere, Engelske, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Boland, Lois, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Mary, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Sonny, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>bot-er, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Boyle, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Branagh, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Brasil, fri kultur i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brezhnev, Leonid, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>browsing, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</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>CD-ROMer, filmklipp brukt i, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>CDer</dt><dd><dl><dt>mix technology and, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>opphavsrettsmerking av, <a class="indexterm" href="#marking">Merking</a></dt><dt>preference data on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>priser på, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>salgsnivå for, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>utenlands piratvirksomhet mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Coase, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>CodePink Women in Peace, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Coe, Brian, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Comcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>copyleft licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Copyright infringement lawsuits</dt><dd><dl><dt>kommersiell kreativitet som hovedformål for, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></dt><dt>Creative Commons, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Crichton, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Crosskey, William W., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>D</h3><dl><dt>Daguerre, Louis, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Daley, Elizabeth, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>dataspill, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Day After Trinity, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>DDT, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Dean, Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>demokrati</dt><dd><dl><dt>in technologies of expression, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Disney, Walt, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Douglas, William O., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>doujinshi-tegneserier, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Drahos, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>Dryden, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Duck and Cover film, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>eiendomsrettigheter</dt><dd><dl><dt>lufttrafikk mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Elektronisk forpost-stiftelsen (EFF), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>enkeltnukleotidforskjeller (SNPs), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>ephemeral films, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>epost, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>expression, technologies of</dt><dd><dl><dt>demokratisk, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>fantasifoster/chimera, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>FCC</dt><dd><dl><dt>om FM-radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>filmer</dt><dd><dl><dt>animert, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>arkiv av, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>filmindustri</dt><dd><dl><dt>luxury theatres vs. video piracy in, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>FM-radio, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Første grunnlovstillegg, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</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>free software/open-source software (FS/OSS), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>fri kultur</dt><dd><dl><dt>avledede verker basert på, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt> tillatelseskultur mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><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>General Public License (GPL), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>generiske medisiner, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Globalt posisjoneringssystem, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>GPL (General Public License), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Grimm-eventyr, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Grokster, Ltd., <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Grunnloven i USA</dt><dd><dl><dt>copyright purpose established in, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Første tillegg til, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>hacks, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>handguns, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, Konge av England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Herrera, Rebecca, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>history, records of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS therapies, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Høyesterett, USA</dt><dd><dl><dt>om luftrom mot landrettigheter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>hvis verdi, så rettighet-teorien, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: «Pirater»</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>innovasjon, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>intellectual property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>internet</dt><dd><dl><dt> effektiv innholdsdistribusjon på, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>utviklingen av, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Internet Exporer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Internett-arkivet, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Irak-krigen, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>ISPer (Internet-tilbydere), brukeridentiteter avslørt av, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Japanske tegneserier, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Jentespeidere, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>jernbaneindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Jonson, Ben, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>jurysystem, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>kabel-TV, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>kamerateknologi, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>kassettopptak, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Videospillere/opptakere, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Keaton, Buster, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</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>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Kodak-kamera, <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>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>kreativ eiendel</dt><dd><dl><dt>hvis verdi, så rettighet-teorien om, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>kreativitet</dt><dd><dl><dt>by transforming previous works, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>juridiske begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>kringkastingsflagg, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>kultur</dt><dd><dl><dt>kommersiell vs. ikke-kommersiell, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>kunst, undergrunns, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>landbrukspatenter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>landeierskap, lufttrafikk og, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>Lessing, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>libraries</dt><dd><dl><dt>arkiveringsfunksjon for, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Library of Congress, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>lovbestemte skader, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>loven</dt><dd><dl><dt>databaser med saksrapporter om, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucas, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>lufttrafikk, landeierskap mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>makt, konsentrasjon av, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>manga, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Marijuana Policy Project, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>markedsføring, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>markedskonsentrasjon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>media</dt><dd><dl><dt>eierskapskonsentrasjon i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Mehra, Salil, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Michigan Technical University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Microsoft, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>government case against, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>international software piracy of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>konkurransemessige strategier for, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Windows-operativsystemet til, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>WIPO meeting opposed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Mikke Mus, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>mobiltelefoner, musikk streamet via, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>MTV, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>MusicStore, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>musikkpublisering, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Napster, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>newspapers</dt><dd><dl><dt>arkiver av, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, Melville, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>normer, reguleringspåvirkning fra, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>noteark, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>O</h3><dl><dt>O'Connor, Sandra Day, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Olafson, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Olson, Theodore B., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Oppenheimer, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>opphavsrett</dt><dd><dl><dt>constitutional purpose of, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>varighet til, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>originalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Orwell, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Patterson, Raymond, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>peer-to-peer(p2p)-fildeling</dt><dd><dl><dt>effektiviteten til, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Picker, Randal C., <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>piratvirksomhet</dt><dd><dl><dt>avledede verk vas., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>i Asia, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt></dl></dd><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>Prelinger, Rick, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Princeton University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>protection of artists vs. business interests, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Public Enemy, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Q</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>R</h3><dl><dt>radio</dt><dd><dl><dt>FM-spektrum for, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>rap music, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>RCA, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></dt><dt>RPI (Se Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Seasons, The (Thomson), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <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>Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) (1998)</dt><dd><dl><dt>Supreme Court challenge of, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robothund produsert av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Sousa, John Philip, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>stålindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Stanford University, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Star Wars, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Statute of Monopolies (1656), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Bill, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Steamboat Willie, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Stevens, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Supermann-tegneserier, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Sutherland, Donald, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Tatel, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Tauzin, Billy, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Taylor, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>tegnefilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>tegneserier, japanske, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Television Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>televisjon</dt><dd><dl><dt>cable vs. broadcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Thurmond, Strom, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>tillatelser</dt><dd><dl><dt>fotografering som ikke trenger, <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></dl></dd><dt>tillatelseskultur</dt><dd><dl><dt> fri kultur mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Tocqueville, Alexis de, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Torvalds, Linus, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Tysk åndsverkslov, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>United Kingdom</dt><dd><dl><dt>public creative archive in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><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>Valenti, Jack</dt><dd><dl><dt> on creative property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Vanderbilt University, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>veteranpensjoner, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></dt><dt>Videospillere/opptakere, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Way Back Machine, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Wellcome Trust, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></dt><dt>White House press releases, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>World Trade Center, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>World Wide Web, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Worldcom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Wright-brødrene, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2865943">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div></body></html>