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="id3014899"></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">&#8220;<span class="quote">e.biz 25,</span>&#8221;</span> og omtalt som en av Scientific American's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">50
  20 visjonærer</span>&#8221;</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="frontpublisher"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  33 The Penguin Press, New York
  34 </p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="frontbookinfo"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  35 Fri Kultur
  36 </p><p>
  37 Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
  38 og kontrollere kreativiteten
  39 </p><p>
  40 Lawrence Lessig
  41 </p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2977916"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  42 Til Eric Eldred &#8212; hvis arbeid først trakk meg til denne saken, og for
  43 hvem saken fortsetter.
  44 </p></div><div class="toc"><dl><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">Forord</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">0. <a href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="part">I. <a href="#c-piracy"><span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">1. <a href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">2. <a href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>&#8221;</span></a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">3. <a href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">4. <a href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Pirater</span>&#8221;</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">4.1. <a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.2. <a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.3. <a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.4. <a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">5. <a href="#piracy">Kapittel fem: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</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">&#8220;<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>&#8221;</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">6. <a href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">7. <a href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">8. <a href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">9. <a href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">10. <a href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>&#8221;</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">10.1. <a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.2. <a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.3. <a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.4. <a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.5. <a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.6. <a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.7. <a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.8. <a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">III. <a href="#c-puzzles">Nøtter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">11. <a href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">12. <a href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">12.1. <a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.2. <a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.3. <a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">IV. <a href="#c-balances">Maktfordeling</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">13. <a href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">14. <a href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">15. <a href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">16. <a href="#c-afterword">Etterord</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1. <a href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1.1. <a href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.1.2. <a href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2. <a href="#themsoon">Dem, snart</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1. <a href="#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.1. <a href="#registration">Registrering og fornying</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.2. <a href="#marking">Merking</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2.2. <a href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.3. <a href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.4. <a href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.5. <a href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">17. <a href="#c-notes">Notater</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">18. <a href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#id3062423">Indeks</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Kolofon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id2978263"></a>Kolofon</h2><p>
  45 THE PENGUIN PRESS, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.  375 Hudson Street
  46 New York, New York
  47 </p><p>
  48 Opphavsrettbeskyttet © Lawrence Lessig.  Alle rettigheter reservert.
  49 </p><p>
  50 Excerpt from an editorial titled <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Coming of Copyright
  51 Perpetuity,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, January 16,
  52 2003. Copyright © 2003 by The New York Times Co.  Reprinted with
  53 permission.
  54 </p><p>
  55 Cartoon in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1711" title="Figur 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.">Figur 10.18, &#8220;VCR/handgun cartoon.&#8221;</a> by Paul Conrad, copyright Tribune
  56 Media Services, Inc.  All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
  57 </p><p>
  58 Diagram in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1761" title="Figur 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.">Figur 10.19, &#8220;Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.&#8221;</a> courtesy of the office of FCC
  59 Commissioner, Michael J. Copps.
  60 </p><p>
  61 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
  62 </p><p>
  63 Lessig, Lawrence.  Free culture : how big media uses technology and the law
  64 to lock down culture and control creativity / Lawrence Lessig.
  65 </p><p>
  66 p. cm.
  67 </p><p>
  68 Includes index.
  69 </p><p>
  70 ISBN 1-59420-006-8 (hardcover)
  71 </p><p>
  72 1. Intellectual property&#8212;United States. 2. Mass media&#8212;United
  73 States.
  74 </p><p>
  75 3. Technological innovations&#8212;United States. 4. Art&#8212;United
  76 States. I. Title.
  77 </p><p>
  78 KF2979.L47
  79 </p><p>
  80 343.7309'9&#8212;dc22
  81 </p><p>
  82 This book is printed on acid-free paper.
  83 </p><p>
  84 Printed in the United States of America
  85 </p><p>
  86 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4
  87 </p><p>
  88 Designed by Marysarah Quinn
  89 </p><p>
  90 Oversatt til bokmål av Petter Reinholdtsen og Anders Hagen
  91 Jarmund. Kildefilene til oversetterprosjektet er <a class="ulink" href="https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/free-culture-lessig" target="_top">tilgjengelig
  92 fra github</a>.  Rapporter feil med oversettelsen via github.
  93 </p><p>
  94 Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this
  95 publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval
  96 system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
  97 photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission
  98 of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.
  99 </p><p>
 100 The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the Internet or
 101 via any other means without the permission of the publisher is illegal and
 102 punishable by law.  Please purchase only authorized electronic editions and
 103 do not participate in or encourage electronic piracy of copyrighted
 104 materials. Your support of the author's rights is appreciated.
 105 </p></div><div class="preface" title="Forord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="preface"></a>Forord</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpoguedavid"></a><p>
 106 <span class="bold"><strong>På slutten av</strong></span> hans gjennomgang av min
 107 første bok <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace</em>, skrev
 108 David Pogue, en glimrende skribent og forfatter av utallige tekniske
 109 datarelaterte tekster, dette:
 110 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 111 I motsetning til faktiske lover, så har ikke internett-programvare
 112 kapasiteten til å straffe.  Den påvirker ikke folk som ikke er online (og
 113 kun en veldig liten minoritet av verdens befolkning er online).  Og hvis du
 114 ikke liker systemet på internett, så kan du alltid slå av
 115 modemet.<sup>[<a name="preface01" href="#ftn.preface01" class="footnote">1</a>]</sup>
 116 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 117 Pogue var skeptisk til argumentet som er kjernen av boken &#8212; at
 118 programvaren, eller <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">koden</span>&#8221;</span>, fungerte som en slags lov &#8212;
 119 og foreslo i sin anmeldelse den lykkelig tanken at hvis livet i cyberspace
 120 gikk dårlig, så kan vi alltid som med en trylleformel slå over en bryter og
 121 komme hjem igjen. Slå av modemet, koble fra datamaskinen, og eventuelle
 122 problemer som finnes <span class="emphasis"><em>den</em></span> virkeligheten ville ikke
 123 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">påvirke</span>&#8221;</span> oss mer.
 124 </p><p>
 125
 126 Pogue kan ha hatt rett i 1999 &#8212; jeg er skeptisk, men det kan
 127 hende. Men selv om han hadde rett da, så er ikke argumentet gyldig
 128 nå. <em class="citetitle">Fri Kultur</em> er om problemene internett forårsaker
 129 selv etter at modemet er slått av.  Den er et argument om hvordan slagene
 130 som nå brer om seg i livet on-line har fundamentalt påvirket <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">folk som
 131 er ikke pålogget.</span>&#8221;</span>  Det finnes ingen bryter som kan isolere oss fra
 132 internettets effekt.
 133 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2978089"></a><p>
 134 Men i motsetning til i boken <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, er argumentet her
 135 ikke så mye om internett i seg selv. Istedet er det om konsekvensen av
 136 internett for en del av vår tradisjon som er mye mer grunnleggende, og
 137 uansett hvor hardt dette er for en geek-wanna-be å innrømme, mye viktigere.
 138 </p><p>
 139 Den tradisjonen er måten vår kultur blir laget på.  Som jeg vil forklare i
 140 sidene som følger, kommer vi fra en tradisjon av <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fri
 141 kultur</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;ikke <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fri</span>&#8221;</span> som i <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fri bar</span>&#8221;</span>
 142 (for å låne et uttrykk fra stifteren av fri
 143 programvarebevegelsen<sup>[<a name="id2978733" href="#ftn.id2978733" class="footnote">2</a>]</sup>), men
 144 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fri</span>&#8221;</span> som i <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">talefrihet</span>&#8221;</span>, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fritt
 145 marked</span>&#8221;</span>, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">frihandel</span>&#8221;</span>, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fri konkurranse</span>&#8221;</span>,
 146 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fri vilje</span>&#8221;</span> og <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">frie valg</span>&#8221;</span>.  En fri kultur støtter
 147 og beskytter skapere og oppfinnere.  Dette gjør den direkte ved å tildele
 148 immaterielle rettigheter.  Men det gjør den indirekte ved å begrense
 149 rekkevidden for disse rettighetene, for å garantere at neste generasjon
 150 skapere og oppfinnere forblir <span class="emphasis"><em>så fri som mulig</em></span> fra
 151 kontroll fra fortiden.  En fri kultur er ikke en kultur uten eierskap, like
 152 lite som et fritt marked er et marked der alt er gratis.  Det motsatte av
 153 fri kultur er <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">tillatelseskultur</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;en kultur der skapere
 154 kun kan skape med tillatelse fra de mektige, eller fra skaperne fra
 155 fortiden.
 156 </p><p>
 157 Hvis vi forsto denne endringen, så tror jeg vi ville stå imot den.  Ikke
 158 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">vi</span>&#8221;</span> på venstresiden eller <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">dere</span>&#8221;</span> på høyresiden,
 159 men vi som ikke har investert i den spesifikke kulturindustrien som har
 160 definert det tjuende århundre. Enten du er på venstre eller høyresiden, hvis
 161 du i denne forstand ikke har interesser, vil historien jeg forteller her gi
 162 deg problemer. For endringene jeg beskriver påvirker verdier som begge sider
 163 av vår politiske kultur anser som grunnleggende.
 164 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2978815"></a><p>
 165 Vi så et glimt av dette tverrpolitiske raseri på forsommeren i 2003. Da FCC
 166 vurderte endringer i reglene for medieeierskap som ville slakke på
 167 begrensningene rundt mediekonsentrasjon, sendte en ekstraordinær koalisjon
 168 mer enn 700 000 brev til FCC for å motsette seg endringen.  Mens William
 169 Safire beskrev å marsjere <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ubehagelig sammen med CodePink Women for
 170 Peace and the National Rifle Association, mellom liberale Olympia Snowe og
 171 konservative Ted Stevens</span>&#8221;</span>, formulerte han  kanskje det enkleste
 172 uttrykket for hva som var på spill: konsentrasjonen av makt.  Så spurte han:
 173 <a class="indexterm" name="id2978844"></a>
 174 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 175 Høres dette ikke-konservativt ut?  Ikke for meg.  Denne konsentrasjonen av
 176 makt&#8212;politisk, selskapsmessig, pressemessig, kulturelt&#8212;bør være
 177 bannlyst av konservative.  Spredningen av makt gjennom lokal kontroll, og
 178 derigjennom oppmuntre til individuell deltagelse, er essensen i føderalismen
 179 og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<sup>[<a name="id2978867" href="#ftn.id2978867" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
 180 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 181 Denne idéen er et element i argumentet til <em class="citetitle">Fri
 182 Kultur</em>, selv om min fokus ikke bare er på konsentrasjonen av
 183 makt som følger av konsentrasjonen i eierskap, men mer viktig, og fordi det
 184 er mindre synlig, på konsentrasjonen av makt som er resultat av en radikal
 185 endring i det effektive virkeområdet til loven.  Loven er i endring, og
 186 endringen forandrer på hvordan vår kultur blir skapt. Den endringen bør
 187 bekymre deg&#8212;Uansett om du bryr deg om internett eller ikke, og uansett
 188 om du er til venstre for Safires eller til høyre. Inspirasjonen til tittelen
 189 og mye av argumentet i denne boken kommer fra arbeidet til Richard Stallman
 190 og Free Software Foundation. Faktisk, da jeg leste Stallmans egne tekster på
 191 nytt, spesielt essyene i <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free Society</em>,
 192 innser jeg at alle de teoretiske innsiktene jeg utvikler her er innsikter
 193 som Stallman beskrev for tiår siden.  Man kan dermed godt argumentere for at
 194 dette verket <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kun</span>&#8221;</span> er et avledet verk.
 195 </p><p>
 196
 197 Jeg godtar kritikken, hvis det faktisk er kritikk.  Arbeidet til en advokat
 198 er alltid avledede verker, og jeg mener ikke å gjøre noe mer i denne boken
 199 enn å minne en kultur om en tradisjon som alltid har vært deres egen. Som
 200 Stallman forsvarer jeg denne tradisjonen på grunnlag av verdier. Som
 201 Stallman tror jeg dette er verdiene til frihet.  Og som Stallman, tror jeg
 202 dette er verdier fra vår fortid som må forsvares i vår fremtid.  En fri
 203 kultur har vært vår fortid, men vil bare være vår fremtid hvis vi endrer
 204 retningen vi følger akkurat nå.  På samme måte som Stallmans argumenter for
 205 fri programvare, treffer argumenter for en fri kultur på forvirring som er
 206 vanskelig å unngå, og enda vanskeligere å forstå.  En fri kultur er ikke en
 207 kultur uten eierskap. Det er ikke en kultur der kunstnere ikke får
 208 betalt. En kultur uten eierskap eller en der skaperne ikke kan få betalt, er
 209 anarki, ikke frihet.  Anarki er ikke hva jeg fremmer her.
 210 </p><p>
 211 I stedet er den frie kulturen som jeg forsvarer i denne boken en balanse
 212 mellom anarki og kontroll.  En fri kultur, i likhet med et fritt marked, er
 213 fylt med eierskap.  Den er fylt med regler for eierskap og kontrakter som
 214 blir håndhevet av staten.  Men på samme måte som det frie markedet blir
 215 pervertert hvis dets eierskap blir føydalt, så kan en fri kultur bli ødelagt
 216 av ekstremisme i eierskapsrettighetene som definerer den.  Det er dette jeg
 217 frykter om vår kultur i dag.  Det er som motpol til denne ekstremismen at
 218 denne boken er skrevet.
 219 </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>
 220 David Pogue, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Don't Just Chat, Do Something,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New
 221 York Times</em>, 30. januar 2000
 222 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2978733" href="#id2978733" class="para">2</a>] </sup>
 223 Richard M. Stallman, <em class="citetitle">Fri programvare, Frie samfunn</em> 57
 224 (Joshua Gay, red. 2002).
 225 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2978867" href="#id2978867" class="para">3</a>] </sup> William Safire, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Great Media Gulp,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
 226 Times</em>, 22. mai 2003.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2978878"></a>
 227 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 0. Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Kapittel 0. Introduksjon</h2></div></div></div><p>
 228 17. desember 1903, på en vindfylt strand i Nord-Carolina i såvidt under
 229 hundre sekunder, demonstrerte Wright-brødrene at et selvdrevet fartøy tyngre
 230 enn luft kunne fly.  Øyeblikket var elektrisk, og dens betydning ble alment
 231 forstått. Nesten umiddelbart, eksploderte interessen for denne nye
 232 teknologien som muliggjorde bemannet luftfart og en hærskare av oppfinnere
 233 begynte å bygge videre på den.
 234 </p><p>
 235 Da Wright-brødrene fant opp flymaskinen, hevdet loven i USA at en grunneier
 236 ble antatt å eie ikke bare overflaten på området sitt, men også alt landet
 237 under bakken, helt ned til senterpunktet i jorda, og alt volumet over
 238 bakken, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover</span>&#8221;</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3034804" href="#ftn.id3034804" class="footnote">4</a>]</sup> I mange år undret lærde over hvordan en best skulle tolke idéen om
 239 at eiendomsretten gikk helt til himmelen. Betød dette at du eide stjernene?
 240 Kunne en dømme gjess for at de regelmessig og med vilje tok seg inn på annen
 241 manns eiendom?
 242 </p><p>
 243 Så kom flymaskiner, og for første gang hadde dette prinsippet i lovverket i
 244 USA&#8212;dypt nede i grunnlaget for vår tradisjon og akseptert av de
 245 viktigste juridiske tenkerne i vår fortid&#8212;en betydning. Hvis min
 246 eiendom rekker til himmelen, hva skjer når United flyr over mitt område?
 247 Har jeg rett til å nekte dem å bruke min eiendom?  Har jeg mulighet til å
 248 inngå en eksklusiv avtale med Delta Airlines?  Kan vi gjennomføre en auksjon
 249 for å finne ut hvor mye disse rettighetene er verdt?
 250 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3034824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3034849"></a><p>
 251 I 1945 ble disse spørsmålene en føderal sak. Da bøndene Thomas Lee og Tinie
 252 Causby i Nord Carolina begynte å miste kyllinger på grunn av lavtflygende
 253 militære fly (vettskremte kyllinger fløy tilsynelatende i låveveggene og
 254 døde), saksøkte Causbyene regjeringen for å trenge seg inn på deres
 255 eiendom. Flyene rørte selvfølgelig aldri overflaten på Causbys' eiendom. Men
 256 hvis det stemte som Blackstone, Kent, og Cola hadde sagt, at deres eiendom
 257 strakk seg <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover,</span>&#8221;</span> så hadde regjeringen
 258 trengt seg inn på deres eiendom, og Causbys ønsket å sette en stopper for
 259 dette.
 260 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3034875"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3034881"></a><p>
 261 Høyesterett gikk med på å ta opp Causbys sak. Kongressen hadde vedtatt at
 262 luftfartsveiene var tilgjengelig for alle, men hvis ens eiendom virkelig
 263 rakk til himmelen, da kunne muligens kongressens vedtak ha vært i strid med
 264 grunnlovens forbud mot å <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ta</span>&#8221;</span> eiendom uten kompensasjon.
 265 Retten erkjente at <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">det er gammel doktrine etter sedvane at en eiendom
 266 rakk til utkanten av universet.</span>&#8221;</span>, men dommer Douglas hadde ikke
 267 tålmodighet for forhistoriske doktriner.  I et enkelt avsnitt, ble hundrevis
 268 av år med eiendomslovgivningen strøket. Som han skrev på vegne av retten,
 269 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 270 [Denne] doktrinen har ingen plass i den moderne verden.  Luften er en
 271 offentlig motorvei, slik kongressen har erklært.  Hvis det ikke var
 272 tilfelle, ville hver eneste transkontinentale flyrute utsette operatørene
 273 for utallige søksmål om inntrenging på annen manns eiendom.  Idéen er i
 274 strid med sunn fornuft.  Å anerkjenne slike private krav til luftrommet
 275 ville blokkere disse motorveiene, seriøst forstyrre muligheten til kontroll
 276 og utvikling av dem i fellesskapets interesse og overføre til privat
 277 eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.<sup>[<a name="id3034933" href="#ftn.id3034933" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
 278 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 279 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>&#8221;</span>
 280 </p><p>
 281
 282 Det er hvordan loven vanligvis fungerer.  Ikke ofte like brått eller
 283 utålmodig, men til slutt er dette hvordan loven fungerer.  Det var ikke
 284 stilen til Douglas å utbrodere.  Andre dommere ville ha skrevet mange flere
 285 sider før de nådde sin konklusjon, men for Douglas holdt det med en enkel
 286 linje: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>&#8221;</span>.  Men uansett om
 287 det tar flere sider eller kun noen få ord, så er det en genial egenskap med
 288 et rettspraksis-system, slik som vårt er, at loven tilpasser seg til
 289 aktuelle teknologiene.  Og mens den tilpasser seg, så endres den.  Idéer som
 290 var solide som fjell i en tidsalder knuses i en annen.
 291 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3035018"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3035025"></a><p>
 292 Eller, det er hvordan ting skjer når det ikke er noen mektige på andre siden
 293 av endringen.  Causbyene var bare bønder.  Og selv om det uten tvil var
 294 mange som dem som var lei av den økende trafikken i luften (og en håper ikke
 295 for mange kyllinger flakset seg inn i vegger), ville Causbyene i verden
 296 finne det svært hardt å samles for å stoppe idéen, og teknologien, som
 297 Wright-brødrene hadde ført til verden.  Wright-brødrene spyttet flymaskiner
 298 inn i den teknologiske meme-dammen. Idéen spredte seg deretter som et virus
 299 i en kyllingfarm. Causbyene i verden fant seg selv omringet av <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">det
 300 synes rimelig</span>&#8221;</span> gitt teknologien som Wright-brødrene hadde produsert.
 301 De kunne stå på sine gårder, med døde kyllinger i hendene, og heve
 302 knyttneven mot disse nye teknologiene så mye de ville.  De kunne ringe sine
 303 representanter eller til og med saksøke.  Men når alt kom til alt, ville
 304 kraften i det som virket <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">åpenbart</span>&#8221;</span> for alle andre&#8212;makten
 305 til <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;ville vinne frem.  Deres
 306 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">personlige interesser</span>&#8221;</span> ville ikke få lov til å nedkjempe en
 307 åpenbar fordel for fellesskapet.
 308 </p><p>
 309 Edwin Howard Armstrong er en av USAs glemte oppfinnergenier. Han dukket opp
 310 på oppfinnerscenen etter titaner som Thomas Edison og Alexander Graham
 311 Bell.  Alle hans bidrag på området radioteknologi gjør han til kanskje den
 312 viktigste av alle enkeltoppfinnere i de første femti årene av radio.  Han
 313 var bedre utdannet enn Michael Faraday, som var bokbinderlærling da han
 314 oppdaget elektrisk induksjon i 1831.  Men han hadde like god intuisjon om
 315 hvordan radioverden virket, og ved minst tre anledninger, fant Armstrong opp
 316 svært viktig teknologier som brakte vår forståelse av radio et hopp videre.
 317 <a class="indexterm" name="id3035090"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3035099"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3035106"></a>
 318 </p><p>
 319 Dagen etter julaften i 1933, ble fire patenter utstedt til Armstrong for
 320 hans mest signifikante oppfinnelse&#8212;FM-radio.  Inntil da hadde
 321 forbrukerradioer vært amplitude-modulert (AM) radio.  Tidens teoretikere
 322 hadde sagt at frekvens-modulert (FM) radio.  De hadde rett når det gjelder
 323 et smalt bånd av spektrumet.  Men Armstrong oppdaget at frekvens-modulert
 324 radio i et vidt bånd i spektrumet leverte en forbløffende gjengivelse av
 325 lyd, med mye mindre senderstyrke og støy.
 326 </p><p>
 327 Den 5. november 1935 demonstrerte han teknologien på et møte hos institutt
 328 for radioingeniører ved Empire State-bygningen i New York City.  Han vred
 329 radiosøkeren over en rekke AM-stasjoner, inntil radioen låste seg mot en
 330 kringkasting som han hadde satt opp 27 kilometer unna.  Radioen ble helt
 331 stille, som om den var død, og så, med en klarhet ingen andre i rommet noen
 332 gang hadde hørt fra et elektrisk apparat, produserte det lyden av en
 333 opplesers stemme: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Dette er amatørstasjon W2AG ved Yonkers, New York,
 334 som opererer på frekvensmodulering ved to og en halv meter.</span>&#8221;</span>
 335 </p><p>
 336 Publikum hørte noe ingen hadde trodd var mulig:
 337 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 338 Et glass vann ble fylt opp foran mikrofonen i Yonkers, og det hørtes ut som
 339 et glass som ble fylt opp. &#8230; Et papir ble krøllet og revet opp, og
 340 det hørtes ut som papir og ikke som en sprakende skogbrann. &#8230;
 341 Sousa-marsjer ble spilt av fra plater og en pianosolo og et gitarnummer ble
 342 utført. &#8230; Musikken ble presentert med en livaktighet som sjeldent om
 343 noen gang før hadde vært hørt fra en
 344 radio-<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">musikk-boks</span>&#8221;</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3035184" href="#ftn.id3035184" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
 345 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 346
 347 Som vår egen sunn fornuft forteller oss, hadde Armstrong oppdaget en mye
 348 bedre radioteknologi.  Men på tidspunktet for hans oppfinnelse, jobbet
 349 Armstrong for RCA. RCA var den dominerende aktøren i det da dominerende
 350 AM-radiomarkedet. I 1935 var det tusen radiostasjoner over hele USA, men
 351 stasjonene i de store byene var alle eid av en liten håndfull selskaper.
 352
 353 </p><p>
 354 Presidenten i RCA, David Sarnoff, en venn av Armstrong, var ivrig etter å få
 355 Armstrong til å oppdage en måte å fjerne støyen fra AM-radio. Så Sarnoff var
 356 ganske spent da Armstrong fortalte ham at han hadde en enhet som fjernet
 357 støy fra <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">radio.</span>&#8221;</span>.   Men da Armstrong demonstrerte sin
 358 oppfinnelse, var ikke Sarnoff fornøyd.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3035228"></a>
 359 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 360 Jeg trodde Armstrong ville finne opp et slags filter for å fjerne skurring
 361 fra AM-radioen vår. Jeg trodde ikke han skulle starte en revolusjon &#8212;
 362 starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.<sup>[<a name="id3035118" href="#ftn.id3035118" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
 363 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 364 Armstrongs oppfinnelse truet RCAs AM-herredømme, så selskapet lanserte en
 365 kampanje for å knuse FM-radio. Mens FM kan ha vært en overlegen teknologi,
 366 var Sarnoff en overlegen taktiker. En forfatter beskrev det slik,
 367 <a class="indexterm" name="id3035272"></a>
 368 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 369 Kreftene til fordel for FM, i hovedsak ingeniørfaglige, kunne ikke overvinne
 370 tyngden til strategien utviklet av avdelingene for salg, patenter og juss
 371 for å undertrykke denne trusselen til selskapets posisjon.  For FM utgjorde,
 372 hvis det fikk utvikle seg uten begrensninger &#8230; en komplett endring i
 373 maktforholdene rundt radio &#8230; og muligens fjerningen av det nøye
 374 begrensede AM-systemet som var grunnlaget for RCA stigning til
 375 makt.<sup>[<a name="id3035299" href="#ftn.id3035299" class="footnote">8</a>]</sup>
 376 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 377 RCA holdt først teknologien innomhus, og insistere på at det var nødvendig
 378 med ytterligere tester. Da Armstrong, etter to år med testing, ble
 379 utålmodig, begynte RCA å bruke sin makt hos myndighetene til holde tilbake
 380 den generelle spredningen av FM-radio. I 1936, ansatte RCA den tidligere
 381 lederen av FCC og ga ham oppgaven med å sikre at FCC tilordnet
 382 radiospekteret på en måte som ville kastrere FM&#8212;hovedsakelig ved å
 383 flytte FM-radio til et annet band i spekteret. I første omgang lyktes ikke
 384 disse forsøkene.  Men mens Armstrong og nasjonen var distrahert av andre
 385 verdenskrig, begynte RCAs arbeid å bære frukter.  Like etter at krigen var
 386 over, annonserte FCC et sett med avgjørelser som ville ha en klar effekt:
 387 FM-radio ville bli forkrøplet.Lawrence lessing beskrevet det slik,
 388 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 389 Serien med slag mot kroppen som FM-radio mottok rett etter krigen, i en
 390 serie med avgjørelser manipulert gjennom FCC av de store radiointeressene,
 391 var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.<sup>[<a name="id3035315" href="#ftn.id3035315" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
 392 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3035354"></a><p>
 393 For å gjøre plass i spektrumet for RCAs nyeste satsingsområde, televisjon,
 394 skulle FM-radioens brukere flyttes til et helt nytt band i spektrumet.
 395 Sendestyrken til FM-radioene ble også redusert, og gjorde at FM ikke lenger
 396 kunne brukes for å sende programmer fra en del av landet til en annen.
 397 (Denne endringen ble sterkt støttet av AT&amp;T, på grunn av at fjerningen
 398 av FM-videresendingsstasjoner ville bety at radiostasjonene ville bli nødt
 399 til å kjøpe kablede linker fra AT&amp;T.)  Spredningen av FM-radio var
 400 dermed kvalt, i hvert fall midlertidig.
 401 </p><p>
 402 Armstrong sto imot RCAs innsats. Som svar motsto RCA Armstrongs patenter.
 403 Etter å ha bakt FM-teknologi inn i den nye standarden for TV, erklærte RCS
 404 patentene ugyldige&#8212;uten grunn og nesten femten år etter at de ble
 405 utstedet.  De nektet dermed å betale ham for bruken av patentene.  I seks år
 406 kjempet Armstrong en dyr søksmålskrig for å forsvare patentene sine.  Til
 407 slutt, samtidig som patentene utløp, tilbød RCA et forlik så lavt at det
 408 ikke engang dekket Armstrongs advokatregning.  Beseiret, knust og nå blakk,
 409 skrev Armstrong i 1954 en kort beskjed til sin kone, før han gikk ut av et
 410 vindu i trettende etasje og falt i døden.
 411 </p><p>
 412
 413 Dette er slik loven virker noen ganger.  Ikke ofte like tragisk, og sjelden
 414 med heltemodig drama, men noen ganger er det slik det virker. Fra starten
 415 har myndigheter og myndighetsorganer blitt tatt til fange. Det er mer
 416 sannsynlig at de blir fanget når en mektig interesse er truet av enten en
 417 juridisk eller teknologisk endring.  Denne mektige interessen utøver for
 418 ofte sin innflytelse hos myndighetene til å få myndighetene til å beskytte
 419 den.  Retorikken for denne beskyttelsen er naturligvis alltid med fokus på
 420 fellesskapets beste.  Realiteten er noe annet.  Idéer som kan være solide
 421 som fjell i en tidsalder, men som overlatt til seg selv, vil falle sammen i
 422 en annen, er videreført gjennom denne subtile korrupsjonen i vår politiske
 423 prosess.  RCA hadde hva Causby-ene ikke hadde: Makten til å undertrykke
 424 effekten av en teknologisk endring.
 425 </p><p>
 426 Det er ingen enkeltoppfinner av Internet.  Ei heller er det en god dato som
 427 kan brukes til å markere når det ble født.  Likevel har internettet i løpet
 428 av svært kort tid blitt en del av vanlige amerikaneres liv.  I følge the Pew
 429 Internet and American Life-prosjektet, har 58 prosent av amerikanerne hatt
 430 tilgang til internettet i 2002, opp fra 49 prosent to år
 431 tidligere.<sup>[<a name="id2977287" href="#ftn.id2977287" class="footnote">10</a>]</sup> Det tallet kan uten
 432 problemer passere to tredjedeler av nasjonen ved utgangen av 2004.
 433 </p><p>
 434 Etter hvert som internett er blitt integrert inn i det vanlige liv har ting
 435 blitt endret.  Noen av disse endringene er teknisk&#8212;internettet har
 436 gjort kommunikasjon raskere, det har redusert kostnaden med å samle inn
 437 data, og så videre.  Disse tekniske endringene er ikke fokus for denne
 438 boken.  De er viktige.  De er ikke godt forstått.  Men de er den type ting
 439 som ganske enkelt ville blir borte hvis vi alle bare slo av internettet.  De
 440 påvirker ikke folk som ikke bruker internettet, eller i det miste påvirker
 441 det ikke dem direkte.  De er et godt tema for en bok om internettet.  Men
 442 dette er ikke en bok om internettet.
 443 </p><p>
 444 I stedet er denne boken om effekten av internettet ut over internettet i seg
 445 selv.  En effekt på hvordan kultur blir skapt.  Min påstand er at
 446 internettet har ført til en viktig og ukjent endring i denne prosessen.
 447 Denne endringen vil forandre en tradisjon som er like gammel som republikken
 448 selv.  De fleste, hvis de la merke til denne endringen, ville avvise den.
 449 Men de fleste legger ikke engang merke til denne endringen som internettet
 450 har introdusert.
 451 </p><p>
 452 Vi kan få en følelse av denne endringen ved å skille mellom kommersiell og
 453 ikke-kommersiell kultur, ved å knytte lovens reguleringer til hver av dem.
 454 Med <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kommersiell kultur</span>&#8221;</span> mener jeg den delen av vår kultur som
 455 er produsert og solgt eller produsert for å bli solgt.  Med
 456 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ikke-kommersiell kultur</span>&#8221;</span> mener jeg alt det andre. Da gamle
 457 menn satt rundt i parker eller på gatehjørner og fortalte historier som
 458 unger og andre lyttet til, så var det ikke-kommersiell kultur.  Da Noah
 459 Webster publiserte sin <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Reader</span>&#8221;</span>, eller Joel Barlow sin poesi,
 460 så var det kommersiell kultur.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2977374"></a>
 461 <a class="indexterm" name="id2977383"></a>
 462 </p><p>
 463 Fra historisk tid, og for omtrent hele vår tradisjon, har ikke-kommersiell
 464 kultur i hovedsak ikke vært regulert.  Selvfølgelig, hvis din historie var
 465 utuktig, eller hvis dine sanger forstyrret freden, kunne loven gripe inn.
 466 Men loven var aldri direkte interessert i skapingen eller spredningen av
 467 denne form for kultur, og lot denne kulturen være <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fri</span>&#8221;</span>.  Den
 468 vanlige måten som vanlige individer delte og formet deres
 469 kultur&#8212;historiefortelling, formidling av scener fra teater eller TV,
 470 delta i fan-klubber, deling av musikk, laging av kassetter&#8212;ble ikke
 471 styrt av lovverket.
 472 </p><p>
 473 Fokuset på loven var kommersiell kreativitet.  I starten forsiktig, etter
 474 hvert betraktelig, beskytter loven insentivet til skaperne ved å tildele dem
 475 en eksklusiv rett til deres kreative verker, slik at de kan selge disse
 476 eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.<sup>[<a name="id3035711" href="#ftn.id3035711" class="footnote">11</a>]</sup> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
 477 kreativitet og kultur, og det har blitt en viktigere og viktigere del i
 478 USA.  Men det var på ingen måte dominerende i vår tradisjon.  Det var i
 479 stedet bare en del, en kontrollert del, balansert mot det frie.
 480 </p><p>
 481 Denne grove inndelingen mellom den frie og den kontrollerte har nå blitt
 482 fjernet.<sup>[<a name="id3035753" href="#ftn.id3035753" class="footnote">12</a>]</sup> Internettet har satt scenen
 483 for denne fjerningen, og pressen frem av store medieaktører har loven nå
 484 påvirket det.  For første gang i vår tradisjon, har de vanlige måtene som
 485 individer skaper og deler kultur havnet innen rekekvidde for reguleringene
 486 til loven, som har blitt utvidet til å dra inn i sitt kontrollområde den
 487 enorme mengden kultur og kreativitet som den aldri tidligere har nådd over.
 488 Teknologien som tok vare på den historiske balansen&#8212;mellom bruken av
 489 den delen av kulturen vår som var fri og bruken av vår kultur som krevde
 490 tillatelse&#8212;har blitt borte.  Konsekvensen er at vi er mindre og mindre
 491 en fri kultur, og mer og mer en tillatelseskultur.
 492 </p><p>
 493 Denne endringen blir rettferdiggjort som nødvendig for å beskytte
 494 kommersiell kreativitet.  Og ganske riktig, proteksjonisme er nøyaktig det
 495 som motiverer endringen.  Men proteksjonismen som rettferdiggjør endringene
 496 som jeg skal beskrive lenger ned er ikke den begrensede og balanserte typen
 497 som har definert loven tidligere.  Dette er ikke en proteksjonisme for å
 498 beskytte artister.  Det er i stedet en proteksjonisme for å beskytte
 499 bestemte forretningsformer.  Selskaper som er truet av potensialet til
 500 internettet for å endre måten både kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell kultur
 501 blir skapt og delt, har samlet seg for å få lovgiverne til å bruke loven for
 502 å beskytte selskapene.  Dette er historien om RCA og Armstrong, og det er
 503 drømmen til Causbyene.
 504 </p><p>
 505 For internettet har sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mulighet for mange til å
 506 delta i prosessen med å bygge og kultivere en kultur som rekker lagt utenfor
 507 lokale grenselinjer.  Den makten har endret markedsplassen for å lage og
 508 kultivere kultur generelt, og den endringen truer i neste omgang etablerte
 509 innholdsindustrier. Internettet er dermed for industriene som bygget og
 510 distribuerte innhold i det tjuende århundret hva FM-radio var for AM-radio,
 511 eller hva traileren var for jernbaneindustrien i det nittende århundret:
 512 begynnelsen på slutten, eller i hvert fall en markant endring. Digitale
 513 teknologier, knyttet til internettet, kunne produsere et mye mer
 514 konkurransedyktig og levende marked for å bygge og kultivere kultur.  Dette
 515 markedet kunne inneholde en mye videre og mer variert utvalg av skapere.
 516 Disse skaperne kunne produsere og distribuere et mye mer levende utvalg av
 517 kreativitet. Og avhengig av noen få viktige faktorer, så kunne disse
 518 skaperne tjenere mer i snitt fra dette systemet enn skaperne gjør i
 519 dag&#8212;så lenge RCA-ene av i dag ikke bruker loven til å beskytte dem
 520 selv mot denne konkurransen.
 521 </p><p>
 522 Likevel, som jeg argumenterer for i sidene som følger, er dette nøyaktig det
 523 som skjer i vår kultur i dag.  Dette som er dagens ekvivalenter til tidlig
 524 tjuende århundres radio og nittende århundres jernbaner bruker deres makt
 525 til å få loven til å beskytte dem mot dette nye, mer effektive, mer levende
 526 teknologi for å bygge kultur. De lykkes i deres plan om å gjøre om
 527 internettet før internettet gjør om på dem.
 528 </p><p>
 529 Det ser ikke slik ut for mange.  Kamphandlingene over opphavsrett og
 530 internettet er fjernt for de fleste.  For de få som følger dem, virker de i
 531 hovedsak å handle om et enklere sett med spørsmål&#8212;hvorvidt
 532 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span> vil bli akseptert, og hvorvidt
 533 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>&#8221;</span> vil bli beskyttet.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Krigen</span>&#8221;</span> som
 534 har blitt erklært mot teknologiene til internettet&#8212;det presidenten for
 535 Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) Jack Valenti kaller sin
 536 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">egen terroristkrig</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3035894" href="#ftn.id3035894" class="footnote">13</a>]</sup>&#8212;har blitt rammet inn som en kamp om å følge loven og
 537 respektere eiendomsretten.  For å vite hvilken side vi bør ta i denne
 538 krigen, de fleste tenker at vi kun trenger å bestemme om hvorvidt vi er for
 539 eiendomsrett eller mot den.
 540 </p><p>
 541 Hvis dette virkelig var alternativene, så ville jeg være enig med Jack
 542 Valenti og innholdsindustrien.  Jeg tror også på eiendomsretten, og spesielt
 543 på viktigheten av hva Mr. Valenti så pent kaller <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kreativ
 544 eiendomsrett</span>&#8221;</span>.  Jeg tror at <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span> er galt,
 545 og at loven, riktig innstilt, bør straffe <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span>,
 546 både på og utenfor internettet.
 547 </p><p>
 548 Men disse enkle trosoppfatninger maskerer et mye mer grunnleggende spørsmål
 549 og en mye mer dramatisk endring. Min frykt er at med mindre vi begynner å
 550 legge merke til denne endringen, så vil krigen for å befri verden fra
 551 internettets <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirater</span>&#8221;</span> også fjerne verdier fra vår kultur som
 552 har vært integrert til vår tradisjon helt fra starten.
 553 </p><p>
 554 Disse verdiene bygget en tradisjon som, for i hvert fall de første 180 årene
 555 av vår republikk, garanterte skaperne rettigheten til å bygge fritt på deres
 556 fortid, og beskyttet skaperne og innovatørene fra både statlig og privat
 557 kontroll.  Det første grunnlovstillegget beskyttet skaperne fra statlig
 558 kontroll.  Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,<sup>[<a name="id3035973" href="#ftn.id3035973" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
 559 skaperne mot privat kontroll.  Vår tradisjon var dermed hverken Sovjet eller
 560 tradisjonen til velgjørere.  I stedet skar det ut en bred manøvreringsrom
 561 hvor skapere kunne kultivere og utvide vår kultur.
 562 </p><p>
 563 Likevel har lovens respons til internettet, når det knyttes sammen til
 564 endringer i teknologien i internettet selv, ført til massiv økting av den
 565 effektive reguleringen av kreativitet i USA.  For å bygge på eller kritisere
 566 kulturen rundt oss må en spørre, som Oliver Twist, om tillatelse først.
 567 Tillatelse er, naturligvis, ofte innvilget&#8212;men det er ikke ofte
 568 innvilget til den kritiske eller den uavhengige.  Vi har bygget en slags
 569 kulturell adel.  De innen dette adelskapet har et enkelt liv, mens de på
 570 utsiden har det ikke.  Men det er adelskap i alle former som er fremmed for
 571 vår tradisjon.
 572 </p><p>
 573 Historien som følger er om denne krigen.  Er det ikke om <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">betydningen
 574 av teknologi</span>&#8221;</span> i vanlig liv.  Jeg tror ikke på guder, hverken digitale
 575 eller andre typer.  Det er heller ikke et forsøk på å demonisere noen
 576 individer eller gruppe, jeg tro heller ikke i en djevel, selskapsmessig
 577 eller på annen måte.  Det er ikke en moralsk historie.  Ei heller er det et
 578 rop om hellig krig mot en industri.
 579 </p><p>
 580 Det er i stedet et forsøk på å forstå en håpløst ødeleggende krig som er
 581 inspirert av teknologiene til internettet, men som rekker lang utenfor dens
 582 kode.  Og ved å forstå denne kampen er den en innsats for å finne veien til
 583 fred.  Det er ingen god grunn for å fortsette dagens batalje rundt
 584 internett-teknologiene.  Det vil være til stor skade for vår tradisjon og
 585 kultur hvis den får lov til å fortsette ukontrollert. Vi må forstå kilden
 586 til denne krigen.  Vi må finne en løsning snart.
 587 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3036060"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3036065"></a><p>
 588 Lik Causbyenes kamp er denne krigen, delvis, om
 589 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>&#8221;</span>. Eiendommen i denne krigen er ikke like håndfast
 590 som den til Causbyene, og ingen uskyldige kyllinger har så langt mistet
 591 livet.  Likevel er idéene rundt denne <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>&#8221;</span> like
 592 åpenbare for de fleste som Causbyenes krav om ukrenkeligheten til deres
 593 bondegård var for dem. De fleste av oss tar for gitt de uvanlig mektige krav
 594 som eierne av <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">immaterielle rettigheter</span>&#8221;</span> nå hevder.  De fleste
 595 av oss, som Causbyene, behandler disse kravene som åpenbare.  Og dermed
 596 protesterer vi, som Causbyene,, når ny teknologi griper inn i denne
 597 eiendomsretten.  Det er så klart for oss som det var fro dem at de nye
 598 teknologiene til internettet <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">tar seg til rette</span>&#8221;</span> mot legitime
 599 krav til <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>&#8221;</span>.  Det er like klart for oss som det var
 600 for dem at loven skulle ta affære for å stoppe denne inntrengingen i annen
 601 manns eiendom.
 602 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3036116"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3036123"></a><p>
 603
 604 Og dermed, når nerder og teknologer forsvarer sin tids Armstrong og
 605 Wright-brødenes teknologi, får de lite sympati fra de fleste av oss. Sunn
 606 fornuft gjør ikke opprør.  I motsetning til saken til de uheldige Causbyene,
 607 er sunn fornuft på samme side som eiendomseierne i denne krigen.  I
 608 motsetning til hos de heldige Wright-brødrene, har internettet ikke
 609 inspirert en revolusjon til fordel for seg.
 610 </p><p>
 611 Mitt håp er å skyve denne sunne fornuften videre.  Jeg har blitt stadig mer
 612 overrasket over kraften til denne idéen om immaterielle rettigheter og, mer
 613 viktig, dets evne til å slå av kritisk tanke hos lovmakere og innbyggere.
 614 Det har aldri før i vår historie vært så mye av vår <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kultur</span>&#8221;</span>
 615 som har vært <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eid</span>&#8221;</span> enn det er nå.  Og likevel har aldri før
 616 konsentrasjonen av makt til å kontrollere <span class="emphasis"><em>bruken</em></span> av
 617 kulturen vært mer akseptert uten spørsmål enn det er nå.
 618 </p><p>
 619 Gåten er, hvorfor det?  Er det fordi vi fått en innsikt i sannheten om
 620 verdien og betydningen av absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur? Er det
 621 fordi vi har oppdaget at vår tradisjon med å avvise slike absolutte krav var
 622 feil?
 623 </p><p>
 624 Eller er det på grunn av at idéer om absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur
 625 gir fordeler til RCA-ene i vår tid, og passer med vår ureflekterte
 626 intuisjon?
 627 </p><p>
 628 Er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår tradisjon om fri kultur en
 629 forekomst av USA som korrigerer en feil fra sin fortid, slik vi gjorde det
 630 etter en blodig krig mot slaveri, og slik vi sakte gjør det mot
 631 forskjellsbehandling?  Eller er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår
 632 tradisjon med fri kultur nok et eksempel på at vårt politiske system er
 633 fanget av noen få mektige særinteresser?
 634 </p><p>
 635 Fører sunn fornuft til det ekstreme i dette spørsmålet på grunn av at sunn
 636 fornuft faktisk tror på dette ekstreme?  Eller står sunn fornuft i stillhet
 637 i møtet med dette ekstreme fordi, som med Armstrong versus RCA, at den mer
 638 mektige siden har sikret seg at det har et mye mer mektig synspunkt?
 639 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3036221"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3036228"></a><p>
 640
 641 Jeg forsøker ikke å være mystisk.  Mine egne synspunkter er klare. Jeg mener
 642 det var riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør mot ekstremismen til
 643 Causbyene.  Jeg mener det ville være riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør
 644 mot de ekstreme krav som gjøres i dag på vegne av <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">immaterielle
 645 rettigheter</span>&#8221;</span>.  Det som loven krever i dag er mer å mer like dumt som
 646 om lensmannen skulle arrestere en flymaskin for å trenge inn på annen manns
 647 eiendom.  Men konsekvensene av den nye dumskapen vil bli mye mer
 648 dyptgripende.
 649
 650 </p><p>
 651 Basketaket som pågår akkurat nå senterer seg rundt to idéer:
 652 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span> og <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eiendom</span>&#8221;</span>.  Mitt mål med
 653 denne bokens neste to deler er å utforske disse to idéene.
 654 </p><p>
 655 Metoden min er ikke den vanlige metoden for en akademiker.  Jeg ønsker ikke
 656 å pløye deg inn i et komplisert argument, steinsatt med referanser til
 657 obskure franske teoretikere&#8212;uansett hvor naturlig det har blitt for
 658 den rare sorten vi akademikere har blitt.  Jeg vil i stedet begynne hver del
 659 med en samling historier som etablerer en sammenheng der disse
 660 tilsynelatende enkle idéene kan bli fullt ut forstått.
 661 </p><p>
 662 De to delene setter opp kjernen i påstanden til denne boken: at mens
 663 internettet faktisk har produsert noe fantastisk og nytt, bidrar våre
 664 myndigheter, presset av store medieaktører for å møte dette <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">noe
 665 nytt</span>&#8221;</span> til å ødelegge noe som er svært gammelt.  I stedet for å forstå
 666 endringene som internettet kan gjøre mulig, og i stedet for å ta den tiden
 667 som trengs for å la <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>&#8221;</span> finne ut hvordan best svare
 668 på utfordringen, så lar vi de som er mest truet av endringene bruke sin makt
 669 til å endre loven&#8212;og viktigere, å bruke sin makt til å endre noe
 670 fundamentalt om hvordan vi alltid har fungert.
 671 </p><p>
 672 Jeg tror vi tillater dette, ikke fordi det er riktig, og heller ikke fordi
 673 de fleste av oss tror på disse endringene.  Vi tillater det på grunn av at
 674 de interessene som er mest truet er blant de mest mektige aktørene i vår
 675 deprimerende kompromitterte prosess for å utforme lover. Denne boken er
 676 historien om nok en konsekvens for denne type korrupsjon&#8212;en konsekvens
 677 for de fleste av oss forblir ukjent med.
 678 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3034804" href="#id3034804" class="para">4</a>] </sup>
 679 St. George Tucker, <em class="citetitle">Blackstone's Commentaries</em> 3 (South
 680 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1969), 18.
 681 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3034933" href="#id3034933" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
 682 USA mot Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. Domstolen fant at det kunne være
 683 å <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ta</span>&#8221;</span> hvis regjeringens bruk av sitt land reelt sett hadde
 684 ødelagt verdien av eiendomen til Causby.  Dette eksemplet ble foreslått for
 685 meg i Keith Aokis flotte stykke, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">(intellectual) Property and
 686 Sovereignty: Notes Toward a cultural Geography of Authorship</span>&#8221;</span>,
 687 <em class="citetitle">Stanford Law Review</em> 48 (1996): 1293, 1333. Se også
 688 Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Real Property</em> (Mineola, N.Y.:
 689 Foundation Press (1984)), 1112&#8211;13.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3034972"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3034967"></a>
 690 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3035184" href="#id3035184" class="para">6</a>] </sup>
 691 Lawrence Lessing, <em class="citetitle">Man of High Fidelity:: Edwin Howard
 692 Armstrong</em> (Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company, 1956), 209.
 693 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3035118" href="#id3035118" class="para">7</a>] </sup> Se <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era,</span>&#8221;</span>
 694 første elektroniske kirke i USA, hos www.webstationone.com/fecha,
 695 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #1</a>.
 696 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3035299" href="#id3035299" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
 697 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3035315" href="#id3035315" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
 698 Lessing, 256.
 699 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2977287" href="#id2977287" class="para">10</a>] </sup>
 700 Amanda Lenhart, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
 701 Internet Access and the Digital Divide,</span>&#8221;</span> Pew Internet and American
 702 Life Project, 15. april 2003: 6, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #2</a>.
 703 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3035711" href="#id3035711" class="para">11</a>] </sup>
 704 Dette er ikke det eneste formålet med opphavsrett, men det er helt klart
 705 hovedformålet med opphavsretten slik den er etablert i føderal grunnlov.
 706 Opphavsrettslovene i delstatene beskyttet historisk ikke bare kommersielle
 707 interesse når det gjaldt publikasjoner, men også personverninteresser.  Ved
 708 å gi forfattere eneretten til å publisere først, ga delstatenes
 709 opphavsrettslovene forfatterne makt til å kontrollere spredningen av fakta
 710 om seg selv. Se Samuel D. Warren og Louis Brandeis, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Right to
 711 Privacy</span>&#8221;</span>, Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198&#8211;200.
 712 <a class="indexterm" name="id3035155"></a>
 713 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3035753" href="#id3035753" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
 714 Se Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (New York:
 715 Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3035761"></a>
 716 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3035894" href="#id3035894" class="para">13</a>] </sup>
 717 Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates Use New
 718 Tools to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New
 719 York Times</em>, 17. januar 2002.
 720 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3035973" href="#id3035973" class="para">14</a>] </sup>
 721 Neil W. Netanel, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society,</span>&#8221;</span>
 722 <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3035984"></a>
 723 </p></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Del I. &#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Del I. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="&#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;"><div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield1"></a><p>
 724 Helt siden loven begynte å regulere kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært
 725 en krig mot <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span>.  De presise konturene av dette
 726 konseptet, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span>, har vært vanskelig å tegne opp,
 727 men bildet av urettferdighet er enkelt å beskrive.  Som Lord Mansfield skrev
 728 i en sak som utvidet rekkevidden for engelsk opphavsrettslov til å inkludere
 729 noteark,
 730 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 731 En person kan bruke kopien til å spille den, men han har ingen rett til å
 732 robbe forfatteren for profitten, ved å lage flere kopier og distribuere
 733 etter eget forgodtbefinnende.<sup>[<a name="id3036392" href="#ftn.id3036392" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
 734 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3036406"></a></blockquote></div><p>
 735
 736 I dag er vi midt inne i en annen <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">krig</span>&#8221;</span> mot
 737 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span>. Internettet har fremprovosert denne krigen.
 738 Internettet gjør det mulig å effektivt spre innhold.  Peer-to-peer (p2p)
 739 fildeling er blant det mest effektive av de effektive teknologier
 740 internettet muliggjør. Ved å bruke distribuert intelligens, kan p2p-systemer
 741 muliggjøre enkel spredning av innhold på en måte som ingen forestilte seg
 742 for en generasjon siden.
 743
 744 </p><p>
 745 Denne effektiviteten respekterer ikke de tradisjonelle skillene i
 746 opphavsretten. Nettverket skiller ikke mellom deling av
 747 opphavsrettsbeskyttet og ikke opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold. Dermed har det
 748 vært deling av en enorm mengde opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold.  Denne
 749 delingen har i sin tur ansporet til krigen, på grunn av at eiere av
 750 opphavsretter frykter delingen vil <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">frata forfatteren
 751 overskuddet.</span>&#8221;</span>
 752 </p><p>
 753 Krigerne har snudd seg til domstolene, til lovgiverne, og i stadig større
 754 grad til teknologi for å forsvare sin <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eiendom</span>&#8221;</span> mot denne
 755 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>&#8221;</span>.  En generasjon amerikanere, advarer
 756 krigerne, blir oppdratt til å tro at <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eiendom</span>&#8221;</span> skal være
 757 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">gratis</span>&#8221;</span>.  Glem tatoveringer, ikke tenk på
 758 kroppspiercing&#8212;våre barn blir <span class="emphasis"><em>tyver</em></span>!
 759 </p><p>
 760 Det er ingen tvil om at <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span> er galt, og at
 761 pirater bør straffes.  Men før vi roper på bødlene, bør vi sette dette
 762 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhets</span>&#8221;</span>-begrepet i en sammenheng.  For mens begrepet
 763 blir mer og mer brukt, har det i sin kjerne en ekstraordinær idé som nesten
 764 helt sikkert er feil.
 765 </p><p>
 766 Idéen høres omtrent slik ut:
 767 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 768 Kreativt arbeid har verdi.  Når jeg bruker, eller tar, eller bygger på det
 769 kreative arbeidet til andre, så tar jeg noe fra dem som har verdi.  Når jeg
 770 tar noe av verdi fra noen andre, bør jeg få tillatelse fra dem.  Å ta noe
 771 som har verdi fra andre uten tillatelse er galt.  Det er en form for
 772 piratvirksomhet.
 773 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3036528"></a><p>
 774 Dette synet går dypt i de pågående debattene.  Det er hva jussprofessor
 775 Rochelle Dreyfuss ved NYU kritiserer som <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så
 776 rettighet</span>&#8221;</span>-teorien for kreative eierrettigheter <sup>[<a name="id3036545" href="#ftn.id3036545" class="footnote">16</a>]</sup>&#8212;hvis det finnes verdi, så må noen ha
 777 rettigheten til denne verdien.  Det er perspektivet som fikk komponistenes
 778 rettighetsorganisasjon, ASCAP, til å saksøke jentespeiderne for å ikke
 779 betale for sangene som jentene sagt rundt jentespeidernes
 780 leirbål.<sup>[<a name="id3036568" href="#ftn.id3036568" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> Det fantes
 781 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">verdi</span>&#8221;</span> (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en
 782 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rettighet</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;til og med mot jentespeiderne.
 783 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3036612"></a><p>
 784
 785 Denne idéen er helt klart en mulig forståelse om hvordan kreative
 786 eierrettigheter bør virke.  Det er helt klart et mulig design for et
 787 lovsystem som beskytter kreative eierrettigheter.  Men teorien om
 788 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så rettighet</span>&#8221;</span> for kreative eierrettigheter har
 789 aldri vært USAs teori for kreative eierrettigheter.  It har aldri stått rot
 790 i vårt lovverk.
 791 </p><p>
 792 I vår tradisjon har immaterielle rettigheter i stedet vært et instrument.
 793 Det bygger fundamentet for et rikt kreativt samfunn, men er fortsatt servilt
 794 til verdien av kreativitet.  Dagens debatt har snudd dette helt rundt.  Vi
 795 har blitt så opptatt av å beskytte instrumentet at vi mister verdien av
 796 syne.
 797 </p><p>
 798 Kilden til denne forvirringen er et skille som loven ikke lenger bryr seg om
 799 å markere&#8212;skillet mellom å gjenpublisere noens verk på den ene siden,
 800 og bygge på og gjøre om verket på den andre.  Da opphavsretten kom var det
 801 kun publisering som ble berørt. Opphavsretten i dag regulerer begge.
 802 </p><p>
 803 Før teknologiene til internettet dukket opp, betød ikke denne begrepsmessige
 804 sammenblandingen mye.  Teknologiene for å publisere var kostbare, som betød
 805 at det meste av publisering var kommersiell. Kommersielle aktører kunne
 806 håndtere byrden pålagt av loven&#8212;til og med byrden som den bysantiske
 807 kompleksiteten som opphavsrettsloven har blitt.  Det var bare nok en kostnad
 808 ved å drive forretning.
 809 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3036669"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3036675"></a><p>
 810 Men da internettet dukket opp, forsvant denne naturlige begrensningen til
 811 lovens virkeområde.  Loven kontrollerer ikke bare kreativiteten til
 812 kommersielle skapere, men effektivt sett kreativiteten til alle. Selv om
 813 utvidelsen ikke ville bety stort hvis opphavsrettsloven kun regulerte
 814 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kopiering</span>&#8221;</span>, så betyr utvidelsen mye når loven regulerer så
 815 bredt og obskurt som den gjør.  Byrden denne loven gir oppveier nå langt
 816 fordelene den ga da den ble vedtatt&#8212;helt klart slik den påvirker
 817 ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, og i stadig større grad slik den påvirker
 818 kommersiell kreativitet.  Dermed, slik vi ser klarere i kapitlene som
 819 følger, er lovens rolle mindre og mindre å støtte kreativitet, og mer og mer
 820 å beskytte enkelte industrier mot konkurranse.  Akkurat på tidspunktet da
 821 digital teknologi kunne sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mengde med kommersiell
 822 og ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, tynger loven denne kreativiteten med
 823 sinnsykt kompliserte og vage regler og med trusselen om uanstendig harde
 824 straffer.  Vi ser kanskje, som Richard Florida skriver, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Fremveksten
 825 av den kreative klasse</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3036713" href="#ftn.id3036713" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup>
 826 Dessverre ser vi også en ekstraordinær fremvekst av reguleringer av denne
 827 kreative klassen.
 828 </p><p>
 829 Disse byrdene gir ingen mening i vår tradisjon.  Vi bør begynne med å forstå
 830 den tradisjonen litt mer, og ved å plassere dagens slag om oppførsel med
 831 merkelappen <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span> i sin rette sammenheng.
 832 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3036392" href="#id3036392" class="para">15</a>] </sup>
 833
 834
 835 <em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
 836 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777) (Mansfield).
 837 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3036545" href="#id3036545" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
 838
 839
 840 Se Rochelle Dreyfuss, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language
 841 in the Pepsi Generation,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Notre Dame Law
 842 Review</em> 65 (1990): 397.
 843 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3036568" href="#id3036568" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
 844
 845 Lisa Bannon, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay
 846 Up,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 21. august 1996,
 847 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #3</a>;
 848 Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of
 849 Property vs. Free Speech, No One Wins,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston
 850 Globe</em>, 24. november 2002.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3036593"></a>
 851 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3036713" href="#id3036713" class="para">18</a>] </sup>
 852
 853 I <em class="citetitle">The Rise of the Creative Class</em> (New York: Basic
 854 Books, 2002), dokumenterer Richard Florida en endring i arbeidsstokken mot
 855 kreativitetsarbeide.  Hans tekst omhandler derimot ikke direkte de juridiske
 856 vilkår som kreativiteten blir muliggjort eller hindret under.  Jeg er helt
 857 klart enig med ham i viktigheten og betydningen av denne endringen, men jeg
 858 tror også at vilkårene som disse endringene blir aktivert under er mye
 859 vanskeligere.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3036756"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3036764"></a>
 860 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 1. Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>Kapittel 1. Kapittel en: Skaperne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxanimadedcartoons"></a><p>
 861 I 1928 ble en tegnefilmfigur født.  En tidlig Mikke Mus debuterte i mai
 862 dette året, i en stille flopp ved navn <em class="citetitle">Plane Crazy</em>.
 863 I november, i Colony teateret i New York City, ble den første vidt
 864 distribuerte tegnefilmen med synkronisert lyd, <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
 865 Willy</em>, vist frem med figuren som skulle bli til Mikke Mus.
 866 </p><p>
 867 Film med synkronisert lyd hadde blitt introdusert et år tidligere i filmen
 868 <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em>.  Suksessen fikk Walt Disney til å
 869 kopiere teknikken og mikse lyd med tegnefilm.  Ingen visste hvorvidt det
 870 ville virke eller ikke, og om det fungere, hvorvidt publikum villa ha sans
 871 for det.  Men da Disney gjorde en test sommeren 1928, var resultatet
 872 entydig.  Som Disney beskriver dette første eksperimentet,
 873 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 874
 875 Et par av guttene mine kunne lese noteark, og en av dem kunne spille
 876 munnspill.  Vi stappet dem inn i et rom hvor de ikke kunne se skjermen, og
 877 gjorde det slik at lyden de spilte ble sendt videre til et rom hvor våre
 878 koner og venner var plassert for å se på bildet.
 879
 880 </p><p>
 881 Guttene brukte et note- og lydeffekt-ark.  Etter noen dårlige oppstarter,
 882 kom endelig lyd og handling i gang med et smell. Munnspilleren spilte
 883 melodien, og resten av oss i lydavdelingen slamret på tinnkasseroller og
 884 blåste på slide-fløyte til rytmen. Synkroniseringen var nesten helt riktig.
 885 </p><p>
 886 Effekten på vårt lille publikum var intet mindre enn elektrisk.  De reagerte
 887 nesten instinktivt til denne union av lyd og bevegelse.  Jeg trodde de
 888 tullet med meg.  Så de puttet meg i publikum og satte igang på nytt.  Det
 889 var grufullt, men det var fantastisk.  Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id3036894" href="#ftn.id3036894" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
 890 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 891 Disneys daværende partner, og en av animasjonsverdenens mest ekstraordinære
 892 talenter, Ub Iwerks, uttalte det sterkere: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Jeg har aldri vært så
 893 begeistret i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like
 894 bra.</span>&#8221;</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id3036921"></a>
 895 </p><p>
 896 Disney hadde laget noe helt nyt, basert på noe relativt nytt. Synkronisert
 897 lyd ga liv til en form for kreativitet som sjeldent hadde&#8212;unntatt fra
 898 Disneys hender&#8212;vært noe annet en fyllstoff for andre filmer.  Gjennom
 899 animasjonens tidligere historie var det Disneys oppfinnelse som satte
 900 standarden som andre måtte sloss for å oppfylle.  Og ganske ofte var Disneys
 901 store geni, hans gnist av kreativitet, bygget på arbeidet til andre.
 902 </p><p>
 903 Dette er kjent stoff.  Det du kanskje ikke vet er at 1928 også markerer en
 904 annen viktig overgang.  I samme år laget et komedie-geni (i motsetning til
 905 tegnefilm-geni) sin siste uavhengig produserte stumfilm.  Dette geniet var
 906 Buster Keaton.  Filmen var <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>.
 907 </p><p>
 908 Keaton ble født inn i en vauderville-familie i 1895.  I stumfilm-æraen hadde
 909 han mestret bruken av bredpenslet fysisk komedie på en måte som tente
 910 ukontrollerbar latter fra hans publikum. <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill,
 911 Jr</em>. var en klassiker av denne typen, berømt blant film-elskere
 912 for sine utrolige stunts.  Filmen var en klassisk Keaton&#8212;fantastisk
 913 populær og blant de beste i sin sjanger.
 914 </p><p>
 915 <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>. kom før Disneys tegnefilm
 916 Steamboat Willie.  Det er ingen tilfeldighet at titlene er så
 917 like. Steamboat Willie er en direkte tegneserieparodi av Steamboat
 918 Bill,<sup>[<a name="id3036992" href="#ftn.id3036992" class="footnote">20</a>]</sup> og begge bygger på en felles sang
 919 som kilde.  Det er ikke kun fra nyskapningen med synkronisert lyd i
 920 <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em> at vi får <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
 921 Willie</em>.  Det er også fra Buster Keatons nyskapning Steamboat
 922 Bill, Jr., som igjen var inspirert av sangen <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill</span>&#8221;</span>,
 923 at vi får Steamboat Willie.  Og fra Steamboat Willie får vi så Mikke Mus.
 924 </p><p>
 925 Denne <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">låningen</span>&#8221;</span> var ikke unik, hverken for Disney eller for
 926 industrien.  Disney apet alltid etter full-lengde massemarkedsfilmene rundt
 927 ham.<sup>[<a name="id3037064" href="#ftn.id3037064" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> Det samme gjorde mange andre.
 928 Tidlige tegnefilmer er stappfulle av etterapninger&#8212;små variasjoner
 929 over suksessfulle temaer, gamle historier fortalt på nytt.  Nøkkelen til
 930 suksess var brilliansen i forskjellene.  Med Disney var det lyden som ga
 931 gnisten til hans animasjoner.  Senere var det kvaliteten på hans arbeide
 932 relativt til de masseproduserte tegnefilmene som han konkurrerte med.
 933 Likevel var disse bidragene bygget på toppen av fundamentet som var lånt.
 934 Disney bygget på arbeidet til andre som kom før han, og skapte noe nytt ut
 935 av noe som bare var litt gammelt.
 936 </p><p>
 937 Noen ganger var låningen begrenset, og noen ganger var den betydelig. Tenkt
 938 på eventyrene til brødrene Grimm.  Hvis du er like ubevisst som jeg var, så
 939 tror du sannsynlighvis at disse fortellingene er glade, søte historier som
 940 passer for ethvert barn ved leggetid.  Realiteten er at Grimm-eventyrene er,
 941 for oss, ganske dystre.  Det er noen sjeldne og kanskje spesielt ambisiøse
 942 foreldre som ville våge å lese disse blodige moralistiske historiene til
 943 sine barn, ved leggetid eller hvilken som helst annet tidspunkt.
 944 </p><p>
 945
 946 Disney tok disse historiene og fortalte dem på nytt på en måte som førte dem
 947 inn i en ny tidsalder. Han ga historiene liv, med både karakterer og
 948 lys. Uten å fjerne bitene av frykt og fare helt, gjorde han morsomt det som
 949 var mørkt og satte inn en ekte følelse av medfølelse der det før var
 950 frykt. Og ikke bare med verkene av brødrene Grimm.  Faktisk er katalogen
 951 over Disney-arbeid som baserer seg på arbeidet til andre ganske forbløffende
 952 når den blir samlet: <em class="citetitle">Snøhvit</em> (1937),
 953 <em class="citetitle">Fantasia</em> (1940), <em class="citetitle">Pinocchio</em>
 954 (1940), <em class="citetitle">Dumbo</em> (1941), <em class="citetitle">Bambi</em>
 955 (1942), <em class="citetitle">Song of the South</em> (1946),
 956 <em class="citetitle">Askepott</em> (1950), <em class="citetitle">Alice in
 957 Wonderland</em> (1951), <em class="citetitle">Robin Hood</em> (1952),
 958 <em class="citetitle">Peter Pan</em> (1953), <em class="citetitle">Lady og
 959 landstrykeren</em> (1955), <em class="citetitle">Mulan</em> (1998),
 960 <em class="citetitle">Tornerose</em> (1959), <em class="citetitle">101
 961 dalmatinere</em> (1961), <em class="citetitle">Sverdet i steinen</em>
 962 (1963), og <em class="citetitle">Jungelboken</em> (1967)&#8212;for ikke å nevne
 963 et nylig eksempel som vi bør kanskje glemme raskt, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
 964 Planet</em> (2003). I alle disse tilfellene, har Disney (eller
 965 Disney, Inc.) hentet kreativitet fra kultur rundt ham, blandet med
 966 kreativiteten fra sitt eget ekstraordinære talent, og deretter brent denne
 967 blandingen inn i sjelen til sin kultur. Hente, blande og brenne.
 968 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3037195"></a><p>
 969 Dette er en type kreativitet.  Det er en kreativitet som vi bør huske på og
 970 feire.  Det er noen som vil si at det finnes ingen kreativitet bortsett fra
 971 denne typen.  Vi trenger ikke gå så langt for å anerkjenne dens betydning.
 972 Vi kan kalle dette <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Disney-kreativitet</span>&#8221;</span>, selv om det vil være
 973 litt misvisende.  Det er mer presist <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Walt
 974 Disney-kreativitet</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;en uttrykksform og genialitet som bygger på
 975 kulturen rundt oss og omformer den til noe annet.
 976 </p><p> In 1928, the culture that Disney was free to draw upon was relatively
 977 fresh. The public domain in 1928 was not very old and was therefore quite
 978 vibrant. The average term of copyright was just around thirty
 979 years&#8212;for that minority of creative work that was in fact
 980 copyrighted.<sup>[<a name="id3037221" href="#ftn.id3037221" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> That means that for thirty
 981 years, on average, the authors or copyright holders of a creative work had
 982 an <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">exclusive right</span>&#8221;</span> to control certain uses of the work. To
 983 use this copyrighted work in limited ways required the permission of the
 984 copyright owner.
 985 </p><p>
 986 At the end of a copyright term, a work passes into the public domain.  No
 987 permission is then needed to draw upon or use that work. No permission and,
 988 hence, no lawyers. The public domain is a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lawyer-free zone.</span>&#8221;</span>
 989 Thus, most of the content from the nineteenth century was free for Disney to
 990 use and build upon in 1928. It was free for anyone&#8212; whether connected
 991 or not, whether rich or not, whether approved or not&#8212;to use and build
 992 upon.
 993 </p><p>
 994
 995 Dette er slik det alltid har vært&#8212;inntil ganske nylig.  For
 996 mesteparten av vår historie, har allemannseiet vært like over horisonten.
 997 Fram til 1978 var den gjennomsnittlige opphavsrettslige vernetiden aldri mer
 998 enn trettito år, som gjorde at det meste av kultur fra en og en halv
 999 generasjon tidligere var tilgjengelig for enhver å bygge på uten tillatelse
1000 fra noen.  Tilsvarende for i dag ville være at kreative verker fra 1960- og
1001 1970-tallet nå ville være fritt tilgjengelig for de neste Walt Disney å
1002 bygge på uten tillatelse.  Men i dag er allemannseie presumtivt kun for
1003 innhold fra før mellomkrigstiden.
1004 </p><p>
1005 Of course, Walt Disney had no monopoly on <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Walt Disney
1006 creativity.</span>&#8221;</span> Nor does America. The norm of free culture has, until
1007 recently, and except within totalitarian nations, been broadly exploited and
1008 quite universal.
1009 </p><p>
1010 Vurder for eksempel en form for kreativitet som synes underlig for mange
1011 amerikanere, men som er overalt i japansk kultur:
1012 <em class="citetitle">manga</em>, eller tegneserier.  Japanerne er fanatiske når
1013 det gjelder tegneserier.  Over 40 prosent av publikasjoner er tegneserier,
1014 og 30 prosent av publikasjonsomsetningen stammer fra tegneserier.  De er
1015 over alt i det japanske samfunnet, tilgjengelig fra ethvert
1016 tidsskriftsutsalg, og i hendene på en stor andel av pendlere på Japans
1017 ekstraordinære system for offentlig transport.
1018 </p><p>
1019 Americans tend to look down upon this form of culture. That's an
1020 unattractive characteristic of ours. We're likely to misunderstand much
1021 about manga, because few of us have ever read anything close to the stories
1022 that these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">graphic novels</span>&#8221;</span> tell. For the Japanese, manga cover
1023 every aspect of social life. For us, comics are <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">men in
1024 tights.</span>&#8221;</span> And anyway, it's not as if the New York subways are filled
1025 with readers of Joyce or even Hemingway. People of different cultures
1026 distract themselves in different ways, the Japanese in this interestingly
1027 different way.
1028 </p><p>
1029 Men mitt formål her er ikke å forstå manga.  Det er å beskrive en variant av
1030 manga som fra en advokats perspektiv er ganske merkelig, men som fra en
1031 Disneys perspektiv er ganske godt kjent.
1032 </p><p>
1033
1034 This is the phenomenon of <em class="citetitle">doujinshi</em>. Doujinshi are
1035 also comics, but they are a kind of copycat comic. A rich ethic governs the
1036 creation of doujinshi. It is not doujinshi if it is
1037 <span class="emphasis"><em>just</em></span> a copy; the artist must make a contribution to the
1038 art he copies, by transforming it either subtly or significantly. A
1039 doujinshi comic can thus take a mainstream comic and develop it
1040 differently&#8212;with a different story line. Or the comic can keep the
1041 character in character but change its look slightly. There is no formula for
1042 what makes the doujinshi sufficiently <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">different.</span>&#8221;</span> But they
1043 must be different if they are to be considered true doujinshi. Indeed, there
1044 are committees that review doujinshi for inclusion within shows and reject
1045 any copycat comic that is merely a copy.
1046 </p><p>
1047 These copycat comics are not a tiny part of the manga market. They are
1048 huge. More than 33,000 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">circles</span>&#8221;</span> of creators from across Japan
1049 produce these bits of Walt Disney creativity. More than 450,000 Japanese
1050 come together twice a year, in the largest public gathering in the country,
1051 to exchange and sell them. This market exists in parallel to the mainstream
1052 commercial manga market. In some ways, it obviously competes with that
1053 market, but there is no sustained effort by those who control the commercial
1054 manga market to shut the doujinshi market down. It flourishes, despite the
1055 competition and despite the law.
1056 </p><p>
1057 The most puzzling feature of the doujinshi market, for those trained in the
1058 law, at least, is that it is allowed to exist at all. Under Japanese
1059 copyright law, which in this respect (on paper) mirrors American copyright
1060 law, the doujinshi market is an illegal one. Doujinshi are plainly
1061 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">derivative works.</span>&#8221;</span> There is no general practice by doujinshi
1062 artists of securing the permission of the manga creators. Instead, the
1063 practice is simply to take and modify the creations of others, as Walt
1064 Disney did with <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>. Under both
1065 Japanese and American law, that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taking</span>&#8221;</span> without the permission
1066 of the original copyright owner is illegal. It is an infringement of the
1067 original copyright to make a copy or a derivative work without the original
1068 copyright owner's permission.
1069 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
1070 Yet this illegal market exists and indeed flourishes in Japan, and in the
1071 view of many, it is precisely because it exists that Japanese manga
1072 flourish. As American graphic novelist Judd Winick said to me, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The
1073 early days of comics in America are very much like what's going on in Japan
1074 now. &#8230; American comics were born out of copying each other. &#8230;
1075 That's how [the artists] learn to draw&#8212;by going into comic books and
1076 not tracing them, but looking at them and copying them</span>&#8221;</span> and building
1077 from them.<sup>[<a name="id3037448" href="#ftn.id3037448" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
1078 </p><p>
1079 American comics now are quite different, Winick explains, in part because of
1080 the legal difficulty of adapting comics the way doujinshi are
1081 allowed. Speaking of Superman, Winick told me, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">there are these rules
1082 and you have to stick to them.</span>&#8221;</span> There are things Superman
1083 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">cannot</span>&#8221;</span> do. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">As a creator, it's frustrating having to
1084 stick to some parameters which are fifty years old.</span>&#8221;</span>
1085 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3037488"></a><p>
1086 Normen i Japan reduserer denne juridiske utfordringen.  Noen sier at det
1087 nettopp er den oppsamlede fordelen i det japanske mangamarkedet som
1088 forklarer denne reduksjonen.  Jussprofessor Salil Mehra ved Temple
1089 University hypnotiserer for eksempel med at manga-markedet aksepterer disse
1090 teoretiske bruddene fordi de får mangamarkedet til å bli rikere og mer
1091 produktivt.  Alle ville få det verre hvis doujinshi ble bannlyst, så loven
1092 bannlyser ikke doujinshi.<sup>[<a name="id3037514" href="#ftn.id3037514" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
1093 </p><p>
1094 The problem with this story, however, as Mehra plainly acknowledges, is that
1095 the mechanism producing this laissez faire response is not clear. It may
1096 well be that the market as a whole is better off if doujinshi are permitted
1097 rather than banned, but that doesn't explain why individual copyright owners
1098 don't sue nonetheless. If the law has no general exception for doujinshi,
1099 and indeed in some cases individual manga artists have sued doujinshi
1100 artists, why is there not a more general pattern of blocking this
1101 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free taking</span>&#8221;</span> by the doujinshi culture?
1102 </p><p>
1103 I spent four wonderful months in Japan, and I asked this question as often
1104 as I could. Perhaps the best account in the end was offered by a friend from
1105 a major Japanese law firm. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">We don't have enough lawyers,</span>&#8221;</span> he
1106 told me one afternoon. There <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">just aren't enough resources to
1107 prosecute cases like this.</span>&#8221;</span>
1108 </p><p>
1109
1110 Dette er et tema vi kommer tilbake til: at lovens regulering både er en
1111 funksjon av ordene i bøkene, og kostnadene med å få disse ordene til å ha
1112 effekt.  Akkurat nå er det endel åpenbare spørsmål som presser seg frem:
1113 Ville Japan gjøre det bedre med flere advokater? Ville manga være rikere
1114 hvis doujinshi-kunstnere ble regelmessig rettsforfulgt?  Ville Japan vinne
1115 noe viktig hvis de kunne stoppe praksisen med deling uten kompensasjon?
1116 Skader piratvirksomhet ofrene for piratvirksomheten, eller hjelper den dem?
1117 Ville advokaters kamp mot denne piratvirksomheten hjelpe deres klienter,
1118 eller skade dem? La oss ta et øyeblikks pause.
1119 </p><p>
1120 Hvis du er som meg et tiår tilbake, eller som folk flest når de først
1121 begynner å tenke på disse temaene, da bør du omtrent nå være rådvill om noe
1122 du ikke hadde tenkt igjennom før.
1123 </p><p>
1124 We live in a world that celebrates <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property.</span>&#8221;</span> I am one of
1125 those celebrants.  I believe in the value of property in general, and I also
1126 believe in the value of that weird form of property that lawyers call
1127 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3037607" href="#ftn.id3037607" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> A
1128 large, diverse society cannot survive without property; a large, diverse,
1129 and modern society cannot flourish without intellectual property.
1130 </p><p>
1131 But it takes just a second's reflection to realize that there is plenty of
1132 value out there that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> doesn't capture. I don't mean
1133 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">money can't buy you love,</span>&#8221;</span> but rather, value that is plainly
1134 part of a process of production, including commercial as well as
1135 noncommercial production.  If Disney animators had stolen a set of pencils
1136 to draw Steamboat Willie, we'd have no hesitation in condemning that taking
1137 as wrong&#8212; even though trivial, even if unnoticed. Yet there was
1138 nothing wrong, at least under the law of the day, with Disney's taking from
1139 Buster Keaton or from the Brothers Grimm. There was nothing wrong with the
1140 taking from Keaton because Disney's use would have been considered
1141 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair.</span>&#8221;</span> There was nothing wrong with the taking from the Grimms
1142 because the Grimms' work was in the public domain.
1143 </p><p>
1144
1145 Dermed, selv om de tingene som Disney tok&#8212;eller mer generelt, tingene
1146 som blir tatt av enhver som utøver Walt Disney-kreativitet&#8212;er
1147 verdifulle, så anser ikke vår tradisjon det som galt å ta disse tingene.
1148 Noen ting forblir frie til å bli tatt i en fri kultur og denne friheten er
1149 bra.
1150 </p><p>
1151 Det er det samme med doujinshi-kulturen.  Hvis en doujinshi-kunstner brøt
1152 seg inn på kontoret til en forlegger, og stakk av med tusen kopier av hans
1153 siste verk&#8212;eller bare en kopi&#8212;uten å betale, så ville vi uten å
1154 nøle si at kunstneren har gjort noe galt.  I tillegg til å ha trengt seg inn
1155 på andres eiendom, ville han ha stjålet noe av verdi. Loven forbyr stjeling
1156 i enhver form, uansett hvor stort eller lite som blir tatt.
1157 </p><p>
1158 Yet there is an obvious reluctance, even among Japanese lawyers, to say that
1159 the copycat comic artists are <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stealing.</span>&#8221;</span> This form of Walt
1160 Disney creativity is seen as fair and right, even if lawyers in particular
1161 find it hard to say why.
1162 </p><p>
1163 It's the same with a thousand examples that appear everywhere once you begin
1164 to look. Scientists build upon the work of other scientists without asking
1165 or paying for the privilege. (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Excuse me, Professor Einstein, but may
1166 I have permission to use your theory of relativity to show that you were
1167 wrong about quantum physics?</span>&#8221;</span>) Acting companies perform adaptations
1168 of the works of Shakespeare without securing permission from anyone. (Does
1169 <span class="emphasis"><em>anyone</em></span> believe Shakespeare would be better spread
1170 within our culture if there were a central Shakespeare rights clearinghouse
1171 that all productions of Shakespeare must appeal to first?) And Hollywood
1172 goes through cycles with a certain kind of movie: five asteroid films in the
1173 late 1990s; two volcano disaster films in 1997.
1174 </p><p>
1175
1176 Skapere her og overalt har alltid og til alle tider bygd på kreativiteten
1177 som eksisterte før og som omringer dem nå.  Denne byggingen er alltid og
1178 overalt i det minste delvis gjort uten tillatelse og uten å kompensere den
1179 opprinnelige skaperen.  Intet samfunn, fritt eller kontrollert, har noen
1180 gang krevd at enhver bruk skulle bli betalt for eller at tillatelse for Walt
1181 Disney-kreativitet alltid måtte skaffes.  Istedet har ethvert samfunn latt
1182 en bestemt bit av sin kultur være fritt tilgjengelig for alle å
1183 ta&#8212;frie samfunn muligens i større grad enn ufrie, men en viss grad i
1184 alle samfunn.
1185
1186 </p><p>
1187 The hard question is therefore not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> a culture is
1188 free. All cultures are free to some degree. The hard question instead is
1189 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote"><span class="emphasis"><em>How</em></span> free is this culture?</span>&#8221;</span> How much, and
1190 how broadly, is the culture free for others to take and build upon? Is that
1191 freedom limited to party members? To members of the royal family? To the top
1192 ten corporations on the New York Stock Exchange? Or is that freedom spread
1193 broadly? To artists generally, whether affiliated with the Met or not? To
1194 musicians generally, whether white or not? To filmmakers generally, whether
1195 affiliated with a studio or not?
1196 </p><p>
1197 Frie kulturer er kulturer som etterlater mye åpent for andre å bygge på.
1198 Ufrie, eller tillatelse-kulturer etterlater mye mindre.  Vår var en fri
1199 kultur. Den er på tur til å bli mindre fri.
1200 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3036894" href="#id3036894" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
1201
1202
1203 Leonard Maltin, <em class="citetitle">Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated
1204 Cartoons</em> (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 34&#8211;35.
1205 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3036992" href="#id3036992" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
1206
1207
1208 Jeg er takknemlig overfor David Gerstein og hans nøyaktige historie,
1209 beskrevet på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #4</a>.  I
1210 følge Dave Smith ved the Disney Archives, betalte Disney for å bruke
1211 musikken til fem sanger i <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willie</em>:
1212 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill,</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Simpleton</span>&#8221;</span> (Delille),
1213 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Mischief Makers</span>&#8221;</span> (Carbonara), <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Joyful Hurry
1214 No. 1</span>&#8221;</span> (Baron), og <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Gawky Rube</span>&#8221;</span> (Lakay). En sjette sang,
1215 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Turkey in the Straw,</span>&#8221;</span> var allerede allemannseie.  Brev fra
1216 David Smith til Harry Surden, 10. juli 2003, tilgjenglig i arkivet til
1217 forfatteren.
1218 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3037064" href="#id3037064" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
1219
1220
1221 Han var også tilhenger av allmannseiet. Se Chris Sprigman, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Mouse
1222 that Ate the Public Domain,</span>&#8221;</span> Findlaw, 5. mars 2002, fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #5</a>.
1223 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3037221" href="#id3037221" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
1224
1225
1226 Until 1976, copyright law granted an author the possibility of two terms: an
1227 initial term and a renewal term. I have calculated the
1228 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">average</span>&#8221;</span> term by determining the weighted average of total
1229 registrations for any particular year, and the proportion renewing. Thus, if
1230 100 copyrights are registered in year 1, and only 15 are renewed, and the
1231 renewal term is 28 years, then the average term is 32.2 years. For the
1232 renewal data and other relevant data, see the Web site associated with this
1233 book, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
1234 #6</a>.
1235 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3037448" href="#id3037448" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
1236
1237
1238 For en utmerket historie, se Scott McCloud, <em class="citetitle">Reinventing
1239 Comics</em> (New York: Perennial, 2000).
1240 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3037514" href="#id3037514" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
1241
1242
1243 See Salil K. Mehra, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain
1244 Why All the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?</span>&#8221;</span>
1245 <em class="citetitle">Rutgers Law Review</em> 55 (2002): 155,
1246 182. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">[T]here might be a collective economic rationality that would
1247 lead manga and anime artists to forgo bringing legal actions for
1248 infringement. One hypothesis is that all manga artists may be better off
1249 collectively if they set aside their individual self-interest and decide not
1250 to press their legal rights. This is essentially a prisoner's dilemma
1251 solved.</span>&#8221;</span>
1252 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3037607" href="#id3037607" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
1253
1254 The term <em class="citetitle">intellectual property</em> is of relatively
1255 recent origin. See Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
1256 Copywrongs</em>, 11 (New York: New York University Press, 2001). See
1257 also Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> (New York:
1258 Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. The term accurately describes a set of
1259 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> rights&#8212;copyright, patents, trademark, and
1260 trade-secret&#8212;but the nature of those rights is very different.
1261 <a class="indexterm" name="id3037627"></a>
1262 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 2. Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Kapittel 2. Kapittel to: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>&#8221;</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><p>
1263 In 1839, Louis Daguerre invented the first practical technology for
1264 producing what we would call <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">photographs.</span>&#8221;</span> Appropriately
1265 enough, they were called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">daguerreotypes.</span>&#8221;</span> The process was
1266 complicated and expensive, and the field was thus limited to professionals
1267 and a few zealous and wealthy amateurs. (There was even an American Daguerre
1268 Association that helped regulate the industry, as do all such associations,
1269 by keeping competition down so as to keep prices up.)  <a class="indexterm" name="id3037836"></a>
1270 </p><p>
1271 Yet despite high prices, the demand for daguerreotypes was strong.  This
1272 pushed inventors to find simpler and cheaper ways to make <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">automatic
1273 pictures.</span>&#8221;</span> William Talbot soon discovered a process for making
1274 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">negatives.</span>&#8221;</span> But because the negatives were glass, and had to
1275 be kept wet, the process still remained expensive and cumbersome. In the
1276 1870s, dry plates were developed, making it easier to separate the taking of
1277 a picture from its developing. These were still plates of glass, and thus it
1278 was still not a process within reach of most amateurs.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3037861"></a>
1279 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxeastmangeorge"></a><p>
1280
1281 Den teknologiske endringen som gjorde masse-fotografering mulig skjedde ikke
1282 før i 1888, og det var takket være en eneste mann. George Eastman, selv en
1283 amatørfotograf, var frustrert over den plate-baserte fotografi-teknologien.
1284 I et lysglimt av innsikt (for å si det slik), forsto Eastman at hvis filmen
1285 kunne gjøres bøyelig, så kunne den holdes på en enkel rull.  Denne rullen
1286 kunne så sendes til en fremkaller, og senke kostnadene til fotografering
1287 vesentlig.  Ved å redusere kostnadene, forventet Eastman at han dramatisk
1288 kunne utvide andelen fotografer.
1289 </p><p>
1290 Eastman developed flexible, emulsion-coated paper film and placed rolls of
1291 it in small, simple cameras: the Kodak. The device was marketed on the basis
1292 of its simplicity. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">You press the button and we do the
1293 rest.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3037907" href="#ftn.id3037907" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> As he described in
1294 <em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>: <a class="indexterm" name="id3037921"></a>
1295 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1296 Prinsippet til Kodak-systemet er skillet mellom arbeidet som enhver kan
1297 utføre når en tar fotografier, fra arbeidet som kun en ekspert kan
1298 gjøre. &#8230; Vi utstyrte alle, menn, kvinner og barn, som hadde
1299 tilstrekkelig intelligens til å peke en boks i riktig retning og trykke på
1300 en knapp, med et instrument som helt fjernet fra praksisen med å fotografere
1301 nødvendigheten av uvanlig utstyr eller for den del, noe som helst spesiell
1302 kunnskap om kunstarten.  Det kan tas i bruk uten forutgående studier, uten
1303 et mørkerom og uten kjemikalier.<sup>[<a name="id3035361" href="#ftn.id3035361" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
1304 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1305 For $25 kunne alle ta bilder.  Det var allerede film i kameraet, og når det
1306 var brukt ble kameraet returnert til en Eastman-fabrikk hvor filmen ble
1307 fremkalt.  Etter hvert, naturligvis, ble både kostnaden til kameraet og hvor
1308 enkelt et var å bruke forbedret.  Film på rull ble dermed grunnlaget for en
1309 eksplosiv vekst i fotografering blant folket. Eastmans kamera ble lagt ut
1310 for salg i 1888, og et år senere trykket Kodak mer enn seks tusen negativer
1311 om dagen.  Fra 1888 til 1909, mens produksjonen i industrien vokste med 4,7
1312 prosent, økte salget av fotografisk utstyr og materiale med 11
1313 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id3037986" href="#ftn.id3037986" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
1314 samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id3037995" href="#ftn.id3037995" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
1315 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3038004"></a><p>
1316
1317
1318 The real significance of Eastman's invention, however, was not economic. It
1319 was social. Professional photography gave individuals a glimpse of places
1320 they would never otherwise see. Amateur photography gave them the ability to
1321 record their own lives in a way they had never been able to do before. As
1322 author Brian Coe notes, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">For the first time the snapshot album
1323 provided the man on the street with a permanent record of his family and its
1324 activities. &#8230; For the first time in history there exists an authentic
1325 visual record of the appearance and activities of the common man made
1326 without [literary] interpretation or bias.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3037938" href="#ftn.id3037938" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
1327 </p><p>
1328 In this way, the Kodak camera and film were technologies of expression.  The
1329 pencil or paintbrush was also a technology of expression, of course. But it
1330 took years of training before they could be deployed by amateurs in any
1331 useful or effective way. With the Kodak, expression was possible much sooner
1332 and more simply. The barrier to expression was lowered. Snobs would sneer at
1333 its <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">quality</span>&#8221;</span>; professionals would discount it as
1334 irrelevant. But watch a child study how best to frame a picture and you get
1335 a sense of the experience of creativity that the Kodak enabled. Democratic
1336 tools gave ordinary people a way to express themselves more easily than any
1337 tools could have before.
1338 </p><p>
1339 Hva krevdes for at denne teknologien skulle blomstre.  Eastmans genialitet
1340 var åpenbart en viktig del.  Men den juridiske miljøet som Eastmans
1341 oppfinnelse vokste i var også viktig.  For tidlig i historien til
1342 fotografering, var det en rekke av rettsavgjørelser som godt kunne ha endret
1343 kursen til fotograferingen betydelig.  Domstoler ble spurt om fotografen,
1344 amatør eller profesjonell, måtte ha ha tillatelse før han kunne fange og
1345 trykke hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket.  Svaret var nei.<sup>[<a name="id3038069" href="#ftn.id3038069" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
1346 </p><p>
1347
1348 The arguments in favor of requiring permission will sound surprisingly
1349 familiar. The photographer was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taking</span>&#8221;</span> something from the
1350 person or building whose photograph he shot&#8212;pirating something of
1351 value. Some even thought he was taking the target's soul. Just as Disney was
1352 not free to take the pencils that his animators used to draw Mickey, so,
1353 too, should these photographers not be free to take images that they thought
1354 valuable.
1355 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3038107"></a><p>
1356 På den andre siden var et argument som også bør bør være kjent. Joda, det
1357 var kanskje noe av verdi som ble brukt.  Men borgerne burde ha rett til å
1358 fange i hvert fall de bildene som var tatt av offentlig område.  (Louis
1359 Brandeis, som senere ble høyesterettsjustitiarus, mente regelen skulle være
1360 annerledes for bilder tatt av private områder.<sup>[<a name="id3038132" href="#ftn.id3038132" class="footnote">32</a>]</sup>) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting.
1361 På samme måte som Disney kunne hente inspirasjon fra <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
1362 Bill, Jr</em>. eller Grimm-brødrene, så burde fotografene stå fritt
1363 til å fange et bilde uten å kompensere kilden.
1364 </p><p>
1365 Heldigvis for Mr. Eastman, og for fotografering generelt, gikk disse
1366 tidligere avgjørelsene i favør av piratene.  Generelt ble det ikke nødvendig
1367 å sikre seg tillatelse før et bilde kunne tas og deles med andre.  I stedet
1368 var det antatt at tillatelse var gitt.  Frihet var utgangspunktet.  (Loven
1369 ga etter en stund et unntak for berømte personer: kommersielle fotografer
1370 som tok bilder av berømte personer for kommersielle formål har flere
1371 begrensninger enn resten av oss.  Men i det vanlige tilfellet, kan bildet
1372 fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.<sup>[<a name="id3038187" href="#ftn.id3038187" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
1373 </p><p>
1374 We can only speculate about how photography would have developed had the law
1375 gone the other way. If the presumption had been against the photographer,
1376 then the photographer would have had to demonstrate permission. Perhaps
1377 Eastman Kodak would have had to demonstrate permission, too, before it
1378 developed the film upon which images were captured. After all, if permission
1379 were not granted, then Eastman Kodak would be benefiting from the
1380 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">theft</span>&#8221;</span> committed by the photographer. Just as Napster
1381 benefited from the copyright infringements committed by Napster users, Kodak
1382 would be benefiting from the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">image-right</span>&#8221;</span> infringement of its
1383 photographers. We could imagine the law then requiring that some form of
1384 permission be demonstrated before a company developed pictures. We could
1385 imagine a system developing to demonstrate that permission.
1386 </p><p>
1387
1388
1389
1390 But though we could imagine this system of permission, it would be very hard
1391 to see how photography could have flourished as it did if the requirement
1392 for permission had been built into the rules that govern it. Photography
1393 would have existed. It would have grown in importance over
1394 time. Professionals would have continued to use the technology as they
1395 did&#8212;since professionals could have more easily borne the burdens of
1396 the permission system. But the spread of photography to ordinary people
1397 would not have occurred. Nothing like that growth would have been
1398 realized. And certainly, nothing like that growth in a democratic technology
1399 of expression would have been realized.  If you drive through San
1400 Francisco's Presidio, you might see two gaudy yellow school buses painted
1401 over with colorful and striking images, and the logo <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Just
1402 Think!</span>&#8221;</span> in place of the name of a school. But there's little that's
1403 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">just</span>&#8221;</span> cerebral in the projects that these busses enable.
1404 These buses are filled with technologies that teach kids to tinker with
1405 film. Not the film of Eastman. Not even the film of your VCR.  Rather the
1406 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">film</span>&#8221;</span> of digital cameras. Just Think! is a project that
1407 enables kids to make films, as a way to understand and critique the filmed
1408 culture that they find all around them. Each year, these busses travel to
1409 more than thirty schools and enable three hundred to five hundred children
1410 to learn something about media by doing something with media.  By doing,
1411 they think. By tinkering, they learn.
1412 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3038281"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3038289"></a><p>
1413 These buses are not cheap, but the technology they carry is increasingly
1414 so. The cost of a high-quality digital video system has fallen
1415 dramatically.  As one analyst puts it, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Five years ago, a good
1416 real-time digital video editing system cost $25,000. Today you can get
1417 professional quality for $595.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3038307" href="#ftn.id3038307" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup>
1418 These buses are filled with technology that would have cost hundreds of
1419 thousands just ten years ago. And it is now feasible to imagine not just
1420 buses like this, but classrooms across the country where kids are learning
1421 more and more of something teachers call <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">media literacy.</span>&#8221;</span>
1422 </p><p>
1423
1424 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Media literacy,</span>&#8221;</span> as Dave Yanofsky, the executive director of
1425 Just Think!, puts it, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">is the ability &#8230; to understand, analyze,
1426 and deconstruct media images. Its aim is to make [kids] literate about the
1427 way media works, the way it's constructed, the way it's delivered, and the
1428 way people access it.</span>&#8221;</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id3038348"></a>
1429 </p><p>
1430 This may seem like an odd way to think about <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">literacy.</span>&#8221;</span> For
1431 most people, literacy is about reading and writing. Faulkner and Hemingway
1432 and noticing split infinitives are the things that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">literate</span>&#8221;</span>
1433 people know about.
1434 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3038370"></a><p>
1435 Maybe. But in a world where children see on average 390 hours of television
1436 commercials per year, or between 20,000 and 45,000 commercials
1437 generally,<sup>[<a name="id3038381" href="#ftn.id3038381" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> it is increasingly important
1438 to understand the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">grammar</span>&#8221;</span> of media. For just as there is a
1439 grammar for the written word, so, too, is there one for media. And just as
1440 kids learn how to write by writing lots of terrible prose, kids learn how to
1441 write media by constructing lots of (at least at first) terrible media.
1442 </p><p>
1443 Et voksende felt av akademikere og aktivister ser denne formen for
1444 skriveføre som avgjørende for den neste generasjonen av kultur. For selv om
1445 de som har skrevet forstår hvor vanskelig det er å skrive&#8212;hvor
1446 vanskelig det er å bestemme rekkefølge i historien, å holde på
1447 oppmerksomheten hos leseren, å forme språket slik at det er
1448 forståelig&#8212;så har få av oss en reell følelse av hvor vanskelig medier
1449 er. Eller mer fundamentalt, de færreste av av oss har en følelse for
1450 hvordan media fungerer, hvordan det holder et publikum eller leder leseren
1451 gjennom historien, hvordan det utløser følelser eller bygger opp spenningen.
1452 </p><p>
1453 Det tok filmkusten en generasjon før den kunne gjøre disse tingene bra.  Men
1454 selv da, så var kunnskapen i filmingen, ikke i å skrive om filmen.
1455 Ferdigheten kom fra erfaring med å lage en film, ikke fra å lese en bok om
1456 den.  En lærer å skrive ved å skrive, og deretter reflektere over det en har
1457 skrevet.  En lærer å skrive med bilder ved å lage dem, og deretter
1458 reflektere over det en har laget.
1459 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3038415"></a><p>
1460 This grammar has changed as media has changed. When it was just film, as
1461 Elizabeth Daley, executive director of the University of Southern
1462 California's Annenberg Center for Communication and dean of the USC School
1463 of Cinema-Television, explained to me, the grammar was about <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the
1464 placement of objects, color, &#8230; rhythm, pacing, and
1465 texture.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3038343" href="#ftn.id3038343" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> But as computers open
1466 up an interactive space where a story is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">played</span>&#8221;</span> as well as
1467 experienced, that grammar changes. The simple control of narrative is lost,
1468 and so other techniques are necessary. Author Michael Crichton had mastered
1469 the narrative of science fiction.  But when he tried to design a computer
1470 game based on one of his works, it was a new craft he had to learn. How to
1471 lead people through a game without their feeling they have been led was not
1472 obvious, even to a wildly successful author.<sup>[<a name="id3038501" href="#ftn.id3038501" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
1473 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3038528"></a><p>
1474 This skill is precisely the craft a filmmaker learns. As Daley describes,
1475 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">people are very surprised about how they are led through a film. [I]t
1476 is perfectly constructed to keep you from seeing it, so you have no idea. If
1477 a filmmaker succeeds you do not know how you were led.</span>&#8221;</span> If you know
1478 you were led through a film, the film has failed.
1479 </p><p>
1480 Likevel er innsatsen for å utvide skriveføren&#8212;til en som går ut over
1481 tekst til å ta med lyd og visuelle elementer&#8212;handler ikke om å lage
1482 bedre filmregisører.  Målet er ikke å forbedre filmyrket i det hele tatt.  I
1483 stedet, som Daley forklarer,
1484 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1485 Fra mitt perspektiv er antagelig det viktigste digitale skillet ikke om en
1486 har tilgang til en boks eller ikke.  Det er evnen til å ha kontroll over
1487 språket som boksen bruker.  I motsatt fall er det bare noen få som kan
1488 skrive i dette språket, og alle oss andre er redusert til å ikke kunne
1489 skrive.
1490 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1491 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Read-only.</span>&#8221;</span> Passive recipients of culture produced elsewhere.
1492 Couch potatoes. Consumers. This is the world of media from the twentieth
1493 century.
1494 </p><p>
1495 The twenty-first century could be different. This is the crucial point: It
1496 could be both read and write. Or at least reading and better understanding
1497 the craft of writing. Or best, reading and understanding the tools that
1498 enable the writing to lead or mislead. The aim of any literacy, and this
1499 literacy in particular, is to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">empower people to choose the
1500 appropriate language for what they need to create or
1501 express.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3038596" href="#ftn.id3038596" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> It is to enable
1502 students <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">to communicate in the language of the twenty-first
1503 century.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3038615" href="#ftn.id3038615" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
1504 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3038622"></a><p>
1505 Som det alle andre språk, læres dette språket lettere for noen enn for
1506 andre.  Det kommer ikke nødvendigvis lettere for de som gjør det godt
1507 skriftlig. Daley og Stephanie Barish, direktør for Institutt for
1508 Multimedia-skriveføre ved Annenberg-senteret, beskriver et spesielt sterkt
1509 eksempel fra et prosjekt de gjennomførte i en videregående skole.  Den
1510 videregående skolen var en veldig fattig skole i den indre byen i Los
1511 Angeles.  Etter alle tradisjonelle måleenheter for suksess var denne skolen
1512 en fiasko.  Men Daley og Barish gjennomførte et program som ga ungene en
1513 mulighet til å bruke film til å uttrykke sine meninger om noe som studentene
1514 visste noe om&#8212;våpen-relatert vold.
1515 </p><p>
1516 The class was held on Friday afternoons, and it created a relatively new
1517 problem for the school. While the challenge in most classes was getting the
1518 kids to come, the challenge in this class was keeping them away. The
1519 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kids were showing up at 6 A.M. and leaving at 5 at night,</span>&#8221;</span>
1520 said Barish. They were working harder than in any other class to do what
1521 education should be about&#8212;learning how to express themselves.
1522 </p><p>
1523 Using whatever <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free web stuff they could find,</span>&#8221;</span> and relatively
1524 simple tools to enable the kids to mix <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">image, sound, and
1525 text,</span>&#8221;</span> Barish said this class produced a series of projects that
1526 showed something about gun violence that few would otherwise
1527 understand. This was an issue close to the lives of these students. The
1528 project <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">gave them a tool and empowered them to be able to both
1529 understand it and talk about it,</span>&#8221;</span> Barish explained. That tool
1530 succeeded in creating expression&#8212;far more successfully and powerfully
1531 than could have been created using only text. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">If you had said to
1532 these students, `you have to do it in text,' they would've just thrown their
1533 hands up and gone and done something else,</span>&#8221;</span> Barish described, in
1534 part, no doubt, because expressing themselves in text is not something these
1535 students can do well. Yet neither is text a form in which
1536 <span class="emphasis"><em>these</em></span> ideas can be expressed well. The power of this
1537 message depended upon its connection to this form of expression.
1538 </p><p>
1539
1540
1541
1542 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But isn't education about teaching kids to write?</span>&#8221;</span> I asked. In
1543 part, of course, it is. But why are we teaching kids to write? Education,
1544 Daley explained, is about giving students a way of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">constructing
1545 meaning.</span>&#8221;</span> To say that that means just writing is like saying teaching
1546 writing is only about teaching kids how to spell. Text is one part&#8212;and
1547 increasingly, not the most powerful part&#8212;of constructing meaning. As
1548 Daley explained in the most moving part of our interview,
1549 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1550 What you want is to give these students ways of constructing meaning. If all
1551 you give them is text, they're not going to do it.  Because they can't. You
1552 know, you've got Johnny who can look at a video, he can play a video game,
1553 he can do graffiti all over your walls, he can take your car apart, and he
1554 can do all sorts of other things. He just can't read your text. So Johnny
1555 comes to school and you say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Johnny, you're illiterate. Nothing you
1556 can do matters.</span>&#8221;</span> Well, Johnny then has two choices: He can dismiss
1557 you or he [can] dismiss himself. If his ego is healthy at all, he's going to
1558 dismiss you. [But i]nstead, if you say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Well, with all these things
1559 that you can do, let's talk about this issue. Play for me music that you
1560 think reflects that, or show me images that you think reflect that, or draw
1561 for me something that reflects that.</span>&#8221;</span> Not by giving a kid a video
1562 camera and &#8230; saying, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Let's go have fun with the video camera
1563 and make a little movie.</span>&#8221;</span> But instead, really help you take these
1564 elements that you understand, that are your language, and construct meaning
1565 about the topic.&#8230;
1566 </p><p>
1567 That empowers enormously. And then what happens, of course, is eventually,
1568 as it has happened in all these classes, they bump up against the fact,
1569 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I need to explain this and I really need to write something.</span>&#8221;</span>
1570 And as one of the teachers told Stephanie, they would rewrite a paragraph 5,
1571 6, 7, 8 times, till they got it right.
1572 </p><p>
1573
1574 Because they needed to. There was a reason for doing it. They needed to say
1575 something, as opposed to just jumping through your hoops. They actually
1576 needed to use a language that they didn't speak very well. But they had come
1577 to understand that they had a lot of power with this language.
1578 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1579 Da to fly krasjet inn i World Trade Center, og et annet inn i Pentagon, og
1580 et fjerde inn i et jorde i Pennsylvania, snudde alle medier verden rundt seg
1581 til denne nyheten.  Ethvert moment for omtreng hver eneste dag den uka, og
1582 ukene som fulgte gjenfortalte TV spesielt, men media generelt, historien om
1583 disse hendelsene som vi nettopp hadde vært vitne til.  Genialiteten i denne
1584 forferdelige terrorhandlingen var at det forsinkede andre-angrepet var
1585 perfekt tidsatt for å sikre at hele verden ville være der for å se på.
1586 </p><p>
1587 These retellings had an increasingly familiar feel. There was music scored
1588 for the intermissions, and fancy graphics that flashed across the
1589 screen. There was a formula to interviews. There was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">balance,</span>&#8221;</span>
1590 and seriousness. This was news choreographed in the way we have increasingly
1591 come to expect it, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">news as entertainment,</span>&#8221;</span> even if the
1592 entertainment is tragedy.
1593 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3038824"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3038830"></a><p>
1594 But in addition to this produced news about the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">tragedy of September
1595 11,</span>&#8221;</span> those of us tied to the Internet came to see a very different
1596 production as well. The Internet was filled with accounts of the same
1597 events. Yet these Internet accounts had a very different flavor. Some people
1598 constructed photo pages that captured images from around the world and
1599 presented them as slide shows with text. Some offered open letters. There
1600 were sound recordings. There was anger and frustration.  There were attempts
1601 to provide context. There was, in short, an extraordinary worldwide barn
1602 raising, in the sense Mike Godwin uses the term in his book <em class="citetitle">Cyber
1603 Rights</em>, around a news event that had captured the attention of
1604 the world. There was ABC and CBS, but there was also the Internet.
1605 </p><p>
1606
1607 I don't mean simply to praise the Internet&#8212;though I do think the
1608 people who supported this form of speech should be praised. I mean instead
1609 to point to a significance in this form of speech. For like a Kodak, the
1610 Internet enables people to capture images. And like in a movie by a student
1611 on the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Just Think!</span>&#8221;</span> bus, the visual images could be mixed with
1612 sound or text.
1613 </p><p>
1614 Men i motsetning til en hvilken som helst teknologi for å enkelt fange
1615 bilder, tillater internettet at en nesten umiddelbart deler disse
1616 kreasjonene med et ekstraordinært antall menesker.  Dette er noe nytt i vår
1617 tradisjon&#8212;ikke bare kan kultur fanges inn mekanisk, og åpenbart heller
1618 ikke at hendelser blir kommentert kritisk, men at denne blandingen av
1619 bilder, lyd og kommentar kan spres vidt omkring nesten umiddelbart.
1620 </p><p>
1621 11. september var ikke et avvik.  Det var en start.  Omtrent på samme tid,
1622 begynte en form for kommunkasjon som hadde vokst dramatisk å komme inn i
1623 offentlig bevissthet: web-loggen, eller blog.  Bloggen er en slags offentlig
1624 dagbok, og i noen kulturer, slik som i Japan, fungerer den veldig lik en
1625 dagbok.  I disse kulturene registrerer den private fakta på en offentlig
1626 måte&#8212;det er en slags elektronisk <em class="citetitle">Jerry
1627 Springer</em>, tilgjengelig overalt i verden.
1628 </p><p>
1629 Men i USA har blogger inntatt en svært annerledes karakter.  Det er noen som
1630 bruker denne plassen til å snakke om sitt private liv.  Men det er mange som
1631 bruker denne plassen til å delta i offentlig debatt. Diskuterer saker med
1632 offentlig interesse, kritiserer andre som har feil synspunkt, kritisere
1633 politigere for avgjørelser de tar, tilbyr løsninger på problemer vi alle
1634 ser.  Blogger skaper en følelse av et virtuelt offentlig møte, men et hvor
1635 vi ikke alle håper å være tilstede på samme tid og hvor konversasjonene ikke
1636 nødvendigvis er koblet sammen.  De beste av bloggoppføringene er relativt
1637 korte.  De peker direkte til ord bruk av andre, kritiserer dem eller bidrar
1638 til dem.  Det kan argumenteres for at de er den viktigste form for
1639 ukoreografert offentlig debatt som vi har.
1640 </p><p>
1641
1642 Dette er en sterk uttalelse.  Likevel sier den like mye om vårt demokrati
1643 som den sier om blogger.  Dette er delen av USA som det er mest vanskelig
1644 for oss som elsker USA å akseptere: vårt demokrati har svunnet hen.  Vi har
1645 naturligvis valg, og mesteparten av tiden tillater domstolene at disse
1646 valgene teller.  Et relativt lite antall mennesker stemmer i disse valgene.
1647 Syklusen med disse valgene har blitt totalt profesjonalisert og
1648 rutinepreget.  De fleste av oss tenker på dette som demokrati.
1649 </p><p>
1650 But democracy has never just been about elections. Democracy means rule by
1651 the people, but rule means something more than mere elections. In our
1652 tradition, it also means control through reasoned discourse.  This was the
1653 idea that captured the imagination of Alexis de Tocqueville, the
1654 nineteenth-century French lawyer who wrote the most important account of
1655 early <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Democracy in America.</span>&#8221;</span> It wasn't popular elections that
1656 fascinated him&#8212;it was the jury, an institution that gave ordinary
1657 people the right to choose life or death for other citizens.  And most
1658 fascinating for him was that the jury didn't just vote about the outcome
1659 they would impose. They deliberated. Members argued about the
1660 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">right</span>&#8221;</span> result; they tried to persuade each other of the
1661 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">right</span>&#8221;</span> result, and in criminal cases at least, they had to
1662 agree upon a unanimous result for the process to come to an end.<sup>[<a name="id3038981" href="#ftn.id3038981" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
1663 </p><p>
1664 Yet even this institution flags in American life today. And in its place,
1665 there is no systematic effort to enable citizen deliberation. Some are
1666 pushing to create just such an institution.<sup>[<a name="id3038998" href="#ftn.id3038998" class="footnote">41</a>]</sup> And in some towns in New England, something close to deliberation
1667 remains. But for most of us for most of the time, there is no time or place
1668 for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">democratic deliberation</span>&#8221;</span> to occur.
1669 </p><p>
1670 Mer merkelig er at en generelt sett ikke engang har aksept for at det skal
1671 skje.  Vi, det mektigste demokratiet i verden, har utviklet en sterk norm
1672 mot å diskutere politikk.  Det er greit å diskutere politikk med folk du er
1673 enig med, men det er uhøflig å diskutere politikk med folk du er uenig med.
1674 Politisk debatt blir isolert, og isolert diskusjon blir mer
1675 ekstrem.<sup>[<a name="id3039034" href="#ftn.id3039034" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> Vi sier det våre venner vil
1676 høre, og hører veldig lite utenom hva våre venner sier.
1677 </p><p>
1678
1679 Så kommer bloggen.  Selve bloggens arkitektur løser en del av dette
1680 problemet.  Folk publiserer det de ønsker å publisere, og folk leser det de
1681 ønsker å lese.  Det vanskeligste tiden er synkron tid. Teknologier som
1682 muliggjør asynkron kommunasjons, slik som epost, øker muligheten for
1683 kommunikasjon.  Blogger gjør det mulig med offentlig debatt uten at folket
1684 noen gang trenger å samle seg på et enkelt offentlig sted.
1685 </p><p>
1686 Men i tillegg til arkitektur, har blogger også løst problemet med normer.
1687 Det er (ennå) ingen norm i blogg-sfæren om å ikke snakke om politikk.
1688 Sfæren er faktisk fylt med politiske innlegg, både på høyre- og
1689 venstresiden.  Noen av de mest populære stedene er konservative eller
1690 libertarianske, men det er mange av alle politiske farger.  Til og med
1691 blogger som ikke er politiske dekker politiske temaer når anledningen krever
1692 det.
1693 </p><p>
1694 Betydningene av disse bloggene er liten nå, men ikke ubetydelig. Navnet
1695 Howard Dean har i stor grad forsvunnet fra 2004-presidentvalgkampen bortsett
1696 fra hos noen få blogger.  Men selv om antallet lesere er lavt, så har det å
1697 lese dem en effekt. <a class="indexterm" name="id3039091"></a>
1698 </p><p>
1699 One direct effect is on stories that had a different life cycle in the
1700 mainstream media. The Trent Lott affair is an example. When Lott
1701 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">misspoke</span>&#8221;</span> at a party for Senator Strom Thurmond, essentially
1702 praising Thurmond's segregationist policies, he calculated correctly that
1703 this story would disappear from the mainstream press within forty-eight
1704 hours. It did. But he didn't calculate its life cycle in blog space. The
1705 bloggers kept researching the story. Over time, more and more instances of
1706 the same <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">misspeaking</span>&#8221;</span> emerged. Finally, the story broke back
1707 into the mainstream press. In the end, Lott was forced to resign as senate
1708 majority leader.<sup>[<a name="id3039117" href="#ftn.id3039117" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3039128"></a>
1709 </p><p>
1710 Denne annerledes syklusen er mulig på grunn av at et tilsvarende kommersielt
1711 press ikke eksisterer hos blogger slik det gjør hos andre kanaler.
1712 Televisjon og aviser er kommersielle aktører.  De må arbeide for å holde på
1713 oppmerksomheten.  Hvis de mister lesere, så mister de inntekter.  Som haier,
1714 må de bevege seg videre.
1715 </p><p>
1716 Men bloggere har ikke tilsvarende begresninger.  De kan bli opphengt, de kan
1717 fokusere, de kan bli seriøse.  Hvis en bestemt blogger skriver en spesielt
1718 interessant historie, så vil flere og flere folk lenke til den historien.
1719 Og etter hvert som antalet lenker til en bestemt historie øker, så stiger
1720 den i rangeringen for historier.  Folk leser det som er populært, og hva som
1721 er populært har blitt valgt gjennom en svært demokratisk prosess av
1722 likemanns-generert rangering.
1723 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinerdave"></a><p>
1724
1725 There's a second way, as well, in which blogs have a different cycle from
1726 the mainstream press. As Dave Winer, one of the fathers of this movement and
1727 a software author for many decades, told me, another difference is the
1728 absence of a financial <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">conflict of interest.</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I think
1729 you have to take the conflict of interest</span>&#8221;</span> out of journalism, Winer
1730 told me.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">An amateur journalist simply doesn't have a conflict of
1731 interest, or the conflict of interest is so easily disclosed that you know
1732 you can sort of get it out of the way.</span>&#8221;</span>
1733 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3039203"></a><p>
1734 These conflicts become more important as media becomes more concentrated
1735 (more on this below). A concentrated media can hide more from the public
1736 than an unconcentrated media can&#8212;as CNN admitted it did after the Iraq
1737 war because it was afraid of the consequences to its own
1738 employees.<sup>[<a name="id3038967" href="#ftn.id3038967" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> It also needs to sustain a
1739 more coherent account. (In the middle of the Iraq war, I read a post on the
1740 Internet from someone who was at that time listening to a satellite uplink
1741 with a reporter in Iraq. The New York headquarters was telling the reporter
1742 over and over that her account of the war was too bleak: She needed to offer
1743 a more optimistic story. When she told New York that wasn't warranted, they
1744 told her that <span class="emphasis"><em>they</em></span> were writing <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the
1745 story.</span>&#8221;</span>)
1746 </p><p> Blog space gives amateurs a way to enter the
1747 debate&#8212;<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">amateur</span>&#8221;</span> not in the sense of inexperienced, but
1748 in the sense of an Olympic athlete, meaning not paid by anyone to give their
1749 reports. It allows for a much broader range of input into a story, as
1750 reporting on the Columbia disaster revealed, when hundreds from across the
1751 southwest United States turned to the Internet to retell what they had
1752 seen.<sup>[<a name="id3039251" href="#ftn.id3039251" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> And it drives readers to read
1753 across the range of accounts and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">triangulate,</span>&#8221;</span> as Winer puts
1754 it, the truth. Blogs, Winer says, are <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">communicating directly with our
1755 constituency, and the middle man is out of it</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;with all the
1756 benefits, and costs, that might entail.
1757 </p><p>
1758
1759 Winer is optimistic about the future of journalism infected with
1760 blogs. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">It's going to become an essential skill,</span>&#8221;</span> Winer
1761 predicts, for public figures and increasingly for private figures as
1762 well. It's not clear that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">journalism</span>&#8221;</span> is happy about
1763 this&#8212;some journalists have been told to curtail their
1764 blogging.<sup>[<a name="id3039286" href="#ftn.id3039286" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> But it is clear that we are
1765 still in transition. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">A lot of what we are doing now is warm-up
1766 exercises,</span>&#8221;</span> Winer told me.  There is a lot that must mature before
1767 this space has its mature effect.  And as the inclusion of content in this
1768 space is the least infringing use of the Internet (meaning infringing on
1769 copyright), Winer said, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">we will be the last thing that gets shut
1770 down.</span>&#8221;</span>
1771 </p><p>
1772 This speech affects democracy. Winer thinks that happens because <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">you
1773 don't have to work for somebody who controls, [for] a gatekeeper.</span>&#8221;</span>
1774 That is true. But it affects democracy in another way as well.  As more and
1775 more citizens express what they think, and defend it in writing, that will
1776 change the way people understand public issues. It is easy to be wrong and
1777 misguided in your head. It is harder when the product of your mind can be
1778 criticized by others. Of course, it is a rare human who admits that he has
1779 been persuaded that he is wrong. But it is even rarer for a human to ignore
1780 when he has been proven wrong.  The writing of ideas, arguments, and
1781 criticism improves democracy.  Today there are probably a couple of million
1782 blogs where such writing happens. When there are ten million, there will be
1783 something extraordinary to report.
1784 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3039375"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising1"></a><p>
1785 John Seely Brown is the chief scientist of the Xerox Corporation.  His work,
1786 as his Web site describes it, is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">human learning and &#8230; the
1787 creation of knowledge ecologies for creating &#8230; innovation.</span>&#8221;</span>
1788 </p><p>
1789 Brown ser dermed på disse teknologiene for digital kreativitet litt
1790 annerledes enn fra perspektivene jeg har skissert opp så langt.  Jeg er
1791 sikker på at han blir begeistret for enhver teknologi som kan forbedre
1792 demokratiet.  Men det han virkelig blir begeistret over er hvordan disse
1793 teknologiene påvirker læring.
1794 </p><p>
1795
1796 As Brown believes, we learn by tinkering. When <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">a lot of us grew
1797 up,</span>&#8221;</span> he explains, that tinkering was done <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">on motorcycle
1798 engines, lawnmower engines, automobiles, radios, and so on.</span>&#8221;</span> But
1799 digital technologies enable a different kind of tinkering&#8212;with
1800 abstract ideas though in concrete form. The kids at Just Think! not only
1801 think about how a commercial portrays a politician; using digital
1802 technology, they can take the commercial apart and manipulate it, tinker
1803 with it to see how it does what it does. Digital technologies launch a kind
1804 of bricolage, or <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free collage,</span>&#8221;</span> as Brown calls it. Many get to
1805 add to or transform the tinkering of many others.
1806 </p><p>
1807 Det beste eksemplet i større skala så langt på denne typen fikling er fri
1808 programvare og åpen kildekode (FS/OSS).  FS/OSS er programvare der
1809 kildekoden deles ut.  Alle kan laste ned teknologien som får et
1810 FS/OSS-program til å fungere.  Og enhver som har lyst til å lære hvordan en
1811 bestemt bit av FS/OSS-teknologi fungerer kan fikle med koden.
1812 </p><p>
1813 Denne muligheten gir en <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">helt ny type læringsplattform</span>&#8221;</span>, i
1814 følge Brown.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Så snart du begynner å gjøre dette, så &#8230; slipper
1815 du løs en fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling til fellesskapet, slik at andre
1816 folk kan begynne å se på koden din, fikle med den, teste den, seom de kan
1817 forbedre den</span>&#8221;</span>.  Og hver innsats er et slags læretid.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Åpen
1818 kildekode blir en stor lærlingeplatform.</span>&#8221;</span>.
1819 </p><p>
1820 I denne prossesen, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">er de konkrete tingene du fikler med abstrakte. De
1821 er kildekode</span>&#8221;</span>.  Unger <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">endres til å få evnen til å fikle med
1822 det abstrakte, og denne fiklingen er ikke lenger en isolert aktivitet som du
1823 gjør i garasjen din.  Du fikler med en fellesskapsplatform. &#8230; Du
1824 fikler med andre folks greier.  Og jo mer du fikler, jo mer forbedrer
1825 du.</span>&#8221;</span> Jo mer du forbedrer, jo mer lærer du.
1826 </p><p>
1827 Denne sammen tingen skjer også med innhold.  Og det skjer på samme
1828 samarbeidende måte når dette innholdet er del av nettet.  Som Brown
1829 formulerer det, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">nettet er det første medium som virkelig tar hensyn
1830 til flere former for intelligens</span>&#8221;</span>.  Tidligere teknologier, slik som
1831 skrivemaskin eller tekstbehandling, hjelper med å fremme tekst.  Men nettet
1832 fremmer mye mer enn tekst.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Nettet &#8230; si hvis du er musikalsk,
1833 hvis du er kunstnerisk, hvis du er visuell, hvis du er interessert i film
1834 &#8230;da er det en masse du kan gå igang med på dette mediet.  Det kan
1835 fremme og ta hensyn til alle disse formene for intelligens.</span>&#8221;</span>
1836 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3039545"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3039553"></a><p>
1837
1838 Brown snakker om hva Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish Og Just Think! lærer
1839 bort: at denne fiklingen med kultur lærer såvel som den skaper. Den utvikler
1840 talenter litt anderledes, og den bygger en annen type gjenkjenning.
1841 </p><p>
1842 Likevel er friheten til å fikle med disse objektene ikke garantert. Faktisk,
1843 som vi vil se i løpet av denne boken, er den friheten i stadig større grad
1844 omstridt.  Mens det ikke er noe tvil om at din far hadde rett til å fikle
1845 med bilmotoren, så er det stor tvil om dine barn vil ha retten til å fikle
1846 med bilder som hun finner over alt. Loven, og teknologi i stadig større
1847 grad, forstyrrer friheten som teknolog, nysgjerrigheten, ellers ville sikre.
1848 </p><p>
1849 Disse begresningene har blitt fokusen for forskere og akademikere. Professor
1850 Ed Felten ved Princeton (som vi vil se mer fra i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;">10</a>) har utviklet et
1851 kraftfylt argument til fordel for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">retten til å fikle</span>&#8221;</span> slik det
1852 gjøres i informatikk og til kunnskap generelt.<sup>[<a name="id3039604" href="#ftn.id3039604" class="footnote">47</a>]</sup> Men bekymringen til Brown er tidligere, og mer fundamentalt.  Det
1853 handler om hva slags læring unger kan få, eller ikke kan få, på grunn av
1854 loven.
1855 </p><p>
1856 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Dette er dit utviklingen av utdanning i det tjueførste århundret er
1857 på vei</span>&#8221;</span>, forklarer Brown.  Vi må <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">forstå hvordan unger som
1858 vokser opp digitalt tenker og ønsker å lære</span>&#8221;</span>.
1859 </p><p>
1860 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Likevel</span>&#8221;</span>, fortsatte Brown, og som balansen i denne boken vil
1861 føre bevis for, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">bygger vi et juridisk system som fullstendig
1862 undertrykker den naturlige tendensen i dagens digitale unger. &#8230; We
1863 bygger en arkitektur som frigjør 60 prosent av hjernen [og] et juridisk
1864 system som stenger ned den delen av hjernen</span>&#8221;</span>.
1865 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3039663"></a><p>
1866 Vi bygger en teknologi som tar magien til Kodak, mikser inn bevegelige
1867 bilder og lyd, og legger inn plass for kommentarer og en mulighet til å spre
1868 denne kreativiteten over alt.  Men vi bygger loven for å stenge ned denne
1869 teknologien.
1870 </p><p>
1871 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Ikke måten å drive en kultur på</span>&#8221;</span>, sa Brewster Kahle, som vi
1872 møtte i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere">9</a>, kommenterte til meg i et sjeldent øyeblikk av
1873 nedstemthet.
1874 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3037907" href="#id3037907" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
1875
1876
1877 Reese V. Jenkins, <em class="citetitle">Images and Enterprise</em> (Baltimore:
1878 Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 112.
1879 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3035361" href="#id3035361" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
1880
1881 Brian Coe, <em class="citetitle">The Birth of Photography</em> (New York:
1882 Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3037960"></a>
1883 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3037986" href="#id3037986" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
1884
1885
1886 Jenkins, 177.
1887 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3037995" href="#id3037995" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
1888
1889
1890 Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178.
1891 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3037938" href="#id3037938" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
1892
1893
1894 Coe, 58.
1895 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3038069" href="#id3038069" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
1896
1897
1898 For illustrerende saker, se for eksempel, <em class="citetitle">Pavesich</em>
1899 mot <em class="citetitle">N.E. Life Ins. Co</em>., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905);
1900 <em class="citetitle">Foster-Milburn Co</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Chinn</em>,
1901 123090 S.W. 364, 366 (Ky. 1909); <em class="citetitle">Corliss</em> mot
1902 <em class="citetitle">Walker</em>, 64 F. 280 (Mass.  Dist. Ct. 1894).
1903 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3038132" href="#id3038132" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
1904
1905 Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy,</span>&#8221;</span>
1906 <em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3038144"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3038152"></a>
1907 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3038187" href="#id3038187" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
1908
1909
1910 See Melville B. Nimmer, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Right of Publicity,</span>&#8221;</span>
1911 <em class="citetitle">Law and Contemporary Problems</em> 19 (1954): 203; William
1912 L. Prosser, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Privacy,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">California Law
1913 Review</em> 48 (1960) 398&#8211;407; <em class="citetitle">White</em>
1914 v. <em class="citetitle">Samsung Electronics America, Inc</em>., 971 F.  2d 1395
1915 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951 (1993).
1916 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3038307" href="#id3038307" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
1917
1918
1919 H. Edward Goldberg, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and
1920 Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations,</span>&#8221;</span>
1921 cadalyst, February 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #7</a>.
1922 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3038381" href="#id3038381" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
1923
1924
1925 Judith Van Evra, <em class="citetitle">Television and Child Development</em>
1926 (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Findings on
1927 Family and TV Study,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25 May
1928 1997, B6.
1929 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3038343" href="#id3038343" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
1930
1931 Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002.
1932 <a class="indexterm" name="id3038473"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3038482"></a>
1933 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3038501" href="#id3038501" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
1934
1935
1936 See Scott Steinberg, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs,</span>&#8221;</span> E!online,
1937 4 November 2000, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #8</a>;
1938 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Timeline,</span>&#8221;</span> 22 November 2000, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #9</a>.
1939 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3038596" href="#id3038596" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
1940
1941 Intervju med Daley og Barish.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3038602"></a>
1942 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3038615" href="#id3038615" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
1943
1944
1945 ibid.
1946 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3038981" href="#id3038981" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
1947
1948
1949 Se for eksempel Alexis de Tocqueville, <em class="citetitle">Democracy in
1950 America</em>, bk. 1, overs.  Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books,
1951 2000), kap. 16.
1952 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3038998" href="#id3038998" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
1953
1954
1955 Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Deliberation Day,</span>&#8221;</span>
1956 <em class="citetitle">Journal of Political Philosophy</em> 10 (2) (2002): 129.
1957 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3039034" href="#id3039034" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
1958
1959
1960 Cass Sunstein, <em class="citetitle">Republic.com</em> (Princeton: Princeton
1961 University Press, 2001), 65&#8211;80, 175, 182, 183, 192.
1962 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3039117" href="#id3039117" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
1963
1964
1965 Noah Shachtman, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the
1966 Pot,</span>&#8221;</span> New York Times, 16 January 2003, G5.
1967 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3038967" href="#id3038967" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
1968
1969
1970 Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003.
1971 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3039251" href="#id3039251" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
1972
1973
1974 John Schwartz, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
1975 Information Online,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 2
1976 February 2003, A28; Staci D. Kramer, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed,
1977 but Strong Overall,</span>&#8221;</span> Online Journalism Review, 2 February 2003,
1978 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #10</a>.
1979 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3039286" href="#id3039286" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
1980
1981 See Michael Falcone, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?</span>&#8221;</span>
1982 <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 29 September 2003, C4. (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Not
1983 all news organizations have been as accepting of employees who blog. Kevin
1984 Sites, a CNN correspondent in Iraq who started a blog about his reporting of
1985 the war on March 9, stopped posting 12 days later at his bosses'
1986 request. Last year Steve Olafson, a <em class="citetitle">Houston Chronicle</em>
1987 reporter, was fired for keeping a personal Web log, published under a
1988 pseudonym, that dealt with some of the issues and people he was
1989 covering.</span>&#8221;</span>)  <a class="indexterm" name="id3039330"></a>
1990 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3039604" href="#id3039604" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
1991
1992
1993 Se for eksempel, Edward Felten og Andrew Appel, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Technological Access
1994 Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,</span>&#8221;</span>
1995 <em class="citetitle">Communications of the Association for Computer
1996 Machinery</em> 43 (2000): 9.
1997 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Kapittel 3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3039713"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><p>
1998 Høsten 2001, ble Jesse Jordan fra Oceanside, New York, innrullert som
1999 førsteårsstudent ved Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, i Troy, New York.
2000 Hans studieprogram ved RPI var informasjonsteknologi.  Selv om han ikke var
2001 en programmerer, bestemte Jesse seg i oktober å begynne å fikle med en
2002 søkemotorteknologi som var tilgjengelig på RPI-nettverket.
2003 </p><p>
2004 RPI er en av Amerikas fremste teknologiske forskningsinstitusjoner. De
2005 tilbyr grader innen områder som går fra arkitektur og ingeniørfag til
2006 informasjonsvitenskap.  Mer enn 65 prosent av de fem tusen
2007 laveregradsstudentene fullførte blant de 10 prosent beste i deres klasse på
2008 videregående.  Skolen er dermed en perfekt blanding av talent og erfaring
2009 for å se for seg og deretter bygge, en generasjon tilpasset
2010 nettverksalderen.
2011 </p><p>
2012 RPIs data-nettverk kobler studenter, forelesere og administrasjon sammen.
2013 Det kobler også RPI til internettet.  Ikke alt som er tilgjengelig på
2014 RPI-nettet er tilgjengelig på internettet.  Men nettverket er utformet for å
2015 gi alle studentene mulighet til å bruke internettet, i tillegg til mer
2016 direkte tilgang til andre medlemmer i RPI-fellesskapet.
2017 </p><p>
2018
2019 Søkemotorer er et mål pa hvor nært et nettverk oppleves å være. Google
2020 brakte internettet mye nærmere oss alle ved en utrolig forbedring av
2021 kvaliteten på søk i nettverket.  Spesialiserte søkemotorer kan gjøre dette
2022 enda bedre.  Ideen med <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intranett</span>&#8221;</span>-søkemotorer, søkemotorer som
2023 kun søker internt i nettverket til en bestemt institusjon, er å tilby
2024 brukerne i denne institusjonen bedre tilgang til materiale fra denne
2025 institusjonen. Bedrifter gjør dette hele tiden, ved å gi ansatte mulighet
2026 til å få tak i materiale som folk på utsiden av bedriften ikke kan få tak
2027 i. Universitetet gjør også dette.
2028 </p><p>
2029 Disse motorene blir muliggjort av netverksteknologien selv.  For eksempel
2030 har Microsoft et nettverksfilsystem som gjør det veldig enkelt for
2031 søkemotorer tilpasset det nettverket å spørre systemet etter informasjon om
2032 det offentlig (innen nettverket) tilgjengelige innholdet.  Søkemotoren til
2033 Jesse var bygget for å dra nytte av denne teknologien.  Den brukte
2034 Microsofts nettverksfilsystem for å bygge en indeks over alle filene
2035 tilgjengelig inne i RPI-nettverket.
2036 </p><p>
2037 Jesse sin var ikke den første søkemotoren bygget for RPI-nettverket. Hans
2038 motor var faktisk en enkel endring av motorer som andre hadde bygget.  Hans
2039 viktigste enkeltforbedring i forhold til disse motorene var å fikse en feil
2040 i Microsofts fildelings-system som fikk en brukers datamaskin til å krasje.
2041 Med motorene som hadde eksistert tidligere, hvis du forsøkte å koble deg ved
2042 hjelp av Windows-utforskeren til en fil som var på en datamaskin som ikke
2043 var på nett, så ville din datamaskin krasje.  Jesse endret systemet litt for
2044 å fikse det problemet, ved å legge til en knapp som en bruker kunne klikke
2045 på for å se om maskinen som hadde filen fortsatt var på nett.
2046 </p><p>
2047 Motoren til Jesse kom pa nett i slutten av oktober.  I løpet av de følgende
2048 seks månedene fortsatte han å justere den for å forbedre dens
2049 funksjonalitet.  I mars fungerte systemet ganske bra.  Jesse hadde mer enn
2050 en million filer i sin katalog, inkludert alle mulige typer innhold som
2051 fantes på brukernes datamaskiner.
2052 </p><p>
2053
2054 Dermed inneholdt indeksen som hans søkemotor produserte bilder, som
2055 studentene kunne bruke til å legge inn på sine egne nettsider, kopier av
2056 notater og forskning, kopier av informasjonshefter, filmklipp som studentene
2057 kanskje hadde laget, universitetsbrosjyrer&#8212;ganske enkelt alt som
2058 brukerne av RPI-nettverket hadde gjort tilgjengelig i en fellesmappe på sine
2059 datamaskiner.
2060 </p><p>
2061 Men indeksen inneholdt også musikkfiler.  Faktisk var en fjerdedel av filene
2062 som Jesses søkemotor inneholdt musikkfiler.  Men det betyr, naturligvis, at
2063 tre fjerdedeler ikke var det, og&#8212;slik at dette poenget er helt
2064 klart&#8212;Jesse gjorde ingenting for å få folk til å plassere musikkfiler
2065 i deres fellesmapper.  Han gjorde ingenting for å sikte søkemotoren mot
2066 disse filene.  Han var en ungdom som fiklet med Google-lignende teknologi
2067 ved et universitet der han studerte informasjonsvitenskap, og dermed var
2068 fiklingen målet.  I motsetning til Google, eller Microsoft for den saks
2069 skyld, tjente han ingen penger på denne fiklingen.  Han var ikke knyttet til
2070 noen bedrift som skulle tjene penger fra dette eksperimentet.  Han var en
2071 ungdom som fiklet med teknologi i en omgivelse hvor fikling med teknologi
2072 var nøyaktig hva han var ment å gjøre.
2073 </p><p>
2074 Den 3. april 2003 ble Jesse kontaktet av lederen for studentkontoret ved
2075 RPI.  Lederen fortalte Jesse at Foreningen for innspillingsindustri i USA,
2076 RIAA, wille levere inn et søksmål mot han og tre andre studenter som han
2077 ikke en gang kjente, to av dem på andre undersiteter.  Noen få timer senere
2078 ble Jesse forkynt søksmålet og fikk overlevert dokumentene.  Mens han leste
2079 disse dokumentene og så på nyhetsrapportene om den, ble han stadig mer
2080 forbauset.
2081 </p><p>
2082 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Det var absurd</span>&#8221;</span>, fortalte han meg. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Jeg mener at jeg
2083 ikke gjorde noe galt. &#8230; Jeg mener det ikke er noe galt med
2084 søkemotoren som jeg kjørte eller &#8230; hva jeg hadde gjort med den.  Jeg
2085 mener, jeg hadde ikke endret den på noen måte som fremmet eller forbedret
2086 arbeidet til pirater.  Jeg endret kun søkemotoren slik at den ble enklere å
2087 bruke</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;igjen, en <span class="emphasis"><em>søkemotor</em></span>, som Jesse ikke
2088 hadde bygd selv, som brukte fildelingssystemet til Windows, som Jesse ikke
2089 hadde bygd selv, for å gjøre det mulig for medlemmer av RPI-fellesskapet å
2090 få tilgang til innhold, som Jesse ikke hadde laget eller gjort tilgjengelig,
2091 og der det store flertall av dette ikke hadde noe å gjøre med musikk.
2092 </p><p>
2093
2094 Men RIAA kalte Jesse en pirat.  De hevdet at han opererte et nettverk og
2095 dermed <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">med vilje</span>&#8221;</span> hadde brutt opphavsrettslovene.  De krevde
2096 at han betalte dem skadeerstatning for det han hadde gjort galt.  I saker
2097 med <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">krenkelser med vilje</span>&#8221;</span>, spesifiserer opphavsrettsloven noe
2098 som advokater kaller <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lovbestemte skader</span>&#8221;</span>.  Disse skadene
2099 tillater en opphavsrettighetseier å kreve $150 000 per krenkelse.
2100 Etter som RIAA påsto det var mer enn et hundre spesifikke
2101 opphavsrettskrenkelser, krevde de dermed at Jesse betalte dem minst
2102 $15 000 000.
2103 </p><p>
2104 Lignende søksmål ble gjort mot tre andre studenter: en annen student ved
2105 RPI, en ved Michegan Technical University og en ved Princeton. Deres
2106 situasjoner var lik den til Jesse.  Selv om hver sak hadde forskjellige
2107 detaljer, var hovedpoenget nøyaktig det samme: store krav om
2108 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">erstatning</span>&#8221;</span> som RIAA påsto de hadde rett på.  Hvis du summerte
2109 opp disse kravene, ba disse fire søksmålene domstolene i USA å tildele
2110 saksøkerne nesten $100 <span class="emphasis"><em>milliarder</em></span>&#8212;seks ganger det
2111 <span class="emphasis"><em>totale</em></span> overskuddet til filmindustrien i
2112 2001.<sup>[<a name="id3040011" href="#ftn.id3040011" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
2113 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3040029"></a><p>
2114 Jesse kontaktet sine foreldre.  De støttet ham, men var litt skremt. En
2115 onkel var advokat.  Han startet forhandlinger med RIAA.  De krevde å få vite
2116 hvor mye penger Jesse hadde.  Jesse hadde spart opp $12 000 fra
2117 sommerjobber og annet arbeid.  De krevde 12 000 for å trekke saken.
2118 </p><p>
2119 RIAA ville at Jesse skulle innrømme at han hadde gjort noe galt.  Han
2120 nektet.  De ville ha han til å godta en kjennelse som i praksis ville gjøre
2121 det umulig for han å arbeide i mange områder innen teknologi for resten av
2122 hans liv.  Han nektet.  De fikk han til å forstå at denne prosessen med å
2123 bli saksøkt ikke kom til å bli hyggelig.  (Som faren til Jesse refererte til
2124 meg, fortalte sjefsadvokaten på saken, Matt Oppenheimer, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Du ønsker
2125 ikke et tannlegebesøk hos meg flere ganger</span>&#8221;</span>) Og gjennom det hele
2126 insisterte RIAA at de ikke ville inngå forlik før de hadde tatt hver eneste
2127 øre som Jesse hadde spart opp.
2128 </p><p>
2129
2130 Familien til Jessie ble opprørt over disse påstandene.  De ønsket å kjempe.
2131 Men onkelen til Jessie gjorde en innsats for å lære familien om hvordan det
2132 amerikanske juridiske systemet fungerte.  Jesse kunne sloss mot RIAA.  Han
2133 kunne til og med vinne.  Men kostnaden med å loss mot et søksmål som dette,
2134 ble Jesse fortalt, ville være minst $250 000.  Hvis han vant ville han
2135 ikke få tilbake noen av de pengene.  Hvis han vant, så ville han ha en bit
2136 papir som sa at han vant, og en bit papir som sa at han og hans familie var
2137 konkurs.
2138 </p><p>
2139 Så Jesse hadde et mafia-lignende valg: $250 000 og en sjanse til å
2140 vinne, eller $12 000 og et forlik.
2141 </p><p>
2142 Innspillingsindustrien insisterer at dette er et spørsmål om lov og moral.
2143 La oss legge loven til side for et øyeblikk og tenke på moralen.  Hvor er
2144 moralen i et søksmål som dette?  Hva er dyden i å skape offerlam.  RIAA er
2145 en spesielt mektig lobby.  Presidenten i RIAA tjener i følge rapporter mer
2146 enn $1 million i året.  Artister, på den andre siden, får ikke godt betalt.
2147 Den gjennomsnittelige innspillingsartist tjener $45 900.<sup>[<a name="id3040092" href="#ftn.id3040092" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> Det er utallige måter som RIAA kan bruke for å
2148 påvirke og styre politikken.  Så hva er det moralske i å ta penger fra en
2149 student for å drive en søkemotor?<sup>[<a name="id3040138" href="#ftn.id3040138" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
2150 </p><p>
2151 23. juni overførte Jesse alle sine oppsparte midler til advokaten som jobbet
2152 for RIAA.  Saken mot ham ble trukket.  Og med dette, ble unggutten som hadde
2153 fiklet med en datamaskin og blitt saksøkt for 15 millioner dollar en
2154 aktivist:
2155 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2156 Jeg var definitivt ikke en aktivist [tidligere].  Jeg mente egentlig aldri å
2157 være en aktivist. &#8230; [men] jeg har blitt skjøvet inn i dette.  Jeg
2158 forutså over hodet ikke noe slik som dette, men jeg tror det er bare helt
2159 absurd det RIAA har gjort.
2160 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2161 Foreldrene til Jesse avslører en viss stolthet over deres motvillige
2162 aktivist.  Som hans far fortalte meg, Jesse <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">anser seg selv for å være
2163 konservativ, og det samme gjør jeg. &#8230; Han er ingen
2164 treklemmer. &#8230; Jeg synes det er sært at de ville lage bråk med ham.
2165 Men han ønsker å la folk vite at de sender feil budskap.  Og han ønsker å
2166 korrigere rullebladet.</span>&#8221;</span>
2167 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3040011" href="#id3040011" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
2168
2169
2170
2171 Tim Goral, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks: Suit
2172 Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Professional Media
2173 Group LCC</em> 6 (2003): 5, tilgjengelig fra 2003 WL 55179443.
2174 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3040092" href="#id3040092" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
2175
2176
2177 Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001)
2178 (27&#8211;2042&#8212;Musikere og Sangere). Se også National Endowment for
2179 the Arts, <em class="citetitle">More Than One in a Blue Moon</em> (2000).
2180 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3040138" href="#id3040138" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
2181
2182
2183 Douglas Lichtman kommer med et relatert poeng i <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">KaZaA and
2184 Punishment,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>,
2185 10. september 2003, A24.
2186 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: &#8220;Pirater&#8221;"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Pirater</span>&#8221;</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
2187 Hvis <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span> betyr å bruke den kreative eiendommen
2188 til andre uten deres tillatelse&#8212;hvis <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så
2189 rettighet</span>&#8221;</span> er sant&#8212;da er historien om innholdsindustrien en
2190 historie om piratvirksomhet.  Hver eneste viktige sektor av <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">store
2191 medier</span>&#8221;</span> i dag&#8212;film, plater, radio og kabel-TV&#8212;kom fra en
2192 slags piratvirksomhet etter den definisjonen.  Den konsekvente fortellingen
2193 er at forrige generasjon pirater blir del av denne generasjonens
2194 borgerskap&#8212;inntil nå.
2195 </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>
2196
2197 Filmindustrien i Hollywood var bygget av flyktende pirater.<sup>[<a name="id3040251" href="#ftn.id3040251" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> Skapere og regisører migrerte fra østkysten til
2198 California tidlig i det tjuende århundret delvis for å slippe unna
2199 kontrollene som patenter ga oppfinneren av det å lage filmer, Thomas
2200 Edison.  Disse kontrollene be utøvet gjennom et
2201 monopol-<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kartell</span>&#8221;</span>, The Motion Pictures Patents company, og var
2202 basert på Tomhas Edisons kreative eierrettigheter&#8212;patenter. Edison
2203 stiftet MPPC for å utøve rettighetene som disse kreative eierrettighetene ga
2204 ham, og MPPC var seriøst med kontrollen de krevde.
2205 </p><p>
2206 Som en kommentaror forteller en del av historien,
2207 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2208 En tidsfrist ble satt til januar 1909 for alle selskaper å komme i samsvar
2209 med lisensen.  Når februar kom, protesterte de ulisensierte fredløse, som
2210 refererte til seg selv som uavhengige, mot kartellet og fortsatte sin
2211 forretningsvirksomhet uten å bøye seg for Edisons monopol.  Sommeren 1909
2212 var bevegelsen med uavhenginge i full sving, med produsenter og kinoeiere
2213 som brukte ulovlig utstyr og importerte filmlager for å opprette sitt eget
2214 undergrunnsmarked.
2215 </p><p>
2216 With the country experiencing a tremendous expansion in the number of
2217 nickelodeons, the Patents Company reacted to the independent movement by
2218 forming a strong-arm subsidiary known as the General Film Company to block
2219 the entry of non-licensed independents. With coercive tactics that have
2220 become legendary, General Film confiscated unlicensed equipment,
2221 discontinued product supply to theaters which showed unlicensed films, and
2222 effectively monopolized distribution with the acquisition of all U.S. film
2223 exchanges, except for the one owned by the independent William Fox who
2224 defied the Trust even after his license was revoked.<sup>[<a name="id3040333" href="#ftn.id3040333" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3040364"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3040371"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3040377"></a>
2225 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2226 The Napsters of those days, the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">independents,</span>&#8221;</span> were companies
2227 like Fox. And no less than today, these independents were vigorously
2228 resisted.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Shooting was disrupted by machinery stolen, and
2229 `accidents' resulting in loss of negatives, equipment, buildings and
2230 sometimes life and limb frequently occurred.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3040398" href="#ftn.id3040398" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> That led the independents to flee the East
2231 Coast. California was remote enough from Edison's reach that filmmakers
2232 there could pirate his inventions without fear of the law. And the leaders
2233 of Hollywood filmmaking, Fox most prominently, did just that.
2234 </p><p>
2235
2236 California vokste naturligvis raskt, og effektiv håndhevelse av føderale
2237 lover spredte seg til slutt vestover.  Men fordi patenter tildeler
2238 patentinnehaveren et i sannhet <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">begrenset</span>&#8221;</span> monopol (kun sytten
2239 år på den tiden), så patentene var utgått før nok føderale lovmenn dukket
2240 opp. En ny industri var født, delvis fra piratvirksomhet mot Edison's
2241 kreative rettigheter.
2242 </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>
2243 Plateindustrien ble født av en annen type piratvirksomhet, dog for å forstå
2244 hvordan krever at en setter seg inn i detaljer om hvordan loven regulerer
2245 musikk.
2246 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3040474"></a><p>
2247 På den tiden da Edison og Henri Fourneaux fant opp maskiner for å
2248 reprodusere musikk (Edison fonografen, Fourneaux det automatiske pianoet),
2249 gav loven komponister eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere kopier av
2250 deres musikk og eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere fremføringer av
2251 deres musikk.  Med andre ord, i 1900, hvis jeg ønsket et kopi av Phil
2252 Russels populære låt <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>&#8221;</span>, sa loven at jeg måtte betale
2253 for rettigheten til å få en kopi av notearkene, og jeg måtte også betale for
2254 å ha rett til å fremføre det offentlig.
2255 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3040502"></a><p>
2256 Men hva hvis jeg ønsket å spille inn <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>&#8221;</span> ved hjelp av
2257 Edisons fonograf eller Fourneaux automatiske piano?  Her snublet loven.  Det
2258 var klart nok at jeg måtte kjøpe en kopi av notene som jeg fremførte når jeg
2259 gjorde innspillingen.  Og det var klart nok at jeg måtte betale for enhver
2260 offentlig fremførelse av verket jeg spilte inn.  Men det var ikke helt klart
2261 at jeg måtte betale for en <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>&#8221;</span> hvis jeg
2262 spilte inn sangen i mitt eget hus (selv i dag skylder du ingenting til
2263 Beatles hvis du synger en av deres sanger i dusjen), eller hvis jeg spilte
2264 inn sangen fra hukommelsen (kopier i din hjerne er
2265 ikke&#8212;ennå&#8212;regulert av opphavsrettsloven).  Så hvis jeg ganske
2266 enkelt sang sangen inn i et innspillingsaparat i mitt eget hjem, så var det
2267 ikke klart at jeg skyldte komponisten noe.  Og enda viktigere, det var ikke
2268 klart om jeg skyldte komponisten noe hvis jeg så laget kopier av disse
2269 innspillingene.  På grunn av dette hullet i loven, sa kunne jeg i effekt
2270 røve noen andres sang uten å betale dets komponist noe.
2271 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3040531"></a><p>
2272 Komponistene (og utgiverne) var ikke veldig glade for denne kapasiteten til
2273 å røve.  Som Senator Alfred Kittredge fra Sør-Dakota formulerte
2274 det,<a class="indexterm" name="id3040566"></a>
2275 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2276 Forestill dere denne urettferdigheten.  En komponist skriver en sang eller
2277 en opera.  En utgiver kjøper til et høy sum rettighetene til denne, og
2278 registrerer opphavsretten til den.  Så kommer de fonografiske selskapene og
2279 selskapene som skjærer musikk-ruller og med vitende og vilje stjeler
2280 arbeidet som kommer fra hjernet til komponisten og utgiveren uten å bry seg
2281 om [deres] rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id3040594" href="#ftn.id3040594" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
2282 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2283 The innovators who developed the technology to record other people's works
2284 were <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sponging upon the toil, the work, the talent, and genius of
2285 American composers,</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3040627" href="#ftn.id3040627" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> and the
2286 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">music publishing industry</span>&#8221;</span> was thereby <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">at the complete
2287 mercy of this one pirate.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3040641" href="#ftn.id3040641" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> As
2288 John Philip Sousa put it, in as direct a way as possible, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">When they
2289 make money out of my pieces, I want a share of it.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3040655" href="#ftn.id3040655" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
2290 </p><p>
2291 These arguments have familiar echoes in the wars of our day. So, too, do the
2292 arguments on the other side. The innovators who developed the player piano
2293 argued that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">it is perfectly demonstrable that the introduction of
2294 automatic music players has not deprived any composer of anything he had
2295 before their introduction.</span>&#8221;</span> Rather, the machines increased the sales
2296 of sheet music.<sup>[<a name="id3040676" href="#ftn.id3040676" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> In any case, the
2297 innovators argued, the job of Congress was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">to consider first the
2298 interest of [the public], whom they represent, and whose servants they
2299 are.</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All talk about `theft,'</span>&#8221;</span> the general counsel of
2300 the American Graphophone Company wrote, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">is the merest claptrap, for
2301 there exists no property in ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as
2302 defined by statute.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3040700" href="#ftn.id3040700" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
2303 <a class="indexterm" name="id3040709"></a>
2304 </p><p>
2305
2306 The law soon resolved this battle in favor of the composer
2307 <span class="emphasis"><em>and</em></span> the recording artist. Congress amended the law to
2308 make sure that composers would be paid for the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">mechanical
2309 reproductions</span>&#8221;</span> of their music. But rather than simply granting the
2310 composer complete control over the right to make mechanical reproductions,
2311 Congress gave recording artists a right to record the music, at a price set
2312 by Congress, once the composer allowed it to be recorded once. This is the
2313 part of copyright law that makes cover songs possible. Once a composer
2314 authorizes a recording of his song, others are free to record the same song,
2315 so long as they pay the original composer a fee set by the law.
2316 </p><p>
2317 American law ordinarily calls this a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">compulsory license,</span>&#8221;</span> but
2318 I will refer to it as a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">statutory license.</span>&#8221;</span> A statutory
2319 license is a license whose key terms are set by law. After Congress's
2320 amendment of the Copyright Act in 1909, record companies were free to
2321 distribute copies of recordings so long as they paid the composer (or
2322 copyright holder)  the fee set by the statute.
2323 </p><p>
2324 This is an exception within the law of copyright. When John Grisham writes a
2325 novel, a publisher is free to publish that novel only if Grisham gives the
2326 publisher permission. Grisham, in turn, is free to charge whatever he wants
2327 for that permission. The price to publish Grisham is thus set by Grisham,
2328 and copyright law ordinarily says you have no permission to use Grisham's
2329 work except with permission of Grisham.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3040765"></a>
2330 </p><p>
2331 But the law governing recordings gives recording artists less. And thus, in
2332 effect, the law <span class="emphasis"><em>subsidizes</em></span> the recording industry
2333 through a kind of piracy&#8212;by giving recording artists a weaker right
2334 than it otherwise gives creative authors. The Beatles have less control over
2335 their creative work than Grisham does. And the beneficiaries of this less
2336 control are the recording industry and the public. The recording industry
2337 gets something of value for less than it otherwise would pay; the public
2338 gets access to a much wider range of musical creativity. Indeed, Congress
2339 was quite explicit about its reasons for granting this right. Its fear was
2340 the monopoly power of rights holders, and that that power would stifle
2341 follow-on creativity.<sup>[<a name="id3040292" href="#ftn.id3040292" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3040806"></a>
2342 </p><p>
2343 While the recording industry has been quite coy about this recently,
2344 historically it has been quite a supporter of the statutory license for
2345 records. As a 1967 report from the House Committee on the Judiciary relates,
2346 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2347 the record producers argued vigorously that the compulsory license system
2348 must be retained. They asserted that the record industry is a
2349 half-billion-dollar business of great economic importance in the United
2350 States and throughout the world; records today are the principal means of
2351 disseminating music, and this creates special problems, since performers
2352 need unhampered access to musical material on nondiscriminatory
2353 terms. Historically, the record producers pointed out, there were no
2354 recording rights before 1909 and the 1909 statute adopted the compulsory
2355 license as a deliberate anti-monopoly condition on the grant of these
2356 rights. They argue that the result has been an outpouring of recorded music,
2357 with the public being given lower prices, improved quality, and a greater
2358 choice.<sup>[<a name="id3040838" href="#ftn.id3040838" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
2359 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2360 By limiting the rights musicians have, by partially pirating their creative
2361 work, the record producers, and the public, benefit.
2362 </p></div><div class="section" title="4.3. Radio"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="radio"></a>4.3. Radio</h2></div></div></div><p>
2363 Radio kom også fra piratvirksomhet.
2364 </p><p>
2365 When a radio station plays a record on the air, that constitutes a
2366 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">public performance</span>&#8221;</span> of the composer's work.<sup>[<a name="id3040878" href="#ftn.id3040878" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> As I described above, the law gives the composer
2367 (or copyright holder)  an exclusive right to public performances of his
2368 work. The radio station thus owes the composer money for that performance.
2369 </p><p>
2370
2371 But when the radio station plays a record, it is not only performing a copy
2372 of the <span class="emphasis"><em>composer's</em></span> work. The radio station is also
2373 performing a copy of the <span class="emphasis"><em>recording artist's</em></span> work. It's
2374 one thing to have <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>&#8221;</span> sung on the radio by the
2375 local children's choir; it's quite another to have it sung by the Rolling
2376 Stones or Lyle Lovett. The recording artist is adding to the value of the
2377 composition performed on the radio station.  And if the law were perfectly
2378 consistent, the radio station would have to pay the recording artist for his
2379 work, just as it pays the composer of the music for his work.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3040954"></a>
2380
2381
2382 </p><p>
2383 But it doesn't. Under the law governing radio performances, the radio
2384 station does not have to pay the recording artist. The radio station need
2385 only pay the composer. The radio station thus gets a bit of something for
2386 nothing. It gets to perform the recording artist's work for free, even if it
2387 must pay the composer something for the privilege of playing the song.
2388 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmadonna"></a><p>
2389 Denne forskjellen kan bli stor.  Forestill deg at du komponerer et stykke
2390 musikk.  Se for deg at det er ditt første stykke.  Du eier de eksklusive
2391 rettighetene til å godkjenne offentlig fremføring av den musikken.  Så hvis
2392 Madonna ønsker å synge din sang offentlig, må hun få din tillatelse.
2393 </p><p>
2394 Tenkt deg videre at hun synger din sang, og at hun liker den veldig
2395 godt. Hun bestemmer seg deretter for å spille inn sangen din, og den blir en
2396 populær hitlåt.  Med vår lov vil du få litt penger hver gang en radiostasjon
2397 spiller din sang.  Men Madonna får ingenting, fortsett fra de indirekte
2398 effektene fra salg av hennes CD-er.  Den offentlige fremføringen av hennes
2399 innspilling er ikke en <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">beskyttet</span>&#8221;</span> rettighet. Radiostasjonen
2400 får dermed <span class="emphasis"><em>røve</em></span> verdien av Madonnas arbeid uten å
2401 betale henne noen ting.
2402 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3041023"></a><p>
2403 No doubt, one might argue that, on balance, the recording artists
2404 benefit. On average, the promotion they get is worth more than the
2405 performance rights they give up. Maybe. But even if so, the law ordinarily
2406 gives the creator the right to make this choice. By making the choice for
2407 him or her, the law gives the radio station the right to take something for
2408 nothing.
2409 </p></div><div class="section" title="4.4. Kabel-TV"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>4.4. Kabel-TV</h2></div></div></div><p>
2410
2411 Kabel-TV kom også fra en form for piratvirksomhet.
2412 </p><p>
2413
2414 When cable entrepreneurs first started wiring communities with cable
2415 television in 1948, most refused to pay broadcasters for the content that
2416 they echoed to their customers. Even when the cable companies started
2417 selling access to television broadcasts, they refused to pay for what they
2418 sold. Cable companies were thus Napsterizing broadcasters' content, but more
2419 egregiously than anything Napster ever did&#8212; Napster never charged for
2420 the content it enabled others to give away.
2421 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3041067"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3041074"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3041081"></a><p>
2422 Broadcasters and copyright owners were quick to attack this theft.  Rosel
2423 Hyde, chairman of the FCC, viewed the practice as a kind of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">unfair
2424 and potentially destructive competition.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3041095" href="#ftn.id3041095" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup> There may have been a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">public interest</span>&#8221;</span> in spreading
2425 the reach of cable TV, but as Douglas Anello, general counsel to the
2426 National Association of Broadcasters, asked Senator Quentin Burdick during
2427 testimony, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Does public interest dictate that you use somebody else's
2428 property?</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3041121" href="#ftn.id3041121" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> As another
2429 broadcaster put it,
2430 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2431 The extraordinary thing about the CATV business is that it is the only
2432 business I know of where the product that is being sold is not paid
2433 for.<sup>[<a name="id3041139" href="#ftn.id3041139" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
2434 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2435 Igjen, kravene til opphavsrettsinnehaverne virket rimelige nok:
2436 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2437 Alt vi ber om er en veldig enkel ting, at folk som tar vår eiendom gratis
2438 betaler for den.  Vi forsøker å stoppe piratvirksomhet og jeg kan ikke tenke
2439 på et svakere ord for å beskrive det.  Jeg tror det er sterkere ord som
2440 ville passe.<sup>[<a name="id3041166" href="#ftn.id3041166" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
2441 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3041178"></a><p>
2442 Disse var <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">gratispassasjerer</span>&#8221;</span>, sa presidenten Charlton Heston i
2443 Screen Actor's Guild, som <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">tok lønna fra
2444 skuespillerne</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3041194" href="#ftn.id3041194" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
2445 </p><p>
2446 Men igjen, det er en annen side i debatten.  Som assisterende justisminister
2447 Edwin Zimmerman sa det,
2448 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2449 Our point here is that unlike the problem of whether you have any copyright
2450 protection at all, the problem here is whether copyright holders who are
2451 already compensated, who already have a monopoly, should be permitted to
2452 extend that monopoly. &#8230; The question here is how much compensation
2453 they should have and how far back they should carry their right to
2454 compensation.<sup>[<a name="id3040172" href="#ftn.id3040172" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3041246"></a>
2455 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2456 Opphavsrettinnehaverne tok kabelselskapene til retten. Høyesterett fant to
2457 ganger at kabelselskaper ikke skyldte opphavsrettinnehaverne noen ting.
2458 </p><p>
2459 It took Congress almost thirty years before it resolved the question of
2460 whether cable companies had to pay for the content they
2461 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirated.</span>&#8221;</span> In the end, Congress resolved this question in the
2462 same way that it resolved the question about record players and player
2463 pianos. Yes, cable companies would have to pay for the content that they
2464 broadcast; but the price they would have to pay was not set by the copyright
2465 owner.  The price was set by law, so that the broadcasters couldn't exercise
2466 veto power over the emerging technologies of cable. Cable companies thus
2467 built their empire in part upon a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> of the value created
2468 by broadcasters' content.
2469 </p><p>
2470 These separate stories sing a common theme. If <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> means
2471 using value from someone else's creative property without permission from
2472 that creator&#8212;as it is increasingly described today<sup>[<a name="id3041234" href="#ftn.id3041234" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup> &#8212; then <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> industry
2473 affected by copyright today is the product and beneficiary of a certain kind
2474 of piracy. Film, records, radio, cable TV. &#8230; The list is long and
2475 could well be expanded. Every generation welcomes the pirates from the
2476 last. Every generation&#8212;until now.
2477 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3040251" href="#id3040251" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
2478
2479 Jeg er takknemlig til Peter DiMauro for å ha pekt meg i retning av denne
2480 ekstraordinære historien.  Se også Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights
2481 and Copywrongs</em>, 87&#8211;93, som forteller detaljer om Edisons
2482 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eventyr</span>&#8221;</span> med opphavsrett og patent. <a class="indexterm" name="id3040267"></a>
2483 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3040333" href="#id3040333" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
2484
2485
2486 J. A. Aberdeen, <em class="citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent
2487 Motion Picture Producers</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) and
2488 expanded texts posted at <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion
2489 Picture Patents Company vs. the Independent Outlaws,</span>&#8221;</span> available at
2490 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #11</a>. For a
2491 discussion of the economic motive behind both these limits and the limits
2492 imposed by Victor on phonographs, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">From Edison
2493 to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the
2494 Propertization of Copyright</span>&#8221;</span> (September 2002), University of Chicago
2495 Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working Paper
2496 No. 159.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3040398" href="#id3040398" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
2497
2498
2499 Marc Wanamaker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The First Studios,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">The Silents
2500 Majority</em>, arkivert på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #12</a>.
2501 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3040594" href="#id3040594" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
2502
2503 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright: Hearings on S. 6330
2504 and H.R. 19853 Before the ( Joint) Committees on Patents, 59th Cong. 59, 1st
2505 sess. (1906) (statement of Senator Alfred B. Kittredge, of South Dakota,
2506 chairman), reprinted in <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the Copyright
2507 Act</em>, E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South
2508 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3040607"></a>
2509 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3040627" href="#id3040627" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
2510
2511
2512 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223 (uttalelse fra
2513 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2514 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3040641" href="#id3040641" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
2515
2516
2517 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (uttalelse fra
2518 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2519 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3040655" href="#id3040655" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
2520
2521
2522 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (uttalelse fra
2523 John Philip Sousa, komponist).
2524 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3040676" href="#id3040676" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
2525
2526
2527
2528 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283&#8211;84
2529 (uttalelse fra Albert Walker, representant for the Auto-Music Perforating
2530 Company of New York).
2531 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3040700" href="#id3040700" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
2532
2533
2534 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 376 (prepared
2535 memorandum of Philip Mauro, general patent counsel of the American
2536 Graphophone Company Association).
2537 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3040292" href="#id3040292" class="para">60</a>] </sup>
2538
2539
2540
2541 Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on S. 2499, S. 2900, H.R. 243, and
2542 H.R. 11794 Before the ( Joint) Committee on Patents, 60th Cong., 1st sess.,
2543 217 (1908) (statement of Senator Reed Smoot, chairman), reprinted in
2544 <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act</em>,
2545 E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman
2546 Reprints, 1976).
2547 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3040838" href="#id3040838" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
2548
2549
2550 Copyright Law Revision: Report to Accompany H.R. 2512, House Committee on
2551 the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 1st sess., House Document no. 83, (8 March
2552 1967). I am grateful to Glenn Brown for drawing my attention to this report.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3040878" href="#id3040878" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
2553
2554 See 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, sections 106 and 110. At
2555 the beginning, record companies printed <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Not Licensed for Radio
2556 Broadcast</span>&#8221;</span> and other messages purporting to restrict the ability to
2557 play a record on a radio station.  Judge Learned Hand rejected the argument
2558 that a warning attached to a record might restrict the rights of the radio
2559 station. See <em class="citetitle">RCA Manufacturing
2560 Co</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Whiteman</em>, 114 F. 2d 86 (2nd
2561 Cir. 1940). See also Randal C.  Picker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast
2562 Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of
2563 Copyright,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em>
2564 70 (2003): 281.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3040910"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3040918"></a>
2565 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3041095" href="#id3041095" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
2566
2567 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV: Hearing on S. 1006 Before the
2568 Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee
2569 on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 78 (1966)  (statement of Rosel
2570 H. Hyde, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3041072"></a>
2571 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3041121" href="#id3041121" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
2572
2573
2574 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 116 (statement of Douglas A. Anello,
2575 general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters).
2576 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3041139" href="#id3041139" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
2577
2578
2579 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 126 (statement of Ernest W. Jennes,
2580 general counsel of the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.).
2581 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3041166" href="#id3041166" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
2582
2583
2584 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 169 (joint statement of Arthur B.  Krim,
2585 president of United Artists Corp., and John Sinn, president of United
2586 Artists Television, Inc.).
2587 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3041194" href="#id3041194" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
2588
2589 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 209 (vitnemål fra Charlton Heston,
2590 president i Screen Actors Guild).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3041172"></a>
2591 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3040172" href="#id3040172" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
2592
2593 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 216 (uttalelse fra Edwin M. Zimmerman,
2594 fungerende assisterende justisministeren).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3041197"></a>
2595 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3041234" href="#id3041234" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
2596
2597
2598 See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The
2599 Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet&#8212;The Myth of Free
2600 Information</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #13</a>. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The threat of
2601 piracy&#8212;the use of someone else's creative work without permission or
2602 compensation&#8212;has grown with the Internet.</span>&#8221;</span>
2603 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: &#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="piracy"></a>Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
2604 There is piracy of copyrighted material. Lots of it. This piracy comes in
2605 many forms. The most significant is commercial piracy, the unauthorized
2606 taking of other people's content within a commercial context. Despite the
2607 many justifications that are offered in its defense, this taking is
2608 wrong. No one should condone it, and the law should stop it.
2609 </p><p>
2610
2611 But as well as copy-shop piracy, there is another kind of
2612 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taking</span>&#8221;</span> that is more directly related to the Internet. That
2613 taking, too, seems wrong to many, and it is wrong much of the time. Before
2614 we paint this taking <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy,</span>&#8221;</span> however, we should understand
2615 its nature a bit more.  For the harm of this taking is significantly more
2616 ambiguous than outright copying, and the law should account for that
2617 ambiguity, as it has so often done in the past.
2618
2619 </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><p>
2620 All across the world, but especially in Asia and Eastern Europe, there are
2621 businesses that do nothing but take others people's copyrighted content,
2622 copy it, and sell it&#8212;all without the permission of a copyright
2623 owner. The recording industry estimates that it loses about $4.6 billion
2624 every year to physical piracy<sup>[<a name="id3041226" href="#ftn.id3041226" class="footnote">70</a>]</sup> (that
2625 works out to one in three CDs sold worldwide). The MPAA estimates that it
2626 loses $3 billion annually worldwide to piracy.
2627 </p><p>
2628 This is piracy plain and simple. Nothing in the argument of this book, nor
2629 in the argument that most people make when talking about the subject of this
2630 book, should draw into doubt this simple point: This piracy is wrong.
2631 </p><p>
2632 Which is not to say that excuses and justifications couldn't be made for
2633 it. We could, for example, remind ourselves that for the first one hundred
2634 years of the American Republic, America did not honor foreign copyrights. We
2635 were born, in this sense, a pirate nation. It might therefore seem
2636 hypocritical for us to insist so strongly that other developing nations
2637 treat as wrong what we, for the first hundred years of our existence,
2638 treated as right.
2639 </p><p>
2640 That excuse isn't terribly strong. Technically, our law did not ban the
2641 taking of foreign works. It explicitly limited itself to American
2642 works. Thus the American publishers who published foreign works without the
2643 permission of foreign authors were not violating any rule.  The copy shops
2644 in Asia, by contrast, are violating Asian law. Asian law does protect
2645 foreign copyrights, and the actions of the copy shops violate that law. So
2646 the wrong of piracy that they engage in is not just a moral wrong, but a
2647 legal wrong, and not just an internationally legal wrong, but a locally
2648 legal wrong as well.
2649 </p><p>
2650 True, these local rules have, in effect, been imposed upon these
2651 countries. No country can be part of the world economy and choose
2652
2653 not to protect copyright internationally. We may have been born a pirate
2654 nation, but we will not allow any other nation to have a similar childhood.
2655 </p><p>
2656 If a country is to be treated as a sovereign, however, then its laws are its
2657 laws regardless of their source. The international law under which these
2658 nations live gives them some opportunities to escape the burden of
2659 intellectual property law.<sup>[<a name="id3041470" href="#ftn.id3041470" class="footnote">71</a>]</sup> In my view,
2660 more developing nations should take advantage of that opportunity, but when
2661 they don't, then their laws should be respected. And under the laws of these
2662 nations, this piracy is wrong.
2663 </p><p>
2664 Alternatively, we could try to excuse this piracy by noting that in any
2665 case, it does no harm to the industry. The Chinese who get access to
2666 American CDs at 50 cents a copy are not people who would have bought those
2667 American CDs at $15 a copy. So no one really has any less money than they
2668 otherwise would have had.<sup>[<a name="id3041521" href="#ftn.id3041521" class="footnote">72</a>]</sup>
2669 </p><p>
2670 This is often true (though I have friends who have purchased many thousands
2671 of pirated DVDs who certainly have enough money to pay for the content they
2672 have taken), and it does mitigate to some degree the harm caused by such
2673 taking. Extremists in this debate love to say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">You wouldn't go into
2674 Barnes &amp; Noble and take a book off of the shelf without paying; why
2675 should it be any different with on-line music?</span>&#8221;</span> The difference is, of
2676 course, that when you take a book from Barnes &amp; Noble, it has one less
2677 book to sell. By contrast, when you take an MP3 from a computer network,
2678 there is not one less CD that can be sold.  The physics of piracy of the
2679 intangible are different from the physics of piracy of the tangible.
2680 </p><p>
2681
2682 This argument is still very weak. However, although copyright is a property
2683 right of a very special sort, it <span class="emphasis"><em>is</em></span> a property
2684 right. Like all property rights, the copyright gives the owner the right to
2685 decide the terms under which content is shared. If the copyright owner
2686 doesn't want to sell, she doesn't have to. There are exceptions: important
2687 statutory licenses that apply to copyrighted content regardless of the wish
2688 of the copyright owner. Those licenses give people the right to
2689 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">take</span>&#8221;</span> copyrighted content whether or not the copyright owner
2690 wants to sell. But where the law does not give people the right to take
2691 content, it is wrong to take that content even if the wrong does no harm. If
2692 we have a property system, and that system is properly balanced to the
2693 technology of a time, then it is wrong to take property without the
2694 permission of a property owner. That is exactly what <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span>
2695 means.
2696 </p><p>
2697 Finally, we could try to excuse this piracy with the argument that the
2698 piracy actually helps the copyright owner. When the Chinese
2699 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">steal</span>&#8221;</span> Windows, that makes the Chinese dependent on
2700 Microsoft.  Microsoft loses the value of the software that was taken. But it
2701 gains users who are used to life in the Microsoft world. Over time, as the
2702 nation grows more wealthy, more and more people will buy software rather
2703 than steal it. And hence over time, because that buying will benefit
2704 Microsoft, Microsoft benefits from the piracy. If instead of pirating
2705 Microsoft Windows, the Chinese used the free GNU/Linux operating system,
2706 then these Chinese users would not eventually be buying Microsoft.  Without
2707 piracy, then, Microsoft would lose.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3041626"></a>
2708 <a class="indexterm" name="id3041632"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3041639"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3041650"></a>
2709 </p><p>
2710 This argument, too, is somewhat true. The addiction strategy is a good
2711 one. Many businesses practice it. Some thrive because of it. Law students,
2712 for example, are given free access to the two largest legal databases. The
2713 companies marketing both hope the students will become so used to their
2714 service that they will want to use it and not the other when they become
2715 lawyers (and must pay high subscription fees).
2716 </p><p>
2717 Still, the argument is not terribly persuasive. We don't give the alcoholic
2718 a defense when he steals his first beer, merely because that will make it
2719 more likely that he will buy the next three. Instead, we ordinarily allow
2720 businesses to decide for themselves when it is best to give their product
2721 away. If Microsoft fears the competition of GNU/Linux, then Microsoft can
2722 give its product away, as it did, for example, with Internet Explorer to
2723 fight Netscape. A property right means giving the property owner the right
2724 to say who gets access to what&#8212;at least ordinarily. And if the law
2725 properly balances the rights of the copyright owner with the rights of
2726 access, then violating the law is still wrong.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3041382"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3041675"></a>
2727 <a class="indexterm" name="id3041696"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3041702"></a>
2728 </p><p>
2729
2730
2731 Thus, while I understand the pull of these justifications for piracy, and I
2732 certainly see the motivation, in my view, in the end, these efforts at
2733 justifying commercial piracy simply don't cut it. This kind of piracy is
2734 rampant and just plain wrong. It doesn't transform the content it steals; it
2735 doesn't transform the market it competes in. It merely gives someone access
2736 to something that the law says he should not have.  Nothing has changed to
2737 draw that law into doubt. This form of piracy is flat out wrong.
2738 </p><p>
2739 But as the examples from the four chapters that introduced this part
2740 suggest, even if some piracy is plainly wrong, not all <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span>
2741 is. Or at least, not all <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> is wrong if that term is
2742 understood in the way it is increasingly used today. Many kinds of
2743 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> are useful and productive, to produce either new
2744 content or new ways of doing business.  Neither our tradition nor any
2745 tradition has ever banned all <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> in that sense of the
2746 term.
2747 </p><p>
2748 This doesn't mean that there are no questions raised by the latest piracy
2749 concern, peer-to-peer file sharing. But it does mean that we need to
2750 understand the harm in peer-to-peer sharing a bit more before we condemn it
2751 to the gallows with the charge of piracy.
2752 </p><p>
2753 For (1) like the original Hollywood, p2p sharing escapes an overly
2754 controlling industry; and (2) like the original recording industry, it
2755 simply exploits a new way to distribute content; but (3) unlike cable TV, no
2756 one is selling the content that is shared on p2p services.
2757 </p><p>
2758 These differences distinguish p2p sharing from true piracy. They should push
2759 us to find a way to protect artists while enabling this sharing to survive.
2760 </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>
2761
2762 The key to the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> that the law aims to quash is a use
2763 that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rob[s] the author of [his] profit.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3041786" href="#ftn.id3041786" class="footnote">73</a>]</sup> This means we must determine whether and how much
2764 p2p sharing harms before we know how strongly the law should seek to either
2765 prevent it or find an alternative to assure the author of his profit.
2766 </p><p>
2767 Peer-to-peer sharing was made famous by Napster. But the inventors of the
2768 Napster technology had not made any major technological innovations.  Like
2769 every great advance in innovation on the Internet (and, arguably, off the
2770 Internet as well<sup>[<a name="id3041810" href="#ftn.id3041810" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
2771 crew had simply put together components that had been developed
2772 independently.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3041840"></a>
2773 </p><p>
2774 The result was spontaneous combustion. Launched in July 1999, Napster
2775 amassed over 10 million users within nine months. After eighteen months,
2776 there were close to 80 million registered users of the system.<sup>[<a name="id3041853" href="#ftn.id3041853" class="footnote">75</a>]</sup> Courts quickly shut Napster down, but other
2777 services emerged to take its place. (Kazaa is currently the most popular p2p
2778 service. It boasts over 100 million members.) These services' systems are
2779 different architecturally, though not very different in function: Each
2780 enables users to make content available to any number of other users. With a
2781 p2p system, you can share your favorite songs with your best friend&#8212;
2782 or your 20,000 best friends.
2783 </p><p>
2784 According to a number of estimates, a huge proportion of Americans have
2785 tasted file-sharing technology. A study by Ipsos-Insight in September 2002
2786 estimated that 60 million Americans had downloaded music&#8212;28 percent of
2787 Americans older than 12.<sup>[<a name="id3041902" href="#ftn.id3041902" class="footnote">76</a>]</sup> A survey by
2788 the NPD group quoted in <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> estimated
2789 that 43 million citizens used file-sharing networks to exchange content in
2790 May 2003.<sup>[<a name="id3041931" href="#ftn.id3041931" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these
2791 are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a massive quantity of content is
2792 being <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taken</span>&#8221;</span> on these networks. The ease and inexpensiveness
2793 of file-sharing networks have inspired millions to enjoy music in a way that
2794 they hadn't before.
2795 </p><p>
2796 Some of this enjoying involves copyright infringement. Some of it does
2797 not. And even among the part that is technically copyright infringement,
2798 calculating the actual harm to copyright owners is more complicated than one
2799 might think. So consider&#8212;a bit more carefully than the polarized
2800 voices around this debate usually do&#8212;the kinds of sharing that file
2801 sharing enables, and the kinds of harm it entails.
2802 </p><p>
2803
2804
2805 Fildelerne deler ulike typer innhold.  Vi kan dele disse ulike typene inn i
2806 fire typer.
2807 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
2808
2809 There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing
2810 content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD,
2811 these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who
2812 takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available
2813 for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who
2814 would.  The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead
2815 of purchasing.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3041991"></a>
2816 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2817
2818
2819 There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing
2820 it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard
2821 of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of
2822 targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed.  If the friend recommending
2823 the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect
2824 that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this
2825 sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.
2826 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2827
2828
2829 There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content
2830 that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the
2831 transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is
2832 among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood
2833 but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the
2834 network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a
2835 solid weekend <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">recalling</span>&#8221;</span> old songs. She was astonished at the
2836 range and mix of content that was available.)  For content not sold, this is
2837 still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright
2838 owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is
2839 zero&#8212;the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s
2840 45-rpm records to a local collector.
2841 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846 Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content
2847 that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.
2848 </p></li></ol></div><p>
2849 Hvordan balanserer disse ulike delingstypene?
2850 </p><p>
2851 Let's start with some simple but important points. From the perspective of
2852 the law, only type D sharing is clearly legal. From the perspective of
2853 economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.<sup>[<a name="id3042068" href="#ftn.id3042068" class="footnote">78</a>]</sup> Type B sharing is illegal but plainly
2854 beneficial. Type C sharing is illegal, yet good for society (since more
2855 exposure to music is good)  and harmless to the artist (since the work is
2856 not otherwise available). So how sharing matters on balance is a hard
2857 question to answer&#8212;and certainly much more difficult than the current
2858 rhetoric around the issue suggests.
2859 </p><p>
2860 Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how harmful
2861 type A sharing is. Just as Edison complained about Hollywood, composers
2862 complained about piano rolls, recording artists complained about radio, and
2863 broadcasters complained about cable TV, the music industry complains that
2864 type A sharing is a kind of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">theft</span>&#8221;</span> that is
2865 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">devastating</span>&#8221;</span> the industry.
2866 </p><p>
2867 While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder
2868 to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame
2869 technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a
2870 good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst &amp; Young put it,
2871 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels
2872 fought it.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3042122" href="#ftn.id3042122" class="footnote">79</a>]</sup> The labels claimed
2873 that every album taped was an album unsold, and when record sales fell by
2874 11.4 percent in 1981, the industry claimed that its point was
2875 proved. Technology was the problem, and banning or regulating technology was
2876 the answer.
2877 </p><p>
2878 Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity to enact
2879 regulation, MTV was launched, and the industry had a record
2880 turnaround. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In the end,</span>&#8221;</span> Cap Gemini concludes, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the
2881 `crisis' &#8230; was not the fault of the tapers&#8212;who did not [stop
2882 after MTV came into being]&#8212;but had to a large extent resulted from
2883 stagnation in musical innovation at the major labels.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3041532" href="#ftn.id3041532" class="footnote">80</a>]</sup>
2884 </p><p>
2885 But just because the industry was wrong before does not mean it is wrong
2886 today. To evaluate the real threat that p2p sharing presents to the industry
2887 in particular, and society in general&#8212;or at least the society that
2888 inherits the tradition that gave us the film industry, the record industry,
2889 the radio industry, cable TV, and the VCR&#8212;the question is not simply
2890 whether type A sharing is harmful. The question is also
2891 <span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> harmful type A sharing is, and how beneficial the
2892 other types of sharing are.
2893 </p><p>
2894 We start to answer this question by focusing on the net harm, from the
2895 standpoint of the industry as a whole, that sharing networks cause.  The
2896 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">net harm</span>&#8221;</span> to the industry as a whole is the amount by which
2897 type A sharing exceeds type B. If the record companies sold more records
2898 through sampling than they lost through substitution, then sharing networks
2899 would actually benefit music companies on balance. They would therefore have
2900 little <span class="emphasis"><em>static</em></span> reason to resist them.
2901
2902 </p><p>
2903 Could that be true? Could the industry as a whole be gaining because of file
2904 sharing? Odd as that might sound, the data about CD sales actually suggest
2905 it might be close.
2906 </p><p>
2907 In 2002, the RIAA reported that CD sales had fallen by 8.9 percent, from 882
2908 million to 803 million units; revenues fell 6.7 percent.<sup>[<a name="id3042228" href="#ftn.id3042228" class="footnote">81</a>]</sup> This confirms a trend over the past few years. The
2909 RIAA blames Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other
2910 causes that could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a
2911 more than 20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since 1999. That no
2912 doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales. Rising prices could
2913 account for at least some of the loss. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">From 1999 to 2001, the average
2914 price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3042277" href="#ftn.id3042277" class="footnote">82</a>]</sup> Competition from other forms of media could also
2915 account for some of the decline. As Jane Black of
2916 <em class="citetitle">BusinessWeek</em> notes, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The soundtrack to the film
2917 <em class="citetitle">High Fidelity</em> has a list price of $18.98. You could
2918 get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3042314" href="#ftn.id3042314" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
2919 </p><p>
2920
2921
2922
2923 But let's assume the RIAA is right, and all of the decline in CD sales is
2924 because of Internet sharing. Here's the rub: In the same period that the
2925 RIAA estimates that 803 million CDs were sold, the RIAA estimates that 2.1
2926 billion CDs were downloaded for free. Thus, although 2.6 times the total
2927 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, sales revenue fell by just 6.7
2928 percent.
2929 </p><p>
2930 There are too many different things happening at the same time to explain
2931 these numbers definitively, but one conclusion is unavoidable: The recording
2932 industry constantly asks, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">What's the difference between downloading a
2933 song and stealing a CD?</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;but their own numbers reveal the
2934 difference. If I steal a CD, then there is one less CD to sell. Every taking
2935 is a lost sale. But on the basis of the numbers the RIAA provides, it is
2936 absolutely clear that the same is not true of downloads. If every download
2937 were a lost sale&#8212;if every use of Kazaa <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rob[bed] the author of
2938 [his] profit</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;then the industry would have suffered a 100
2939 percent drop in sales last year, not a 7 percent drop. If 2.6 times the
2940 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, and yet sales revenue dropped
2941 by just 6.7 percent, then there is a huge difference between
2942 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">downloading a song and stealing a CD.</span>&#8221;</span>
2943 </p><p>
2944 These are the harms&#8212;alleged and perhaps exaggerated but, let's assume,
2945 real. What of the benefits? File sharing may impose costs on the recording
2946 industry. What value does it produce in addition to these costs?
2947 </p><p>
2948 One benefit is type C sharing&#8212;making available content that is
2949 technically still under copyright but is no longer commercially available.
2950 This is not a small category of content. There are millions of tracks that
2951 are no longer commercially available.<sup>[<a name="id3042364" href="#ftn.id3042364" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup>
2952 And while it's conceivable that some of this content is not available
2953 because the artist producing the content doesn't want it to be made
2954 available, the vast majority of it is unavailable solely because the
2955 publisher or the distributor has decided it no longer makes economic sense
2956 <span class="emphasis"><em>to the company</em></span> to make it available.
2957 </p><p>
2958 In real space&#8212;long before the Internet&#8212;the market had a simple
2959 response to this problem: used book and record stores. There are thousands
2960 of used book and used record stores in America today.<sup>[<a name="id3042405" href="#ftn.id3042405" class="footnote">85</a>]</sup> These stores buy content from owners, then sell the
2961 content they buy. And under American copyright law, when they buy and sell
2962 this content, <span class="emphasis"><em>even if the content is still under
2963 copyright</em></span>, the copyright owner doesn't get a dime. Used book and
2964 record stores are commercial entities; their owners make money from the
2965 content they sell; but as with cable companies before statutory licensing,
2966 they don't have to pay the copyright owner for the content they sell.
2967 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3042454"></a><p>
2968 Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used record
2969 stores. It is different, of course, because the person making the content
2970 available isn't making money from making the content available.  It is also
2971 different, of course, because in real space, when I sell a record, I don't
2972 have it anymore, while in cyberspace, when someone shares my 1949 recording
2973 of Bernstein's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Two Love Songs,</span>&#8221;</span> I still have it. That
2974 difference would matter economically if the owner of the copyright were
2975 selling the record in competition to my sharing. But we're talking about the
2976 class of content that is not currently commercially available. The Internet
2977 is making it available, through cooperative sharing, without competing with
2978 the market.
2979 </p><p>
2980 It may well be, all things considered, that it would be better if the
2981 copyright owner got something from this trade. But just because it may well
2982 be better, it doesn't follow that it would be good to ban used book
2983 stores. Or put differently, if you think that type C sharing should be
2984 stopped, do you think that libraries and used book stores should be shut as
2985 well?
2986 </p><p>
2987
2988 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, file-sharing networks enable type D
2989 sharing to occur&#8212;the sharing of content that copyright owners want to
2990 have shared or for which there is no continuing copyright. This sharing
2991 clearly benefits authors and society. Science fiction author Cory Doctorow,
2992 for example, released his first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
2993 Kingdom</em>, both free on-line and in bookstores on the same
2994 day. His (and his publisher's) thinking was that the on-line distribution
2995 would be a great advertisement for the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">real</span>&#8221;</span> book. People
2996 would read part on-line, and then decide whether they liked the book or
2997 not. If they liked it, they would be more likely to buy it. Doctorow's
2998 content is type D content. If sharing networks enable his work to be spread,
2999 then both he and society are better off. (Actually, much better off: It is a
3000 great book!)
3001 </p><p>
3002 Likewise for work in the public domain: This sharing benefits society with
3003 no legal harm to authors at all. If efforts to solve the problem of type A
3004 sharing destroy the opportunity for type D sharing, then we lose something
3005 important in order to protect type A content.
3006 </p><p>
3007 The point throughout is this: While the recording industry understandably
3008 says, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">This is how much we've lost,</span>&#8221;</span> we must also ask,
3009 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">How much has society gained from p2p sharing? What are the
3010 efficiencies? What is the content that otherwise would be
3011 unavailable?</span>&#8221;</span>
3012 </p><p>
3013 For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this chapter, much
3014 of the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> that file sharing enables is plainly legal and
3015 good.  And like the piracy I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: &#8220;Pirater&#8221;">4</a>, much of this piracy is motivated by a new
3016 way of spreading content caused by changes in the technology of
3017 distribution. Thus, consistent with the tradition that gave us Hollywood,
3018 radio, the recording industry, and cable TV, the question we should be
3019 asking about file sharing is how best to preserve its benefits while
3020 minimizing (to the extent possible) the wrongful harm it causes artists. The
3021 question is one of balance. The law should seek that balance, and that
3022 balance will be found only with time.
3023 </p><p>
3024 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But isn't the war just a war against illegal sharing? Isn't the
3025 target just what you call type A sharing?</span>&#8221;</span>
3026 </p><p>
3027 You would think. And we should hope. But so far, it is not. The effect of
3028 the war purportedly on type A sharing alone has been felt far beyond that
3029 one class of sharing. That much is obvious from the Napster case
3030 itself. When Napster told the district court that it had developed a
3031 technology to block the transfer of 99.4 percent of identified infringing
3032 material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4 percent was not
3033 good enough. Napster had to push the infringements <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">down to
3034 zero.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3042583" href="#ftn.id3042583" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
3035 </p><p>
3036 If 99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing
3037 technologies, not a war on copyright infringement. There is no way to assure
3038 that a p2p system is used 100 percent of the time in compliance with the
3039 law, any more than there is a way to assure that 100 percent of VCRs or 100
3040 percent of Xerox machines or 100 percent of handguns are used in compliance
3041 with the law. Zero tolerance means zero p2p.  The court's ruling means that
3042 we as a society must lose the benefits of p2p, even for the totally legal
3043 and beneficial uses they serve, simply to assure that there are zero
3044 copyright infringements caused by p2p.
3045 </p><p>
3046 Zero tolerance has not been our history. It has not produced the content
3047 industry that we know today. The history of American law has been a process
3048 of balance. As new technologies changed the way content was distributed, the
3049 law adjusted, after some time, to the new technology.  In this adjustment,
3050 the law sought to ensure the legitimate rights of creators while protecting
3051 innovation. Sometimes this has meant more rights for creators. Sometimes
3052 less.
3053 </p><p>
3054 So, as we've seen, when <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">mechanical reproduction</span>&#8221;</span> threatened
3055 the interests of composers, Congress balanced the rights of composers
3056 against the interests of the recording industry. It granted rights to
3057 composers, but also to the recording artists: Composers were to be paid, but
3058 at a price set by Congress. But when radio started broadcasting the
3059 recordings made by these recording artists, and they complained to Congress
3060 that their <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> was not being respected (since
3061 the radio station did not have to pay them for the creativity it broadcast),
3062 Congress rejected their claim. An indirect benefit was enough.
3063 </p><p>
3064 Cable TV followed the pattern of record albums. When the courts rejected the
3065 claim that cable broadcasters had to pay for the content they rebroadcast,
3066 Congress responded by giving broadcasters a right to compensation, but at a
3067 level set by the law. It likewise gave cable companies the right to the
3068 content, so long as they paid the statutory price.
3069 </p><p>
3070
3071
3072
3073 This compromise, like the compromise affecting records and player pianos,
3074 served two important goals&#8212;indeed, the two central goals of any
3075 copyright legislation. First, the law assured that new innovators would have
3076 the freedom to develop new ways to deliver content.  Second, the law assured
3077 that copyright holders would be paid for the content that was
3078 distributed. One fear was that if Congress simply required cable TV to pay
3079 copyright holders whatever they demanded for their content, then copyright
3080 holders associated with broadcasters would use their power to stifle this
3081 new technology, cable. But if Congress had permitted cable to use
3082 broadcasters' content for free, then it would have unfairly subsidized
3083 cable. Thus Congress chose a path that would assure
3084 <span class="emphasis"><em>compensation</em></span> without giving the past (broadcasters)
3085 control over the future (cable).
3086 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3042685"></a><p>
3087 In the same year that Congress struck this balance, two major producers and
3088 distributors of film content filed a lawsuit against another technology, the
3089 video tape recorder (VTR, or as we refer to them today, VCRs) that Sony had
3090 produced, the Betamax. Disney's and Universal's claim against Sony was
3091 relatively simple: Sony produced a device, Disney and Universal claimed,
3092 that enabled consumers to engage in copyright infringement. Because the
3093 device that Sony built had a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">record</span>&#8221;</span> button, the device could
3094 be used to record copyrighted movies and shows. Sony was therefore
3095 benefiting from the copyright infringement of its customers. It should
3096 therefore, Disney and Universal claimed, be partially liable for that
3097 infringement.
3098 </p><p>
3099
3100 There was something to Disney's and Universal's claim. Sony did decide to
3101 design its machine to make it very simple to record television shows. It
3102 could have built the machine to block or inhibit any direct copying from a
3103 television broadcast. Or possibly, it could have built the machine to copy
3104 only if there were a special <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy me</span>&#8221;</span> signal on the line. It
3105 was clear that there were many television shows that did not grant anyone
3106 permission to copy. Indeed, if anyone had asked, no doubt the majority of
3107 shows would not have authorized copying. And in the face of this obvious
3108 preference, Sony could have designed its system to minimize the opportunity
3109 for copyright infringement. It did not, and for that, Disney and Universal
3110 wanted to hold it responsible for the architecture it chose.
3111 </p><p>
3112 MPAA president Jack Valenti became the studios' most vocal champion. Valenti
3113 called VCRs <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">tapeworms.</span>&#8221;</span> He warned, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">When there are 20,
3114 30, 40 million of these VCRs in the land, we will be invaded by millions of
3115 `tapeworms,' eating away at the very heart and essence of the most precious
3116 asset the copyright owner has, his copyright.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3042744" href="#ftn.id3042744" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">One does not have to be trained in
3117 sophisticated marketing and creative judgment,</span>&#8221;</span> he told Congress,
3118 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">to understand the devastation on the after-theater marketplace caused
3119 by the hundreds of millions of tapings that will adversely impact on the
3120 future of the creative community in this country. It is simply a question of
3121 basic economics and plain common sense.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3042766" href="#ftn.id3042766" class="footnote">88</a>]</sup> Indeed, as surveys would later show, percent of VCR owners had
3122 movie libraries of ten videos or more<sup>[<a name="id3042776" href="#ftn.id3042776" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup>
3123 &#8212; a use the Court would later hold was not <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair.</span>&#8221;</span> By
3124 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the means of an exemption from
3125 copyright infringementwithout creating a mechanism to compensate
3126 copyrightowners,</span>&#8221;</span> Valenti testified, Congress would <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">take from
3127 the owners the very essence of their property: the exclusive right to
3128 control who may use their work, that is, who may copy it and thereby profit
3129 from its reproduction.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3042804" href="#ftn.id3042804" class="footnote">90</a>]</sup>
3130 </p><p>
3131 It took eight years for this case to be resolved by the Supreme Court. In
3132 the interim, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Hollywood in
3133 its jurisdiction&#8212;leading Judge Alex Kozinski, who sits on that court,
3134 refers to it as the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hollywood Circuit</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;held that Sony
3135 would be liable for the copyright infringement made possible by its
3136 machines. Under the Ninth Circuit's rule, this totally familiar
3137 technology&#8212;which Jack Valenti had called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the Boston Strangler
3138 of the American film industry</span>&#8221;</span> (worse yet, it was a
3139 <span class="emphasis"><em>Japanese</em></span> Boston Strangler of the American film
3140 industry)&#8212;was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id3042826" href="#ftn.id3042826" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3042850"></a>
3141 </p><p>
3142
3143 But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit.  And in
3144 its reversal, the Court clearly articulated its understanding of when and
3145 whether courts should intervene in such disputes. As the Court wrote,
3146 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3147 Sound policy, as well as history, supports our consistent deference to
3148 Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for
3149 copyrighted materials. Congress has the constitutional authority and the
3150 institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of
3151 competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new
3152 technology.<sup>[<a name="id3042876" href="#ftn.id3042876" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
3153 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3154 Congress was asked to respond to the Supreme Court's decision.  But as with
3155 the plea of recording artists about radio broadcasts, Congress ignored the
3156 request. Congress was convinced that American film got enough, this
3157 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taking</span>&#8221;</span> notwithstanding.  If we put these cases together, a
3158 pattern is clear:
3159 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t1"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char">Tilfelle</th><th align="char">WHOSE VALUE WAS <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">PIRATED</span>&#8221;</span></th><th align="char">Responsen til domstolene</th><th align="char">Responsen til Kongressen</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Innspillinger</td><td align="char">Komponister</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Radio</td><td align="char">Innspillingsartister</td><td align="char">N/A</td><td align="char">Ingenting</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Kabel-TV</td><td align="char">Kringkastere</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="char">VCR</td><td align="char">Filmskapere</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Ingenting</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
3160 In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the way
3161 content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id3043008" href="#ftn.id3043008" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
3162 throughout our history, that change meant that someone got a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free
3163 ride</span>&#8221;</span> on someone else's work.
3164 </p><p>
3165
3166 In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these cases did either the courts or
3167 Congress eliminate all free riding. In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these
3168 cases did the courts or Congress insist that the law should assure that the
3169 copyright holder get all the value that his copyright created. In every
3170 case, the copyright owners complained of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy.</span>&#8221;</span> In every
3171 case, Congress acted to recognize some of the legitimacy in the behavior of
3172 the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirates.</span>&#8221;</span> In each case, Congress allowed some new
3173 technology to benefit from content made before. It balanced the interests at
3174 stake.
3175
3176 </p><p>
3177 When you think across these examples, and the other examples that make up
3178 the first four chapters of this section, this balance makes sense. Was Walt
3179 Disney a pirate? Would doujinshi be better if creators had to ask
3180 permission? Should tools that enable others to capture and spread images as
3181 a way to cultivate or criticize our culture be better regulated? Is it
3182 really right that building a search engine should expose you to $15 million
3183 in damages? Would it have been better if Edison had controlled film? Should
3184 every cover band have to hire a lawyer to get permission to record a song?
3185 </p><p>
3186 We could answer yes to each of these questions, but our tradition has
3187 answered no. In our tradition, as the Supreme Court has stated, copyright
3188 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all
3189 possible uses of his work.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3043112" href="#ftn.id3043112" class="footnote">94</a>]</sup>
3190 Instead, the particular uses that the law regulates have been defined by
3191 balancing the good that comes from granting an exclusive right against the
3192 burdens such an exclusive right creates. And this balancing has historically
3193 been done <span class="emphasis"><em>after</em></span> a technology has matured, or settled
3194 into the mix of technologies that facilitate the distribution of content.
3195 </p><p>
3196 We should be doing the same thing today. The technology of the Internet is
3197 changing quickly. The way people connect to the Internet (wires
3198 vs. wireless) is changing very quickly. No doubt the network should not
3199 become a tool for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stealing</span>&#8221;</span> from artists. But neither should
3200 the law become a tool to entrench one particular way in which artists (or
3201 more accurately, distributors) get paid. As I describe in some detail in the
3202 last chapter of this book, we should be securing income to artists while we
3203 allow the market to secure the most efficient way to promote and distribute
3204 content. This will require changes in the law, at least in the
3205 interim. These changes should be designed to balance the protection of the
3206 law against the strong public interest that innovation continue.
3207 </p><p>
3208
3209
3210 This is especially true when a new technology enables a vastly superior mode
3211 of distribution. And this p2p has done. P2p technologies can be ideally
3212 efficient in moving content across a widely diverse network.  Left to
3213 develop, they could make the network vastly more efficient.  Yet these
3214 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">potential public benefits,</span>&#8221;</span> as John Schwartz writes in
3215 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">could be delayed in the
3216 P2P fight.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3043172" href="#ftn.id3043172" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup> Yet when anyone
3217 begins to talk about <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">balance,</span>&#8221;</span> the copyright warriors raise a
3218 different argument. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All this hand waving about balance and
3219 incentives,</span>&#8221;</span> they say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">misses a fundamental point. Our
3220 content,</span>&#8221;</span> the warriors insist, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">is our
3221 <span class="emphasis"><em>property</em></span>. Why should we wait for Congress to
3222 `rebalance' our property rights? Do you have to wait before calling the
3223 police when your car has been stolen? And why should Congress deliberate at
3224 all about the merits of this theft? Do we ask whether the car thief had a
3225 good use for the car before we arrest him?</span>&#8221;</span>
3226 </p><p>
3227 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">It is <span class="emphasis"><em>our property</em></span>,</span>&#8221;</span> the warriors
3228 insist. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">And it should be protected just as any other property is
3229 protected.</span>&#8221;</span>
3230 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3041226" href="#id3041226" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
3231
3232
3233 See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry),
3234 <em class="citetitle">The Recording Industry Commercial Piracy Report 2003</em>,
3235 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
3236 #14</a>. See also Ben Hunt, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Companies Warned on Music Piracy
3237 Risk,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Financial Times</em>, 14 February 2003, 11.
3238 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3041470" href="#id3041470" class="para">71</a>] </sup>
3239
3240 See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism:
3241 <em class="citetitle">Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New
3242 Press, 2003), 10&#8211;13, 209.  The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
3243 Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement obligates member nations to create
3244 administrative and enforcement mechanisms for intellectual property rights,
3245 a costly proposition for developing countries. Additionally, patent rights
3246 may lead to higher prices for staple industries such as agriculture. Critics
3247 of TRIPS question the disparity between burdens imposed upon developing
3248 countries and benefits conferred to industrialized nations. TRIPS does
3249 permit governments to use patents for public, noncommercial uses without
3250 first obtaining the patent holder's permission. Developing nations may be
3251 able to use this to gain the benefits of foreign patents at lower
3252 prices. This is a promising strategy for developing nations within the TRIPS
3253 framework.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3040682"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3041501"></a>
3254 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3041521" href="#id3041521" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
3255
3256 For an analysis of the economic impact of copying technology, see Stan
3257 Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em> (New York:
3258 Amacom, 2002), 144&#8211;90. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In some instances &#8230; the impact of
3259 piracy on the copyright holder's ability to appropriate the value of the
3260 work will be negligible. One obvious instance is the case where the
3261 individual engaging in pirating would not have purchased an original even if
3262 pirating were not an option.</span>&#8221;</span> Ibid., 149.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3041538"></a>
3263 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3041786" href="#id3041786" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
3264
3265
3266 <em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
3267 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777).
3268 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3041810" href="#id3041810" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
3269
3270 See Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
3271 Revolutionary National Bestseller That Changed the Way We Do
3272 Business</em> (New York: HarperBusiness, 2000). Professor Christensen
3273 examines why companies that give rise to and dominate a product area are
3274 frequently unable to come up with the most creative, paradigm-shifting uses
3275 for their own products.  This job usually falls to outside innovators, who
3276 reassemble existing technology in inventive ways. For a discussion of
3277 Christensen's ideas, see Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>,
3278 89&#8211;92, 139.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3041530"></a>
3279 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3041853" href="#id3041853" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
3280
3281
3282 See Carolyn Lochhead, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood
3283 Nightmare,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24
3284 September 2002, A1; <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Rock 'n' Roll Suicide,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New
3285 Scientist</em>, 6 July 2002, 42; Benny Evangelista, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Napster
3286 Names CEO, Secures New Financing,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
3287 Chronicle</em>, 23 May 2003, C1; <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Napster's Wake-Up
3288 Call,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24 June 2000, 23; John
3289 Naughton, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hollywood at War with the Internet</span>&#8221;</span> (London)
3290 <em class="citetitle">Times</em>, 26 July 2002, 18.
3291 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3041902" href="#id3041902" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
3292
3293
3294
3295 See Ipsos-Insight, <em class="citetitle">TEMPO: Keeping Pace with Online Music
3296 Distribution</em> (September 2002), reporting that 28 percent of
3297 Americans aged twelve and older have downloaded music off of the Internet
3298 and 30 percent have listened to digital music files stored on their
3299 computers.
3300 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3041931" href="#id3041931" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
3301
3302
3303 Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,</span>&#8221;</span>
3304 <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 6 June 2003, A1.
3305 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3042068" href="#id3042068" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
3306
3307 Se Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
3308 148&#8211;49.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3041829"></a>
3309 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3042122" href="#id3042122" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
3310
3311
3312 See Cap Gemini Ernst &amp; Young, <em class="citetitle">Technology Evolution and the
3313 Music Industry's Business Model Crisis</em> (2003), 3. This report
3314 describes the music industry's effort to stigmatize the budding practice of
3315 cassette taping in the 1970s, including an advertising campaign featuring a
3316 cassette-shape skull and the caption <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Home taping is killing
3317 music.</span>&#8221;</span> At the time digital audio tape became a threat, the Office of
3318 Technical Assessment conducted a survey of consumer behavior. In 1988, 40
3319 percent of consumers older than ten had taped music to a cassette
3320 format. U.S.  Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,
3321 <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the
3322 Law</em>, OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.  Government Printing
3323 Office, October 1989), 145&#8211;56.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3041532" href="#id3041532" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
3324
3325
3326 U.S. Congress, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying</em>, 4.
3327 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3042228" href="#id3042228" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
3328
3329
3330 See Recording Industry Association of America, <em class="citetitle">2002 Yearend
3331 Statistics</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #15</a>. A later report
3332 indicates even greater losses. See Recording Industry Association of
3333 America, <em class="citetitle">Some Facts About Music Piracy</em>, 25 June 2003,
3334 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #16</a>:
3335 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In the past four years, unit shipments of recorded music have fallen
3336 by 26 percent from 1.16 billion units in to 860 million units in 2002 in the
3337 United States (based on units shipped).  In terms of sales, revenues are
3338 down 14 percent, from $14.6 billion in to $12.6 billion last year (based on
3339 U.S. dollar value of shipments). The music industry worldwide has gone from
3340 a $39 billion industry in 2000 down to a $32 billion industry in 2002 (based
3341 on U.S. dollar value of shipments).</span>&#8221;</span>
3342 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3042277" href="#id3042277" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
3343 Jane Black, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Big Music's Broken Record,</span>&#8221;</span> BusinessWeek online,
3344 13 February 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3042294"></a>
3345 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3042314" href="#id3042314" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
3346
3347
3348 ibid.
3349 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3042364" href="#id3042364" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
3350
3351
3352 By one estimate, 75 percent of the music released by the major labels is no
3353 longer in print. See Online Entertainment and Copyright Law&#8212;Coming
3354 Soon to a Digital Device Near You: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on
3355 the Judiciary, 107th Cong., 1st sess. (3 April 2001) (prepared statement of
3356 the Future of Music Coalition), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #18</a>.
3357 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3042405" href="#id3042405" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
3358
3359
3360 While there are not good estimates of the number of used record stores in
3361 existence, in 2002, there were 7,198 used book dealers in the United States,
3362 an increase of 20 percent since 1993. See Book Hunter Press, <em class="citetitle">The
3363 Quiet Revolution: The Expansion of the Used Book Market</em> (2002),
3364 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
3365 #19</a>. Used records accounted for $260 million in sales in 2002. See
3366 National Association of Recording Merchandisers, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">2002 Annual Survey
3367 Results,</span>&#8221;</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #20</a>.
3368 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3042583" href="#id3042583" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
3369
3370
3371 See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34- 35
3372 (N.D. Cal., 11 July 2001), nos. MDL-00-1369 MHP, C 99-5183 MHP, available at
3373 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #21</a>. For an account
3374 of the litigation and its toll on Napster, see Joseph Menn, <em class="citetitle">All
3375 the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster</em> (New
3376 York: Crown Business, 2003), 269&#8211;82.
3377 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3042744" href="#id3042744" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
3378
3379
3380 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders): Hearing on S. 1758
3381 Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess.,
3382 459 (1982) (testimony of Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association
3383 of America, Inc.).
3384 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3042766" href="#id3042766" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
3385
3386
3387 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
3388 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3042776" href="#id3042776" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
3389
3390
3391 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Sony
3392 Corp. of America</em>, 480 F. Supp. 429, (C.D. Cal., 1979).
3393 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3042804" href="#id3042804" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
3394
3395
3396 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (testimony of Jack
3397 Valenti).
3398 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3042826" href="#id3042826" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
3399
3400
3401 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Sony
3402 Corp. of America</em>, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th Cir.  1981).
3403 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3042876" href="#id3042876" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
3404
3405
3406 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3407 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984).
3408 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3043008" href="#id3043008" class="para">93</a>] </sup>
3409
3410 These are the most important instances in our history, but there are other
3411 cases as well. The technology of digital audio tape (DAT), for example, was
3412 regulated by Congress to minimize the risk of piracy. The remedy Congress
3413 imposed did burden DAT producers, by taxing tape sales and controlling the
3414 technology of DAT. See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (Title 17 of the
3415 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>), Pub. L. No. 102-563, 106 Stat.
3416 4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. §1001. Again, however, this regulation did not
3417 eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
3418 Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. See also Picker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">From
3419 Edison to the Broadcast Flag,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law
3420 Review</em> 70 (2003): 293&#8211;96.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3042605"></a>
3421 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3043112" href="#id3043112" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
3422
3423
3424 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3425 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, (1984).
3426 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3043172" href="#id3043172" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
3427
3428
3429 John Schwartz, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software
3430 Echoes Past Efforts,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 22
3431 September 2003, C3.
3432 </p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Del II. &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-property"></a>Del II. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>&#8221;</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="&#8220;Eiendom&#8221;"><div></div><p>
3433
3434
3435
3436 Opphavsretts-krigerne har rett: Opphavsretten er en type eiendom. Den kan
3437 eies og selges, og loven beskytter mot at den blir stjålet. Vanligvis, kan
3438 opphavsrettseieren be om hvilken som helst pris som han ønsker.  Markeder
3439 bestemmer tilbud og etterspørsel som i hvert tilfelle bestemmer prisen hun
3440 kan få.
3441 </p><p>
3442 But in ordinary language, to call a copyright a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span>
3443 right is a bit misleading, for the property of copyright is an odd kind of
3444 property.  Indeed, the very idea of property in any idea or any expression
3445 is very odd. I understand what I am taking when I take the picnic table you
3446 put in your backyard. I am taking a thing, the picnic table, and after I
3447 take it, you don't have it. But what am I taking when I take the good
3448 <span class="emphasis"><em>idea</em></span> you had to put a picnic table in the
3449 backyard&#8212;by, for example, going to Sears, buying a table, and putting
3450 it in my backyard? What is the thing I am taking then?
3451 </p><p>
3452 The point is not just about the thingness of picnic tables versus ideas,
3453 though that's an important difference. The point instead is that in the
3454 ordinary case&#8212;indeed, in practically every case except for a narrow
3455 range of exceptions&#8212;ideas released to the world are free. I don't take
3456 anything from you when I copy the way you dress&#8212;though I might seem
3457 weird if I did it every day, and especially weird if you are a
3458 woman. Instead, as Thomas Jefferson said (and as is especially true when I
3459 copy the way someone else dresses), <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">He who receives an idea from me,
3460 receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his
3461 taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3043284" href="#ftn.id3043284" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
3462 </p><p>
3463 Unntakene til fri bruk er ideer og uttrykk innenfor dekningsområdet til
3464 loven om patent og opphavsrett, og noen få andre områder som jeg ikke vil
3465 diskutere her.  Her sier loven at du ikke kan ta min ide eller uttrykk uten
3466 min tilatelse: Loven gjør det flyktige til eiendom.
3467 </p><p>
3468 But how, and to what extent, and in what form&#8212;the details, in other
3469 words&#8212;matter. To get a good sense of how this practice of turning the
3470 intangible into property emerged, we need to place this
3471 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> in its proper context.<sup>[<a name="id3043334" href="#ftn.id3043334" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
3472 </p><p>
3473 My strategy in doing this will be the same as my strategy in the preceding
3474 part. I offer four stories to help put the idea of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright material
3475 is property</span>&#8221;</span> in context. Where did the idea come from? What are its
3476 limits? How does it function in practice? After these stories, the
3477 significance of this true statement&#8212;<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright material is
3478 property</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212; will be a bit more clear, and its implications will
3479 be revealed as quite different from the implications that the copyright
3480 warriors would have us draw.
3481 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3043284" href="#id3043284" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
3482
3483
3484 Brev fra Thomas Jefferson til Isaac McPherson (13. august 1813) i
3485 <em class="citetitle">The Writings of Thomas Jefferson</em>, vol. 6 (Andrew
3486 A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, eds., 1903), 330, 333&#8211;34.
3487 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3043334" href="#id3043334" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
3488
3489
3490 As the legal realists taught American law, all property rights are
3491 intangible.  A property right is simply a right that an individual has
3492 against the world to do or not do certain things that may or may not attach
3493 to a physical object. The right itself is intangible, even if the object to
3494 which it is (metaphorically) attached is tangible. See Adam Mossoff,
3495 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">What Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together,</span>&#8221;</span>
3496 <em class="citetitle">Arizona Law Review</em> 45 (2003): 373, 429 n. 241.
3497 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3043387"></a><p>
3498 William Shakespeare wrote <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> in
3499 1595. The play was first published in 1597. It was the eleventh major play
3500 that Shakespeare had written. He would continue to write plays through 1613,
3501 and the plays that he wrote have continued to define Anglo-American culture
3502 ever since. So deeply have the works of a sixteenth-century writer seeped
3503 into our culture that we often don't even recognize their source.  I once
3504 overheard someone commenting on Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Henry V:
3505 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I liked it, but Shakespeare is so full of clichés.</span>&#8221;</span>
3506 </p><p>
3507
3508 In 1774, almost 180 years after <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> was
3509 written, the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy-right</span>&#8221;</span> for the work was still thought by
3510 many to be the exclusive right of a single London publisher, Jacob
3511 Tonson.<sup>[<a name="id3043426" href="#ftn.id3043426" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson was the most prominent
3512 of a small group of publishers called the Conger<sup>[<a name="id3043454" href="#ftn.id3043454" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup> who controlled bookselling in England during the eighteenth
3513 century. The Conger claimed a perpetual right to control the
3514 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy</span>&#8221;</span> of books that they had acquired from authors. That
3515 perpetual right meant that no one else could publish copies of a book to
3516 which they held the copyright.  Prices of the classics were thus kept high;
3517 competition to produce better or cheaper editions was eliminated.
3518 </p><p>
3519 Now, there's something puzzling about the year 1774 to anyone who knows a
3520 little about copyright law. The better-known year in the history of
3521 copyright is 1710, the year that the British Parliament adopted the first
3522 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> act. Known as the Statute of Anne, the act stated
3523 that all published works would get a copyright term of fourteen years,
3524 renewable once if the author was alive, and that all works already published
3525 by 1710 would get a single term of twenty-one additional years.<sup>[<a name="id3043489" href="#ftn.id3043489" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> Under this law, <em class="citetitle">Romeo and
3526 Juliet</em> should have been free in 1731. So why was there any issue
3527 about it still being under Tonson's control in 1774?
3528 </p><p>
3529 The reason is that the English hadn't yet agreed on what a
3530 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> was&#8212;indeed, no one had. At the time the
3531 English passed the Statute of Anne, there was no other legislation governing
3532 copyrights.  The last law regulating publishers, the Licensing Act of 1662,
3533 had expired in 1695. That law gave publishers a monopoly over publishing, as
3534 a way to make it easier for the Crown to control what was published.  But
3535 after it expired, there was no positive law that said that the publishers,
3536 or <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Stationers,</span>&#8221;</span> had an exclusive right to print books.
3537 <a class="indexterm" name="id3043534"></a>
3538 </p><p>
3539 There was no <span class="emphasis"><em>positive</em></span> law, but that didn't mean that
3540 there was no law. The Anglo-American legal tradition looks to both the words
3541 of legislatures and the words of judges to know the rules that are to govern
3542 how people are to behave. We call the words from legislatures
3543 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">positive law.</span>&#8221;</span> We call the words from judges <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">common
3544 law.</span>&#8221;</span> The common law sets the background against which legislatures
3545 legislate; the legislature, ordinarily, can trump that background only if it
3546 passes a law to displace it. And so the real question after the licensing
3547 statutes had expired was whether the common law protected a copyright,
3548 independent of any positive law.
3549 </p><p>
3550
3551 This question was important to the publishers, or
3552 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">booksellers,</span>&#8221;</span> as they were called, because there was growing
3553 competition from foreign publishers. The Scottish, in particular, were
3554 increasingly publishing and exporting books to England. That competition
3555 reduced the profits of the Conger, which reacted by demanding that
3556 Parliament pass a law to again give them exclusive control over
3557 publishing. That demand ultimately resulted in the Statute of Anne.
3558 </p><p>
3559 The Statute of Anne granted the author or <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">proprietor</span>&#8221;</span> of a
3560 book an exclusive right to print that book. In an important limitation,
3561 however, and to the horror of the booksellers, the law gave the bookseller
3562 that right for a limited term. At the end of that term, the copyright
3563 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">expired,</span>&#8221;</span> and the work would then be free and could be
3564 published by anyone. Or so the legislature is thought to have believed.
3565 </p><p>
3566 Men nå det mest interessante med dette: Hvorfor ville parlamentet begrense
3567 trykkeretten? Sprøsmålet er ikke hvorfor de bestemte seg for denne perioden,
3568 men hvorfor ville de begrense retten <span class="emphasis"><em>i det hele tatt?</em></span>
3569 </p><p>
3570 For the booksellers, and the authors whom they represented, had a very
3571 strong claim. Take <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> as an example:
3572 That play was written by Shakespeare. It was his genius that brought it into
3573 the world. He didn't take anybody's property when he created this play
3574 (that's a controversial claim, but never mind), and by his creating this
3575 play, he didn't make it any harder for others to craft a play. So why is it
3576 that the law would ever allow someone else to come along and take
3577 Shakespeare's play without his, or his estate's, permission? What reason is
3578 there to allow someone else to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">steal</span>&#8221;</span> Shakespeare's work?
3579 </p><p>
3580 The answer comes in two parts. We first need to see something special about
3581 the notion of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> that existed at the time of the
3582 Statute of Anne. Second, we have to see something important about
3583 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">booksellers.</span>&#8221;</span>
3584 </p><p>
3585
3586 First, about copyright. In the last three hundred years, we have come to
3587 apply the concept of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> ever more broadly. But in
3588 1710, it wasn't so much a concept as it was a very particular right. The
3589 copyright was born as a very specific set of restrictions: It forbade others
3590 from reprinting a book. In 1710, the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy-right</span>&#8221;</span> was a right
3591 to use a particular machine to replicate a particular work. It did not go
3592 beyond that very narrow right. It did not control any more generally how a
3593 work could be <span class="emphasis"><em>used</em></span>. Today the right includes a large
3594 collection of restrictions on the freedom of others: It grants the author
3595 the exclusive right to copy, the exclusive right to distribute, the
3596 exclusive right to perform, and so on.
3597 </p><p>
3598 So, for example, even if the copyright to Shakespeare's works were
3599 perpetual, all that would have meant under the original meaning of the term
3600 was that no one could reprint Shakespeare's work without the permission of
3601 the Shakespeare estate. It would not have controlled anything, for example,
3602 about how the work could be performed, whether the work could be translated,
3603 or whether Kenneth Branagh would be allowed to make his films. The
3604 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy-right</span>&#8221;</span> was only an exclusive right to print&#8212;no
3605 less, of course, but also no more.
3606 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3043686"></a><p>
3607 Even that limited right was viewed with skepticism by the British.  They had
3608 had a long and ugly experience with <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">exclusive rights,</span>&#8221;</span>
3609 especially <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">exclusive rights</span>&#8221;</span> granted by the Crown. The English
3610 had fought a civil war in part about the Crown's practice of handing out
3611 monopolies&#8212;especially monopolies for works that already existed. King
3612 Henry VIII granted a patent to print the Bible and a monopoly to Darcy to
3613 print playing cards. The English Parliament began to fight back against this
3614 power of the Crown. In 1656, it passed the Statute of Monopolies, limiting
3615 monopolies to patents for new inventions. And by 1710, Parliament was eager
3616 to deal with the growing monopoly in publishing.
3617 </p><p>
3618 Thus the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy-right,</span>&#8221;</span> when viewed as a monopoly right, was
3619 naturally viewed as a right that should be limited. (However convincing the
3620 claim that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">it's my property, and I should have it forever,</span>&#8221;</span>
3621 try sounding convincing when uttering, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">It's my monopoly, and I should
3622 have it forever.</span>&#8221;</span>) The state would protect the exclusive right, but
3623 only so long as it benefited society. The British saw the harms from
3624 specialinterest favors; they passed a law to stop them.
3625 </p><p>
3626 Second, about booksellers. It wasn't just that the copyright was a
3627 monopoly. It was also that it was a monopoly held by the booksellers.
3628 Booksellers sound quaint and harmless to us. They were not viewed as
3629 harmless in seventeenth-century England. Members of the Conger were
3630 increasingly seen as monopolists of the worst kind&#8212;tools of the
3631 Crown's repression, selling the liberty of England to guarantee themselves a
3632 monopoly profit. The attacks against these monopolists were harsh: Milton
3633 described them as <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">old patentees and monopolizers in the trade of
3634 book-selling</span>&#8221;</span>; they were <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">men who do not therefore labour in an
3635 honest profession to which learning is indetted.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3043762" href="#ftn.id3043762" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
3636 </p><p>
3637 Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap,
3638 var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste
3639 Opplysningen viktigheten av utdannelse og kunnskap for alle. idéen om at
3640 kunnskap burde være gratis er et kjennetegn for tiden, og disse kraftige
3641 kommersielle interesser forstyrret denne idéen.
3642 </p><p>
3643 For å balansere denne makten, besluttet Parlamentet å øke konkurransen blant
3644 bokhandlerne, og den enkleste måten å gjøre det på, var å spre mengden av
3645 verdifulle bøker. Parlamentet begrenset derfor begrepet om opphavsrett, og
3646 garantert slik at verdifulle bøker ville bli frie for alle utgiver å
3647 publisere etter en begrenset periode. Slik ble det å gi eksisterende verk en
3648 periode på tjueen år et kompromiss for å bekjempe bokhandlernes
3649 makt. Begrensninger med dato var en indirekte måte å skape konkurranse
3650 mellom utgivere, og slik en skapelse og spredning av kultur.
3651 </p><p>
3652 Når 1731 (1710+21) kom, ble bokhandlerne engstelige. De så konsekvensene av
3653 mer konkurranse, og som alle konkurrenter, likte de det ikke. Først
3654 ignorerte bokhandlere ganske enkelt "Statute of Anne", og fortsatte å kreve
3655 en evigvarende rett til å kontrollere publiseringen. Men i 1735 og 1737 de
3656 prøvde å tvinge Parlamentet til å utvide periodene. Tjueen år var ikke nok,
3657 sa de; de trengte mer tid.
3658 </p><p>
3659 Parlamentet avslo kravene, Som en pamflett sa, i en vending som levere ennå
3660 idag,
3661 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3662 Jeg ser ingen grunn til å gi en utvidet perioden nå som ikke ville kunne gi
3663 utvidelser om igjen og om igjen, så fort de gamle utgår; så dersom dette
3664 lovforslaget blir vedtatt, vil effekten være: at et evig monopol blir skapt,
3665 et stort nederlag for handelen, et angrep mot kunnskapen, ingen fordel for
3666 forfatterne, men en stor avgift for folket; og alt dette kun for å øke
3667 bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<sup>[<a name="id3043839" href="#ftn.id3043839" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
3668 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3669 Having failed in Parliament, the publishers turned to the courts in a series
3670 of cases. Their argument was simple and direct: The Statute of Anne gave
3671 authors certain protections through positive law, but those protections were
3672 not intended as replacements for the common law.  Instead, they were
3673 intended simply to supplement the common law.  Under common law, it was
3674 already wrong to take another person's creative <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> and
3675 use it without his permission. The Statute of Anne, the booksellers argued,
3676 didn't change that. Therefore, just because the protections of the Statute
3677 of Anne expired, that didn't mean the protections of the common law expired:
3678 Under the common law they had the right to ban the publication of a book,
3679 even if its Statute of Anne copyright had expired. This, they argued, was
3680 the only way to protect authors.
3681 </p><p>
3682 This was a clever argument, and one that had the support of some of the
3683 leading jurists of the day. It also displayed extraordinary chutzpah.  Until
3684 then, as law professor Raymond Patterson has put it, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The publishers
3685 &#8230; had as much concern for authors as a cattle rancher has for
3686 cattle.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3042168" href="#ftn.id3042168" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> The bookseller didn't
3687 care squat for the rights of the author.  His concern was the monopoly
3688 profit that the author's work gave.
3689 </p><p>
3690 Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne
3691 kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id3043923" href="#ftn.id3043923" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
3692 </p><p>
3693 Donaldson was an outsider to the London Conger. He began his career in
3694 Edinburgh in 1750. The focus of his business was inexpensive reprints
3695 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">of standard works whose copyright term had expired,</span>&#8221;</span> at least
3696 under the Statute of Anne.<sup>[<a name="id3043946" href="#ftn.id3043946" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldson's
3697 publishing house prospered and became <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">something of a center for
3698 literary Scotsmen.</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">[A]mong them,</span>&#8221;</span> Professor Mark Rose
3699 writes, was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the young James Boswell who, together with his friend
3700 Andrew Erskine, published an anthology of contemporary Scottish poems with
3701 Donaldson.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3043975" href="#ftn.id3043975" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3043984"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3043990"></a>
3702 </p><p>
3703 When the London booksellers tried to shut down Donaldson's shop in Scotland,
3704 he responded by moving his shop to London, where he sold inexpensive
3705 editions <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">of the most popular English books, in defiance of the
3706 supposed common law right of Literary Property.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3044006" href="#ftn.id3044006" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> His books undercut the Conger prices by 30 to 50
3707 percent, and he rested his right to compete upon the ground that, under the
3708 Statute of Anne, the works he was selling had passed out of protection.
3709 </p><p>
3710 The London booksellers quickly brought suit to block <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span>
3711 like Donaldson's. A number of actions were successful against the
3712 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirates,</span>&#8221;</span> the most important early victory being
3713 <em class="citetitle">Millar</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Taylor</em>.
3714 </p><p>
3715 Millar was a bookseller who in 1729 had purchased the rights to James
3716 Thomson's poem <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Seasons.</span>&#8221;</span> Millar complied with the
3717 requirements of the Statute of Anne, and therefore received the full
3718 protection of the statute. After the term of copyright ended, Robert Taylor
3719 began printing a competing volume. Millar sued, claiming a perpetual common
3720 law right, the Statute of Anne notwithstanding.<sup>[<a name="id3044052" href="#ftn.id3044052" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
3721 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield2"></a><p>
3722 Astonishingly to modern lawyers, one of the greatest judges in English
3723 history, Lord Mansfield, agreed with the booksellers. Whatever protection
3724 the Statute of Anne gave booksellers, it did not, he held, extinguish any
3725 common law right. The question was whether the common law would protect the
3726 author against subsequent <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirates.</span>&#8221;</span> Mansfield's answer was
3727 yes: The common law would bar Taylor from reprinting Thomson's poem without
3728 Millar's permission. That common law rule thus effectively gave the
3729 booksellers a perpetual right to control the publication of any book
3730 assigned to them.
3731 </p><p>
3732
3733 Ser man på det som et spørsmål innen abstrakt jus - dersom man resonnere som
3734 om rettferdighet bare var logisk deduksjon fra de første bud - kunne
3735 Mansfields konklusjon gitt mening. Men den overså det Parlamentet hadde
3736 kjempet for i 1710: Hvordan man på best mulig vis kunne innskrenke
3737 utgivernes monopolmakt. Parlamentets strategi hadde vært å kjøpe fred
3738 gjennom å tilby en beskyttelsesperiode også for eksisterende verk, men
3739 perioden måtte være så kort at kulturen ble utsatt for konkurranse innen
3740 rimelig tid. Storbritannia skulle vokse fra den kontrollerte kulturen under
3741 kronen, inn i en fri og åpen kultur.
3742 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3044124"></a><p>
3743 Kampen for å forsvare "Statute of Anne"s begrensninger sluttet uansett ikke
3744 der, for nå kommer Donaldson.
3745 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3044139"></a><p>
3746 Millar døde kort tid etter sin seier. Boet hans solgte rettighetene over
3747 Thomsons dikt til et syndikat av utgivere, deriblant Thomas
3748 Beckett.<sup>[<a name="id3044152" href="#ftn.id3044152" class="footnote">109</a>]</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
3749 uautorisert utgave av Thomsons verk. Etter avgjørelsen i
3750 <em class="citetitle">Millar</em>-saken, gikk Beckett til sak mot
3751 Donaldson. Donaldson tok saken inn for Overhuset, som da fungerte som en
3752 slags høyesterett. I februar 1774 hadde dette organet muligheten til å tolke
3753 Parlamentets mening med utøpsdatoen fra seksti år før.
3754 </p><p>
3755 Rettssaken <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot
3756 <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> fikk en enorm oppmerksomhet i hele
3757 Storbritannia. Donaldsons advokater mente at selv om det før fantes en del
3758 rettigheter i sedvaneretten, så var disse fortrengt av "Statute of
3759 Anne". Etter at "Statute of Anne" var blitt vedtatt, skulle den eneste
3760 lovlige beskyttelse for trykkerett kom derfra. Og derfor, mente de, i tråd
3761 med vilkårene i "Statute of Anne", falle i det fri så fort
3762 beskyttelsesperioden var over.
3763 </p><p>
3764 The House of Lords was an odd institution. Legal questions were presented to
3765 the House and voted upon first by the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">law lords,</span>&#8221;</span> members of
3766 special legal distinction who functioned much like the Justices in our
3767 Supreme Court. Then, after the law lords voted, the House of Lords generally
3768 voted.
3769 </p><p>
3770
3771 Rapportene om juslordene stemmer er uenige. På enkelte punkter ser det ut
3772 som om evigvarende beskyttelse fikk flertall. Men det er ingen tvil om
3773 hvordan resten av Overhuset stemte. Med en majoritet på to mot en (22 mot
3774 11) stemte de ned forslaget om en evig beskyttelse. Uansett hvordan man
3775 hadde tolket sedvaneretten, var nå kopiretten begrenset til en periode, og
3776 etter denne ville verket falle i det fri.
3777 </p><p>
3778 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The public domain.</span>&#8221;</span> Before the case of
3779 <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em>, there
3780 was no clear idea of a public domain in England. Before 1774, there was a
3781 strong argument that common law copyrights were perpetual.  After 1774, the
3782 public domain was born. For the first time in Anglo-American history, the
3783 legal control over creative works expired, and the greatest works in English
3784 history&#8212;including those of Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Johnson, and
3785 Bunyan&#8212;were free of legal restraint.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3044243"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3044252"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3044257"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3044264"></a>
3786 <a class="indexterm" name="id3044270"></a>
3787 </p><p>
3788 It is hard for us to imagine, but this decision by the House of Lords fueled
3789 an extraordinarily popular and political reaction. In Scotland, where most
3790 of the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirate publishers</span>&#8221;</span> did their work, people celebrated
3791 the decision in the streets. As the <em class="citetitle">Edinburgh
3792 Advertiser</em> reported, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No private cause has so much
3793 engrossed the attention of the public, and none has been tried before the
3794 House of Lords in the decision of which so many individuals were
3795 interested.</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Great rejoicing in Edinburgh upon victory over
3796 literary property: bonfires and illuminations.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3044300" href="#ftn.id3044300" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
3797 </p><p>
3798 I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i
3799 motsatt retning. <em class="citetitle">Morning Chronicle</em> skrev:
3800 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3801 Gjennom denne avgjørelsen &#8230; er verdier til nesten 200 000 pund, som
3802 er blitt ærlig kjøpt gjennom allment salg, og som i går var eiendom, er nå
3803 redusert til ingenting. Bokselgerne i London og Westminster, mange av dem
3804 har solgt hus og eiendom for å kjøpe kopirettigheter, er med ett ruinerte,
3805 og mange som gjennom mange år har opparbeidet kompetanse for å brødfø
3806 familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="id3043892" href="#ftn.id3043892" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
3807 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3808
3809
3810 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Ruined</span>&#8221;</span> is a bit of an exaggeration. But it is not an
3811 exaggeration to say that the change was profound. The decision of the House
3812 of Lords meant that the booksellers could no longer control how culture in
3813 England would grow and develop. Culture in England was thereafter
3814 <span class="emphasis"><em>free</em></span>.  Not in the sense that copyrights would not be
3815 respected, for of course, for a limited time after a work was published, the
3816 bookseller had an exclusive right to control the publication of that
3817 book. And not in the sense that books could be stolen, for even after a
3818 copyright expired, you still had to buy the book from someone. But
3819 <span class="emphasis"><em>free</em></span> in the sense that the culture and its growth would
3820 no longer be controlled by a small group of publishers. As every free market
3821 does, this free market of free culture would grow as the consumers and
3822 producers chose. English culture would develop as the many English readers
3823 chose to let it develop&#8212; chose in the books they bought and wrote;
3824 chose in the memes they repeated and endorsed. Chose in a
3825 <span class="emphasis"><em>competitive context</em></span>, not a context in which the choices
3826 about what culture is available to people and how they get access to it are
3827 made by the few despite the wishes of the many.
3828 </p><p>
3829 Til sist, dette var en verden hvor Parlamentet var antimonopolistisk, og
3830 holdt stand mot utgivernes krav. I en verden hvor parlamentet er lett å
3831 påvirke, vil den frie kultur være mindre beskyttet.
3832 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3043426" href="#id3043426" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
3833
3834
3835 Jacob Tonson is typically remembered for his associations with prominent
3836 eighteenth-century literary figures, especially John Dryden, and for his
3837 handsome <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">definitive editions</span>&#8221;</span> of classic works. In addition to
3838 <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em>, he published an astonishing array
3839 of works that still remain at the heart of the English canon, including
3840 collected works of Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, John Milton, and John
3841 Dryden. See Keith Walker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Jacob Tonson, Bookseller,</span>&#8221;</span>
3842 <em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992): 424&#8211;31.
3843 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3043454" href="#id3043454" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
3844
3845
3846 Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3847 Perspective</em> (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968),
3848 151&#8211;52.
3849 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3043489" href="#id3043489" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
3850
3851 As Siva Vaidhyanathan nicely argues, it is erroneous to call this a
3852 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright law.</span>&#8221;</span> See Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
3853 Copywrongs</em>, 40.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3043500"></a>
3854 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3043762" href="#id3043762" class="para">101</a>] </sup>
3855
3856
3857
3858 Philip Wittenberg, <em class="citetitle">The Protection and Marketing of Literary
3859 Property</em> (New York: J. Messner, Inc., 1937), 31.
3860 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3043839" href="#id3043839" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
3861
3862
3863 A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending in the
3864 House of Commons, for making more effectual an Act in the Eighth Year of the
3865 Reign of Queen Anne, entitled, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by
3866 Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such
3867 Copies, during the Times therein mentioned (London, 1735), in Brief Amici
3868 Curiae of Tyler T. Ochoa et al., 8, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
3869 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618).
3870 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3042168" href="#id3042168" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
3871
3872 Lyman Ray Patterson, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use,</span>&#8221;</span>
3873 <em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt Law Review</em> 40 (1987): 28. For a
3874 wonderfully compelling account, see Vaidhyanathan, 37&#8211;48.
3875 <a class="indexterm" name="id3043464"></a>
3876 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3043923" href="#id3043923" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
3877
3878
3879 For a compelling account, see David Saunders, <em class="citetitle">Authorship and
3880 Copyright</em> (London: Routledge, 1992), 62&#8211;69.
3881 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3043946" href="#id3043946" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
3882
3883 Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
3884 University Press, 1993), 92.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3043953"></a>
3885 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3043975" href="#id3043975" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
3886
3887
3888 Ibid., 93.
3889 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3044006" href="#id3044006" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
3890
3891
3892 Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3893 Perspective</em>, 167 (quoting Borwell).
3894 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3044052" href="#id3044052" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
3895
3896
3897 Howard B. Abrams, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
3898 Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law
3899 Review</em> 29 (1983): 1152.
3900 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3044152" href="#id3044152" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
3901
3902
3903 Ibid., 1156.
3904 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3044300" href="#id3044300" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
3905
3906
3907 Rose, 97.
3908 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3043892" href="#id3043892" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
3909
3910
3911 ibid.
3912 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="recorders"></a>Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</h2></div></div></div><p>
3913 Jon Else er en filmskaper. Han er mest kjent for sine dokumentarer og har på
3914 ypperlig vis klart å spre sin kunst. Han er også en lærer, som meg selv, og
3915 jeg misunner den lojaliteten og beundringen hans studenter har for ham. (Ved
3916 et uhell møtte jeg to av hans studenter i et middagsselskap og han var deres
3917 Gud.)
3918 </p><p>
3919 Else arbeidet med en dokumentarfilm hvor også jeg var involvert. I en pause
3920 så fortalte han meg om hvordan det kunne være å skape film i dagens Amerika.
3921 </p><p>
3922 I 1990 arbeidet Else med en dokumentar om Wagners Ring Cycle. Fokuset var på
3923 *stagehands* på San Francisco Opera. Stagehands er spesielt morsomt og
3924 fargerikt innslag i en opera. I løpet av forestillingen oppholder de seg
3925 blant publikum og på lysloftet. De er en perfekt kontrast til kunsten på
3926 scenen.<a class="indexterm" name="id3044438"></a>
3927 </p><p>
3928
3929 Under en forestilling, filmet Else noen stagehands som spilte *checkers*. I
3930 et hjørne av rommet stod det et fjernsynsapparat. På fjernsynet, mens
3931 forestillingen pågikk og operakompaniet spilte Wagner, gikk <em class="citetitle">The
3932 Simpsons</em>. Slik Else så det, så hjalp dette tegnefilm-innslaget
3933 med å fange det spesielle med scenen.
3934 </p><p>
3935 Years later, when he finally got funding to complete the film, Else
3936 attempted to clear the rights for those few seconds of <em class="citetitle">The
3937 Simpsons</em>.  For of course, those few seconds are copyrighted; and
3938 of course, to use copyrighted material you need the permission of the
3939 copyright owner, unless <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span> or some other privilege
3940 applies.
3941 </p><p>
3942 Else kontaktet <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-skaper Matt Groenings kontor
3943 for å få tillatelse. Og Groening gav ham det. Det var tross alt kun snakk om
3944 fire og et halvt sekund på et lite fjernsyn, bakerst i et hjørne av
3945 rommet. Hvordan kunne det skade? Groening var glad for å få ha det med i
3946 filmen, men han ba Else om å kontakte Gracie Films, firmaet som produserer
3947 programmet.<a class="indexterm" name="id3044496"></a>
3948 </p><p>
3949 Gracie Films sa også at det var greit, men de, slik som Groening, ønsket å
3950 være forsiktige, og ba Else om å kontakte Fox, konsernet som eide Gracie. Og
3951 Else kontaktet Fox og forklarte situasjonen; at det var snakk om et klipp i
3952 hjørnet i bakgrunnen i ett rom i filmen. Matt Groening hadde allerede gitt
3953 sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox.<a class="indexterm" name="id3044516"></a>
3954 </p><p>
3955 Then, as Else told me, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">two things happened. First we discovered
3956 &#8230; that Matt Groening doesn't own his own creation&#8212;or at least
3957 that someone [at Fox] believes he doesn't own his own creation.</span>&#8221;</span> And
3958 second, Fox <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">wanted ten thousand dollars as a licensing fee for us to
3959 use this four-point-five seconds of &#8230; entirely unsolicited
3960 <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> which was in the corner of the shot.</span>&#8221;</span>
3961 </p><p>
3962 Else was certain there was a mistake. He worked his way up to someone he
3963 thought was a vice president for licensing, Rebecca Herrera.  He explained
3964 to her, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">There must be some mistake here. &#8230; We're asking for
3965 your educational rate on this.</span>&#8221;</span> That was the educational rate,
3966 Herrera told Else. A day or so later, Else called again to confirm what he
3967 had been told.
3968 </p><p>
3969
3970 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I wanted to make sure I had my facts straight,</span>&#8221;</span> he told
3971 me. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Yes, you have your facts straight,</span>&#8221;</span> she said. It would
3972 cost $10,000 to use the clip of <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em> in the
3973 corner of a shot in a documentary film about Wagner's Ring Cycle. And then,
3974 astonishingly, Herrera told Else, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">And if you quote me, I'll turn you
3975 over to our attorneys.</span>&#8221;</span> As an assistant to Herrera told Else later
3976 on, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">They don't give a shit. They just want the money.</span>&#8221;</span>
3977 </p><p>
3978 Men Else hadde ikke penger til å kjøpe lisens for klippet. Så å gjenskape
3979 denne delen av virkeligheten, lå langt utenfor hans budsjett. Like før
3980 dokumentaren skulle slippes, redigerte Else inn et annet klipp på
3981 fjernsynet, et klipp fra en av hans andre filmer <em class="citetitle">The Day After
3982 Trinity</em> fra ti år tidligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id3044599"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3044606"></a>
3983 </p><p>
3984 Det er ingen tvil om at noen, enten det er er Matt Groening eller Fox, eier
3985 rettighetene til <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Rettighetene er deres
3986 eiendom. For å bruke beskyttet mteriale, kreves det ofte at men får
3987 tillatelse fra eieren eller eierne. Dersom Else ønsket å bruke
3988 <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em> til noe hvor loven gir verket
3989 beskyttelse, så må han innhente tillatelse fra eieren før han kan bruke
3990 det. Og i et fritt markes er det eieren som bestemmer hvor mye han/hun vil
3991 ta for hvilken som helst bruk (hvor loven krever tillatelse fra eier).
3992 </p><p>
3993 For example, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">public performance</span>&#8221;</span> is a use of <em class="citetitle">The
3994 Simpsons</em> that the copyright owner gets to control. If you take a
3995 selection of favorite episodes, rent a movie theater, and charge for tickets
3996 to come see <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">My Favorite <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>,</span>&#8221;</span> then
3997 you need to get permission from the copyright owner. And the copyright owner
3998 (rightly, in my view) can charge whatever she wants&#8212;$10 or
3999 $1,000,000. That's her right, as set by the law.
4000 </p><p>
4001 But when lawyers hear this story about Jon Else and Fox, their first thought
4002 is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3044666" href="#ftn.id3044666" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Else's use
4003 of just 4.5 seconds of an indirect shot of a <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>
4004 episode is clearly a fair use of <em class="citetitle">The
4005 Simpsons</em>&#8212;and fair use does not require the permission of
4006 anyone.
4007 </p><p>
4008
4009
4010 So I asked Else why he didn't just rely upon <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use.</span>&#8221;</span> Here's
4011 his reply:
4012 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4013 The <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> fiasco was for me a great lesson in the
4014 gulf between what lawyers find irrelevant in some abstract sense, and what
4015 is crushingly relevant in practice to those of us actually trying to make
4016 and broadcast documentaries. I never had any doubt that it was
4017 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">clearly fair use</span>&#8221;</span> in an absolute legal sense. But I couldn't
4018 rely on the concept in any concrete way. Here's why:
4019 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
4020
4021
4022 Before our films can be broadcast, the network requires that we buy Errors
4023 and Omissions insurance. The carriers require a detailed <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">visual cue
4024 sheet</span>&#8221;</span> listing the source and licensing status of each shot in the
4025 film. They take a dim view of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use,</span>&#8221;</span> and a claim of
4026 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span> can grind the application process to a halt.
4027 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4028
4029 Jeg skulle nok aldri ha bedt om Matt Groenings tillatelse. Men jeg visste
4030 (ihvertfall fra rykter) at Fox tidligere hadde brukt å jakte på og stoppe
4031 ulisensiert bruk av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>, på samme måte som
4032 George Lucas var veldig ivrig på å forfølge bruken av <em class="citetitle">Star
4033 Wars</em>. Så jeg bestemte meg for å følge boka, og trodde at vi
4034 kulle få til en gratis, i alle fall rimelig, avtale for fire sekunders bruk
4035 av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Som en dokumentarskaper, arbeidende
4036 på randen av utryddelse, var det siste jeg ønsket en juridisk strid, selv
4037 for å forsvare et prinsipp.
4038 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4039
4040
4041
4042 I did, in fact, speak with one of your colleagues at Stanford Law School
4043 &#8230; who confirmed that it was fair use. He also confirmed that Fox
4044 would <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">depose and litigate you to within an inch of your life,</span>&#8221;</span>
4045 regardless of the merits of my claim. He made clear that it would boil down
4046 to who had the bigger legal department and the deeper pockets, me or them.
4047
4048 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4049
4050
4051 Spørsmålet om "fair use" dukker om regel opp helt mot slutten av prosjektet,
4052 når vi nærmer oss siste frist og er tomme for penger.
4053 </p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><p>
4054 I teorien betyr "fair use" at du ikke trenger tillatelse. Teorien støtter
4055 derfor den frie kultur og arbeider mot tillatelseskulturen. Men i praksis
4056 fungerer "fair use" helt annerledes. Men de uklare linjene i lovverket, samt
4057 de fryktelige konsekvensene dersom man tar feil, gjør at mange kunstnere
4058 ikke stoler på "fair use". Loven har en svært god hensikt, men praksisen har
4059 ikke fulgt opp.
4060 </p><p>
4061 Dette eksempelet viser hvor langt denne loven har kommet fra sine
4062 syttenhundretalls røtter. Loven som skulle beskytte utgiverne mot
4063 urettferdig piratkonkurranse, hadde utviklet seg til et sverd som slo ned på
4064 _all_ bruk, transformativ* eller ikke.
4065 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3044666" href="#id3044666" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
4066
4067
4068 For an excellent argument that such use is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use,</span>&#8221;</span> but that
4069 lawyers don't permit recognition that it is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use,</span>&#8221;</span> see
4070 Richard A. Posner with William F. Patry, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Fair Use and Statutory
4071 Reform in the Wake of <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em></span>&#8221;</span> (draft on file
4072 with author), University of Chicago Law School, 5 August 2003.
4073 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3044861"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3044867"></a><p>
4074 In 1993, Alex Alben was a lawyer working at Starwave, Inc.  Starwave was an
4075 innovative company founded by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen to develop
4076 digital entertainment. Long before the Internet became popular, Starwave
4077 began investing in new technology for delivering entertainment in
4078 anticipation of the power of networks.
4079 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3044882"></a><p>
4080 Alben had a special interest in new technology. He was intrigued by the
4081 emerging market for CD-ROM technology&#8212;not to distribute film, but to
4082 do things with film that otherwise would be very difficult.  In 1993, he
4083 launched an initiative to develop a product to build retrospectives on the
4084 work of particular actors. The first actor chosen was Clint Eastwood. The
4085 idea was to showcase all of the work of Eastwood, with clips from his films
4086 and interviews with figures important to his career.
4087 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3044890"></a><p>
4088 At that time, Eastwood had made more than fifty films, as an actor and as a
4089 director. Alben began with a series of interviews with Eastwood, asking him
4090 about his career. Because Starwave produced those interviews, it was free to
4091 include them on the CD.
4092 </p><p>
4093
4094
4095 That alone would not have made a very interesting product, so Starwave
4096 wanted to add content from the movies in Eastwood's career: posters,
4097 scripts, and other material relating to the films Eastwood made. Most of his
4098 career was spent at Warner Brothers, and so it was relatively easy to get
4099 permission for that content.
4100 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3044925"></a><p>
4101 Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Our
4102 goal was that we were going to have a clip from every one of Eastwood's
4103 films,</span>&#8221;</span> Alben told me. It was here that the problem arose. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No
4104 one had ever really done this before,</span>&#8221;</span> Alben explained. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No one
4105 had ever tried to do this in the context of an artistic look at an actor's
4106 career.</span>&#8221;</span>
4107 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3044950"></a><p>
4108 Alben brought the idea to Michael Slade, the CEO of Starwave.  Slade asked,
4109 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Well, what will it take?</span>&#8221;</span>
4110 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3044964"></a><p>
4111 Alben replied, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Well, we're going to have to clear rights from
4112 everyone who appears in these films, and the music and everything else that
4113 we want to use in these film clips.</span>&#8221;</span> Slade said, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Great! Go for
4114 it.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3044980" href="#ftn.id3044980" class="footnote">113</a>]</sup>
4115 </p><p>
4116 The problem was that neither Alben nor Slade had any idea what clearing
4117 those rights would mean. Every actor in each of the films could have a claim
4118 to royalties for the reuse of that film. But CD- ROMs had not been specified
4119 in the contracts for the actors, so there was no clear way to know just what
4120 Starwave was to do.
4121 </p><p>
4122 I asked Alben how he dealt with the problem. With an obvious pride in his
4123 resourcefulness that obscured the obvious bizarreness of his tale, Alben
4124 recounted just what they did:
4125 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4126 So we very mechanically went about looking up the film clips.  We made some
4127 artistic decisions about what film clips to include&#8212;of course we were
4128 going to use the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Make my day</span>&#8221;</span> clip from <em class="citetitle">Dirty
4129 Harry</em>. But you then need to get the guy on the ground who's
4130 wiggling under the gun and you need to get his permission.  And then you
4131 have to decide what you are going to pay him.
4132 </p><p>
4133
4134
4135 We decided that it would be fair if we offered them the dayplayer rate for
4136 the right to reuse that performance. We're talking about a clip of less than
4137 a minute, but to reuse that performance in the CD-ROM the rate at the time
4138 was about $600.  So we had to identify the people&#8212;some of them were
4139 hard to identify because in Eastwood movies you can't tell who's the guy
4140 crashing through the glass&#8212;is it the actor or is it the stuntman? And
4141 then we just, we put together a team, my assistant and some others, and we
4142 just started calling people.
4143 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3045047"></a><p>
4144 Some actors were glad to help&#8212;Donald Sutherland, for example, followed
4145 up himself to be sure that the rights had been cleared.  Others were
4146 dumbfounded at their good fortune. Alben would ask, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hey, can I pay
4147 you $600 or maybe if you were in two films, you know, $1,200?</span>&#8221;</span> And
4148 they would say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Are you for real? Hey, I'd love to get
4149 $1,200.</span>&#8221;</span> And some of course were a bit difficult (estranged ex-wives,
4150 in particular). But eventually, Alben and his team had cleared the rights to
4151 this retrospective CD-ROM on Clint Eastwood's career.
4152 </p><p>
4153 It was one <span class="emphasis"><em>year</em></span> later&#8212;<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">and even then we
4154 weren't sure whether we were totally in the clear.</span>&#8221;</span>
4155 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3045094"></a><p>
4156 Alben is proud of his work. The project was the first of its kind and the
4157 only time he knew of that a team had undertaken such a massive project for
4158 the purpose of releasing a retrospective.
4159 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4160 Everyone thought it would be too hard. Everyone just threw up their hands
4161 and said, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Oh, my gosh, a film, it's so many copyrights, there's the
4162 music, there's the screenplay, there's the director, there's the
4163 actors.</span>&#8221;</span> But we just broke it down. We just put it into its
4164 constituent parts and said, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Okay, there's this many actors, this many
4165 directors, &#8230; this many musicians,</span>&#8221;</span> and we just went at it very
4166 systematically and cleared the rights.
4167 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4168
4169
4170
4171 And no doubt, the product itself was exceptionally good. Eastwood loved it,
4172 and it sold very well.
4173 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3045135"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3045141"></a><p>
4174 But I pressed Alben about how weird it seems that it would have to take a
4175 year's work simply to clear rights. No doubt Alben had done this
4176 efficiently, but as Peter Drucker has famously quipped, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">There is
4177 nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at
4178 all.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3045157" href="#ftn.id3045157" class="footnote">114</a>]</sup> Did it make sense, I asked
4179 Alben, that this is the way a new work has to be made?
4180 </p><p>
4181 For, as he acknowledged, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">very few &#8230; have the time and
4182 resources, and the will to do this,</span>&#8221;</span> and thus, very few such works
4183 would ever be made. Does it make sense, I asked him, from the standpoint of
4184 what anybody really thought they were ever giving rights for originally,
4185 that you would have to go clear rights for these kinds of clips?
4186 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4187 I don't think so. When an actor renders a performance in a movie, he or she
4188 gets paid very well. &#8230; And then when 30 seconds of that performance
4189 is used in a new product that is a retrospective of somebody's career, I
4190 don't think that that person &#8230; should be compensated for that.
4191 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4192 Or at least, is this <span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> the artist should be
4193 compensated? Would it make sense, I asked, for there to be some kind of
4194 statutory license that someone could pay and be free to make derivative use
4195 of clips like this? Did it really make sense that a follow-on creator would
4196 have to track down every artist, actor, director, musician, and get explicit
4197 permission from each? Wouldn't a lot more be created if the legal part of
4198 the creative process could be made to be more clean?
4199 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4200
4201 Absolutely. I think that if there were some fair-licensing
4202 mechanism&#8212;where you weren't subject to hold-ups and you weren't
4203 subject to estranged former spouses&#8212;you'd see a lot more of this work,
4204 because it wouldn't be so daunting to try to put together a retrospective of
4205 someone's career and meaningfully illustrate it with lots of media from that
4206 person's career. You'd build in a cost as the producer of one of these
4207 things. You'd build in a cost of paying X dollars to the talent that
4208 performed. But it would be a known cost. That's the thing that trips
4209 everybody up and makes this kind of product hard to get off the ground. If
4210 you knew I have a hundred minutes of film in this product and it's going to
4211 cost me X, then you build your budget around it, and you can get investments
4212 and everything else that you need to produce it. But if you say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Oh,
4213 I want a hundred minutes of something and I have no idea what it's going to
4214 cost me, and a certain number of people are going to hold me up for
4215 money,</span>&#8221;</span> then it becomes difficult to put one of these things
4216 together.
4217 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3045244"></a><p>
4218 Alben worked for a big company. His company was backed by some of the
4219 richest investors in the world. He therefore had authority and access that
4220 the average Web designer would not have. So if it took him a year, how long
4221 would it take someone else? And how much creativity is never made just
4222 because the costs of clearing the rights are so high? These costs are the
4223 burdens of a kind of regulation. Put on a Republican hat for a moment, and
4224 get angry for a bit. The government defines the scope of these rights, and
4225 the scope defined determines how much it's going to cost to negotiate
4226 them. (Remember the idea that land runs to the heavens, and imagine the
4227 pilot purchasing flythrough rights as he negotiates to fly from Los Angeles
4228 to San Francisco.)  These rights might well have once made sense; but as
4229 circumstances change, they make no sense at all. Or at least, a
4230 well-trained, regulationminimizing Republican should look at the rights and
4231 ask, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Does this still make sense?</span>&#8221;</span>
4232 </p><p>
4233
4234 I've seen the flash of recognition when people get this point, but only a
4235 few times. The first was at a conference of federal judges in California.
4236 The judges were gathered to discuss the emerging topic of cyber-law. I was
4237 asked to be on the panel. Harvey Saferstein, a well-respected lawyer from an
4238 L.A. firm, introduced the panel with a video that he and a friend, Robert
4239 Fairbank, had produced.
4240 </p><p>
4241 Videoen var en glimrende sammenstilling av filmer fra hver periode i det
4242 tjuende århundret, rammet inn rundt idéen om en episode i TV-serien
4243 <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em>. Utførelsen var perfekt, ned til seksti
4244 minutter stoppeklokken. Dommerne elsket enhver minutt av den.
4245 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3045300"></a><p>
4246 When the lights came up, I looked over to my copanelist, David Nimmer,
4247 perhaps the leading copyright scholar and practitioner in the nation. He had
4248 an astonished look on his face, as he peered across the room of over 250
4249 well-entertained judges. Taking an ominous tone, he began his talk with a
4250 question: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Do you know how many federal laws were just violated in
4251 this room?</span>&#8221;</span>
4252 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3045319"></a><p>
4253 For of course, the two brilliantly talented creators who made this film
4254 hadn't done what Alben did. They hadn't spent a year clearing the rights to
4255 these clips; technically, what they had done violated the law.  Of course,
4256 it wasn't as if they or anyone were going to be prosecuted for this
4257 violation (the presence of 250 judges and a gaggle of federal marshals
4258 notwithstanding). But Nimmer was making an important point: A year before
4259 anyone would have heard of the word Napster, and two years before another
4260 member of our panel, David Boies, would defend Napster before the Ninth
4261 Circuit Court of Appeals, Nimmer was trying to get the judges to see that
4262 the law would not be friendly to the capacities that this technology would
4263 enable. Technology means you can now do amazing things easily; but you
4264 couldn't easily do them legally.
4265 </p><p>
4266 We live in a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>&#8221;</span> culture enabled by
4267 technology. Anyone building a presentation knows the extraordinary freedom
4268 that the cut and paste architecture of the Internet created&#8212;in a
4269 second you can find just about any image you want; in another second, you
4270 can have it planted in your presentation.
4271 </p><p>
4272 But presentations are just a tiny beginning. Using the Internet and its
4273 archives, musicians are able to string together mixes of sound never before
4274 imagined; filmmakers are able to build movies out of clips on computers
4275 around the world. An extraordinary site in Sweden takes images of
4276 politicians and blends them with music to create biting political
4277 commentary. A site called Camp Chaos has produced some of the most biting
4278 criticism of the record industry that there is through the mixing of Flash!
4279 and music.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3045365"></a>
4280 </p><p>
4281 All of these creations are technically illegal. Even if the creators wanted
4282 to be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">legal,</span>&#8221;</span> the cost of complying with the law is impossibly
4283 high. Therefore, for the law-abiding sorts, a wealth of creativity is never
4284 made. And for that part that is made, if it doesn't follow the clearance
4285 rules, it doesn't get released.
4286 </p><p>
4287 To some, these stories suggest a solution: Let's alter the mix of rights so
4288 that people are free to build upon our culture. Free to add or mix as they
4289 see fit. We could even make this change without necessarily requiring that
4290 the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free</span>&#8221;</span> use be free as in <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free beer.</span>&#8221;</span> Instead,
4291 the system could simply make it easy for follow-on creators to compensate
4292 artists without requiring an army of lawyers to come along: a rule, for
4293 example, that says <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the royalty owed the copyright owner of an
4294 unregistered work for the derivative reuse of his work will be a flat 1
4295 percent of net revenues, to be held in escrow for the copyright
4296 owner.</span>&#8221;</span> Under this rule, the copyright owner could benefit from some
4297 royalty, but he would not have the benefit of a full property right (meaning
4298 the right to name his own price) unless he registers the work.
4299 </p><p>
4300 Who could possibly object to this? And what reason would there be for
4301 objecting? We're talking about work that is not now being made; which if
4302 made, under this plan, would produce new income for artists.  What reason
4303 would anyone have to oppose it?
4304 </p><p>
4305
4306 In February 2003, DreamWorks studios announced an agreement with Mike Myers,
4307 the comic genius of <em class="citetitle">Saturday Night Live</em> and Austin
4308 Powers. According to the announcement, Myers and Dream-Works would work
4309 together to form a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">unique filmmaking pact.</span>&#8221;</span> Under the
4310 agreement, DreamWorks <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">will acquire the rights to existing motion
4311 picture hits and classics, write new storylines and&#8212;with the use of
4312 stateof-the-art digital technology&#8212;insert Myers and other actors into
4313 the film, thereby creating an entirely new piece of entertainment.</span>&#8221;</span>
4314 </p><p>
4315 The announcement called this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">film sampling.</span>&#8221;</span> As Myers
4316 explained, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Film Sampling is an exciting way to put an original spin
4317 on existing films and allow audiences to see old movies in a new light. Rap
4318 artists have been doing this for years with music and now we are able to
4319 take that same concept and apply it to film.</span>&#8221;</span> Steven Spielberg is
4320 quoted as saying, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">If anyone can create a way to bring old films to
4321 new audiences, it is Mike.</span>&#8221;</span>
4322 </p><p>
4323 Spielberg is right. Film sampling by Myers will be brilliant. But if you
4324 don't think about it, you might miss the truly astonishing point about this
4325 announcement. As the vast majority of our film heritage remains under
4326 copyright, the real meaning of the DreamWorks announcement is just this: It
4327 is Mike Myers and only Mike Myers who is free to sample. Any general freedom
4328 to build upon the film archive of our culture, a freedom in other contexts
4329 presumed for us all, is now a privilege reserved for the funny and
4330 famous&#8212;and presumably rich.
4331 </p><p>
4332 This privilege becomes reserved for two sorts of reasons. The first
4333 continues the story of the last chapter: the vagueness of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair
4334 use.</span>&#8221;</span> Much of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sampling</span>&#8221;</span> should be considered
4335 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use.</span>&#8221;</span> But few would rely upon so weak a doctrine to
4336 create. That leads to the second reason that the privilege is reserved for
4337 the few: The costs of negotiating the legal rights for the creative reuse of
4338 content are astronomically high.  These costs mirror the costs with fair
4339 use: You either pay a lawyer to defend your fair use rights or pay a lawyer
4340 to track down permissions so you don't have to rely upon fair use
4341 rights. Either way, the creative process is a process of paying
4342 lawyers&#8212;again a privilege, or perhaps a curse, reserved for the few.
4343 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3044980" href="#id3044980" class="para">113</a>] </sup>
4344
4345 Technically, the rights that Alben had to clear were mainly those of
4346 publicity&#8212;rights an artist has to control the commercial exploitation
4347 of his image.  But these rights, too, burden <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Rip, Mix, Burn</span>&#8221;</span>
4348 creativity, as this chapter evinces.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3044992"></a>
4349 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3045157" href="#id3045157" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
4350
4351
4352 U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management,
4353 <em class="citetitle">Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services
4354 Acquisition</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #22</a>.
4355 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere</h2></div></div></div><p>
4356 In April 1996, millions of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">bots</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;computer codes designed
4357 to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">spider,</span>&#8221;</span> or automatically search the Internet and copy
4358 content&#8212;began running across the Net. Page by page, these bots copied
4359 Internet-based information onto a small set of computers located in a
4360 basement in San Francisco's Presidio. Once the bots finished the whole of
4361 the Internet, they started again. Over and over again, once every two
4362 months, these bits of code took copies of the Internet and stored them.
4363 </p><p>
4364 By October 2001, the bots had collected more than five years of copies. And
4365 at a small announcement in Berkeley, California, the archive that these
4366 copies created, the Internet Archive, was opened to the world. Using a
4367 technology called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the Way Back Machine,</span>&#8221;</span> you could enter a Web
4368 page, and see all of its copies going back to 1996, as well as when those
4369 pages changed.
4370 </p><p>
4371 This is the thing about the Internet that Orwell would have appreciated.  In
4372 the dystopia described in <em class="citetitle">1984</em>, old newspapers were
4373 constantly updated to assure that the current view of the world, approved of
4374 by the government, was not contradicted by previous news reports.
4375 </p><p>
4376
4377
4378 Thousands of workers constantly reedited the past, meaning there was no way
4379 ever to know whether the story you were reading today was the story that was
4380 printed on the date published on the paper.
4381 </p><p>
4382 It's the same with the Internet. If you go to a Web page today, there's no
4383 way for you to know whether the content you are reading is the same as the
4384 content you read before. The page may seem the same, but the content could
4385 easily be different. The Internet is Orwell's library&#8212;constantly
4386 updated, without any reliable memory.
4387 </p><p>
4388 Until the Way Back Machine, at least. With the Way Back Machine, and the
4389 Internet Archive underlying it, you can see what the Internet was. You have
4390 the power to see what you remember. More importantly, perhaps, you also have
4391 the power to find what you don't remember and what others might prefer you
4392 forget.<sup>[<a name="id3045569" href="#ftn.id3045569" class="footnote">115</a>]</sup>
4393 </p><p>
4394 We take it for granted that we can go back to see what we remember
4395 reading. Think about newspapers. If you wanted to study the reaction of your
4396 hometown newspaper to the race riots in Watts in 1965, or to Bull Connor's
4397 water cannon in 1963, you could go to your public library and look at the
4398 newspapers. Those papers probably exist on microfiche. If you're lucky, they
4399 exist in paper, too. Either way, you are free, using a library, to go back
4400 and remember&#8212;not just what it is convenient to remember, but remember
4401 something close to the truth.
4402 </p><p>
4403 It is said that those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat
4404 it. That's not quite correct. We <span class="emphasis"><em>all</em></span> forget
4405 history. The key is whether we have a way to go back to rediscover what we
4406 forget. More directly, the key is whether an objective past can keep us
4407 honest. Libraries help do that, by collecting content and keeping it, for
4408 schoolchildren, for researchers, for grandma. A free society presumes this
4409 knowedge.
4410 </p><p>
4411
4412 The Internet was an exception to this presumption. Until the Internet
4413 Archive, there was no way to go back. The Internet was the quintessentially
4414 transitory medium. And yet, as it becomes more important in forming and
4415 reforming society, it becomes more and more important to maintain in some
4416 historical form. It's just bizarre to think that we have scads of archives
4417 of newspapers from tiny towns around the world, yet there is but one copy of
4418 the Internet&#8212;the one kept by the Internet Archive.
4419 </p><p>
4420 Brewster Kahle is the founder of the Internet Archive. He was a very
4421 successful Internet entrepreneur after he was a successful computer
4422 researcher.  In the 1990s, Kahle decided he had had enough business
4423 success.  It was time to become a different kind of success. So he launched
4424 a series of projects designed to archive human knowledge. The Internet
4425 Archive was just the first of the projects of this Andrew Carnegie of the
4426 Internet. By December of 2002, the archive had over 10 billion pages, and it
4427 was growing at about a billion pages a month.
4428 </p><p>
4429 The Way Back Machine is the largest archive of human knowledge in human
4430 history. At the end of 2002, it held <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">two hundred and thirty terabytes
4431 of material</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;and was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ten times larger than the Library
4432 of Congress.</span>&#8221;</span> And this was just the first of the archives that Kahle
4433 set out to build. In addition to the Internet Archive, Kahle has been
4434 constructing the Television Archive. Television, it turns out, is even more
4435 ephemeral than the Internet. While much of twentieth-century culture was
4436 constructed through television, only a tiny proportion of that culture is
4437 available for anyone to see today. Three hours of news are recorded each
4438 evening by Vanderbilt University&#8212;thanks to a specific exemption in the
4439 copyright law. That content is indexed, and is available to scholars for a
4440 very low fee. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But other than that, [television] is almost
4441 unavailable,</span>&#8221;</span> Kahle told me. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">If you were Barbara Walters you
4442 could get access to [the archives], but if you are just a graduate
4443 student?</span>&#8221;</span> As Kahle put it,
4444 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id3045690"></a><p>
4445
4446 Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown? Remember
4447 that back and forth surreal experience of a politician interacting with a
4448 fictional television character? If you were a graduate student wanting to
4449 study that, and you wanted to get those original back and forth exchanges
4450 between the two, the <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em> episode that came out
4451 after it &#8230; it would be almost impossible. &#8230; Those materials
4452 are almost unfindable. &#8230;
4453 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4454 Why is that? Why is it that the part of our culture that is recorded in
4455 newspapers remains perpetually accessible, while the part that is recorded
4456 on videotape is not? How is it that we've created a world where researchers
4457 trying to understand the effect of media on nineteenthcentury America will
4458 have an easier time than researchers trying to understand the effect of
4459 media on twentieth-century America?
4460 </p><p>
4461 In part, this is because of the law. Early in American copyright law,
4462 copyright owners were required to deposit copies of their work in
4463 libraries.  These copies were intended both to facilitate the spread of
4464 knowledge and to assure that a copy of the work would be around once the
4465 copyright expired, so that others might access and copy the work.
4466 </p><p>
4467 These rules applied to film as well. But in 1915, the Library of Congress
4468 made an exception for film. Film could be copyrighted so long as such
4469 deposits were made. But the filmmaker was then allowed to borrow back the
4470 deposits&#8212;for an unlimited time at no cost. In 1915 alone, there were
4471 more than 5,475 films deposited and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">borrowed back.</span>&#8221;</span> Thus, when
4472 the copyrights to films expire, there is no copy held by any library. The
4473 copy exists&#8212;if it exists at all&#8212;in the library archive of the
4474 film company.<sup>[<a name="id3045738" href="#ftn.id3045738" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
4475 </p><p>
4476 The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts were
4477 originally not copyrighted&#8212;there was no way to capture the broadcasts,
4478 so there was no fear of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">theft.</span>&#8221;</span> But as technology enabled
4479 capturing, broadcasters relied increasingly upon the law. The law required
4480 they make a copy of each broadcast for the work to be
4481 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyrighted.</span>&#8221;</span> But those copies were simply kept by the
4482 broadcasters. No library had any right to them; the government didn't demand
4483 them.  The content of this part of American culture is practically invisible
4484 to anyone who would look.
4485 </p><p>
4486
4487 Kahle was eager to correct this. Before September 11, 2001, he and his
4488 allies had started capturing television. They selected twenty stations from
4489 around the world and hit the Record button. After September 11, Kahle,
4490 working with dozens of others, selected twenty stations from around the
4491 world and, beginning October 11, 2001, made their coverage during the week
4492 of September 11 available free on-line.  Anyone could see how news reports
4493 from around the world covered the events of that day.
4494 </p><p>
4495 Kahle had the same idea with film. Working with Rick Prelinger, whose
4496 archive of film includes close to 45,000 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ephemeral films</span>&#8221;</span>
4497 (meaning films other than Hollywood movies, films that were never
4498 copyrighted), Kahle established the Movie Archive. Prelinger let Kahle
4499 digitize 1,300 films in this archive and post those films on the Internet to
4500 be downloaded for free. Prelinger's is a for-profit company. It sells copies
4501 of these films as stock footage. What he has discovered is that after he
4502 made a significant chunk available for free, his stock footage sales went up
4503 dramatically. People could easily find the material they wanted to use. Some
4504 downloaded that material and made films on their own. Others purchased
4505 copies to enable other films to be made.  Either way, the archive enabled
4506 access to this important part of our culture.  Want to see a copy of the
4507 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Duck and Cover</span>&#8221;</span> film that instructed children how to save
4508 themselves in the middle of nuclear attack? Go to archive.org, and you can
4509 download the film in a few minutes&#8212;for free.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3045774"></a>
4510 </p><p>
4511 Here again, Kahle is providing access to a part of our culture that we
4512 otherwise could not get easily, if at all. It is yet another part of what
4513 defines the twentieth century that we have lost to history. The law doesn't
4514 require these copies to be kept by anyone, or to be deposited in an archive
4515 by anyone. Therefore, there is no simple way to find them.
4516 </p><p>
4517 The key here is access, not price. Kahle wants to enable free access to this
4518 content, but he also wants to enable others to sell access to it. His aim is
4519 to ensure competition in access to this important part of our culture.  Not
4520 during the commercial life of a bit of creative property, but during a
4521 second life that all creative property has&#8212;a noncommercial life.
4522 </p><p>
4523
4524 For here is an idea that we should more clearly recognize. Every bit of
4525 creative property goes through different <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lives.</span>&#8221;</span> In its first
4526 life, if the creator is lucky, the content is sold. In such cases the
4527 commercial market is successful for the creator. The vast majority of
4528 creative property doesn't enjoy such success, but some clearly does. For
4529 that content, commercial life is extremely important. Without this
4530 commercial market, there would be, many argue, much less creativity.
4531 </p><p>
4532 After the commercial life of creative property has ended, our tradition has
4533 always supported a second life as well. A newspaper delivers the news every
4534 day to the doorsteps of America. The very next day, it is used to wrap fish
4535 or to fill boxes with fragile gifts or to build an archive of knowledge
4536 about our history. In this second life, the content can continue to inform
4537 even if that information is no longer sold.
4538 </p><p>
4539 The same has always been true about books. A book goes out of print very
4540 quickly (the average today is after about a year<sup>[<a name="id3045898" href="#ftn.id3045898" class="footnote">117</a>]</sup>). After it is out of print, it can be sold in used book stores
4541 without the copyright owner getting anything and stored in libraries, where
4542 many get to read the book, also for free. Used book stores and libraries are
4543 thus the second life of a book. That second life is extremely important to
4544 the spread and stability of culture.
4545 </p><p>
4546 Yet increasingly, any assumption about a stable second life for creative
4547 property does not hold true with the most important components of popular
4548 culture in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. For
4549 these&#8212;television, movies, music, radio, the Internet&#8212;there is no
4550 guarantee of a second life. For these sorts of culture, it is as if we've
4551 replaced libraries with Barnes &amp; Noble superstores. With this culture,
4552 what's accessible is nothing but what a certain limited market demands.
4553 Beyond that, culture disappears.
4554 </p><p>
4555
4556 For most of the twentieth century, it was economics that made this so. It
4557 would have been insanely expensive to collect and make accessible all
4558 television and film and music: The cost of analog copies is extraordinarily
4559 high. So even though the law in principle would have restricted the ability
4560 of a Brewster Kahle to copy culture generally, the real restriction was
4561 economics. The market made it impossibly difficult to do anything about this
4562 ephemeral culture; the law had little practical effect.
4563 </p><p>
4564 Perhaps the single most important feature of the digital revolution is that
4565 for the first time since the Library of Alexandria, it is feasible to
4566 imagine constructing archives that hold all culture produced or distributed
4567 publicly. Technology makes it possible to imagine an archive of all books
4568 published, and increasingly makes it possible to imagine an archive of all
4569 moving images and sound.
4570 </p><p>
4571 The scale of this potential archive is something we've never imagined
4572 before. The Brewster Kahles of our history have dreamed about it; but we are
4573 for the first time at a point where that dream is possible. As Kahle
4574 describes,
4575 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4576 It looks like there's about two to three million recordings of music.
4577 Ever. There are about a hundred thousand theatrical releases of movies,
4578 &#8230; and about one to two million movies [distributed] during the
4579 twentieth century. There are about twenty-six million different titles of
4580 books. All of these would fit on computers that would fit in this room and
4581 be able to be afforded by a small company.  So we're at a turning point in
4582 our history. Universal access is the goal. And the opportunity of leading a
4583 different life, based on this, is &#8230; thrilling. It could be one of the
4584 things humankind would be most proud of. Up there with the Library of
4585 Alexandria, putting a man on the moon, and the invention of the printing
4586 press.
4587 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4588
4589 Kahle is not the only librarian. The Internet Archive is not the only
4590 archive. But Kahle and the Internet Archive suggest what the future of
4591 libraries or archives could be. <span class="emphasis"><em>When</em></span> the commercial
4592 life of creative property ends, I don't know. But it does. And whenever it
4593 does, Kahle and his archive hint at a world where this knowledge, and
4594 culture, remains perpetually available. Some will draw upon it to understand
4595 it; some to criticize it. Some will use it, as Walt Disney did, to re-create
4596 the past for the future. These technologies promise something that had
4597 become unimaginable for much of our past&#8212;a future
4598 <span class="emphasis"><em>for</em></span> our past. The technology of digital arts could make
4599 the dream of the Library of Alexandria real again.
4600 </p><p>
4601 Technologists have thus removed the economic costs of building such an
4602 archive. But lawyers' costs remain. For as much as we might like to call
4603 these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">archives,</span>&#8221;</span> as warm as the idea of a
4604 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">library</span>&#8221;</span> might seem, the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">content</span>&#8221;</span> that is
4605 collected in these digital spaces is also someone's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property.</span>&#8221;</span>
4606 And the law of property restricts the freedoms that Kahle and others would
4607 exercise.
4608 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3045569" href="#id3045569" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
4609
4610
4611 The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the White House
4612 changes its own press releases without notice. A May 13, 2003, press release
4613 stated, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.</span>&#8221;</span> That was later
4614 changed, without notice, to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have
4615 Ended.</span>&#8221;</span> E-mail from Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
4616 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3045738" href="#id3045738" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
4617
4618
4619 Doug Herrick, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
4620 the Library of Congress,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Film Library
4621 Quarterly</em> 13 nos. 2&#8211;3 (1980): 5; Anthony Slide,
4622 <em class="citetitle">Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film Preservation in the United
4623 States</em> ( Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland &amp; Co., 1992), 36.
4624 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3045898" href="#id3045898" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
4625
4626
4627 Dave Barns, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord,
4628 Bar Owner Starts a New Chapter by Adopting Business,</span>&#8221;</span>
4629 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 5 September 1997, at Metro Lake
4630 1L. Of books published between 1927 and 1946, only 2.2 percent were in print
4631 in 2002. R. Anthony Reese, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of
4632 Digital Networks,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston College Law Review</em>
4633 44 (2003): 593 n. 51.
4634 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>&#8221;</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
4635 Jack Valenti has been the president of the Motion Picture Association of
4636 America since 1966. He first came to Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's
4637 administration&#8212;literally. The famous picture of Johnson's swearing-in
4638 on Air Force One after the assassination of President Kennedy has Valenti in
4639 the background. In his almost forty years of running the MPAA, Valenti has
4640 established himself as perhaps the most prominent and effective lobbyist in
4641 Washington.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3046018"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3046078"></a>
4642 </p><p>
4643 The MPAA is the American branch of the international Motion Picture
4644 Association. It was formed in 1922 as a trade association whose goal was to
4645 defend American movies against increasing domestic criticism.  The
4646 organization now represents not only filmmakers but producers and
4647 distributors of entertainment for television, video, and cable. Its board is
4648 made up of the chairmen and presidents of the seven major producers and
4649 distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States:
4650 Walt Disney, Sony Pictures Entertainment, MGM, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth
4651 Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3046097"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3046104"></a>
4652 <a class="indexterm" name="id3046110"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3046116"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3046122"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3046129"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3046135"></a>
4653 </p><p>
4654
4655
4656 Valenti is only the third president of the MPAA. No president before him has
4657 had as much influence over that organization, or over Washington. As a
4658 Texan, Valenti has mastered the single most important political skill of a
4659 Southerner&#8212;the ability to appear simple and slow while hiding a
4660 lightning-fast intellect. To this day, Valenti plays the simple, humble
4661 man. But this Harvard MBA, and author of four books, who finished high
4662 school at the age of fifteen and flew more than fifty combat missions in
4663 World War II, is no Mr. Smith. When Valenti went to Washington, he mastered
4664 the city in a quintessentially Washingtonian way.
4665 </p><p>
4666 In defending artistic liberty and the freedom of speech that our culture
4667 depends upon, the MPAA has done important good. In crafting the MPAA rating
4668 system, it has probably avoided a great deal of speech-regulating harm. But
4669 there is an aspect to the organization's mission that is both the most
4670 radical and the most important. This is the organization's effort,
4671 epitomized in Valenti's every act, to redefine the meaning of
4672 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property.</span>&#8221;</span>
4673 </p><p>
4674 In 1982, Valenti's testimony to Congress captured the strategy perfectly:
4675 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4676 No matter the lengthy arguments made, no matter the charges and the
4677 counter-charges, no matter the tumult and the shouting, reasonable men and
4678 women will keep returning to the fundamental issue, the central theme which
4679 animates this entire debate: <span class="emphasis"><em>Creative property owners must be
4680 accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other property
4681 owners in the nation</em></span>. That is the issue.  That is the
4682 question. And that is the rostrum on which this entire hearing and the
4683 debates to follow must rest.<sup>[<a name="id3046194" href="#ftn.id3046194" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
4684 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4685
4686 The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's
4687 rhetoric, is brilliant and simple and brilliant because simple. The
4688 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">central theme</span>&#8221;</span> to which <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">reasonable men and
4689 women</span>&#8221;</span> will return is this: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Creative property owners must be
4690 accorded the same rights and protections resident in all other property
4691 owners in the nation.</span>&#8221;</span> There are no second-class citizens, Valenti
4692 might have continued. There should be no second-class property owners.
4693 </p><p>
4694 This claim has an obvious and powerful intuitive pull. It is stated with
4695 such clarity as to make the idea as obvious as the notion that we use
4696 elections to pick presidents. But in fact, there is no more extreme a claim
4697 made by <span class="emphasis"><em>anyone</em></span> who is serious in this debate than this
4698 claim of Valenti's. Jack Valenti, however sweet and however brilliant, is
4699 perhaps the nation's foremost extremist when it comes to the nature and
4700 scope of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property.</span>&#8221;</span> His views have
4701 <span class="emphasis"><em>no</em></span> reasonable connection to our actual legal tradition,
4702 even if the subtle pull of his Texan charm has slowly redefined that
4703 tradition, at least in Washington.
4704 </p><p>
4705 While <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> is certainly <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span>
4706 in a nerdy and precise sense that lawyers are trained to
4707 understand,<sup>[<a name="id3046263" href="#ftn.id3046263" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case,
4708 nor should it be, that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property owners</span>&#8221;</span> have been
4709 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other
4710 property owners.</span>&#8221;</span> Indeed, if creative property owners were given the
4711 same rights as all other property owners, that would effect a radical, and
4712 radically undesirable, change in our tradition.
4713 </p><p>
4714 Valenti knows this. But he speaks for an industry that cares squat for our
4715 tradition and the values it represents. He speaks for an industry that is
4716 instead fighting to restore the tradition that the British overturned in
4717 1710. In the world that Valenti's changes would create, a powerful few would
4718 exercise powerful control over how our creative culture would develop.
4719 </p><p>
4720
4721 I have two purposes in this chapter. The first is to convince you that,
4722 historically, Valenti's claim is absolutely wrong. The second is to convince
4723 you that it would be terribly wrong for us to reject our history.  We have
4724 always treated rights in creative property differently from the rights
4725 resident in all other property owners. They have never been the same. And
4726 they should never be the same, because, however counterintuitive this may
4727 seem, to make them the same would be to fundamentally weaken the opportunity
4728 for new creators to create.  Creativity depends upon the owners of
4729 creativity having less than perfect control.
4730 </p><p>
4731 Organizations such as the MPAA, whose board includes the most powerful of
4732 the old guard, have little interest, their rhetoric notwithstanding, in
4733 assuring that the new can displace them. No organization does. No person
4734 does. (Ask me about tenure, for example.)  But what's good for the MPAA is
4735 not necessarily good for America. A society that defends the ideals of free
4736 culture must preserve precisely the opportunity for new creativity to
4737 threaten the old.  To get just a hint that there is something fundamentally
4738 wrong in Valenti's argument, we need look no further than the United States
4739 Constitution itself.
4740 </p><p>
4741 The framers of our Constitution loved <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property.</span>&#8221;</span> Indeed, so
4742 strongly did they love property that they built into the Constitution an
4743 important requirement. If the government takes your property&#8212;if it
4744 condemns your house, or acquires a slice of land from your farm&#8212;it is
4745 required, under the Fifth Amendment's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Takings Clause,</span>&#8221;</span> to pay
4746 you <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">just compensation</span>&#8221;</span> for that taking. The Constitution thus
4747 guarantees that property is, in a certain sense, sacred. It cannot
4748 <span class="emphasis"><em>ever</em></span> be taken from the property owner unless the
4749 government pays for the privilege.
4750 </p><p>
4751
4752 Yet the very same Constitution speaks very differently about what Valenti
4753 calls <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property.</span>&#8221;</span> In the clause granting Congress the
4754 power to create <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property,</span>&#8221;</span> the Constitution
4755 <span class="emphasis"><em>requires</em></span> that after a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited time,</span>&#8221;</span>
4756 Congress take back the rights that it has granted and set the
4757 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> free to the public domain. Yet when
4758 Congress does this, when the expiration of a copyright term
4759 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">takes</span>&#8221;</span> your copyright and turns it over to the public domain,
4760 Congress does not have any obligation to pay <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">just
4761 compensation</span>&#8221;</span> for this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taking.</span>&#8221;</span> Instead, the same
4762 Constitution that requires compensation for your land requires that you lose
4763 your <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> right without any compensation at all.
4764 </p><p>
4765 The Constitution thus on its face states that these two forms of property
4766 are not to be accorded the same rights. They are plainly to be treated
4767 differently. Valenti is therefore not just asking for a change in our
4768 tradition when he argues that creative-property owners should be accorded
4769 the same rights as every other property-right owner. He is effectively
4770 arguing for a change in our Constitution itself.
4771 </p><p>
4772 Arguing for a change in our Constitution is not necessarily wrong.  There
4773 was much in our original Constitution that was plainly wrong.  The
4774 Constitution of 1789 entrenched slavery; it left senators to be appointed
4775 rather than elected; it made it possible for the electoral college to
4776 produce a tie between the president and his own vice president (as it did in
4777 1800). The framers were no doubt extraordinary, but I would be the first to
4778 admit that they made big mistakes. We have since rejected some of those
4779 mistakes; no doubt there could be others that we should reject as well. So
4780 my argument is not simply that because Jefferson did it, we should, too.
4781 </p><p>
4782 Instead, my argument is that because Jefferson did it, we should at least
4783 try to understand <span class="emphasis"><em>why</em></span>. Why did the framers, fanatical
4784 property types that they were, reject the claim that creative property be
4785 given the same rights as all other property? Why did they require that for
4786 creative property there must be a public domain?
4787 </p><p>
4788 To answer this question, we need to get some perspective on the history of
4789 these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> rights, and the control that they
4790 enabled.  Once we see clearly how differently these rights have been
4791 defined, we will be in a better position to ask the question that should be
4792 at the core of this war: Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> creative property
4793 should be protected, but how. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> we will
4794 enforce the rights the law gives to creative-property owners, but what the
4795 particular mix of rights ought to be. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span>
4796 artists should be paid, but whether institutions designed to assure that
4797 artists get paid need also control how culture develops.
4798 </p><p>
4799
4800
4801
4802 To answer these questions, we need a more general way to talk about how
4803 property is protected. More precisely, we need a more general way than the
4804 narrow language of the law allows. In <em class="citetitle">Code and Other Laws of
4805 Cyberspace</em>, I used a simple model to capture this more general
4806 perspective. For any particular right or regulation, this model asks how
4807 four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the
4808 right or regulation. I represented it with this diagram:
4809 </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
4810 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>
4811 At the center of this picture is a regulated dot: the individual or group
4812 that is the target of regulation, or the holder of a right. (In each case
4813 throughout, we can describe this either as regulation or as a right.  For
4814 simplicity's sake, I will speak only of regulations.)  The ovals represent
4815 four ways in which the individual or group might be regulated&#8212; either
4816 constrained or, alternatively, enabled. Law is the most obvious constraint
4817 (to lawyers, at least). It constrains by threatening punishments after the
4818 fact if the rules set in advance are violated. So if, for example, you
4819 willfully infringe Madonna's copyright by copying a song from her latest CD
4820 and posting it on the Web, you can be punished with a $150,000 fine. The
4821 fine is an ex post punishment for violating an ex ante rule. It is imposed
4822 by the state.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3046151"></a>
4823 </p><p>
4824 Norms are a different kind of constraint. They, too, punish an individual
4825 for violating a rule. But the punishment of a norm is imposed by a
4826 community, not (or not only) by the state. There may be no law against
4827 spitting, but that doesn't mean you won't be punished if you spit on the
4828 ground while standing in line at a movie. The punishment might not be harsh,
4829 though depending upon the community, it could easily be more harsh than many
4830 of the punishments imposed by the state. The mark of the difference is not
4831 the severity of the rule, but the source of the enforcement.
4832 </p><p>
4833 The market is a third type of constraint. Its constraint is effected through
4834 conditions: You can do X if you pay Y; you'll be paid M if you do N. These
4835 constraints are obviously not independent of law or norms&#8212;it is
4836 property law that defines what must be bought if it is to be taken legally;
4837 it is norms that say what is appropriately sold. But given a set of norms,
4838 and a background of property and contract law, the market imposes a
4839 simultaneous constraint upon how an individual or group might behave.
4840 </p><p>
4841 Finally, and for the moment, perhaps, most mysteriously,
4842 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">architecture</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;the physical world as one finds
4843 it&#8212;is a constraint on behavior.  A fallen bridge might constrain your
4844 ability to get across a river. Railroad tracks might constrain the ability
4845 of a community to integrate its social life. As with the market,
4846 architecture does not effect its constraint through ex post
4847 punishments. Instead, also as with the market, architecture effects its
4848 constraint through simultaneous conditions. These conditions are imposed not
4849 by courts enforcing contracts, or by police punishing theft, but by nature,
4850 by <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">architecture.</span>&#8221;</span> If a 500-pound boulder blocks your way, it
4851 is the law of gravity that enforces this constraint. If a $500 airplane
4852 ticket stands between you and a flight to New York, it is the market that
4853 enforces this constraint.
4854 </p><p>
4855
4856
4857
4858 So the first point about these four modalities of regulation is obvious:
4859 They interact. Restrictions imposed by one might be reinforced by
4860 another. Or restrictions imposed by one might be undermined by another.
4861 </p><p>
4862 The second point follows directly: If we want to understand the effective
4863 freedom that anyone has at a given moment to do any particular thing, we
4864 have to consider how these four modalities interact.  Whether or not there
4865 are other constraints (there may well be; my claim is not about
4866 comprehensiveness), these four are among the most significant, and any
4867 regulator (whether controlling or freeing)  must consider how these four in
4868 particular interact.
4869 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivespeed"></a><p>
4870 So, for example, consider the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">freedom</span>&#8221;</span> to drive a car at a
4871 high speed. That freedom is in part restricted by laws: speed limits that
4872 say how fast you can drive in particular places at particular times. It is
4873 in part restricted by architecture: speed bumps, for example, slow most
4874 rational drivers; governors in buses, as another example, set the maximum
4875 rate at which the driver can drive. The freedom is in part restricted by the
4876 market: Fuel efficiency drops as speed increases, thus the price of gasoline
4877 indirectly constrains speed. And finally, the norms of a community may or
4878 may not constrain the freedom to speed. Drive at 50 mph by a school in your
4879 own neighborhood and you're likely to be punished by the neighbors. The same
4880 norm wouldn't be as effective in a different town, or at night.
4881 </p><p>
4882
4883 The final point about this simple model should also be fairly clear: While
4884 these four modalities are analytically independent, law has a special role
4885 in affecting the three.<sup>[<a name="id3046642" href="#ftn.id3046642" class="footnote">120</a>]</sup> The law, in
4886 other words, sometimes operates to increase or decrease the constraint of a
4887 particular modality.  Thus, the law might be used to increase taxes on
4888 gasoline, so as to increase the incentives to drive more slowly. The law
4889 might be used to mandate more speed bumps, so as to increase the difficulty
4890 of driving rapidly. The law might be used to fund ads that stigmatize
4891 reckless driving. Or the law might be used to require that other laws be
4892 more strict&#8212;a federal requirement that states decrease the speed
4893 limit, for example&#8212;so as to decrease the attractiveness of fast
4894 driving.
4895 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3046665"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.2. Law has a special role in affecting the three.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1361.png" alt="Law has a special role in affecting the three."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
4896 These constraints can thus change, and they can be changed. To understand
4897 the effective protection of liberty or protection of property at any
4898 particular moment, we must track these changes over time. A restriction
4899 imposed by one modality might be erased by another. A freedom enabled by one
4900 modality might be displaced by another.<sup>[<a name="id3046709" href="#ftn.id3046709" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
4901 </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>
4902 The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just how,
4903 Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress and the
4904 courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that rallying makes
4905 sense.
4906 </p><p>
4907 Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the Internet:
4908 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1371"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.3. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="Copyright's regulation before the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
4909
4910
4911 There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
4912 limits the ability to copy and share content, by imposing penalties on those
4913 who copy and share content. Those penalties are reinforced by technologies
4914 that make it hard to copy and share content (architecture) and expensive to
4915 copy and share content (market). Finally, those penalties are mitigated by
4916 norms we all recognize&#8212;kids, for example, taping other kids'
4917 records. These uses of copyrighted material may well be infringement, but
4918 the norms of our society (before the Internet, at least) had no problem with
4919 this form of infringement.
4920 </p><p>
4921 Enter the Internet, or, more precisely, technologies such as MP3s and p2p
4922 sharing. Now the constraint of architecture changes dramatically, as does
4923 the constraint of the market. And as both the market and architecture relax
4924 the regulation of copyright, norms pile on. The happy balance (for the
4925 warriors, at least) of life before the Internet becomes an effective state
4926 of anarchy after the Internet.
4927 </p><p>
4928
4929 Thus the sense of, and justification for, the warriors' response.
4930 Technology has changed, the warriors say, and the effect of this change,
4931 when ramified through the market and norms, is that a balance of protection
4932 for the copyright owners' rights has been lost. This is Iraq after the fall
4933 of Saddam, but this time no government is justifying the looting that
4934 results.
4935 </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>
4936 Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the
4937 warriors. Indeed, in a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">White Paper</span>&#8221;</span> prepared by the Commerce
4938 Department (one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in 1995, this
4939 mix of regulatory modalities had already been identified and the strategy to
4940 respond already mapped. In response to the changes the Internet had
4941 effected, the White Paper argued (1) Congress should strengthen intellectual
4942 property law, (2) businesses should adopt innovative marketing techniques,
4943 (3) technologists should push to develop code to protect copyrighted
4944 material, and (4) educators should educate kids to better protect copyright.
4945 </p><p>
4946
4947 This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed&#8212;if it was to
4948 preserve the particular balance that existed before the change induced by
4949 the Internet. And it's just what we should expect the content industry to
4950 push for. It is as American as apple pie to consider the happy life you have
4951 as an entitlement, and to look to the law to protect it if something comes
4952 along to change that happy life. Homeowners living in a flood plain have no
4953 hesitation appealing to the government to rebuild (and rebuild again) when a
4954 flood (architecture) wipes away their property (law). Farmers have no
4955 hesitation appealing to the government to bail them out when a virus
4956 (architecture) devastates their crop. Unions have no hesitation appealing to
4957 the government to bail them out when imports (market) wipe out the
4958 U.S. steel industry.
4959 </p><p>
4960 Thus, there's nothing wrong or surprising in the content industry's campaign
4961 to protect itself from the harmful consequences of a technological
4962 innovation. And I would be the last person to argue that the changing
4963 technology of the Internet has not had a profound effect on the content
4964 industry's way of doing business, or as John Seely Brown describes it, its
4965 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">architecture of revenue.</span>&#8221;</span>
4966 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3046916"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3046922"></a><p>
4967 But just because a particular interest asks for government support, it
4968 doesn't follow that support should be granted. And just because technology
4969 has weakened a particular way of doing business, it doesn't follow that the
4970 government should intervene to support that old way of doing
4971 business. Kodak, for example, has lost perhaps as much as 20 percent of
4972 their traditional film market to the emerging technologies of digital
4973 cameras.<sup>[<a name="id3046938" href="#ftn.id3046938" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
4974 government should ban digital cameras just to support Kodak? Highways have
4975 weakened the freight business for railroads. Does anyone think we should ban
4976 trucks from roads <span class="emphasis"><em>for the purpose of</em></span> protecting the
4977 railroads? Closer to the subject of this book, remote channel changers have
4978 weakened the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stickiness</span>&#8221;</span> of television advertising (if a
4979 boring commercial comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf ), and
4980 it may well be that this change has weakened the television advertising
4981 market. But does anyone believe we should regulate remotes to reinforce
4982 commercial television? (Maybe by limiting them to function only once a
4983 second, or to switch to only ten channels within an hour?)
4984 </p><p>
4985 The obvious answer to these obviously rhetorical questions is no.  In a free
4986 society, with a free market, supported by free enterprise and free trade,
4987 the government's role is not to support one way of doing business against
4988 others. Its role is not to pick winners and protect them against loss. If
4989 the government did this generally, then we would never have any progress. As
4990 Microsoft chairman Bill Gates wrote in 1991, in a memo criticizing software
4991 patents, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">established companies have an interest in excluding future
4992 competitors.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3047000" href="#ftn.id3047000" class="footnote">123</a>]</sup> And relative to a
4993 startup, established companies also have the means. (Think RCA and FM
4994 radio.) A world in which competitors with new ideas must fight not only the
4995 market but also the government is a world in which competitors with new
4996 ideas will not succeed. It is a world of stasis and increasingly
4997 concentrated stagnation. It is the Soviet Union under Brezhnev.
4998 <a class="indexterm" name="id3047019"></a>
4999 </p><p>
5000 Thus, while it is understandable for industries threatened with new
5001 technologies that change the way they do business to look to the government
5002 for protection, it is the special duty of policy makers to guarantee that
5003 that protection not become a deterrent to progress. It is the duty of policy
5004 makers, in other words, to assure that the changes they create, in response
5005 to the request of those hurt by changing technology, are changes that
5006 preserve the incentives and opportunities for innovation and change.
5007 </p><p>
5008 In the context of laws regulating speech&#8212;which include, obviously,
5009 copyright law&#8212;that duty is even stronger. When the industry
5010 complaining about changing technologies is asking Congress to respond in a
5011 way that burdens speech and creativity, policy makers should be especially
5012 wary of the request. It is always a bad deal for the government to get into
5013 the business of regulating speech markets. The risks and dangers of that
5014 game are precisely why our framers created the First Amendment to our
5015 Constitution: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Congress shall make no law &#8230; abridging the
5016 freedom of speech.</span>&#8221;</span> So when Congress is being asked to pass laws that
5017 would <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">abridge</span>&#8221;</span> the freedom of speech, it should ask&#8212;
5018 carefully&#8212;whether such regulation is justified.
5019 </p><p>
5020
5021 My argument just now, however, has nothing to do with whether the changes
5022 that are being pushed by the copyright warriors are
5023 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">justified.</span>&#8221;</span> My argument is about their effect. For before we
5024 get to the question of justification, a hard question that depends a great
5025 deal upon your values, we should first ask whether we understand the effect
5026 of the changes the content industry wants.
5027 </p><p>
5028 Her kommer metaforen som vil forklare argumentet.
5029 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxddt"></a><p>
5030 In 1873, the chemical DDT was first synthesized. In 1948, Swiss chemist Paul
5031 Hermann Müller won the Nobel Prize for his work demonstrating the
5032 insecticidal properties of DDT. By the 1950s, the insecticide was widely
5033 used around the world to kill disease-carrying pests. It was also used to
5034 increase farm production.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3047106"></a>
5035 </p><p>
5036 No one doubts that killing disease-carrying pests or increasing crop
5037 production is a good thing. No one doubts that the work of Müller was
5038 important and valuable and probably saved lives, possibly millions.
5039 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3047123"></a><p>
5040 But in 1962, Rachel Carson published <em class="citetitle">Silent Spring</em>,
5041 which argued that DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having
5042 unintended environmental consequences. Birds were losing the ability to
5043 reproduce.  Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3047139"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3047146"></a>
5044 </p><p>
5045 No one set out to destroy the environment. Paul Müller certainly did not aim
5046 to harm any birds. But the effort to solve one set of problems produced
5047 another set which, in the view of some, was far worse than the problems that
5048 were originally attacked. Or more accurately, the problems DDT caused were
5049 worse than the problems it solved, at least when considering the other, more
5050 environmentally friendly ways to solve the problems that DDT was meant to
5051 solve.
5052 </p><p>
5053
5054 It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James Boyle
5055 appeals when he argues that we need an <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">environmentalism</span>&#8221;</span> for
5056 culture.<sup>[<a name="id3047178" href="#ftn.id3047178" class="footnote">124</a>]</sup> His point, and the point I
5057 want to develop in the balance of this chapter, is not that the aims of
5058 copyright are flawed. Or that authors should not be paid for their work. Or
5059 that music should be given away <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">for free.</span>&#8221;</span> The point is that
5060 some of the ways in which we might protect authors will have unintended
5061 consequences for the cultural environment, much like DDT had for the natural
5062 environment. And just as criticism of DDT is not an endorsement of malaria
5063 or an attack on farmers, so, too, is criticism of one particular set of
5064 regulations protecting copyright not an endorsement of anarchy or an attack
5065 on authors.  It is an environment of creativity that we seek, and we should
5066 be aware of our actions' effects on the environment.
5067 </p><p>
5068 My argument, in the balance of this chapter, tries to map exactly this
5069 effect. No doubt the technology of the Internet has had a dramatic effect on
5070 the ability of copyright owners to protect their content. But there should
5071 also be little doubt that when you add together the changes in copyright law
5072 over time, plus the change in technology that the Internet is undergoing
5073 just now, the net effect of these changes will not be only that copyrighted
5074 work is effectively protected. Also, and generally missed, the net effect of
5075 this massive increase in protection will be devastating to the environment
5076 for creativity.
5077 </p><p>
5078 In a line: To kill a gnat, we are spraying DDT with consequences for free
5079 culture that will be far more devastating than that this gnat will be lost.
5080 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3047228"></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>
5081 America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
5082 English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative
5083 property</span>&#8221;</span> rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English
5084 aim to avoid overly powerful publishers.
5085 </p><p>
5086 The power to establish <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> rights is granted to
5087 Congress in a way that, for our Constitution, at least, is very odd. Article
5088 I, section 8, clause 8 of our Constitution states that:
5089 </p><p>
5090
5091 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
5092 by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
5093 to their respective Writings and Discoveries.  We can call this the
5094 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Progress Clause,</span>&#8221;</span> for notice what this clause does not say. It
5095 does not say Congress has the power to grant <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property
5096 rights.</span>&#8221;</span> It says that Congress has the power <span class="emphasis"><em>to promote
5097 progress</em></span>. The grant of power is its purpose, and its purpose is a
5098 public one, not the purpose of enriching publishers, nor even primarily the
5099 purpose of rewarding authors.
5100 </p><p>
5101 The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw in
5102 chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">6</a>, the
5103 English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a few would not
5104 exercise disproportionate control over culture by exercising
5105 disproportionate control over publishing. We can assume the framers followed
5106 the English for a similar purpose. Indeed, unlike the English, the framers
5107 reinforced that objective, by requiring that copyrights extend <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">to
5108 Authors</span>&#8221;</span> only.
5109 </p><p>
5110 The design of the Progress Clause reflects something about the
5111 Constitution's design in general. To avoid a problem, the framers built
5112 structure. To prevent the concentrated power of publishers, they built a
5113 structure that kept copyrights away from publishers and kept them short. To
5114 prevent the concentrated power of a church, they banned the federal
5115 government from establishing a church. To prevent concentrating power in the
5116 federal government, they built structures to reinforce the power of the
5117 states&#8212;including the Senate, whose members were at the time selected
5118 by the states, and an electoral college, also selected by the states, to
5119 select the president. In each case, a <span class="emphasis"><em>structure</em></span> built
5120 checks and balances into the constitutional frame, structured to prevent
5121 otherwise inevitable concentrations of power.
5122 </p><p>
5123 I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call
5124 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond
5125 anything they ever considered. To begin to understand what they did, we need
5126 to put our <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> in context: We need to see how it has
5127 changed in the 210 years since they first struck its design.
5128 </p><p>
5129
5130 Some of these changes come from the law: some in light of changes in
5131 technology, and some in light of changes in technology given a particular
5132 concentration of market power. In terms of our model, we started here:
5133 </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>
5134 Vi kommer til å ende opp her:
5135 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1442"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.6. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Opphavsrett</span>&#8221;</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>
5136
5137 La meg forklare hvordan.
5138
5139 </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>
5140 When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it faced
5141 the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that the English
5142 had confronted in 1774. Many states had passed laws protecting creative
5143 property, and some believed that these laws simply supplemented common law
5144 rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="id3047409" href="#ftn.id3047409" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
5145 domain in the United States in 1790. If copyrights were protected by the
5146 common law, then there was no simple way to know whether a work published in
5147 the United States was controlled or free. Just as in England, this lingering
5148 uncertainty would make it hard for publishers to rely upon a public domain
5149 to reprint and distribute works.
5150 </p><p>
5151 That uncertainty ended after Congress passed legislation granting
5152 copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law, federal
5153 protections for copyrighted works displaced any state law protections.  Just
5154 as in England the Statute of Anne eventually meant that the copyrights for
5155 all English works expired, a federal statute meant that any state copyrights
5156 expired as well.
5157 </p><p>
5158 In 1790, Congress enacted the first copyright law. It created a federal
5159 copyright and secured that copyright for fourteen years. If the author was
5160 alive at the end of that fourteen years, then he could opt to renew the
5161 copyright for another fourteen years. If he did not renew the copyright, his
5162 work passed into the public domain.
5163 </p><p>
5164 Selv om det ble skapt mange verker i USA i de første 10 årene til
5165 republikken, så ble kun 5 prosent av verkene registrert under det føderale
5166 opphavsrettsregimet.  Av alle verker skapt i USA både før 1790 og fra 1790
5167 fram til 1800, så ble 95 prosent øyeblikkelig allemannseie (public
5168 domain). Resten ble allemannseie etter maksimalt 20 år, og som oftest etter
5169 14 år.<sup>[<a name="id3047476" href="#ftn.id3047476" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
5170 </p><p>
5171
5172 Dette fornyelsessystemet var en avgjørende del av det amerikanske systemet
5173 for opphavsrett.  Det sikret at maksimal vernetid i opphavsretten bare ble
5174 gitt til verker der det var ønsket. Etter den første perioden på fjorten år,
5175 hvis forfatteren ikke så verdien av å fornye sin opphavsrett, var det heller
5176 ikke verdt det for samfunnet å håndheve opphavsretten.
5177 </p><p>
5178 Fourteen years may not seem long to us, but for the vast majority of
5179 copyright owners at that time, it was long enough: Only a small minority of
5180 them renewed their copyright after fourteen years; the balance allowed their
5181 work to pass into the public domain.<sup>[<a name="id3047544" href="#ftn.id3047544" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
5182 </p><p>
5183 Even today, this structure would make sense. Most creative work has an
5184 actual commercial life of just a couple of years. Most books fall out of
5185 print after one year.<sup>[<a name="id3047579" href="#ftn.id3047579" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
5186 happens, the used books are traded free of copyright regulation. Thus the
5187 books are no longer <span class="emphasis"><em>effectively</em></span> controlled by
5188 copyright. The only practical commercial use of the books at that time is to
5189 sell the books as used books; that use&#8212;because it does not involve
5190 publication&#8212;is effectively free.
5191 </p><p>
5192 In the first hundred years of the Republic, the term of copyright was
5193 changed once. In 1831, the term was increased from a maximum of 28 years to
5194 a maximum of 42 by increasing the initial term of copyright from 14 years to
5195 28 years. In the next fifty years of the Republic, the term increased once
5196 again. In 1909, Congress extended the renewal term of 14 years to 28 years,
5197 setting a maximum term of 56 years.
5198 </p><p>
5199 Then, beginning in 1962, Congress started a practice that has defined
5200 copyright law since. Eleven times in the last forty years, Congress has
5201 extended the terms of existing copyrights; twice in those forty years,
5202 Congress extended the term of future copyrights. Initially, the extensions
5203 of existing copyrights were short, a mere one to two years.  In 1976,
5204 Congress extended all existing copyrights by nineteen years.  And in 1998,
5205 in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Congress extended the term
5206 of existing and future copyrights by twenty years.
5207 </p><p>
5208
5209 The effect of these extensions is simply to toll, or delay, the passing of
5210 works into the public domain. This latest extension means that the public
5211 domain will have been tolled for thirty-nine out of fifty-five years, or 70
5212 percent of the time since 1962. Thus, in the twenty years after the Sonny
5213 Bono Act, while one million patents will pass into the public domain, zero
5214 copyrights will pass into the public domain by virtue of the expiration of a
5215 copyright term.
5216 </p><p>
5217 The effect of these extensions has been exacerbated by another,
5218 little-noticed change in the copyright law. Remember I said that the framers
5219 established a two-part copyright regime, requiring a copyright owner to
5220 renew his copyright after an initial term. The requirement of renewal meant
5221 that works that no longer needed copyright protection would pass more
5222 quickly into the public domain. The works remaining under protection would
5223 be those that had some continuing commercial value.
5224 </p><p>
5225 The United States abandoned this sensible system in 1976. For all works
5226 created after 1978, there was only one copyright term&#8212;the maximum
5227 term. For <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">natural</span>&#8221;</span> authors, that term was life plus fifty
5228 years. For corporations, the term was seventy-five years. Then, in 1992,
5229 Congress abandoned the renewal requirement for all works created before
5230 1978. All works still under copyright would be accorded the maximum term
5231 then available. After the Sonny Bono Act, that term was ninety-five years.
5232 </p><p>
5233 This change meant that American law no longer had an automatic way to assure
5234 that works that were no longer exploited passed into the public domain. And
5235 indeed, after these changes, it is unclear whether it is even possible to
5236 put works into the public domain. The public domain is orphaned by these
5237 changes in copyright law. Despite the requirement that terms be
5238 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited,</span>&#8221;</span> we have no evidence that anything will limit them.
5239 </p><p>
5240 The effect of these changes on the average duration of copyright is
5241 dramatic. In 1973, more than 85 percent of copyright owners failed to renew
5242 their copyright. That meant that the average term of copyright in 1973 was
5243 just 32.2 years. Because of the elimination of the renewal requirement, the
5244 average term of copyright is now the maximum term.  In thirty years, then,
5245 the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.<sup>[<a name="id3047688" href="#ftn.id3047688" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
5246 </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>
5247 The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">scope</span>&#8221;</span> of a copyright is the range of rights granted by
5248 the law.  The scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those
5249 changes are not necessarily bad. But we should understand the extent of the
5250 changes if we're to keep this debate in context.
5251 </p><p>
5252 In 1790, that scope was very narrow. Copyright covered only <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">maps,
5253 charts, and books.</span>&#8221;</span> That means it didn't cover, for example, music or
5254 architecture. More significantly, the right granted by a copyright gave the
5255 author the exclusive right to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">publish</span>&#8221;</span> copyrighted works. That
5256 means someone else violated the copyright only if he republished the work
5257 without the copyright owner's permission. Finally, the right granted by a
5258 copyright was an exclusive right to that particular book. The right did not
5259 extend to what lawyers call <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">derivative works.</span>&#8221;</span> It would not,
5260 therefore, interfere with the right of someone other than the author to
5261 translate a copyrighted book, or to adapt the story to a different form
5262 (such as a drama based on a published book).
5263 </p><p>
5264 This, too, has changed dramatically. While the contours of copyright today
5265 are extremely hard to describe simply, in general terms, the right covers
5266 practically any creative work that is reduced to a tangible form. It covers
5267 music as well as architecture, drama as well as computer programs. It gives
5268 the copyright owner of that creative work not only the exclusive right to
5269 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">publish</span>&#8221;</span> the work, but also the exclusive right of control
5270 over any <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copies</span>&#8221;</span> of that work. And most significant for our
5271 purposes here, the right gives the copyright owner control over not only his
5272 or her particular work, but also any <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">derivative work</span>&#8221;</span> that
5273 might grow out of the original work. In this way, the right covers more
5274 creative work, protects the creative work more broadly, and protects works
5275 that are based in a significant way on the initial creative work.
5276 </p><p>
5277
5278 At the same time that the scope of copyright has expanded, procedural
5279 limitations on the right have been relaxed. I've already described the
5280 complete removal of the renewal requirement in 1992. In addition to the
5281 renewal requirement, for most of the history of American copyright law,
5282 there was a requirement that a work be registered before it could receive
5283 the protection of a copyright. There was also a requirement that any
5284 copyrighted work be marked either with that famous © or the word
5285 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>. And for most of the history of American
5286 copyright law, there was a requirement that works be deposited with the
5287 government before a copyright could be secured.
5288 </p><p>
5289 The reason for the registration requirement was the sensible understanding
5290 that for most works, no copyright was required. Again, in the first ten
5291 years of the Republic, 95 percent of works eligible for copyright were never
5292 copyrighted. Thus, the rule reflected the norm: Most works apparently didn't
5293 need copyright, so registration narrowed the regulation of the law to the
5294 few that did. The same reasoning justified the requirement that a work be
5295 marked as copyrighted&#8212;that way it was easy to know whether a copyright
5296 was being claimed. The requirement that works be deposited was to assure
5297 that after the copyright expired, there would be a copy of the work
5298 somewhere so that it could be copied by others without locating the original
5299 author.
5300 </p><p>
5301 All of these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">formalities</span>&#8221;</span> were abolished in the American
5302 system when we decided to follow European copyright law. There is no
5303 requirement that you register a work to get a copyright; the copyright now
5304 is automatic; the copyright exists whether or not you mark your work with a
5305 ©; and the copyright exists whether or not you actually make a copy
5306 available for others to copy.
5307 </p><p>
5308 Vurder et praktisk eksempel for å forstå omfanget av disse forskjellene.
5309 </p><p>
5310 If, in 1790, you wrote a book and you were one of the 5 percent who actually
5311 copyrighted that book, then the copyright law protected you against another
5312 publisher's taking your book and republishing it without your
5313 permission. The aim of the act was to regulate publishers so as to prevent
5314 that kind of unfair competition. In 1790, there were 174 publishers in the
5315 United States.<sup>[<a name="id3047841" href="#ftn.id3047841" class="footnote">130</a>]</sup> The Copyright Act was
5316 thus a tiny regulation of a tiny proportion of a tiny part of the creative
5317 market in the United States&#8212;publishers.
5318 </p><p>
5319
5320
5321 The act left other creators totally unregulated. If I copied your poem by
5322 hand, over and over again, as a way to learn it by heart, my act was totally
5323 unregulated by the 1790 act. If I took your novel and made a play based upon
5324 it, or if I translated it or abridged it, none of those activities were
5325 regulated by the original copyright act. These creative activities remained
5326 free, while the activities of publishers were restrained.
5327 </p><p>
5328 Today the story is very different: If you write a book, your book is
5329 automatically protected. Indeed, not just your book. Every e-mail, every
5330 note to your spouse, every doodle, <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> creative act
5331 that's reduced to a tangible form&#8212;all of this is automatically
5332 copyrighted.  There is no need to register or mark your work. The protection
5333 follows the creation, not the steps you take to protect it.
5334 </p><p>
5335 That protection gives you the right (subject to a narrow range of fair use
5336 exceptions) to control how others copy the work, whether they copy it to
5337 republish it or to share an excerpt.
5338 </p><p>
5339 That much is the obvious part. Any system of copyright would control
5340 competing publishing. But there's a second part to the copyright of today
5341 that is not at all obvious. This is the protection of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">derivative
5342 rights.</span>&#8221;</span> If you write a book, no one can make a movie out of your
5343 book without permission. No one can translate it without permission.
5344 CliffsNotes can't make an abridgment unless permission is granted. All of
5345 these derivative uses of your original work are controlled by the copyright
5346 holder. The copyright, in other words, is now not just an exclusive right to
5347 your writings, but an exclusive right to your writings and a large
5348 proportion of the writings inspired by them.
5349 </p><p>
5350 It is this derivative right that would seem most bizarre to our framers,
5351 though it has become second nature to us. Initially, this expansion was
5352 created to deal with obvious evasions of a narrower copyright.  If I write a
5353 book, can you change one word and then claim a copyright in a new and
5354 different book? Obviously that would make a joke of the copyright, so the
5355 law was properly expanded to include those slight modifications as well as
5356 the verbatim original work.
5357 </p><p>
5358
5359 In preventing that joke, the law created an astonishing power within a free
5360 culture&#8212;at least, it's astonishing when you understand that the law
5361 applies not just to the commercial publisher but to anyone with a
5362 computer. I understand the wrong in duplicating and selling someone else's
5363 work. But whatever <span class="emphasis"><em>that</em></span> wrong is, transforming someone
5364 else's work is a different wrong. Some view transformation as no wrong at
5365 all&#8212;they believe that our law, as the framers penned it, should not
5366 protect derivative rights at all.<sup>[<a name="id3047928" href="#ftn.id3047928" class="footnote">131</a>]</sup>
5367 Whether or not you go that far, it seems plain that whatever wrong is
5368 involved is fundamentally different from the wrong of direct piracy.
5369 </p><p>
5370 Yet copyright law treats these two different wrongs in the same way. I can
5371 go to court and get an injunction against your pirating my book. I can go to
5372 court and get an injunction against your transformative use of my
5373 book.<sup>[<a name="id3047977" href="#ftn.id3047977" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
5374 creative work are treated the same.
5375 </p><p>
5376 This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should you be
5377 able to write a movie that takes my story and makes money from it without
5378 paying me or crediting me? Or if Disney creates a creature called
5379 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Mickey Mouse,</span>&#8221;</span> why should you be able to make Mickey Mouse
5380 toys and be the one to trade on the value that Disney originally created?
5381 </p><p>
5382 These are good arguments, and, in general, my point is not that the
5383 derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower: simply to
5384 make clear that this expansion is a significant change from the rights
5385 originally granted.
5386 </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>
5387 Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
5388 copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users, and
5389 authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making copies,
5390 and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id3048043" href="#ftn.id3048043" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
5391 </p><p>
5392
5393
5394 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copies.</span>&#8221;</span> That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for
5395 <span class="emphasis"><em>copy</em></span>right law to regulate. But as with Jack Valenti's
5396 argument at the start of this chapter, that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span>
5397 deserves the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">same rights</span>&#8221;</span> as all other property, it is the
5398 <span class="emphasis"><em>obvious</em></span> that we need to be most careful about. For
5399 while it may be obvious that in the world before the Internet, copies were
5400 the obvious trigger for copyright law, upon reflection, it should be obvious
5401 that in the world with the Internet, copies should <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span>
5402 be the trigger for copyright law. More precisely, they should not
5403 <span class="emphasis"><em>always</em></span> be the trigger for copyright law.
5404 </p><p>
5405 This is perhaps the central claim of this book, so let me take this very
5406 slowly so that the point is not easily missed. My claim is that the Internet
5407 should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which the law of
5408 copyright automatically applies,<sup>[<a name="id3048121" href="#ftn.id3048121" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
5409 because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never
5410 contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright
5411 law.
5412 </p><p>
5413 We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely empty
5414 circle.
5415 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1521"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.7. Alle potensielle bruk av en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1521.png" alt="Alle potensielle bruk av en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5416
5417
5418 Think about a book in real space, and imagine this circle to represent all
5419 its potential <span class="emphasis"><em>uses</em></span>. Most of these uses are unregulated
5420 by copyright law, because the uses don't create a copy. If you read a book,
5421 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you give someone the book,
5422 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you resell a book, that act
5423 is not regulated (copyright law expressly states that after the first sale
5424 of a book, the copyright owner can impose no further conditions on the
5425 disposition of the book). If you sleep on the book or use it to hold up a
5426 lamp or let your puppy chew it up, those acts are not regulated by copyright
5427 law, because those acts do not make a copy.
5428 </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>
5429 Obviously, however, some uses of a copyrighted book are regulated by
5430 copyright law. Republishing the book, for example, makes a copy. It is
5431 therefore regulated by copyright law. Indeed, this particular use stands at
5432 the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work. It is the
5433 paradigmatic use properly regulated by copyright regulation (see first
5434 diagram on next page).
5435 </p><p>
5436 Finally, there is a tiny sliver of otherwise regulated copying uses that
5437 remain unregulated because the law considers these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair uses.</span>&#8221;</span>
5438 </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
5439 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>
5440 These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law treats as
5441 unregulated because public policy demands that they remain unregulated.  You
5442 are free to quote from this book, even in a review that is quite negative,
5443 without my permission, even though that quoting makes a copy. That copy
5444 would ordinarily give the copyright owner the exclusive right to say whether
5445 the copy is allowed or not, but the law denies the owner any exclusive right
5446 over such <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair uses</span>&#8221;</span> for public policy (and possibly First
5447 Amendment) reasons.
5448 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1542"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.10. Unregulated copying considered <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair uses.</span>&#8221;</span></b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1542.png" alt="Unregulated copying considered fair uses."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p> </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1551"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.11. Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
5449 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>
5450
5451
5452 In real space, then, the possible uses of a book are divided into three
5453 sorts: (1) unregulated uses, (2) regulated uses, and (3) regulated uses that
5454 are nonetheless deemed <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair</span>&#8221;</span> regardless of the copyright
5455 owner's views.
5456 </p><p>
5457 Enter the Internet&#8212;a distributed, digital network where every use of a
5458 copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id3048052" href="#ftn.id3048052" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
5459 because of this single, arbitrary feature of the design of a digital
5460 network, the scope of category 1 changes dramatically. Uses that before were
5461 presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated. No longer is
5462 there a set of presumptively unregulated uses that define a freedom
5463 associated with a copyrighted work. Instead, each use is now subject to the
5464 copyright, because each use also makes a copy&#8212;category 1 gets sucked
5465 into category 2. And those who would defend the unregulated uses of
5466 copyrighted work must look exclusively to category 3, fair uses, to bear the
5467 burden of this shift.
5468 </p><p>
5469
5470 So let's be very specific to make this general point clear. Before the
5471 Internet, if you purchased a book and read it ten times, there would be no
5472 plausible <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>-related argument that the copyright
5473 owner could make to control that use of her book. Copyright law would have
5474 nothing to say about whether you read the book once, ten times, or every
5475 night before you went to bed. None of those instances of
5476 use&#8212;reading&#8212; could be regulated by copyright law because none of
5477 those uses produced a copy.
5478 </p><p>
5479 But the same book as an e-book is effectively governed by a different set of
5480 rules. Now if the copyright owner says you may read the book only once or
5481 only once a month, then <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright law</em></span> would aid the
5482 copyright owner in exercising this degree of control, because of the
5483 accidental feature of copyright law that triggers its application upon there
5484 being a copy. Now if you read the book ten times and the license says you
5485 may read it only five times, then whenever you read the book (or any portion
5486 of it) beyond the fifth time, you are making a copy of the book contrary to
5487 the copyright owner's wish.
5488 </p><p>
5489 There are some people who think this makes perfect sense. My aim just now is
5490 not to argue about whether it makes sense or not. My aim is only to make
5491 clear the change. Once you see this point, a few other points also become
5492 clear:
5493 </p><p>
5494 First, making category 1 disappear is not anything any policy maker ever
5495 intended. Congress did not think through the collapse of the presumptively
5496 unregulated uses of copyrighted works. There is no evidence at all that
5497 policy makers had this idea in mind when they allowed our policy here to
5498 shift. Unregulated uses were an important part of free culture before the
5499 Internet.
5500 </p><p>
5501 Second, this shift is especially troubling in the context of transformative
5502 uses of creative content. Again, we can all understand the wrong in
5503 commercial piracy. But the law now purports to regulate
5504 <span class="emphasis"><em>any</em></span> transformation you make of creative work using a
5505 machine. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copy and paste</span>&#8221;</span> and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>&#8221;</span>
5506 become crimes. Tinkering with a story and releasing it to others exposes the
5507 tinkerer to at least a requirement of justification.  However troubling the
5508 expansion with respect to copying a particular work, it is extraordinarily
5509 troubling with respect to transformative uses of creative work.
5510 </p><p>
5511
5512 Third, this shift from category 1 to category 2 puts an extraordinary burden
5513 on category 3 (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span>) that fair use never before had to
5514 bear.  If a copyright owner now tried to control how many times I could read
5515 a book on-line, the natural response would be to argue that this is a
5516 violation of my fair use rights. But there has never been any litigation
5517 about whether I have a fair use right to read, because before the Internet,
5518 reading did not trigger the application of copyright law and hence the need
5519 for a fair use defense. The right to read was effectively protected before
5520 because reading was not regulated.
5521 </p><p>
5522 This point about fair use is totally ignored, even by advocates for free
5523 culture. We have been cornered into arguing that our rights depend upon fair
5524 use&#8212;never even addressing the earlier question about the expansion in
5525 effective regulation. A thin protection grounded in fair use makes sense
5526 when the vast majority of uses are <span class="emphasis"><em>unregulated</em></span>. But
5527 when everything becomes presumptively regulated, then the protections of
5528 fair use are not enough.
5529 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising2"></a><p>
5530 The case of Video Pipeline is a good example. Video Pipeline was in the
5531 business of making <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">trailer</span>&#8221;</span> advertisements for movies
5532 available to video stores. The video stores displayed the trailers as a way
5533 to sell videos. Video Pipeline got the trailers from the film distributors,
5534 put the trailers on tape, and sold the tapes to the retail stores.
5535 </p><p>
5536 The company did this for about fifteen years. Then, in 1997, it began to
5537 think about the Internet as another way to distribute these previews.  The
5538 idea was to expand their <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">selling by sampling</span>&#8221;</span> technique by
5539 giving on-line stores the same ability to enable <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">browsing.</span>&#8221;</span>
5540 Just as in a bookstore you can read a few pages of a book before you buy the
5541 book, so, too, you would be able to sample a bit from the movie on-line
5542 before you bought it.
5543 </p><p>
5544
5545 In 1998, Video Pipeline informed Disney and other film distributors that it
5546 intended to distribute the trailers through the Internet (rather than
5547 sending the tapes) to distributors of their videos. Two years later, Disney
5548 told Video Pipeline to stop. The owner of Video Pipeline asked Disney to
5549 talk about the matter&#8212;he had built a business on distributing this
5550 content as a way to help sell Disney films; he had customers who depended
5551 upon his delivering this content. Disney would agree to talk only if Video
5552 Pipeline stopped the distribution immediately.  Video Pipeline thought it
5553 was within their <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span> rights to distribute the clips as
5554 they had. So they filed a lawsuit to ask the court to declare that these
5555 rights were in fact their rights.
5556 </p><p>
5557 Disney countersued&#8212;for $100 million in damages. Those damages were
5558 predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">willfully
5559 infringed</span>&#8221;</span> on Disney's copyright. When a court makes a finding of
5560 willful infringement, it can award damages not on the basis of the actual
5561 harm to the copyright owner, but on the basis of an amount set in the
5562 statute. Because Video Pipeline had distributed seven hundred clips of
5563 Disney movies to enable video stores to sell copies of those movies, Disney
5564 was now suing Video Pipeline for $100 million.
5565 </p><p>
5566 Disney has the right to control its property, of course. But the video
5567 stores that were selling Disney's films also had some sort of right to be
5568 able to sell the films that they had bought from Disney. Disney's claim in
5569 court was that the stores were allowed to sell the films and they were
5570 permitted to list the titles of the films they were selling, but they were
5571 not allowed to show clips of the films as a way of selling them without
5572 Disney's permission.
5573 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3048522"></a><p>
5574 Now, you might think this is a close case, and I think the courts would
5575 consider it a close case. My point here is to map the change that gives
5576 Disney this power. Before the Internet, Disney couldn't really control how
5577 people got access to their content. Once a video was in the marketplace, the
5578 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">first-sale doctrine</span>&#8221;</span> would free the seller to use the video as
5579 he wished, including showing portions of it in order to engender sales of
5580 the entire movie video. But with the Internet, it becomes possible for
5581 Disney to centralize control over access to this content. Because each use
5582 of the Internet produces a copy, use on the Internet becomes subject to the
5583 copyright owner's control. The technology expands the scope of effective
5584 control, because the technology builds a copy into every transaction.
5585 </p><p>
5586
5587
5588 No doubt, a potential is not yet an abuse, and so the potential for control
5589 is not yet the abuse of control. Barnes &amp; Noble has the right to say you
5590 can't touch a book in their store; property law gives them that right.  But
5591 the market effectively protects against that abuse. If Barnes &amp; Noble
5592 banned browsing, then consumers would choose other bookstores.  Competition
5593 protects against the extremes. And it may well be (my argument so far does
5594 not even question this) that competition would prevent any similar danger
5595 when it comes to copyright. Sure, publishers exercising the rights that
5596 authors have assigned to them might try to regulate how many times you read
5597 a book, or try to stop you from sharing the book with anyone. But in a
5598 competitive market such as the book market, the dangers of this happening
5599 are quite slight.
5600 </p><p>
5601 Again, my aim so far is simply to map the changes that this changed
5602 architecture enables. Enabling technology to enforce the control of
5603 copyright means that the control of copyright is no longer defined by
5604 balanced policy. The control of copyright is simply what private owners
5605 choose. In some contexts, at least, that fact is harmless. But in some
5606 contexts it is a recipe for disaster.
5607 </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>
5608 The disappearance of unregulated uses would be change enough, but a second
5609 important change brought about by the Internet magnifies its
5610 significance. This second change does not affect the reach of copyright
5611 regulation; it affects how such regulation is enforced.
5612 </p><p>
5613 In the world before digital technology, it was generally the law that
5614 controlled whether and how someone was regulated by copyright law.  The law,
5615 meaning a court, meaning a judge: In the end, it was a human, trained in the
5616 tradition of the law and cognizant of the balances that tradition embraced,
5617 who said whether and how the law would restrict your freedom.
5618 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3048636"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
5619 Det er en berømt historie om en kamp mellom Marx-brødrene (the Marx
5620 Brothers) og Warner Brothers.  Marx-brødrene planla å lage en parodi av
5621 <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>. Warner Brothers protesterte.  De skrev et
5622 ufint brev til Marx-brødrene og advarte dem om at det ville få seriøse
5623 juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.<sup>[<a name="id3048683" href="#ftn.id3048683" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
5624 </p><p>
5625 This led the Marx Brothers to respond in kind. They warned Warner Brothers
5626 that the Marx Brothers <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">were brothers long before you
5627 were.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3048706" href="#ftn.id3048706" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> The Marx Brothers
5628 therefore owned the word <em class="citetitle">brothers</em>, and if Warner
5629 Brothers insisted on trying to control <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>,
5630 then the Marx Brothers would insist on control over
5631 <em class="citetitle">brothers</em>.
5632 </p><p>
5633 Det var en absurd og hul trussel, selvfølgelig, fordi Warner Brothers, på
5634 samme måte som Marx-brødrene, visste at ingen domstol noensinne ville
5635 håndheve et slikt dumt krav. Denne ekstremismen var irrelevant for de ekte
5636 friheter som alle (inkludert Warner Brothers) nøt godt av.
5637 </p><p>
5638 On the Internet, however, there is no check on silly rules, because on the
5639 Internet, increasingly, rules are enforced not by a human but by a machine:
5640 Increasingly, the rules of copyright law, as interpreted by the copyright
5641 owner, get built into the technology that delivers copyrighted content. It
5642 is code, rather than law, that rules. And the problem with code regulations
5643 is that, unlike law, code has no shame. Code would not get the humor of the
5644 Marx Brothers. The consequence of that is not at all funny.
5645 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3048762"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3048770"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
5646 La oss se på livet til min Adobe eBook Reader.
5647 </p><p>
5648 En ebok er en bok levert i elektronisk form.  En Adobe eBook er ikke en bok
5649 som Adobe har publisert.  Adobe produserer kun programvaren som utgivere
5650 bruker å levere e-bøker.  Den bidrar med teknologien, og utgiveren leverer
5651 innholdet ved hjelp av teknologien.
5652 </p><p>
5653 On the next page is a picture of an old version of my Adobe eBook Reader.
5654 </p><p>
5655
5656 As you can see, I have a small collection of e-books within this e-book
5657 library. Some of these books reproduce content that is in the public domain:
5658 <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, for example, is in the public domain.
5659 Some of them reproduce content that is not in the public domain: My own book
5660 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> is not yet within the public
5661 domain.  Consider <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> first. If you click on
5662 my e-book copy of <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, you'll see a fancy
5663 cover, and then a button at the bottom called Permissions.
5664 </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>
5665 If you click on the Permissions button, you'll see a list of the permissions
5666 that the publisher purports to grant with this book.
5667 </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>
5668
5669
5670 According to my eBook Reader, I have the permission to copy to the clipboard
5671 of the computer ten text selections every ten days. (So far, I've copied no
5672 text to the clipboard.)  I also have the permission to print ten pages from
5673 the book every ten days. Lastly, I have the permission to use the Read Aloud
5674 button to hear <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> read aloud through the
5675 computer.
5676 </p><p>
5677 Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen):
5678 Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em>  <a class="indexterm" name="id3048894"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3048900"></a>
5679 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.14. E-book of Aristotle;s <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Politics</span>&#8221;</span></b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1621.png" alt="E-book of Aristotle;s Politics"></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5680 According to its permissions, no printing or copying is permitted at
5681 all. But fortunately, you can use the Read Aloud button to hear the book.
5682 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1622"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.15. List of the permissions for Aristotle;s <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Politics</span>&#8221;</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1622.png" alt="List of the permissions for Aristotle;s Politics."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5683 Finally (and most embarrassingly), here are the permissions for the original
5684 e-book version of my last book, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>:
5685 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1631"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.16. List of the permissions for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Future of Ideas</span>&#8221;</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1631.png" alt="List of the permissions for The Future of Ideas."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5686 Ingen kopiering, ingen utskrift, og våg ikke å prøve å lytte til denne
5687 boken!
5688 </p><p>
5689 Now, the Adobe eBook Reader calls these controls
5690 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">permissions</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212; as if the publisher has the power to
5691 control how you use these works.  For works under copyright, the copyright
5692 owner certainly does have the power&#8212;up to the limits of the copyright
5693 law. But for work not under copyright, there is no such copyright
5694 power.<sup>[<a name="id3048988" href="#ftn.id3048988" class="footnote">138</a>]</sup> When my e-book of
5695 <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> says I have the permission to copy only
5696 ten text selections into the memory every ten days, what that really means
5697 is that the eBook Reader has enabled the publisher to control how I use the
5698 book on my computer, far beyond the control that the law would enable.
5699 </p><p>
5700 The control comes instead from the code&#8212;from the technology within
5701 which the e-book <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lives.</span>&#8221;</span> Though the e-book says that these are
5702 permissions, they are not the sort of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">permissions</span>&#8221;</span> that most
5703 of us deal with. When a teenager gets <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">permission</span>&#8221;</span> to stay out
5704 till midnight, she knows (unless she's Cinderella) that she can stay out
5705 till 2 A.M., but will suffer a punishment if she's caught. But when the
5706 Adobe eBook Reader says I have the permission to make ten copies of the text
5707 into the computer's memory, that means that after I've made ten copies, the
5708 computer will not make any more. The same with the printing restrictions:
5709 After ten pages, the eBook Reader will not print any more pages.  It's the
5710 same with the silly restriction that says that you can't use the Read Aloud
5711 button to read my book aloud&#8212;it's not that the company will sue you if
5712 you do; instead, if you push the Read Aloud button with my book, the machine
5713 simply won't read aloud.
5714 </p><p>
5715
5716 These are <span class="emphasis"><em>controls</em></span>, not permissions. Imagine a world
5717 where the Marx Brothers sold word processing software that, when you tried
5718 to type <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Warner Brothers,</span>&#8221;</span> erased <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Brothers</span>&#8221;</span> from
5719 the sentence.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3049061"></a>
5720 </p><p>
5721 This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright
5722 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> as copyright <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span>. The
5723 controls over access to content will not be controls that are ratified by
5724 courts; the controls over access to content will be controls that are coded
5725 by programmers. And whereas the controls that are built into the law are
5726 always to be checked by a judge, the controls that are built into the
5727 technology have no similar built-in check.
5728 </p><p>
5729 How significant is this? Isn't it always possible to get around the controls
5730 built into the technology? Software used to be sold with technologies that
5731 limited the ability of users to copy the software, but those were trivial
5732 protections to defeat. Why won't it be trivial to defeat these protections
5733 as well?
5734 </p><p>
5735 We've only scratched the surface of this story. Return to the Adobe eBook
5736 Reader.
5737 </p><p>
5738 Early in the life of the Adobe eBook Reader, Adobe suffered a public
5739 relations nightmare. Among the books that you could download for free on the
5740 Adobe site was a copy of <em class="citetitle">Alice's Adventures in
5741 Wonderland</em>.  This wonderful book is in the public domain. Yet
5742 when you clicked on Permissions for that book, you got the following report:
5743 <a class="indexterm" name="id3049111"></a>
5744 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1641"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.17. List of the permissions for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Alice's Adventures in Wonderland</span>&#8221;</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1641.png" alt="List of the permissions for Alice's Adventures in Wonderland."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5745 Here was a public domain children's book that you were not allowed to copy,
5746 not allowed to lend, not allowed to give, and, as the
5747 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">permissions</span>&#8221;</span> indicated, not allowed to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">read
5748 aloud</span>&#8221;</span>!
5749 </p><p>
5750 The public relations nightmare attached to that final permission.  For the
5751 text did not say that you were not permitted to use the Read Aloud button;
5752 it said you did not have the permission to read the book aloud. That led
5753 some people to think that Adobe was restricting the right of parents, for
5754 example, to read the book to their children, which seemed, to say the least,
5755 absurd.
5756 </p><p>
5757 Adobe responded quickly that it was absurd to think that it was trying to
5758 restrict the right to read a book aloud. Obviously it was only restricting
5759 the ability to use the Read Aloud button to have the book read aloud. But
5760 the question Adobe never did answer is this: Would Adobe thus agree that a
5761 consumer was free to use software to hack around the restrictions built into
5762 the eBook Reader? If some company (call it Elcomsoft) developed a program to
5763 disable the technological protection built into an Adobe eBook so that a
5764 blind person, say, could use a computer to read the book aloud, would Adobe
5765 agree that such a use of an eBook Reader was fair? Adobe didn't answer
5766 because the answer, however absurd it might seem, is no.
5767 </p><p>
5768 The point is not to blame Adobe. Indeed, Adobe is among the most innovative
5769 companies developing strategies to balance open access to content with
5770 incentives for companies to innovate. But Adobe's technology enables
5771 control, and Adobe has an incentive to defend this control.  That incentive
5772 is understandable, yet what it creates is often crazy.
5773 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3049187"></a><p>
5774 To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite story
5775 of mine that makes the same point.
5776 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo1"></a><p>
5777 Consider the robotic dog made by Sony named <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Aibo.</span>&#8221;</span> The Aibo
5778 learns tricks, cuddles, and follows you around. It eats only electricity and
5779 that doesn't leave that much of a mess (at least in your house).
5780 </p><p>
5781 The Aibo is expensive and popular. Fans from around the world have set up
5782 clubs to trade stories. One fan in particular set up a Web site to enable
5783 information about the Aibo dog to be shared. This fan set
5784
5785 up aibopet.com (and aibohack.com, but that resolves to the same site), and
5786 on that site he provided information about how to teach an Aibo to do tricks
5787 in addition to the ones Sony had taught it.
5788 </p><p>
5789 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Teach</span>&#8221;</span> here has a special meaning. Aibos are just cute
5790 computers.  You teach a computer how to do something by programming it
5791 differently.  So to say that aibopet.com was giving information about how to
5792 teach the dog to do new tricks is just to say that aibopet.com was giving
5793 information to users of the Aibo pet about how to hack their computer
5794 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">dog</span>&#8221;</span> to make it do new tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
5795 </p><p>
5796 If you're not a programmer or don't know many programmers, the word
5797 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> has a particularly unfriendly
5798 connotation. Nonprogrammers hack bushes or weeds. Nonprogrammers in horror
5799 movies do even worse. But to programmers, or coders, as I call them,
5800 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> is a much more positive
5801 term. <em class="citetitle">Hack</em> just means code that enables the program
5802 to do something it wasn't originally intended or enabled to do. If you buy a
5803 new printer for an old computer, you might find the old computer doesn't
5804 run, or <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">drive,</span>&#8221;</span> the printer. If you discovered that, you'd
5805 later be happy to discover a hack on the Net by someone who has written a
5806 driver to enable the computer to drive the printer you just bought.
5807 </p><p>
5808 Some hacks are easy. Some are unbelievably hard. Hackers as a community like
5809 to challenge themselves and others with increasingly difficult
5810 tasks. There's a certain respect that goes with the talent to hack
5811 well. There's a well-deserved respect that goes with the talent to hack
5812 ethically.
5813 </p><p>
5814 The Aibo fan was displaying a bit of both when he hacked the program and
5815 offered to the world a bit of code that would enable the Aibo to dance
5816 jazz. The dog wasn't programmed to dance jazz. It was a clever bit of
5817 tinkering that turned the dog into a more talented creature than Sony had
5818 built.
5819 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3049326"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3049334"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3049342"></a><p>
5820
5821 I've told this story in many contexts, both inside and outside the United
5822 States. Once I was asked by a puzzled member of the audience, is it
5823 permissible for a dog to dance jazz in the United States? We forget that
5824 stories about the backcountry still flow across much of the world. So let's
5825 just be clear before we continue: It's not a crime anywhere (anymore) to
5826 dance jazz. Nor is it a crime to teach your dog to dance jazz. Nor should it
5827 be a crime (though we don't have a lot to go on here) to teach your robot
5828 dog to dance jazz. Dancing jazz is a completely legal activity. One imagines
5829 that the owner of aibopet.com thought, <span class="emphasis"><em>What possible problem could
5830 there be with teaching a robot dog to dance?</em></span>
5831 </p><p>
5832 Let's put the dog to sleep for a minute, and turn to a pony show&#8212; not
5833 literally a pony show, but rather a paper that a Princeton academic named Ed
5834 Felten prepared for a conference. This Princeton academic is well known and
5835 respected. He was hired by the government in the Microsoft case to test
5836 Microsoft's claims about what could and could not be done with its own
5837 code. In that trial, he demonstrated both his brilliance and his
5838 coolness. Under heavy badgering by Microsoft lawyers, Ed Felten stood his
5839 ground. He was not about to be bullied into being silent about something he
5840 knew very well.
5841 </p><p>
5842 But Felten's bravery was really tested in April 2001.<sup>[<a name="id3049397" href="#ftn.id3049397" class="footnote">139</a>]</sup> He and a group of colleagues were working on a
5843 paper to be submitted at conference.  The paper was intended to describe the
5844 weakness in an encryption system being developed by the Secure Digital Music
5845 Initiative as a technique to control the distribution of music.
5846 </p><p>
5847 The SDMI coalition had as its goal a technology to enable content owners to
5848 exercise much better control over their content than the Internet, as it
5849 originally stood, granted them. Using encryption, SDMI hoped to develop a
5850 standard that would allow the content owner to say <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">this music cannot
5851 be copied,</span>&#8221;</span> and have a computer respect that command.  The technology
5852 was to be part of a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">trusted system</span>&#8221;</span> of control that would get
5853 content owners to trust the system of the Internet much more.
5854 </p><p>
5855 When SDMI thought it was close to a standard, it set up a competition.  In
5856 exchange for providing contestants with the code to an SDMI-encrypted bit of
5857 content, contestants were to try to crack it and, if they did, report the
5858 problems to the consortium.
5859 </p><p>
5860
5861
5862 Felten and his team figured out the encryption system quickly. He and the
5863 team saw the weakness of this system as a type: Many encryption systems
5864 would suffer the same weakness, and Felten and his team thought it
5865 worthwhile to point this out to those who study encryption.
5866 </p><p>
5867 Let's review just what Felten was doing. Again, this is the United
5868 States. We have a principle of free speech. We have this principle not just
5869 because it is the law, but also because it is a really great idea. A
5870 strongly protected tradition of free speech is likely to encourage a wide
5871 range of criticism. That criticism is likely, in turn, to improve the
5872 systems or people or ideas criticized.
5873 </p><p>
5874 What Felten and his colleagues were doing was publishing a paper describing
5875 the weakness in a technology. They were not spreading free music, or
5876 building and deploying this technology. The paper was an academic essay,
5877 unintelligible to most people. But it clearly showed the weakness in the
5878 SDMI system, and why SDMI would not, as presently constituted, succeed.
5879 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo2"></a><p>
5880 What links these two, aibopet.com and Felten, is the letters they then
5881 received. Aibopet.com received a letter from Sony about the aibopet.com
5882 hack. Though a jazz-dancing dog is perfectly legal, Sony wrote:
5883 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5884 Your site contains information providing the means to circumvent AIBO-ware's
5885 copy protection protocol constituting a violation of the anti-circumvention
5886 provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
5887 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3049581"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3049589"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3049597"></a><p>
5888 And though an academic paper describing the weakness in a system of
5889 encryption should also be perfectly legal, Felten received a letter from an
5890 RIAA lawyer that read:
5891 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5892
5893 Any disclosure of information gained from participating in the Public
5894 Challenge would be outside the scope of activities permitted by the
5895 Agreement and could subject you and your research team to actions under the
5896 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">DMCA</span>&#8221;</span>).
5897 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5898 In both cases, this weirdly Orwellian law was invoked to control the spread
5899 of information. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act made spreading such
5900 information an offense.
5901 </p><p>
5902 The DMCA was enacted as a response to copyright owners' first fear about
5903 cyberspace. The fear was that copyright control was effectively dead; the
5904 response was to find technologies that might compensate.  These new
5905 technologies would be copyright protection technologies&#8212; technologies
5906 to control the replication and distribution of copyrighted material. They
5907 were designed as <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> to modify the original
5908 <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> of the Internet, to reestablish some protection
5909 for copyright owners.
5910 </p><p>
5911 The DMCA was a bit of law intended to back up the protection of this code
5912 designed to protect copyrighted material. It was, we could say,
5913 <span class="emphasis"><em>legal code</em></span> intended to buttress <span class="emphasis"><em>software
5914 code</em></span> which itself was intended to support the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal
5915 code of copyright</em></span>.
5916 </p><p>
5917 But the DMCA was not designed merely to protect copyrighted works to the
5918 extent copyright law protected them. Its protection, that is, did not end at
5919 the line that copyright law drew. The DMCA regulated devices that were
5920 designed to circumvent copyright protection measures. It was designed to ban
5921 those devices, whether or not the use of the copyrighted material made
5922 possible by that circumvention would have been a copyright violation.
5923 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3049678"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3049684"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3049691"></a><p>
5924
5925 Aibopet.com and Felten make the point. The Aibo hack circumvented a
5926 copyright protection system for the purpose of enabling the dog to dance
5927 jazz. That enablement no doubt involved the use of copyrighted material. But
5928 as aibopet.com's site was noncommercial, and the use did not enable
5929 subsequent copyright infringements, there's no doubt that aibopet.com's hack
5930 was fair use of Sony's copyrighted material. Yet fair use is not a defense
5931 to the DMCA. The question is not whether the use of the copyrighted material
5932 was a copyright violation. The question is whether a copyright protection
5933 system was circumvented.
5934 </p><p>
5935 The threat against Felten was more attenuated, but it followed the same line
5936 of reasoning. By publishing a paper describing how a copyright protection
5937 system could be circumvented, the RIAA lawyer suggested, Felten himself was
5938 distributing a circumvention technology.  Thus, even though he was not
5939 himself infringing anyone's copyright, his academic paper was enabling
5940 others to infringe others' copyright.
5941 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3049728"></a><p>
5942 The bizarreness of these arguments is captured in a cartoon drawn in 1981 by
5943 Paul Conrad. At that time, a court in California had held that the VCR could
5944 be banned because it was a copyright-infringing technology: It enabled
5945 consumers to copy films without the permission of the copyright owner. No
5946 doubt there were uses of the technology that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka
5947 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote"><em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>,</span>&#8221;</span> for example, had testified
5948 in that case that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers'
5949 Neighborhood.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3049750"></a>
5950 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5951 Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
5952 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>&#8221;</span> at hours when some children cannot use it. I
5953 think that it's a real service to families to be able to record such
5954 programs and show them at appropriate times. I have always felt that with
5955 the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the
5956 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>&#8221;</span> off-the-air, and I'm speaking for the
5957 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>&#8221;</span> because that's what I produce, that they then
5958 become much more active in the programming of their family's television
5959 life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My
5960 whole approach in broadcasting has always been <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">You are an important
5961 person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.</span>&#8221;</span> Maybe
5962 I'm going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to
5963 be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is
5964 important.<sup>[<a name="id3049790" href="#ftn.id3049790" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
5965 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5966
5967
5968 Even though there were uses that were legal, because there were some uses
5969 that were illegal, the court held the companies producing the VCR
5970 responsible.
5971 </p><p>
5972 This led Conrad to draw the cartoon below, which we can adopt to the DMCA.
5973 <a class="indexterm" name="id3049830"></a>
5974 </p><p>
5975 No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
5976 </p><p>
5977 The anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA target copyright circumvention
5978 technologies. Circumvention technologies can be used for different
5979 ends. They can be used, for example, to enable massive pirating of
5980 copyrighted material&#8212;a bad end. Or they can be used to enable the use
5981 of particular copyrighted materials in ways that would be considered fair
5982 use&#8212;a good end.
5983 </p><p>
5984
5985 A handgun can be used to shoot a police officer or a child. Most would agree
5986 such a use is bad. Or a handgun can be used for target practice or to
5987 protect against an intruder. At least some would say that such a use would
5988 be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good and bad uses.
5989 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1711"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1711.png" alt="VCR/handgun cartoon."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5990 The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world where guns
5991 are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and circumvention
5992 technologies) are illegal. Flash: <span class="emphasis"><em>No one ever died from copyright
5993 circumvention</em></span>. Yet the law bans circumvention technologies
5994 absolutely, despite the potential that they might do some good, but permits
5995 guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3049889"></a>
5996 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3049896"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3049903"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3049909"></a><p>
5997 The Aibo and RIAA examples demonstrate how copyright owners are changing the
5998 balance that copyright law grants. Using code, copyright owners restrict
5999 fair use; using the DMCA, they punish those who would attempt to evade the
6000 restrictions on fair use that they impose through code. Technology becomes a
6001 means by which fair use can be erased; the law of the DMCA backs up that
6002 erasing.
6003 </p><p>
6004 This is how <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> becomes <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span>. The
6005 controls built into the technology of copy and access protection become
6006 rules the violation of which is also a violation of the law. In this way,
6007 the code extends the law&#8212;increasing its regulation, even if the
6008 subject it regulates (activities that would otherwise plainly constitute
6009 fair use) is beyond the reach of the law. Code becomes law; code extends the
6010 law; code thus extends the control that copyright owners effect&#8212;at
6011 least for those copyright holders with the lawyers who can write the nasty
6012 letters that Felten and aibopet.com received.
6013 </p><p>
6014 There is one final aspect of the interaction between architecture and law
6015 that contributes to the force of copyright's regulation. This is the ease
6016 with which infringements of the law can be detected. For contrary to the
6017 rhetoric common at the birth of cyberspace that on the Internet, no one
6018 knows you're a dog, increasingly, given changing technologies deployed on
6019 the Internet, it is easy to find the dog who committed a legal wrong. The
6020 technologies of the Internet are open to snoops as well as sharers, and the
6021 snoops are increasingly good at tracking down the identity of those who
6022 violate the rules.
6023 </p><p>
6024
6025
6026 For example, imagine you were part of a <em class="citetitle">Star Trek</em> fan
6027 club. You gathered every month to share trivia, and maybe to enact a kind of
6028 fan fiction about the show. One person would play Spock, another, Captain
6029 Kirk. The characters would begin with a plot from a real story, then simply
6030 continue it.<sup>[<a name="id3049973" href="#ftn.id3049973" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
6031 </p><p>
6032 Before the Internet, this was, in effect, a totally unregulated activity.
6033 No matter what happened inside your club room, you would never be interfered
6034 with by the copyright police. You were free in that space to do as you
6035 wished with this part of our culture. You were allowed to build on it as you
6036 wished without fear of legal control.
6037 </p><p>
6038 But if you moved your club onto the Internet, and made it generally
6039 available for others to join, the story would be very different. Bots
6040 scouring the Net for trademark and copyright infringement would quickly find
6041 your site. Your posting of fan fiction, depending upon the ownership of the
6042 series that you're depicting, could well inspire a lawyer's threat. And
6043 ignoring the lawyer's threat would be extremely costly indeed.  The law of
6044 copyright is extremely efficient. The penalties are severe, and the process
6045 is quick.
6046 </p><p>
6047 This change in the effective force of the law is caused by a change in the
6048 ease with which the law can be enforced. That change too shifts the law's
6049 balance radically. It is as if your car transmitted the speed at which you
6050 traveled at every moment that you drove; that would be just one step before
6051 the state started issuing tickets based upon the data you transmitted. That
6052 is, in effect, what is happening here.
6053 </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>
6054
6055 So copyright's duration has increased dramatically&#8212;tripled in the past
6056 thirty years. And copyright's scope has increased as well&#8212;from
6057 regulating only publishers to now regulating just about everyone. And
6058 copyright's reach has changed, as every action becomes a copy and hence
6059 presumptively regulated. And as technologists find better ways to control
6060 the use of content, and as copyright is increasingly enforced through
6061 technology, copyright's force changes, too. Misuse is easier to find and
6062 easier to control. This regulation of the creative process, which began as a
6063 tiny regulation governing a tiny part of the market for creative work, has
6064 become the single most important regulator of creativity there is. It is a
6065 massive expansion in the scope of the government's control over innovation
6066 and creativity; it would be totally unrecognizable to those who gave birth
6067 to copyright's control.
6068 </p><p>
6069 Still, in my view, all of these changes would not matter much if it weren't
6070 for one more change that we must also consider. This is a change that is in
6071 some sense the most familiar, though its significance and scope are not well
6072 understood. It is the one that creates precisely the reason to be concerned
6073 about all the other changes I have described.
6074 </p><p>
6075 This is the change in the concentration and integration of the media.  In
6076 the past twenty years, the nature of media ownership has undergone a radical
6077 alteration, caused by changes in legal rules governing the media.  Before
6078 this change happened, the different forms of media were owned by separate
6079 media companies. Now, the media is increasingly owned by only a few
6080 companies. Indeed, after the changes that the FCC announced in June 2003,
6081 most expect that within a few years, we will live in a world where just
6082 three companies control more than percent of the media.
6083 </p><p>
6084 Det er her to sorter endringer: omfanget av konsentrasjon, og dens natur.
6085 </p><p>
6086 Changes in scope are the easier ones to describe. As Senator John McCain
6087 summarized the data produced in the FCC's review of media ownership,
6088 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">five companies control 85 percent of our media
6089 sources.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3050102" href="#ftn.id3050102" class="footnote">142</a>]</sup> The five recording
6090 labels of Universal Music Group, BMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music
6091 Group, and EMI control 84.8 percent of the U.S. music market.<sup>[<a name="id3050114" href="#ftn.id3050114" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">five largest cable companies pipe
6092 programming to 74 percent of the cable subscribers
6093 nationwide.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3050132" href="#ftn.id3050132" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3050145"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3050151"></a>
6094 <a class="indexterm" name="id3050157"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3050164"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3050170"></a>
6095 </p><p>
6096
6097 The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation, the
6098 nation's largest radio broadcasting conglomerate owned fewer than
6099 seventy-five stations. Today <span class="emphasis"><em>one</em></span> company owns more than
6100 1,200 stations.  During that period of consolidation, the total number of
6101 radio owners dropped by 34 percent. Today, in most markets, the two largest
6102 broadcasters control 74 percent of that market's revenues. Overall, just
6103 four companies control 90 percent of the nation's radio advertising
6104 revenues.
6105 </p><p>
6106 Newspaper ownership is becoming more concentrated as well.  Today, there are
6107 six hundred fewer daily newspapers in the United States than there were
6108 eighty years ago, and ten companies control half of the nation's
6109 circulation. There are twenty major newspaper publishers in the United
6110 States. The top ten film studios receive 99 percent of all film revenue. The
6111 ten largest cable companies account for 85 percent of all cable
6112 revenue. This is a market far from the free press the framers sought to
6113 protect. Indeed, it is a market that is quite well protected&#8212; by the
6114 market.
6115 </p><p>
6116 Concentration in size alone is one thing. The more invidious change is in
6117 the nature of that concentration. As author James Fallows put it in a recent
6118 article about Rupert Murdoch, <a class="indexterm" name="id3050202"></a>
6119 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6120 Murdoch's companies now constitute a production system unmatched in its
6121 integration. They supply content&#8212;Fox movies &#8230; Fox TV shows
6122 &#8230; Fox-controlled sports broadcasts, plus newspapers and books. They
6123 sell the content to the public and to advertisers&#8212;in newspapers, on
6124 the broadcast network, on the cable channels. And they operate the physical
6125 distribution system through which the content reaches the
6126 customers. Murdoch's satellite systems now distribute News Corp. content in
6127 Europe and Asia; if Murdoch becomes DirecTV's largest single owner, that
6128 system will serve the same function in the United States.<sup>[<a name="id3050226" href="#ftn.id3050226" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
6129 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6130 The pattern with Murdoch is the pattern of modern media. Not just large
6131 companies owning many radio stations, but a few companies owning as many
6132 outlets of media as possible. A picture describes this pattern better than a
6133 thousand words could do:
6134 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1761"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1761.png" alt="Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
6135
6136
6137 Betyr denne konsentrasjonen noe?  Påvirker det hva som blir laget, eller hva
6138 som blir distribuert?  Eller er det bare en mer effektiv måte å produsere og
6139 distribuere innhold?
6140 </p><p>
6141 Mitt syn var at konsentrasjonen ikke betød noe.  Jeg tenkte det ikke var noe
6142 mer enn en mer effektiv finansiell struktur.  Men nå, etter å ha lest og
6143 hørt på en haug av skapere prøve å overbevise meg om det motsatte, har jeg
6144 begynt å endre mening.
6145 </p><p>
6146 Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen
6147 er viktig.
6148 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3050308"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3050315"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3050321"></a><p>
6149 I 1969 laget Norman Lear en polit for <em class="citetitle">All in the
6150 Family</em>.  Han tok piloten til ABC, og nettverket likte det ikke.
6151 Da sa til Lear at det var for på kanten.  Gjør det om igjen. Lear lagde
6152 piloten på nytt, mer på kanten enn den første.  ABC ble fra seg.  Du får
6153 ikke med deg poenget, fortalte de Lear.  Vi vil ha det mindre på kanten,
6154 ikke mer.
6155 </p><p>
6156 I stedet for å føye seg, to Lear ganske enkelt serien sin til noen andre.
6157 CBS var glad for å ha seriene, og ABC kunne ikke stoppe Lear fra å gå til
6158 andre.  Opphavsretten som Lear hadde sikret uavhengighet fra
6159 nettverk-kontroll.<sup>[<a name="id3050354" href="#ftn.id3050354" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
6160 </p><p>
6161
6162
6163
6164 The network did not control those copyrights because the law forbade the
6165 networks from controlling the content they syndicated. The law required a
6166 separation between the networks and the content producers; that separation
6167 would guarantee Lear freedom. And as late as 1992, because of these rules,
6168 the vast majority of prime time television&#8212;75 percent of it&#8212;was
6169 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">independent</span>&#8221;</span> of the networks.
6170 </p><p>
6171 In 1994, the FCC abandoned the rules that required this independence.  After
6172 that change, the networks quickly changed the balance.  In 1985, there were
6173 twenty-five independent television production studios; in 2002, only five
6174 independent television studios remained. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In 1992, only 15 percent of
6175 new series were produced for a network by a company it controlled. Last
6176 year, the percentage of shows produced by controlled companies more than
6177 quintupled to 77 percent.</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In 1992, 16 new series were
6178 produced independently of conglomerate control, last year there was
6179 one.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3050416" href="#ftn.id3050416" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of
6180 prime time television was owned by the networks that ran it. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In the
6181 ten-year period between 1992 and 2002, the number of prime time television
6182 hours per week produced by network studios increased over 200%, whereas the
6183 number of prime time television hours per week produced by independent
6184 studios decreased 63%.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3050444" href="#ftn.id3050444" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
6185 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3050451"></a><p>
6186 Today, another Norman Lear with another <em class="citetitle">All in the
6187 Family</em> would find that he had the choice either to make the show
6188 less edgy or to be fired: The content of any show developed for a network is
6189 increasingly owned by the network.
6190 </p><p>
6191 Mens antall kanaler har økt dramatisk, har eierskapet til disse kanalene
6192 snevret inn fra få til stadig færre.  Som Barry Diller sa til Bill Moyers,
6193 <a class="indexterm" name="id3050475"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3050481"></a>
6194 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6195 Well, if you have companies that produce, that finance, that air on their
6196 channel and then distribute worldwide everything that goes through their
6197 controlled distribution system, then what you get is fewer and fewer actual
6198 voices participating in the process. [We u]sed to have dozens and dozens of
6199 thriving independent production companies producing television programs. Now
6200 you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="id3050500" href="#ftn.id3050500" class="footnote">149</a>]</sup>
6201 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6202 This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of such large
6203 and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous.  Increasingly
6204 safe. Increasingly sterile. The product of news shows from networks like
6205 this is increasingly tailored to the message the network wants to
6206 convey. This is not the communist party, though from the inside, it must
6207 feel a bit like the communist party. No one can question without risk of
6208 consequence&#8212;not necessarily banishment to Siberia, but punishment
6209 nonetheless. Independent, critical, different views are quashed. This is not
6210 the environment for a democracy.
6211 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3050527"></a><p>
6212 Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
6213 affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the
6214 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Innovator's Dilemma</span>&#8221;</span>: the fact that large traditional firms
6215 find it rational to ignore new, breakthrough technologies that compete with
6216 their core business.  The same analysis could help explain why large,
6217 traditional media companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural
6218 trends.<sup>[<a name="id3050558" href="#ftn.id3050558" class="footnote">150</a>]</sup> Lumbering giants not only
6219 don't, but should not, sprint. Yet if the field is only open to the giants,
6220 there will be far too little sprinting.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3050590"></a>
6221 </p><p>
6222 I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media market to say
6223 with certainty what concentration and integration will do. The efficiencies
6224 are important, and the effect on culture is hard to measure.
6225 </p><p>
6226 But there is a quintessentially obvious example that does strongly suggest
6227 the concern.
6228 </p><p>
6229 In addition to the copyright wars, we're in the middle of the drug
6230 wars. Government policy is strongly directed against the drug cartels;
6231 criminal and civil courts are filled with the consequences of this battle.
6232 </p><p>
6233
6234 Let me hereby disqualify myself from any possible appointment to any
6235 position in government by saying I believe this war is a profound mistake. I
6236 am not pro drugs. Indeed, I come from a family once wrecked by
6237 drugs&#8212;though the drugs that wrecked my family were all quite legal. I
6238 believe this war is a profound mistake because the collateral damage from it
6239 is so great as to make waging the war insane.  When you add together the
6240 burdens on the criminal justice system, the desperation of generations of
6241 kids whose only real economic opportunities are as drug warriors, the
6242 queering of constitutional protections because of the constant surveillance
6243 this war requires, and, most profoundly, the total destruction of the legal
6244 systems of many South American nations because of the power of the local
6245 drug cartels, I find it impossible to believe that the marginal benefit in
6246 reduced drug consumption by Americans could possibly outweigh these costs.
6247 </p><p>
6248 You may not be convinced. That's fine. We live in a democracy, and it is
6249 through votes that we are to choose policy. But to do that, we depend
6250 fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about these issues.
6251 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising3"></a><p>
6252 Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched a
6253 media campaign as part of the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">war on drugs.</span>&#8221;</span> The campaign
6254 produced scores of short film clips about issues related to illegal
6255 drugs. In one series (the Nick and Norm series) two men are in a bar,
6256 discussing the idea of legalizing drugs as a way to avoid some of the
6257 collateral damage from the war. One advances an argument in favor of drug
6258 legalization. The other responds in a powerful and effective way against the
6259 argument of the first. In the end, the first guy changes his mind (hey, it's
6260 television). The plug at the end is a damning attack on the pro-legalization
6261 campaign.
6262 </p><p>
6263 Fair enough. It's a good ad. Not terribly misleading. It delivers its
6264 message well. It's a fair and reasonable message.
6265 </p><p>
6266 But let's say you think it is a wrong message, and you'd like to run a
6267 countercommercial. Say you want to run a series of ads that try to
6268 demonstrate the extraordinary collateral harm that comes from the drug
6269 war. Can you do it?
6270 </p><p>
6271
6272 Well, obviously, these ads cost lots of money. Assume you raise the
6273 money. Assume a group of concerned citizens donates all the money in the
6274 world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your message will be
6275 heard then?
6276 </p><p>
6277 No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
6278 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">controversial</span>&#8221;</span> ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
6279 uncontroversial; ads disagreeing with the government are controversial.
6280 This selectivity might be thought inconsistent with the First Amendment, but
6281 the Supreme Court has held that stations have the right to choose what they
6282 run. Thus, the major channels of commercial media will refuse one side of a
6283 crucial debate the opportunity to present its case.  And the courts will
6284 defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.<sup>[<a name="id3050711" href="#ftn.id3050711" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
6285 </p><p>
6286 I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well&#8212;if we lived in a
6287 media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the media throws
6288 that condition into doubt. If a handful of companies control access to the
6289 media, and that handful of companies gets to decide which political
6290 positions it will allow to be promoted on its channels, then in an obvious
6291 and important way, concentration matters. You might like the positions the
6292 handful of companies selects. But you should not like a world in which a
6293 mere few get to decide which issues the rest of us get to know about.
6294 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3050623"></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>
6295 There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the copyright
6296 warriors that the government should <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">protect my property.</span>&#8221;</span> In
6297 the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No
6298 sane sort who is not an anarchist could disagree.
6299 </p><p>
6300
6301 But when we see how dramatically this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> has
6302 changed&#8212; when we recognize how it might now interact with both
6303 technology and markets to mean that the effective constraint on the liberty
6304 to cultivate our culture is dramatically different&#8212;the claim begins to
6305 seem less innocent and obvious. Given (1) the power of technology to
6306 supplement the law's control, and (2) the power of concentrated markets to
6307 weaken the opportunity for dissent, if strictly enforcing the massively
6308 expanded <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> rights granted by copyright fundamentally
6309 changes the freedom within this culture to cultivate and build upon our
6310 past, then we have to ask whether this property should be redefined.
6311 </p><p>
6312 Not starkly. Or absolutely. My point is not that we should abolish copyright
6313 or go back to the eighteenth century. That would be a total mistake,
6314 disastrous for the most important creative enterprises within our culture
6315 today.
6316 </p><p>
6317 But there is a space between zero and one, Internet culture
6318 notwithstanding.  And these massive shifts in the effective power of
6319 copyright regulation, tied to increased concentration of the content
6320 industry and resting in the hands of technology that will increasingly
6321 enable control over the use of culture, should drive us to consider whether
6322 another adjustment is called for. Not an adjustment that increases
6323 copyright's power. Not an adjustment that increases its term. Rather, an
6324 adjustment to restore the balance that has traditionally defined copyright's
6325 regulation&#8212;a weakening of that regulation, to strengthen creativity.
6326 </p><p>
6327 Copyright law has not been a rock of Gibraltar. It's not a set of constant
6328 commitments that, for some mysterious reason, teenagers and geeks now
6329 flout. Instead, copyright power has grown dramatically in a short period of
6330 time, as the technologies of distribution and creation have changed and as
6331 lobbyists have pushed for more control by copyright holders. Changes in the
6332 past in response to changes in technology suggest that we may well need
6333 similar changes in the future. And these changes have to be
6334 <span class="emphasis"><em>reductions</em></span> in the scope of copyright, in response to
6335 the extraordinary increase in control that technology and the market enable.
6336 </p><p>
6337
6338 For the single point that is lost in this war on pirates is a point that we
6339 see only after surveying the range of these changes. When you add together
6340 the effect of changing law, concentrated markets, and changing technology,
6341 together they produce an astonishing conclusion: <span class="emphasis"><em>Never in our
6342 history have fewer had a legal right to control more of the development of
6343 our culture than now</em></span>.
6344 </p><p>
6345 Not when copyrights were perpetual, for when copyrights were perpetual, they
6346 affected only that precise creative work. Not when only publishers had the
6347 tools to publish, for the market then was much more diverse. Not when there
6348 were only three television networks, for even then, newspapers, film
6349 studios, radio stations, and publishers were independent of the
6350 networks. <span class="emphasis"><em>Never</em></span> has copyright protected such a wide
6351 range of rights, against as broad a range of actors, for a term that was
6352 remotely as long. This form of regulation&#8212;a tiny regulation of a tiny
6353 part of the creative energy of a nation at the founding&#8212;is now a
6354 massive regulation of the overall creative process. Law plus technology plus
6355 the market now interact to turn this historically benign regulation into the
6356 most significant regulation of culture that our free society has
6357 known.<sup>[<a name="id3050954" href="#ftn.id3050954" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
6358 </p><p>
6359 This has been a long chapter. Its point can now be briefly stated.
6360 </p><p>
6361 At the start of this book, I distinguished between commercial and
6362 noncommercial culture. In the course of this chapter, I have distinguished
6363 between copying a work and transforming it. We can now combine these two
6364 distinctions and draw a clear map of the changes that copyright law has
6365 undergone.  In 1790, the law looked like this:
6366 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t2"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char"> </th><th align="char">Publisere</th><th align="char">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">Fri</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="char">Fri</td><td align="char">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
6367
6368 The act of publishing a map, chart, and book was regulated by copyright
6369 law. Nothing else was. Transformations were free. And as copyright attached
6370 only with registration, and only those who intended to benefit commercially
6371 would register, copying through publishing of noncommercial work was also
6372 free.
6373 </p><p>
6374 På slutten av det nittende århundre hadde loven blitt endret til dette:
6375 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t3"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char"> </th><th align="char">Publisere</th><th align="char">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">©</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="char">Fri</td><td align="char">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
6376 Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law&#8212;if published,
6377 which again, given the economics of publishing at the time, means if offered
6378 commercially. But noncommercial publishing and transformation were still
6379 essentially free.
6380 </p><p>
6381 In 1909 the law changed to regulate copies, not publishing, and after this
6382 change, the scope of the law was tied to technology. As the technology of
6383 copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law expanded.  Thus by 1975,
6384 as photocopying machines became more common, we could say the law began to
6385 look like this:
6386 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t4"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char"> </th><th align="char">Kopiere</th><th align="char">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">©</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="char">©/Fri</td><td align="char">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
6387 The law was interpreted to reach noncommercial copying through, say, copy
6388 machines, but still much of copying outside of the commercial market
6389 remained free. But the consequence of the emergence of digital technologies,
6390 especially in the context of a digital network, means that the law now looks
6391 like this:
6392 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t5"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char"> </th><th align="char">Kopiere</th><th align="char">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">©</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">©</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
6393
6394 Every realm is governed by copyright law, whereas before most creativity was
6395 not. The law now regulates the full range of creativity&#8212; commercial or
6396 not, transformative or not&#8212;with the same rules designed to regulate
6397 commercial publishers.
6398 </p><p>
6399 Obviously, copyright law is not the enemy. The enemy is regulation that does
6400 no good. So the question that we should be asking just now is whether
6401 extending the regulations of copyright law into each of these domains
6402 actually does any good.
6403 </p><p>
6404 I have no doubt that it does good in regulating commercial copying.  But I
6405 also have no doubt that it does more harm than good when regulating (as it
6406 regulates just now) noncommercial copying and, especially, noncommercial
6407 transformation. And increasingly, for the reasons sketched especially in
6408 chapters <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a> and
6409 <a class="xref" href="#transformers" title="Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere">8</a>, one might
6410 well wonder whether it does more harm than good for commercial
6411 transformation.  More commercial transformative work would be created if
6412 derivative rights were more sharply restricted.
6413 </p><p>
6414 The issue is therefore not simply whether copyright is property. Of course
6415 copyright is a kind of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property,</span>&#8221;</span> and of course, as with any
6416 property, the state ought to protect it. But first impressions
6417 notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all property
6418 rights<sup>[<a name="id3051310" href="#ftn.id3051310" class="footnote">153</a>]</sup>)  has been crafted to balance
6419 the important need to give authors and artists incentives with the equally
6420 important need to assure access to creative work. This balance has always
6421 been struck in light of new technologies.  And for almost half of our
6422 tradition, the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> did not control <span class="emphasis"><em>at
6423 all</em></span> the freedom of others to build upon or transform a creative
6424 work. American culture was born free, and for almost 180 years our country
6425 consistently protected a vibrant and rich free culture.
6426 </p><p>
6427
6428 We achieved that free culture because our law respected important limits on
6429 the scope of the interests protected by <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property.</span>&#8221;</span> The very
6430 birth of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> as a statutory right recognized those
6431 limits, by granting copyright owners protection for a limited time only (the
6432 story of chapter 6). The tradition of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span> is animated by
6433 a similar concern that is increasingly under strain as the costs of
6434 exercising any fair use right become unavoidably high (the story of chapter
6435 7). Adding statutory rights where markets might stifle innovation is another
6436 familiar limit on the property right that copyright is (chapter 8). And
6437 granting archives and libraries a broad freedom to collect, claims of
6438 property notwithstanding, is a crucial part of guaranteeing the soul of a
6439 culture (chapter 9). Free cultures, like free markets, are built with
6440 property. But the nature of the property that builds a free culture is very
6441 different from the extremist vision that dominates the debate today.
6442 </p><p>
6443 Free culture is increasingly the casualty in this war on piracy. In response
6444 to a real, if not yet quantified, threat that the technologies of the
6445 Internet present to twentieth-century business models for producing and
6446 distributing culture, the law and technology are being transformed in a way
6447 that will undermine our tradition of free culture. The property right that
6448 is copyright is no longer the balanced right that it was, or was intended to
6449 be. The property right that is copyright has become unbalanced, tilted
6450 toward an extreme. The opportunity to create and transform becomes weakened
6451 in a world in which creation requires permission and creativity must check
6452 with a lawyer.
6453 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3046194" href="#id3046194" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
6454
6455
6456 Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearings on H.R. 4783, H.R.  4794,
6457 H.R. 4808, H.R. 5250, H.R. 5488, and H.R. 5705 Before the Subcommittee on
6458 Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the Committee
6459 on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, 97th Cong., 2nd
6460 sess. (1982): 65 (testimony of Jack Valenti).
6461 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3046263" href="#id3046263" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
6462
6463
6464 Lawyers speak of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> not as an absolute thing, but as a
6465 bundle of rights that are sometimes associated with a particular
6466 object. Thus, my <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property right</span>&#8221;</span> to my car gives me the right
6467 to exclusive use, but not the right to drive at 150 miles an hour. For the
6468 best effort to connect the ordinary meaning of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> to
6469 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lawyer talk,</span>&#8221;</span> see Bruce Ackerman, <em class="citetitle">Private Property
6470 and the Constitution</em> (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977),
6471 26&#8211;27.
6472 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3046642" href="#id3046642" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
6473
6474
6475 By describing the way law affects the other three modalities, I don't mean
6476 to suggest that the other three don't affect law. Obviously, they do. Law's
6477 only distinction is that it alone speaks as if it has a right
6478 self-consciously to change the other three. The right of the other three is
6479 more timidly expressed.  See Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other
6480 Laws of Cyberspace</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90&#8211;95;
6481 Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The New Chicago School,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal
6482 of Legal Studies</em>, June 1998.
6483 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3046709" href="#id3046709" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
6484
6485 Some people object to this way of talking about <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">liberty.</span>&#8221;</span> They
6486 object because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at
6487 any particular moment are constraints imposed exclusively by the
6488 government. For instance, if a storm destroys a bridge, these people think
6489 it is meaningless to say that one's liberty has been restrained. A bridge
6490 has washed out, and it's harder to get from one place to another. To talk
6491 about this as a loss of freedom, they say, is to confuse the stuff of
6492 politics with the vagaries of ordinary life.  I don't mean to deny the value
6493 in this narrower view, which depends upon the context of the inquiry. I do,
6494 however, mean to argue against any insistence that this narrower view is the
6495 only proper view of liberty. As I argued in <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, we
6496 come from a long tradition of political thought with a broader focus than
6497 the narrow question of what the government did when.  John Stuart Mill
6498 defended freedom of speech, for example, from the tyranny of narrow minds,
6499 not from the fear of government prosecution; John Stuart Mill, <em class="citetitle">On
6500 Liberty</em> (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co., 1978), 19.  John
6501 R. Commons famously defended the economic freedom of labor from constraints
6502 imposed by the market; John R. Commons, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Right to Work,</span>&#8221;</span> in
6503 Malcom Rutherford and Warren J. Samuels, eds., <em class="citetitle">John R. Commons:
6504 Selected Essays</em> (London: Routledge: 1997), 62. The Americans
6505 with Disabilities Act increases the liberty of people with physical
6506 disabilities by changing the architecture of certain public places, thereby
6507 making access to those places easier; 42 <em class="citetitle">United States
6508 Code</em>, section 12101 (2000).  Each of these interventions to
6509 change existing conditions changes the liberty of a particular group. The
6510 effect of those interventions should be accounted for in order to understand
6511 the effective liberty that each of these groups might face.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3046763"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3046772"></a>
6512 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3046938" href="#id3046938" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
6513
6514
6515 See Geoffrey Smith, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a
6516 Bridge?</span>&#8221;</span> BusinessWeek online, 2 August 1999, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #23</a>. For a more recent
6517 analysis of Kodak's place in the market, see Chana R. Schoenberger,
6518 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Can Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?</span>&#8221;</span> Forbes.com, 6 October
6519 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6520 #24</a>.
6521 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3047000" href="#id3047000" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
6522
6523
6524 Fred Warshofsky, <em class="citetitle">The Patent Wars</em> (New York: Wiley,
6525 1994), 170&#8211;71.
6526 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3047178" href="#id3047178" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
6527
6528
6529 See, for example, James Boyle, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">A Politics of Intellectual Property:
6530 Environmentalism for the Net?</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Duke Law
6531 Journal</em> 47 (1997): 87.
6532 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3047409" href="#id3047409" class="para">125</a>] </sup>
6533
6534 William W. Crosskey, <em class="citetitle">Politics and the Constitution in the History
6535 of the United States</em> (London: Cambridge University Press, 1953),
6536 vol. 1, 485&#8211;86: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the
6537 supreme Law of the Land,' <span class="emphasis"><em>the perpetual rights which authors had,
6538 or were supposed by some to have, under the Common Law</em></span></span>&#8221;</span>
6539 (emphasis added).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3047427"></a>
6540 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3047476" href="#id3047476" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
6541
6542
6543 Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790 to
6544 1799, only 556 copyright registrations were filed; John Tebbel, <em class="citetitle">A
6545 History of Book Publishing in the United States</em>, vol. 1,
6546 <em class="citetitle">The Creation of an Industry, 1630&#8211;1865</em> (New
6547 York: Bowker, 1972), 141. Of the 21,000 imprints recorded before 1790, only
6548 twelve were copyrighted under the 1790 act; William J. Maher,
6549 <em class="citetitle">Copyright Term, Retrospective Extension and the Copyright Law of
6550 1790 in Historical Context</em>, 7&#8211;10 (2002), available at
6551 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #25</a>.  Thus, the
6552 overwhelming majority of works fell immediately into the public domain. Even
6553 those works that were copyrighted fell into the public domain quickly,
6554 because the term of copyright was short. The initial term of copyright was
6555 fourteen years, with the option of renewal for an additional fourteen
6556 years. Copyright Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3047544" href="#id3047544" class="para">127</a>] </sup>
6557
6558
6559 Few copyright holders ever chose to renew their copyrights. For instance, of
6560 the 25,006 copyrights registered in 1883, only 894 were renewed in 1910. For
6561 a year-by-year analysis of copyright renewal rates, see Barbara A. Ringer,
6562 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Studies on
6563 Copyright</em>, vol. 1 (New York: Practicing Law Institute, 1963),
6564 618. For a more recent and comprehensive analysis, see William M. Landes and
6565 Richard A.  Posner, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>&#8221;</span>
6566 <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 471,
6567 498&#8211;501, and accompanying figures.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3047579" href="#id3047579" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
6568
6569
6570 Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3047688" href="#id3047688" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
6571
6572
6573 These statistics are understated. Between the years 1910 and 1962 (the first
6574 year the renewal term was extended), the average term was never more than
6575 thirty-two years, and averaged thirty years. See Landes and Posner,
6576 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>&#8221;</span> loc. cit.
6577 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3047841" href="#id3047841" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
6578
6579
6580 See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Poets, Pirates, and the
6581 Creation of American Literature,</span>&#8221;</span> 29 <em class="citetitle">New York University
6582 Journal of International Law and Politics</em> 255 (1997), and James
6583 Gilraeth, ed., Federal Copyright Records, 1790&#8211;1800 (U.S. G.P.O.,
6584 1987).
6585
6586 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3047928" href="#id3047928" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
6587
6588 Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Copyright Cage,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Legal
6589 Affairs</em>, July/August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #26</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3047958"></a>
6590 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3047977" href="#id3047977" class="para">132</a>] </sup>
6591
6592 Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument about
6593 the difference that copyright law should draw (from the perspective of the
6594 First Amendment) between mere <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copies</span>&#8221;</span> and derivative
6595 works. See Jed Rubenfeld, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's
6596 Constitutionality,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 112
6597 (2002): 1&#8211;60 (see especially pp. 53&#8211;59).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3047994"></a>
6598 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3048043" href="#id3048043" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
6599
6600
6601 This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly
6602 regulates more than <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copies</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;a public performance of a
6603 copyrighted song, for example, is regulated even though performance per se
6604 doesn't make a copy; 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section
6605 106(4). And it certainly sometimes doesn't regulate a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy</span>&#8221;</span>;
6606 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 112(a). But the
6607 presumption under the existing law (which regulates <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copies;</span>&#8221;</span>
6608 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 102) is that if there
6609 is a copy, there is a right.
6610 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3048121" href="#id3048121" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
6611
6612
6613 Thus, my argument is not that in each place that copyright law extends, we
6614 should repeal it. It is instead that we should have a good argument for its
6615 extending where it does, and should not determine its reach on the basis of
6616 arbitrary and automatic changes caused by technology.
6617 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3048052" href="#id3048052" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
6618
6619
6620 I don't mean <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">nature</span>&#8221;</span> in the sense that it couldn't be
6621 different, but rather that its present instantiation entails a copy. Optical
6622 networks need not make copies of content they transmit, and a digital
6623 network could be designed to delete anything it copies so that the same
6624 number of copies remain.
6625 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3048683" href="#id3048683" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
6626
6627
6628 See David Lange, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Recognizing the Public Domain,</span>&#8221;</span>
6629 <em class="citetitle">Law and Contemporary Problems</em> 44 (1981):
6630 172&#8211;73.
6631 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3048706" href="#id3048706" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
6632
6633 Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
6634 Copywrongs</em>, 1&#8211;3.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3048697"></a>
6635 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3048988" href="#id3048988" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
6636
6637
6638 In principle, a contract might impose a requirement on me. I might, for
6639 example, buy a book from you that includes a contract that says I will read
6640 it only three times, or that I promise to read it three times. But that
6641 obligation (and the limits for creating that obligation) would come from the
6642 contract, not from copyright law, and the obligations of contract would not
6643 necessarily pass to anyone who subsequently acquired the book.
6644 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3049397" href="#id3049397" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
6645
6646 See Pamela Samuelson, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to
6647 Science,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan
6648 I. Koerner, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Play Dead: Sony Muzzles the Techies Who Teach a Robot Dog
6649 New Tricks,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">American Prospect</em>, January 2002;
6650 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Court Dismisses Computer Scientists' Challenge to DMCA,</span>&#8221;</span>
6651 <em class="citetitle">Intellectual Property Litigation Reporter</em>, 11
6652 December 2001; Bill Holland, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright Act Raising Free-Speech
6653 Concerns,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Billboard</em>, May 2001; Janelle Brown,
6654 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Is the RIAA Running Scared?</span>&#8221;</span> Salon.com, April 2001; Electronic
6655 Frontier Foundation, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Frequently Asked Questions about
6656 <em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
6657 Legal Case,</span>&#8221;</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #27</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3049453"></a>
6658 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3049790" href="#id3049790" class="para">140</a>] </sup>
6659
6660 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corporation of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal
6661 City Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers
6662 never changed his view about the VCR. See James Lardner, <em class="citetitle">Fast
6663 Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR</em>
6664 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 270&#8211;71.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3048714"></a>
6665 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3049973" href="#id3049973" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
6666
6667
6668 For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Legal
6669 Fictions, Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,</span>&#8221;</span>
6670 <em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17
6671 (1997): 651.
6672 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3050102" href="#id3050102" class="para">142</a>] </sup>
6673
6674
6675 FCC Oversight: Hearing Before the Senate Commerce, Science and
6676 Transportation Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (22 May 2003)  (statement
6677 of Senator John McCain).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3050114" href="#id3050114" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
6678
6679
6680 Lynette Holloway, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to
6681 Slide,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
6682 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3050132" href="#id3050132" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
6683
6684
6685 Molly Ivins, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,</span>&#8221;</span>
6686 <em class="citetitle">Charleston Gazette</em>, 31 May 2003.
6687 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3050226" href="#id3050226" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
6688
6689 James Fallows, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Age of Murdoch,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Atlantic
6690 Monthly</em> (September 2003): 89.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3050245"></a>
6691 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3050354" href="#id3050354" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
6692
6693
6694 Leonard Hill, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Axis of Access,</span>&#8221;</span> remarks before Weidenbaum
6695 Center Forum, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry,</span>&#8221;</span>
6696 St. Louis, Missouri, 3 April 2003 (transcript of prepared remarks available
6697 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #28</a>; for the Lear
6698 story, not included in the prepared remarks, see <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #29</a>).
6699 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3050416" href="#id3050416" class="para">147</a>] </sup>
6700
6701
6702 NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media
6703 Ownership Before the Senate Commerce Committee, 108th Cong., 1st
6704 sess. (2003) (testimony of Gene Kimmelman on behalf of Consumers Union and
6705 the Consumer Federation of America), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #30</a>. Kimmelman quotes
6706 Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West, in her Remarks
6707 at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia, 27 February 2003.
6708 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3050444" href="#id3050444" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
6709
6710
6711 ibid.
6712 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3050500" href="#id3050500" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
6713
6714
6715 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Now with
6716 Bill Moyers</em>, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, edited transcript
6717 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #31</a>.
6718 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3050558" href="#id3050558" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
6719
6720
6721 Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
6722 Revolutionary National Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do
6723 Business</em> (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press,
6724 1997). Christensen acknowledges that the idea was first suggested by Dean
6725 Kim Clark. See Kim B. Clark, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Interaction of Design Hierarchies
6726 and Market Concepts in Technological Evolution,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Research
6727 Policy</em> 14 (1985): 235&#8211;51. For a more recent study, see
6728 Richard Foster and Sarah Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">Creative Destruction: Why
6729 Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market&#8212;and How to
6730 Successfully Transform Them</em> (New York: Currency/Doubleday,
6731 2001).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3050711" href="#id3050711" class="para">151</a>] </sup>
6732
6733 The Marijuana Policy Project, in February 2003, sought to place ads that
6734 directly responded to the Nick and Norm series on stations within the
6735 Washington, D.C., area. Comcast rejected the ads as <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">against [their]
6736 policy.</span>&#8221;</span> The local NBC affiliate, WRC, rejected the ads without
6737 reviewing them. The local ABC affiliate, WJOA, originally agreed to run the
6738 ads and accepted payment to do so, but later decided not to run the ads and
6739 returned the collected fees. Interview with Neal Levine, 15 October 2003.
6740 These restrictions are, of course, not limited to drug policy. See, for
6741 example, Nat Ives, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">On the Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet
6742 with Rejection from TV Networks,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
6743 Times</em>, 13 March 2003, C4.  Outside of election-related air time
6744 there is very little that the FCC or the courts are willing to do to even
6745 the playing field. For a general overview, see Rhonda Brown, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Ad Hoc
6746 Access: The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
6747 Radio,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law and Policy Review</em> 6 (1988):
6748 449&#8211;79, and for a more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the
6749 courts, see <em class="citetitle">Radio-Television News Directors
6750 Association</em> v. <em class="citetitle">FCC</em>, 184 F. 3d 872
6751 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as the
6752 networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San Francisco transit
6753 authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni diesel buses. Phillip
6754 Matier and Andrew Ross, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni Rejects
6755 Ad,</span>&#8221;</span> SFGate.com, 16 June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #32</a>. The ground was that
6756 the criticism was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">too controversial.</span>&#8221;</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id3050774"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3050783"></a>
6757 <a class="indexterm" name="id3050789"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3050795"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3050801"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3050808"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3050814"></a>
6758 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3050954" href="#id3050954" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
6759
6760 Siva Vaidhyanathan captures a similar point in his <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">four
6761 surrenders</span>&#8221;</span> of copyright law in the digital age. See Vaidhyanathan,
6762 159&#8211;60.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3050746"></a>
6763 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3051310" href="#id3051310" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
6764
6765 It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist movement
6766 to demonstrate that all property rights are always crafted to balance public
6767 and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Disintegration of
6768 Property,</span>&#8221;</span> in <em class="citetitle">Nomos XXII: Property</em>, J. Roland
6769 Pennock and John W.  Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press,
6770 1980).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3051325"></a>
6771 </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 11. Kapittel elleve: Chimera"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>Kapittel 11. Kapittel elleve: Chimera</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxchimera"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwells"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtcotb"></a><p>
6772 In a well-known short story by H. G. Wells, a mountain climber named Nunez
6773 trips (literally, down an ice slope) into an unknown and isolated valley in
6774 the Peruvian Andes.<sup>[<a name="id3051464" href="#ftn.id3051464" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is
6775 extraordinarily beautiful, with <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sweet water, pasture, an even
6776 climate, slopes of rich brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an
6777 excellent fruit.</span>&#8221;</span> But the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this
6778 as an opportunity. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In the Country of the Blind,</span>&#8221;</span> he tells
6779 himself, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the One-Eyed Man is King.</span>&#8221;</span> So he resolves to live
6780 with the villagers to explore life as a king.
6781 </p><p>
6782 Things don't go quite as he planned. He tries to explain the idea of sight
6783 to the villagers. They don't understand. He tells them they are
6784 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">blind.</span>&#8221;</span> They don't have the word
6785 <em class="citetitle">blind</em>. They think he's just thick.  Indeed, as they
6786 increasingly notice the things he can't do (hear the sound of grass being
6787 stepped on, for example), they increasingly try to control him. He, in turn,
6788 becomes increasingly frustrated. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">`You don't understand,' he cried, in
6789 a voice that was meant to be great and resolute, and which broke. `You are
6790 blind and I can see. Leave me alone!'</span>&#8221;</span>
6791 </p><p>
6792
6793
6794 The villagers don't leave him alone. Nor do they see (so to speak) the
6795 virtue of his special power. Not even the ultimate target of his affection,
6796 a young woman who to him seems <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the most beautiful thing in the whole
6797 of creation,</span>&#8221;</span> understands the beauty of sight. Nunez's description of
6798 what he sees <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">seemed to her the most poetical of fancies, and she
6799 listened to his description of the stars and the mountains and her own sweet
6800 white-lit beauty as though it was a guilty indulgence.</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">She
6801 did not believe,</span>&#8221;</span> Wells tells us, and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">she could only half
6802 understand, but she was mysteriously delighted.</span>&#8221;</span>
6803 </p><p>
6804 When Nunez announces his desire to marry his <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">mysteriously
6805 delighted</span>&#8221;</span> love, the father and the village object. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">You see,
6806 my dear,</span>&#8221;</span> her father instructs, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">he's an idiot. He has
6807 delusions. He can't do anything right.</span>&#8221;</span> They take Nunez to the
6808 village doctor.
6809 </p><p>
6810 After a careful examination, the doctor gives his opinion. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">His brain
6811 is affected,</span>&#8221;</span> he reports.
6812 </p><p>
6813 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">What affects it?</span>&#8221;</span> the father asks.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Those queer things
6814 that are called the eyes &#8230; are diseased &#8230; in such a way as to
6815 affect his brain.</span>&#8221;</span>
6816 </p><p>
6817 The doctor continues: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I think I may say with reasonable certainty
6818 that in order to cure him completely, all that we need to do is a simple and
6819 easy surgical operation&#8212;namely, to remove these irritant bodies [the
6820 eyes].</span>&#8221;</span>
6821 </p><p>
6822
6823 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Thank Heaven for science!</span>&#8221;</span> says the father to the doctor. They
6824 inform Nunez of this condition necessary for him to be allowed his bride.
6825 (You'll have to read the original to learn what happens in the end. I
6826 believe in free culture, but never in giving away the end of a story.)  It
6827 sometimes happens that the eggs of twins fuse in the mother's womb. That
6828 fusion produces a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">chimera.</span>&#8221;</span> A chimera is a single creature
6829 with two sets of DNA. The DNA in the blood, for example, might be different
6830 from the DNA of the skin. This possibility is an underused plot for murder
6831 mysteries. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But the DNA shows with 100 percent certainty that she was
6832 not the person whose blood was at the scene. &#8230;</span>&#8221;</span>
6833 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3051620"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3051627"></a><p>
6834 Before I had read about chimeras, I would have said they were impossible.  A
6835 single person can't have two sets of DNA. The very idea of DNA is that it is
6836 the code of an individual. Yet in fact, not only can two individuals have
6837 the same set of DNA (identical twins), but one person can have two different
6838 sets of DNA (a chimera). Our understanding of a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">person</span>&#8221;</span> should
6839 reflect this reality.
6840 </p><p>
6841 The more I work to understand the current struggle over copyright and
6842 culture, which I've sometimes called unfairly, and sometimes not unfairly
6843 enough, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the copyright wars,</span>&#8221;</span> the more I think we're dealing
6844 with a chimera. For example, in the battle over the question <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">What is
6845 p2p file sharing?</span>&#8221;</span> both sides have it right, and both sides have it
6846 wrong.  One side says, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">File sharing is just like two kids taping each
6847 others' records&#8212;the sort of thing we've been doing for the last thirty
6848 years without any question at all.</span>&#8221;</span> That's true, at least in
6849 part. When I tell my best friend to try out a new CD that I've bought, but
6850 rather than just send the CD, I point him to my p2p server, that is, in all
6851 relevant respects, just like what every executive in every recording company
6852 no doubt did as a kid: sharing music.
6853 </p><p>
6854 But the description is also false in part. For when my p2p server is on a
6855 p2p network through which anyone can get access to my music, then sure, my
6856 friends can get access, but it stretches the meaning of
6857 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">friends</span>&#8221;</span> beyond recognition to say <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">my ten thousand best
6858 friends</span>&#8221;</span> can get access. Whether or not sharing my music with my best
6859 friend is what <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">we have always been allowed to do,</span>&#8221;</span> we have not
6860 always been allowed to share music with <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">our ten thousand best
6861 friends.</span>&#8221;</span>
6862 </p><p>
6863 Likewise, when the other side says, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">File sharing is just like walking
6864 into a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out with
6865 it,</span>&#8221;</span> that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett (finally)
6866 releases a new album, rather than buying it, I go to Kazaa and find a free
6867 copy to take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower.
6868 <a class="indexterm" name="id3051716"></a>
6869 </p><p>
6870
6871
6872
6873 But it is not quite stealing from Tower. After all, when I take a CD from
6874 Tower Records, Tower has one less CD to sell. And when I take a CD from
6875 Tower Records, I get a bit of plastic and a cover, and something to show on
6876 my shelves. (And, while we're at it, we could also note that when I take a
6877 CD from Tower Records, the maximum fine that might be imposed on me, under
6878 California law, at least, is $1,000.  According to the RIAA, by contrast, if
6879 I download a ten-song CD, I'm liable for $1,500,000 in damages.)
6880 </p><p>
6881 The point is not that it is as neither side describes. The point is that it
6882 is both&#8212;both as the RIAA describes it and as Kazaa describes it. It is
6883 a chimera. And rather than simply denying what the other side asserts, we
6884 need to begin to think about how we should respond to this chimera. What
6885 rules should govern it?
6886 </p><p>
6887 We could respond by simply pretending that it is not a chimera. We could,
6888 with the RIAA, decide that every act of file sharing should be a felony. We
6889 could prosecute families for millions of dollars in damages just because
6890 file sharing occurred on a family computer. And we can get universities to
6891 monitor all computer traffic to make sure that no computer is used to commit
6892 this crime. These responses might be extreme, but each of them has either
6893 been proposed or actually implemented.<sup>[<a name="id3051757" href="#ftn.id3051757" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
6894
6895 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3051855"></a><p>
6896 Alternatively, we could respond to file sharing the way many kids act as
6897 though we've responded. We could totally legalize it. Let there be no
6898 copyright liability, either civil or criminal, for making copyrighted
6899 content available on the Net. Make file sharing like gossip: regulated, if
6900 at all, by social norms but not by law.
6901 </p><p>
6902 Either response is possible. I think either would be a mistake.  Rather than
6903 embrace one of these two extremes, we should embrace something that
6904 recognizes the truth in both. And while I end this book with a sketch of a
6905 system that does just that, my aim in the next chapter is to show just how
6906 awful it would be for us to adopt the zero-tolerance extreme. I believe
6907 <span class="emphasis"><em>either</em></span> extreme would be worse than a reasonable
6908 alternative.  But I believe the zero-tolerance solution would be the worse
6909 of the two extremes.
6910 </p><p>
6911
6912
6913
6914 Yet zero tolerance is increasingly our government's policy. In the middle of
6915 the chaos that the Internet has created, an extraordinary land grab is
6916 occurring. The law and technology are being shifted to give content holders
6917 a kind of control over our culture that they have never had before. And in
6918 this extremism, many an opportunity for new innovation and new creativity
6919 will be lost.
6920 </p><p>
6921 I'm not talking about the opportunities for kids to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">steal</span>&#8221;</span>
6922 music. My focus instead is the commercial and cultural innovation that this
6923 war will also kill. We have never seen the power to innovate spread so
6924 broadly among our citizens, and we have just begun to see the innovation
6925 that this power will unleash. Yet the Internet has already seen the passing
6926 of one cycle of innovation around technologies to distribute content. The
6927 law is responsible for this passing. As the vice president for global public
6928 policy at one of these new innovators, eMusic.com, put it when criticizing
6929 the DMCA's added protection for copyrighted material,
6930 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6931 eMusic opposes music piracy. We are a distributor of copyrighted material,
6932 and we want to protect those rights.
6933 </p><p>
6934 But building a technology fortress that locks in the clout of the major
6935 labels is by no means the only way to protect copyright interests, nor is it
6936 necessarily the best. It is simply too early to answer that question. Market
6937 forces operating naturally may very well produce a totally different
6938 industry model.
6939 </p><p>
6940 This is a critical point. The choices that industry sectors make with
6941 respect to these systems will in many ways directly shape the market for
6942 digital media and the manner in which digital media are distributed. This in
6943 turn will directly influence the options that are available to consumers,
6944 both in terms of the ease with which they will be able to access digital
6945 media and the equipment that they will require to do so. Poor choices made
6946 this early in the game will retard the growth of this market, hurting
6947 everyone's interests.<sup>[<a name="id3051944" href="#ftn.id3051944" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
6948 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6949 In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of
6950 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the major labels.</span>&#8221;</span> Its position on these matters has now
6951 changed.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3051969"></a>
6952 </p><p>
6953 Reversing our tradition of tolerance now will not merely quash piracy. It
6954 will sacrifice values that are important to this culture, and will kill
6955 opportunities that could be extraordinarily valuable.
6956 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3051464" href="#id3051464" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
6957
6958
6959 H. G. Wells, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Country of the Blind</span>&#8221;</span> (1904, 1911). See
6960 H. G. Wells, <em class="citetitle">The Country of the Blind and Other
6961 Stories</em>, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New York: Oxford University
6962 Press, 1996).
6963 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3051757" href="#id3051757" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
6964
6965 For an excellent summary, see the report prepared by GartnerG2 and the
6966 Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School,
6967 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>&#8221;</span> 27 June
6968 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6969 #33</a>. Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman
6970 (D-Calif.) have introduced a bill that would treat unauthorized on-line
6971 copying as a felony offense with punishments ranging as high as five years
6972 imprisonment; see Jon Healey, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">House Bill Aims to Up Stakes on
6973 Piracy,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 17 July 2003,
6974 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6975 #34</a>. Civil penalties are currently set at $150,000 per copied
6976 song. For a recent (and unsuccessful) legal challenge to the RIAA's demand
6977 that an ISP reveal the identity of a user accused of sharing more than 600
6978 songs through a family computer, see <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
6979 v. <em class="citetitle">Verizon Internet Services (In re. Verizon Internet
6980 Services)</em>, 240 F.  Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2003). Such a user could
6981 face liability ranging as high as $90 million. Such astronomical figures
6982 furnish the RIAA with a powerful arsenal in its prosecution of file
6983 sharers. Settlements ranging from $12,000 to $17,500 for four students
6984 accused of heavy file sharing on university networks must have seemed a mere
6985 pittance next to the $98 billion the RIAA could seek should the matter
6986 proceed to court. See Elizabeth Young, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Downloading Could Lead to
6987 Fines,</span>&#8221;</span> redandblack.com, August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #35</a>. For an example of the
6988 RIAA's targeting of student file sharing, and of the subpoenas issued to
6989 universities to reveal student file-sharer identities, see James Collins,
6990 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to Name Students,</span>&#8221;</span>
6991 <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 8 August 2003, D3, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #36</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3051839"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3051847"></a>
6992 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3051944" href="#id3051944" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
6993
6994
6995 WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
6996 Entertainment on the Internet and Other Media: Hearing Before the
6997 Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, House
6998 Committee on Commerce, 106th Cong. 29 (1999) (statement of Peter Harter,
6999 vice president, Global Public Policy and Standards, EMusic.com), available
7000 in LEXIS, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony File.  </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 12. Kapittel tolv: Skader"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="harms"></a>Kapittel 12. Kapittel tolv: Skader</h2></div></div></div><p>
7001 To fight <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy,</span>&#8221;</span> to protect <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property,</span>&#8221;</span> the
7002 content industry has launched a war. Lobbying and lots of campaign
7003 contributions have now brought the government into this war. As with any
7004 war, this one will have both direct and collateral damage. As with any war
7005 of prohibition, these damages will be suffered most by our own people.
7006 </p><p>
7007 My aim so far has been to describe the consequences of this war, in
7008 particular, the consequences for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free culture.</span>&#8221;</span> But my aim now
7009 is to extend this description of consequences into an argument. Is this war
7010 justified?
7011 </p><p>
7012 In my view, it is not. There is no good reason why this time, for the first
7013 time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the power of
7014 the property called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>&#8221;</span> is at its greatest
7015 in our history.
7016 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3052031"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3052037"></a><p>
7017 Yet <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">common sense</span>&#8221;</span> does not see it this way. Common sense is
7018 still on the side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme
7019 claims of control in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical
7020 rejection of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> still has play.
7021 </p><p>
7022
7023
7024 There will be many consequences of continuing this war. I want to describe
7025 just three. All three might be said to be unintended. I am quite confident
7026 the third is unintended. I'm less sure about the first two. The first two
7027 protect modern RCAs, but there is no Howard Armstrong in the wings to fight
7028 today's monopolists of culture.
7029 </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>
7030 In the next ten years we will see an explosion of digital technologies.
7031 These technologies will enable almost anyone to capture and share
7032 content. Capturing and sharing content, of course, is what humans have done
7033 since the dawn of man. It is how we learn and communicate. But capturing and
7034 sharing through digital technology is different. The fidelity and power are
7035 different. You could send an e-mail telling someone about a joke you saw on
7036 Comedy Central, or you could send the clip. You could write an essay about
7037 the inconsistencies in the arguments of the politician you most love to
7038 hate, or you could make a short film that puts statement against
7039 statement. You could write a poem to express your love, or you could weave
7040 together a string&#8212;a mash-up&#8212; of songs from your favorite artists
7041 in a collage and make it available on the Net.
7042 </p><p>
7043 This digital <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>&#8221;</span> is in part an extension of
7044 the capturing and sharing that has always been integral to our culture, and
7045 in part it is something new. It is continuous with the Kodak, but it
7046 explodes the boundaries of Kodak-like technologies. The technology of
7047 digital <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>&#8221;</span> promises a world of
7048 extraordinarily diverse creativity that can be easily and broadly
7049 shared. And as that creativity is applied to democracy, it will enable a
7050 broad range of citizens to use technology to express and criticize and
7051 contribute to the culture all around.
7052 </p><p>
7053
7054 Teknologien har dermed gitt oss en mulighet til å gjøre noe med kultur som
7055 bare har vært mulig for enkeltpersoner i små grupper, isolert fra andre
7056 grupper. Forestill deg en gammel mann som forteller en historie til en
7057 samling med naboer i en liten landsby.  Forestill deg så den samme
7058 historiefortellingen utvidet til å nå over hele verden.
7059 </p><p>
7060 Yet all this is possible only if the activity is presumptively legal. In the
7061 current regime of legal regulation, it is not. Forget file sharing for a
7062 moment. Think about your favorite amazing sites on the Net. Web sites that
7063 offer plot summaries from forgotten television shows; sites that catalog
7064 cartoons from the 1960s; sites that mix images and sound to criticize
7065 politicians or businesses; sites that gather newspaper articles on remote
7066 topics of science or culture. There is a vast amount of creative work spread
7067 across the Internet. But as the law is currently crafted, this work is
7068 presumptively illegal.
7069 </p><p>
7070 That presumption will increasingly chill creativity, as the examples of
7071 extreme penalties for vague infringements continue to proliferate. It is
7072 impossible to get a clear sense of what's allowed and what's not, and at the
7073 same time, the penalties for crossing the line are astonishingly harsh.  The
7074 four students who were threatened by the RIAA ( Jesse Jordan of chapter 3
7075 was just one) were threatened with a $98 billion lawsuit for building search
7076 engines that permitted songs to be copied. Yet World-Com&#8212;which
7077 defrauded investors of $11 billion, resulting in a loss to investors in
7078 market capitalization of over $200 billion&#8212;received a fine of a mere
7079 $750 million.<sup>[<a name="id3052153" href="#ftn.id3052153" class="footnote">157</a>]</sup> And under legislation
7080 being pushed in Congress right now, a doctor who negligently removes the
7081 wrong leg in an operation would be liable for no more than $250,000 in
7082 damages for pain and suffering.<sup>[<a name="id3052191" href="#ftn.id3052191" class="footnote">158</a>]</sup> Can
7083 common sense recognize the absurdity in a world where the maximum fine for
7084 downloading two songs off the Internet is more than the fine for a doctor's
7085 negligently butchering a patient? <a class="indexterm" name="id3052234"></a>
7086 </p><p>
7087 The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high
7088 penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never
7089 be exercised, or never be exercised in the open. We drive this creative
7090 process underground by branding the modern-day Walt Disneys
7091 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirates.</span>&#8221;</span> We make it impossible for businesses to rely upon a
7092 public domain, because the boundaries of the public domain are designed to
7093 be unclear. It never pays to do anything except pay for the right to create,
7094 and hence only those who can pay are allowed to create. As was the case in
7095 the Soviet Union, though for very different reasons, we will begin to see a
7096 world of underground art&#8212;not because the message is necessarily
7097 political, or because the subject is controversial, but because the very act
7098 of creating the art is legally fraught. Already, exhibits of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">illegal
7099 art</span>&#8221;</span> tour the United States.<sup>[<a name="id3052254" href="#ftn.id3052254" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In
7100 what does their <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">illegality</span>&#8221;</span> consist? In the act of mixing the
7101 culture around us with an expression that is critical or reflective.
7102 </p><p>
7103 Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the changing
7104 law. I described that change in detail in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;">10</a>. But an even bigger part has to do with
7105 the increasing ease with which infractions can be tracked. As users of
7106 file-sharing systems discovered in 2002, it is a trivial matter for
7107 copyright owners to get courts to order Internet service providers to reveal
7108 who has what content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a
7109 list of the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that
7110 anyone could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
7111 </p><p>
7112 Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether his painting
7113 infringed on someone else's work; but the modern-day painter, using the
7114 tools of Photoshop, sharing content on the Web, must worry all the
7115 time. Images are all around, but the only safe images to use in the act of
7116 creation are those purchased from Corbis or another image farm. And in
7117 purchasing, censoring happens. There is a free market in pencils; we needn't
7118 worry about its effect on creativity. But there is a highly regulated,
7119 monopolized market in cultural icons; the right to cultivate and transform
7120 them is not similarly free.
7121 </p><p>
7122 Lawyers rarely see this because lawyers are rarely empirical. As I described
7123 in chapter <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, in
7124 response to the story about documentary filmmaker Jon Else, I have been
7125 lectured again and again by lawyers who insist Else's use was fair use, and
7126 hence I am wrong to say that the law regulates such a use.
7127 </p><p>
7128
7129
7130
7131 But fair use in America simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend
7132 your right to create. And as lawyers love to forget, our system for
7133 defending rights such as fair use is astonishingly bad&#8212;in practically
7134 every context, but especially here. It costs too much, it delivers too
7135 slowly, and what it delivers often has little connection to the justice
7136 underlying the claim. The legal system may be tolerable for the very rich.
7137 For everyone else, it is an embarrassment to a tradition that prides itself
7138 on the rule of law.
7139 </p><p>
7140 Judges and lawyers can tell themselves that fair use provides adequate
7141 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">breathing room</span>&#8221;</span> between regulation by the law and the access
7142 the law should allow. But it is a measure of how out of touch our legal
7143 system has become that anyone actually believes this. The rules that
7144 publishers impose upon writers, the rules that film distributors impose upon
7145 filmmakers, the rules that newspapers impose upon journalists&#8212; these
7146 are the real laws governing creativity. And these rules have little
7147 relationship to the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">law</span>&#8221;</span> with which judges comfort themselves.
7148 </p><p>
7149 For in a world that threatens $150,000 for a single willful infringement of
7150 a copyright, and which demands tens of thousands of dollars to even defend
7151 against a copyright infringement claim, and which would never return to the
7152 wrongfully accused defendant anything of the costs she suffered to defend
7153 her right to speak&#8212;in that world, the astonishingly broad regulations
7154 that pass under the name <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> silence speech and
7155 creativity. And in that world, it takes a studied blindness for people to
7156 continue to believe they live in a culture that is free.
7157 </p><p>
7158 As Jed Horovitz, the businessman behind Video Pipeline, said to me,
7159 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7160
7161 We're losing [creative] opportunities right and left. Creative people are
7162 being forced not to express themselves. Thoughts are not being
7163 expressed. And while a lot of stuff may [still] be created, it still won't
7164 get distributed. Even if the stuff gets made &#8230; you're not going to
7165 get it distributed in the mainstream media unless you've got a little note
7166 from a lawyer saying, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">This has been cleared.</span>&#8221;</span> You're not even
7167 going to get it on PBS without that kind of permission. That's the point at
7168 which they control it.
7169 </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>
7170 The story of the last section was a crunchy-lefty story&#8212;creativity
7171 quashed, artists who can't speak, yada yada yada. Maybe that doesn't get you
7172 going. Maybe you think there's enough weird art out there, and enough
7173 expression that is critical of what seems to be just about everything.  And
7174 if you think that, you might think there's little in this story to worry
7175 you.
7176 </p><p>
7177 But there's an aspect of this story that is not lefty in any sense.  Indeed,
7178 it is an aspect that could be written by the most extreme promarket
7179 ideologue. And if you're one of these sorts (and a special one at that, 188
7180 pages into a book like this), then you can see this other aspect by
7181 substituting <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free market</span>&#8221;</span> every place I've spoken of
7182 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free culture.</span>&#8221;</span> The point is the same, even if the interests
7183 affecting culture are more fundamental.
7184 </p><p>
7185 The charge I've been making about the regulation of culture is the same
7186 charge free marketers make about regulating markets. Everyone, of course,
7187 concedes that some regulation of markets is necessary&#8212;at a minimum, we
7188 need rules of property and contract, and courts to enforce both. Likewise,
7189 in this culture debate, everyone concedes that at least some framework of
7190 copyright is also required. But both perspectives vehemently insist that
7191 just because some regulation is good, it doesn't follow that more regulation
7192 is better. And both perspectives are constantly attuned to the ways in which
7193 regulation simply enables the powerful industries of today to protect
7194 themselves against the competitors of tomorrow.
7195 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3052460"></a><p>
7196
7197 This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy
7198 that I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;">10</a>. The consequence of this massive threat of liability
7199 tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is that innovators who want to
7200 innovate in this space can safely innovate only if they have the sign-off
7201 from last generation's dominant industries.  That lesson has been taught
7202 through a series of cases that were designed and executed to teach venture
7203 capitalists a lesson. That lesson&#8212;what former Napster CEO Hank Barry
7204 calls a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">nuclear pall</span>&#8221;</span> that has fallen over the
7205 Valley&#8212;has been learned.
7206 </p><p>
7207 Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in
7208 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> and which has progressed in a way
7209 that even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
7210 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3052515"></a><p>
7211 In 1997, Michael Roberts launched a company called MP3.com.  MP3.com was
7212 keen to remake the music business. Their goal was not just to facilitate new
7213 ways to get access to content. Their goal was also to facilitate new ways to
7214 create content. Unlike the major labels, MP3.com offered creators a venue to
7215 distribute their creativity, without demanding an exclusive engagement from
7216 the creators.
7217 </p><p>
7218 To make this system work, however, MP3.com needed a reliable way to
7219 recommend music to its users. The idea behind this alternative was to
7220 leverage the revealed preferences of music listeners to recommend new
7221 artists. If you like Lyle Lovett, you're likely to enjoy Bonnie Raitt. And
7222 so on.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3052538"></a>
7223 </p><p>
7224 This idea required a simple way to gather data about user preferences.
7225 MP3.com came up with an extraordinarily clever way to gather this preference
7226 data. In January 2000, the company launched a service called
7227 my.mp3.com. Using software provided by MP3.com, a user would sign into an
7228 account and then insert into her computer a CD. The software would identify
7229 the CD, and then give the user access to that content.  So, for example, if
7230 you inserted a CD by Jill Sobule, then wherever you were&#8212;at work or at
7231 home&#8212;you could get access to that music once you signed into your
7232 account. The system was therefore a kind of music-lockbox.
7233 </p><p>
7234
7235 No doubt some could use this system to illegally copy content. But that
7236 opportunity existed with or without MP3.com. The aim of the my.mp3.com
7237 service was to give users access to their own content, and as a by-product,
7238 by seeing the content they already owned, to discover the kind of content
7239 the users liked.
7240 </p><p>
7241 To make this system function, however, MP3.com needed to copy 50,000 CDs to
7242 a server. (In principle, it could have been the user who uploaded the music,
7243 but that would have taken a great deal of time, and would have produced a
7244 product of questionable quality.) It therefore purchased 50,000 CDs from a
7245 store, and started the process of making copies of those CDs. Again, it
7246 would not serve the content from those copies to anyone except those who
7247 authenticated that they had a copy of the CD they wanted to access. So while
7248 this was 50,000 copies, it was 50,000 copies directed at giving customers
7249 something they had already bought.
7250 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxvivendiuniversal"></a><p>
7251 Nine days after MP3.com launched its service, the five major labels, headed
7252 by the RIAA, brought a lawsuit against MP3.com. MP3.com settled with four of
7253 the five. Nine months later, a federal judge found MP3.com to have been
7254 guilty of willful infringement with respect to the fifth. Applying the law
7255 as it is, the judge imposed a fine against MP3.com of $118 million. MP3.com
7256 then settled with the remaining plaintiff, Vivendi Universal, paying over
7257 $54 million. Vivendi purchased MP3.com just about a year later.
7258 </p><p>
7259 Den delen av historien har jeg fortalt før.  Nå kommer konklusjonen.
7260 </p><p>
7261 After Vivendi purchased MP3.com, Vivendi turned around and filed a
7262 malpractice lawsuit against the lawyers who had advised it that they had a
7263 good faith claim that the service they wanted to offer would be considered
7264 legal under copyright law. This lawsuit alleged that it should have been
7265 obvious that the courts would find this behavior illegal; therefore, this
7266 lawsuit sought to punish any lawyer who had dared to suggest that the law
7267 was less restrictive than the labels demanded.
7268 </p><p>
7269
7270 Den åpenbare hensikten med dette søksmålet (som ble avsluttet med et forlik
7271 for et uspesifisert beløp like etter at saken ikke lenger fikk
7272 pressedekning), var å sende en melding som ikke kan misforstås til advokater
7273 som gir råd til klienter på dette området: Det er ikke bare dine klienter
7274 som får lide hvis innholdsindustrien retter sine våpen mot dem.  Det får
7275 også du.  Så de av dere som tror loven burde være mindre restriktiv bør
7276 innse at et slikt syn på loven vil koste deg og ditt firma dyrt.
7277 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3052650"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3052658"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3052664"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3052671"></a><p>
7278 This strategy is not just limited to the lawyers. In April 2003, Universal
7279 and EMI brought a lawsuit against Hummer Winblad, the venture capital firm
7280 (VC) that had funded Napster at a certain stage of its development, its
7281 cofounder ( John Hummer), and general partner (Hank Barry).<sup>[<a name="id3052684" href="#ftn.id3052684" class="footnote">160</a>]</sup> The claim here, as well, was that the VC should
7282 have recognized the right of the content industry to control how the
7283 industry should develop. They should be held personally liable for funding a
7284 company whose business turned out to be beyond the law. Here again, the aim
7285 of the lawsuit is transparent: Any VC now recognizes that if you fund a
7286 company whose business is not approved of by the dinosaurs, you are at risk
7287 not just in the marketplace, but in the courtroom as well.  Your investment
7288 buys you not only a company, it also buys you a lawsuit.  So extreme has the
7289 environment become that even car manufacturers are afraid of technologies
7290 that touch content. In an article in <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>,
7291 Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW: <a class="indexterm" name="id3052732"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3052738"></a>
7292 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id3052748"></a><p>
7293 I asked why, with all the storage capacity and computer power in the car,
7294 there was no way to play MP3 files. I was told that BMW engineers in Germany
7295 had rigged a new vehicle to play MP3s via the car's built-in sound system,
7296 but that the company's marketing and legal departments weren't comfortable
7297 with pushing this forward for release stateside. Even today, no new cars are
7298 sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. &#8230; <sup>[<a name="id3052414" href="#ftn.id3052414" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
7299 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7300 This is the world of the mafia&#8212;filled with <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">your money or your
7301 life</span>&#8221;</span> offers, governed in the end not by courts but by the threats
7302 that the law empowers copyright holders to exercise. It is a system that
7303 will obviously and necessarily stifle new innovation. It is hard enough to
7304 start a company. It is impossibly hard if that company is constantly
7305 threatened by litigation.
7306 </p><p>
7307
7308
7309
7310 The point is not that businesses should have a right to start illegal
7311 enterprises. The point is the definition of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">illegal.</span>&#8221;</span> The law
7312 is a mess of uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply to
7313 new technologies. Yet by reversing our tradition of judicial deference, and
7314 by embracing the astonishingly high penalties that copyright law imposes,
7315 that uncertainty now yields a reality which is far more conservative than is
7316 right. If the law imposed the death penalty for parking tickets, we'd not
7317 only have fewer parking tickets, we'd also have much less driving. The same
7318 principle applies to innovation. If innovation is constantly checked by this
7319 uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation
7320 and much less creativity.
7321 </p><p>
7322 The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
7323 use. Whatever the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">real</span>&#8221;</span> law is, realism about the effect of
7324 law in both contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation
7325 will systematically stifle creativity and innovation. It will protect some
7326 industries and some creators, but it will harm industry and creativity
7327 generally. Free market and free culture depend upon vibrant competition.
7328 Yet the effect of the law today is to stifle just this kind of competition.
7329 The effect is to produce an overregulated culture, just as the effect of too
7330 much control in the market is to produce an overregulatedregulated market.
7331 </p><p>
7332
7333 The building of a permission culture, rather than a free culture, is the
7334 first important way in which the changes I have described will burden
7335 innovation. A permission culture means a lawyer's culture&#8212;a culture in
7336 which the ability to create requires a call to your lawyer. Again, I am not
7337 antilawyer, at least when they're kept in their proper place. I am certainly
7338 not antilaw. But our profession has lost the sense of its limits. And
7339 leaders in our profession have lost an appreciation of the high costs that
7340 our profession imposes upon others. The inefficiency of the law is an
7341 embarrassment to our tradition. And while I believe our profession should
7342 therefore do everything it can to make the law more efficient, it should at
7343 least do everything it can to limit the reach of the law where the law is
7344 not doing any good. The transaction costs buried within a permission culture
7345 are enough to bury a wide range of creativity.  Someone needs to do a lot of
7346 justifying to justify that result.  The uncertainty of the law is one burden
7347 on innovation. There is a second burden that operates more directly. This is
7348 the effort by many in the content industry to use the law to directly
7349 regulate the technology of the Internet so that it better protects their
7350 content.
7351 </p><p>
7352 The motivation for this response is obvious. The Internet enables the
7353 efficient spread of content. That efficiency is a feature of the Internet's
7354 design. But from the perspective of the content industry, this feature is a
7355 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">bug.</span>&#8221;</span> The efficient spread of content means that content
7356 distributors have a harder time controlling the distribution of content.
7357 One obvious response to this efficiency is thus to make the Internet less
7358 efficient. If the Internet enables <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy,</span>&#8221;</span> then, this
7359 response says, we should break the kneecaps of the Internet.
7360 </p><p>
7361 The examples of this form of legislation are many. At the urging of the
7362 content industry, some in Congress have threatened legislation that would
7363 require computers to determine whether the content they access is protected
7364 or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<sup>[<a name="id3052899" href="#ftn.id3052899" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
7365 explore a mandatory <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>&#8221;</span> that would be required on
7366 any device capable of transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and
7367 that would disable the copying of any content that is marked with a
7368 broadcast flag. Other members of Congress have proposed immunizing content
7369 providers from liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt
7370 down copyright violators and disable their machines.<sup>[<a name="id3052929" href="#ftn.id3052929" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
7371 </p><p>
7372
7373 In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the code, why
7374 not regulate the code to remove the problem. But any regulation of technical
7375 infrastructure will always be tuned to the particular technology of the
7376 day. It will impose significant burdens and costs on the technology, but
7377 will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly those requirements.
7378 </p><p>
7379 In March 2002, a broad coalition of technology companies, led by Intel,
7380 tried to get Congress to see the harm that such legislation would
7381 impose.<sup>[<a name="id3052952" href="#ftn.id3052952" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
7382 not that copyright should not be protected. Instead, they argued, any
7383 protection should not do more harm than good.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3052965"></a>
7384 </p><p>
7385 There is one more obvious way in which this war has harmed
7386 innovation&#8212;again, a story that will be quite familiar to the free
7387 market crowd.
7388 </p><p>
7389 Copyright may be property, but like all property, it is also a form of
7390 regulation. It is a regulation that benefits some and harms others.  When
7391 done right, it benefits creators and harms leeches. When done wrong, it is
7392 regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
7393 </p><p>
7394 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;">10</a>, despite this feature of copyright as regulation, and
7395 subject to important qualifications outlined by Jessica Litman in her book
7396 <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em>,<sup>[<a name="id3053000" href="#ftn.id3053000" class="footnote">165</a>]</sup> overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10
7397 details, when new technologies have come along, Congress has struck a
7398 balance to assure that the new is protected from the old. Compulsory, or
7399 statutory, licenses have been one part of that strategy. Free use (as in the
7400 case of the VCR) has been another.
7401 </p><p>
7402 But that pattern of deference to new technologies has now changed with the
7403 rise of the Internet. Rather than striking a balance between the claims of a
7404 new technology and the legitimate rights of content creators, both the
7405 courts and Congress have imposed legal restrictions that will have the
7406 effect of smothering the new to benefit the old.
7407 </p><p>
7408 The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<sup>[<a name="id3053036" href="#ftn.id3053036" class="footnote">166</a>]</sup> It has been mirrored in the responses threatened
7409 and actually implemented by Congress. I won't catalog all of those responses
7410 here.<sup>[<a name="id3053071" href="#ftn.id3053071" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
7411 captures the flavor of them all. This is the story of the demise of Internet
7412 radio.
7413 </p><p>
7414
7415
7416 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Kapittel 4. Kapittel fire: &#8220;Pirater&#8221;">4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording artist
7417 doesn't get paid for that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">radio performance</span>&#8221;</span> unless he or she
7418 is also the composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had recorded a
7419 version of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;to memorialize her famous
7420 performance before President Kennedy at Madison Square Garden&#8212; then
7421 whenever that recording was played on the radio, the current copyright
7422 owners of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>&#8221;</span> would get some money, whereas
7423 Marilyn Monroe would not.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3053146"></a>
7424 </p><p>
7425 The reasoning behind this balance struck by Congress makes some sense. The
7426 justification was that radio was a kind of advertising. The recording artist
7427 thus benefited because by playing her music, the radio station was making it
7428 more likely that her records would be purchased.  Thus, the recording artist
7429 got something, even if only indirectly.  Probably this reasoning had less to
7430 do with the result than with the power of radio stations: Their lobbyists
7431 were quite good at stopping any efforts to get Congress to require
7432 compensation to the recording artists.
7433 </p><p>
7434 Enter Internet radio. Like regular radio, Internet radio is a technology to
7435 stream content from a broadcaster to a listener. The broadcast travels
7436 across the Internet, not across the ether of radio spectrum.  Thus, I can
7437 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">tune in</span>&#8221;</span> to an Internet radio station in Berlin while sitting
7438 in San Francisco, even though there's no way for me to tune in to a regular
7439 radio station much beyond the San Francisco metropolitan area.
7440 </p><p>
7441 This feature of the architecture of Internet radio means that there are
7442 potentially an unlimited number of radio stations that a user could tune in
7443 to using her computer, whereas under the existing architecture for broadcast
7444 radio, there is an obvious limit to the number of broadcasters and clear
7445 broadcast frequencies. Internet radio could therefore be more competitive
7446 than regular radio; it could provide a wider range of selections. And
7447 because the potential audience for Internet radio is the whole world, niche
7448 stations could easily develop and market their content to a relatively large
7449 number of users worldwide. According to some estimates, more than eighty
7450 million users worldwide have tuned in to this new form of radio.
7451 </p><p>
7452
7453
7454
7455 Internet radio is thus to radio what FM was to AM. It is an improvement
7456 potentially vastly more significant than the FM improvement over AM, since
7457 not only is the technology better, so, too, is the competition. Indeed,
7458 there is a direct parallel between the fight to establish FM radio and the
7459 fight to protect Internet radio. As one author describes Howard Armstrong's
7460 struggle to enable FM radio,
7461 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7462 An almost unlimited number of FM stations was possible in the shortwaves,
7463 thus ending the unnatural restrictions imposed on radio in the crowded
7464 longwaves. If FM were freely developed, the number of stations would be
7465 limited only by economics and competition rather than by technical
7466 restrictions. &#8230; Armstrong likened the situation that had grown up in
7467 radio to that following the invention of the printing press, when
7468 governments and ruling interests attempted to control this new instrument of
7469 mass communications by imposing restrictive licenses on it. This tyranny was
7470 broken only when it became possible for men freely to acquire printing
7471 presses and freely to run them. FM in this sense was as great an invention
7472 as the printing presses, for it gave radio the opportunity to strike off its
7473 shackles.<sup>[<a name="id3052764" href="#ftn.id3052764" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
7474 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7475 This potential for FM radio was never realized&#8212;not because Armstrong
7476 was wrong about the technology, but because he underestimated the power of
7477 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">vested interests, habits, customs and legislation</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3053245" href="#ftn.id3053245" class="footnote">169</a>]</sup> to retard the growth of this competing technology.
7478 </p><p>
7479 Now the very same claim could be made about Internet radio. For again, there
7480 is no technical limitation that could restrict the number of Internet radio
7481 stations. The only restrictions on Internet radio are those imposed by the
7482 law. Copyright law is one such law. So the first question we should ask is,
7483 what copyright rules would govern Internet radio?
7484 </p><p>
7485
7486 But here the power of the lobbyists is reversed. Internet radio is a new
7487 industry. The recording artists, on the other hand, have a very powerful
7488 lobby, the RIAA. Thus when Congress considered the phenomenon of Internet
7489 radio in 1995, the lobbyists had primed Congress to adopt a different rule
7490 for Internet radio than the rule that applies to terrestrial radio. While
7491 terrestrial radio does not have to pay our hypothetical Marilyn Monroe when
7492 it plays her hypothetical recording of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>&#8221;</span> on the
7493 air, <span class="emphasis"><em>Internet radio does</em></span>. Not only is the law not
7494 neutral toward Internet radio&#8212;the law actually burdens Internet radio
7495 more than it burdens terrestrial radio.
7496 </p><p>
7497 This financial burden is not slight. As Harvard law professor William Fisher
7498 estimates, if an Internet radio station distributed adfree popular music to
7499 (on average) ten thousand listeners, twenty-four hours a day, the total
7500 artist fees that radio station would owe would be over $1 million a
7501 year.<sup>[<a name="id3053292" href="#ftn.id3053292" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
7502 broadcasting the same content would pay no equivalent fee.
7503 </p><p>
7504 The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were
7505 proposed, an Internet radio station (but not a terrestrial radio station)
7506 would have to collect the following data from <span class="emphasis"><em>every listening
7507 transaction</em></span>:
7508 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
7509 navn på tjenesten,
7510 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7511 kanalen til programmet (AM/FM-stasjoner bruker stasjons-ID);
7512 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7513 type program (fra arkivet/i løkke/direkte);
7514 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7515 dato for sending;
7516 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7517 tidspunkt for sending;
7518 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7519 tidssone til opprinnelsen for sending;
7520 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7521 numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program;
7522 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7523 varigheten av sending (til nærmeste sekund):
7524 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7525 lydinnspilling-tittel;
7526 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7527 ISRC-kode for opptaket;
7528 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7529 release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of
7530 compilation albums, the release year of the album and copy- right date of
7531 the track;
7532 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7533 spillende plateartist;
7534 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7535 tittel på album i butikker;
7536 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7537 plateselskap;
7538 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7539 UPC-koden for albumet i butikker;
7540 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7541 katalognummer;
7542 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7543 informasjon om opphavsrettsinnehaver;
7544 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7545 musikksjanger for kanal eller programmet (stasjonsformat);
7546 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7547 navn på tjenesten eller selskap;
7548 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7549 kanal eller program;
7550 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7551 date and time that the user logged in (in the user's time zone);
7552 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7553 date and time that the user logged out (in the user's time zone);
7554 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7555 time zone where the signal was received (user);
7556 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7557 unik bruker-identifikator;
7558 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7559 landet til brukeren som mottok sendingene.
7560 </p></li></ol></div><p>
7561 The Librarian of Congress eventually suspended these reporting requirements,
7562 pending further study. And he also changed the original rates set by the
7563 arbitration panel charged with setting rates. But the basic difference
7564 between Internet radio and terrestrial radio remains: Internet radio has to
7565 pay a <span class="emphasis"><em>type of copyright fee</em></span> that terrestrial radio does
7566 not.
7567 </p><p>
7568 Why? What justifies this difference? Was there any study of the economic
7569 consequences from Internet radio that would justify these differences? Was
7570 the motive to protect artists against piracy?
7571 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3053515"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3053521"></a><p>
7572 In a rare bit of candor, one RIAA expert admitted what seemed obvious to
7573 everyone at the time. As Alex Alben, vice president for Public Policy at
7574 Real Networks, told me,
7575 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7576
7577 The RIAA, which was representing the record labels, presented some testimony
7578 about what they thought a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, and
7579 it was much higher. It was ten times higher than what radio stations pay to
7580 perform the same songs for the same period of time. And so the attorneys
7581 representing the webcasters asked the RIAA, &#8230; <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">How do you come
7582 up with a rate that's so much higher? Why is it worth more than radio?
7583 Because here we have hundreds of thousands of webcasters who want to pay,
7584 and that should establish the market rate, and if you set the rate so high,
7585 you're going to drive the small webcasters out of business. &#8230;</span>&#8221;</span>
7586 </p><p>
7587 And the RIAA experts said, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Well, we don't really model this as an
7588 industry with thousands of webcasters, <span class="emphasis"><em>we think it should be an
7589 industry with, you know, five or seven big players who can pay a high rate
7590 and it's a stable, predictable market</em></span>.</span>&#8221;</span> (Emphasis added.)
7591 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7592 Translation: The aim is to use the law to eliminate competition, so that
7593 this platform of potentially immense competition, which would cause the
7594 diversity and range of content available to explode, would not cause pain to
7595 the dinosaurs of old. There is no one, on either the right or the left, who
7596 should endorse this use of the law. And yet there is practically no one, on
7597 either the right or the left, who is doing anything effective to prevent it.
7598 </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>
7599 Overregulation stifles creativity. It smothers innovation. It gives
7600 dinosaurs a veto over the future. It wastes the extraordinary opportunity
7601 for a democratic creativity that digital technology enables.
7602 </p><p>
7603 In addition to these important harms, there is one more that was important
7604 to our forebears, but seems forgotten today. Overregulation corrupts
7605 citizens and weakens the rule of law.
7606 </p><p>
7607
7608 The war that is being waged today is a war of prohibition. As with every war
7609 of prohibition, it is targeted against the behavior of a very large number
7610 of citizens. According to <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, 43
7611 million Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<sup>[<a name="id3053615" href="#ftn.id3053615" class="footnote">171</a>]</sup> According to the RIAA, the behavior of those 43 million Americans
7612 is a felony. We thus have a set of rules that transform 20 percent of
7613 America into criminals. As the RIAA launches lawsuits against not only the
7614 Napsters and Kazaas of the world, but against students building search
7615 engines, and increasingly against ordinary users downloading content, the
7616 technologies for sharing will advance to further protect and hide illegal
7617 use. It is an arms race or a civil war, with the extremes of one side
7618 inviting a more extreme response by the other.
7619 </p><p>
7620 The content industry's tactics exploit the failings of the American legal
7621 system. When the RIAA brought suit against Jesse Jordan, it knew that in
7622 Jordan it had found a scapegoat, not a defendant. The threat of having to
7623 pay either all the money in the world in damages ($15,000,000) or almost all
7624 the money in the world to defend against paying all the money in the world
7625 in damages ($250,000 in legal fees)  led Jordan to choose to pay all the
7626 money he had in the world ($12,000) to make the suit go away. The same
7627 strategy animates the RIAA's suits against individual users. In September
7628 2003, the RIAA sued 261 individuals&#8212;including a twelve-year-old girl
7629 living in public housing and a seventy-year-old man who had no idea what
7630 file sharing was.<sup>[<a name="id3053282" href="#ftn.id3053282" class="footnote">172</a>]</sup> As these scapegoats
7631 discovered, it will always cost more to defend against these suits than it
7632 would cost to simply settle. (The twelve year old, for example, like Jesse
7633 Jordan, paid her life savings of $2,000 to settle the case.) Our law is an
7634 awful system for defending rights. It is an embarrassment to our
7635 tradition. And the consequence of our law as it is, is that those with the
7636 power can use the law to quash any rights they oppose.
7637 </p><p>
7638 Wars of prohibition are nothing new in America. This one is just something
7639 more extreme than anything we've seen before. We experimented with alcohol
7640 prohibition, at a time when the per capita consumption of alcohol was 1.5
7641 gallons per capita per year. The war against drinking initially reduced that
7642 consumption to just 30 percent of its preprohibition levels, but by the end
7643 of prohibition, consumption was up to 70 percent of the preprohibition
7644 level. Americans were drinking just about as much, but now, a vast number
7645 were criminals.<sup>[<a name="id3053696" href="#ftn.id3053696" class="footnote">173</a>]</sup> We have launched a war
7646 on drugs aimed at reducing the consumption of regulated narcotics that 7
7647 percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.<sup>[<a name="id3053713" href="#ftn.id3053713" class="footnote">174</a>]</sup> That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in 1979 of 14 percent of
7648 the population. We regulate automobiles to the point where the vast majority
7649 of Americans violate the law every day. We run such a complex tax system
7650 that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.<sup>[<a name="id3053730" href="#ftn.id3053730" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free
7651 society,</span>&#8221;</span> but an endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated
7652 within our society. And as a result, a huge proportion of Americans
7653 regularly violate at least some law.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3053751"></a>
7654 </p><p>
7655 This state of affairs is not without consequence. It is a particularly
7656 salient issue for teachers like me, whose job it is to teach law students
7657 about the importance of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ethics.</span>&#8221;</span> As my colleague Charlie
7658 Nesson told a class at Stanford, each year law schools admit thousands of
7659 students who have illegally downloaded music, illegally consumed alcohol and
7660 sometimes drugs, illegally worked without paying taxes, illegally driven
7661 cars. These are kids for whom behaving illegally is increasingly the
7662 norm. And then we, as law professors, are supposed to teach them how to
7663 behave ethically&#8212;how to say no to bribes, or keep client funds
7664 separate, or honor a demand to disclose a document that will mean that your
7665 case is over. Generations of Americans&#8212;more significantly in some
7666 parts of America than in others, but still, everywhere in America
7667 today&#8212;can't live their lives both normally and legally, since
7668 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">normally</span>&#8221;</span> entails a certain degree of illegality.
7669 <a class="indexterm" name="id3053770"></a>
7670 </p><p>
7671 The response to this general illegality is either to enforce the law more
7672 severely or to change the law. We, as a society, have to learn how to make
7673 that choice more rationally. Whether a law makes sense depends, in part, at
7674 least, upon whether the costs of the law, both intended and collateral,
7675 outweigh the benefits. If the costs, intended and collateral, do outweigh
7676 the benefits, then the law ought to be changed.  Alternatively, if the costs
7677 of the existing system are much greater than the costs of an alternative,
7678 then we have a good reason to consider the alternative.
7679 </p><p>
7680
7681
7682
7683 My point is not the idiotic one: Just because people violate a law, we
7684 should therefore repeal it. Obviously, we could reduce murder statistics
7685 dramatically by legalizing murder on Wednesdays and Fridays. But that
7686 wouldn't make any sense, since murder is wrong every day of the week. A
7687 society is right to ban murder always and everywhere.
7688 </p><p>
7689 My point is instead one that democracies understood for generations, but
7690 that we recently have learned to forget. The rule of law depends upon people
7691 obeying the law. The more often, and more repeatedly, we as citizens
7692 experience violating the law, the less we respect the law. Obviously, in
7693 most cases, the important issue is the law, not respect for the law. I don't
7694 care whether the rapist respects the law or not; I want to catch and
7695 incarcerate the rapist. But I do care whether my students respect the
7696 law. And I do care if the rules of law sow increasing disrespect because of
7697 the extreme of regulation they impose.  Twenty million Americans have come
7698 of age since the Internet introduced this different idea of
7699 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sharing.</span>&#8221;</span> We need to be able to call these twenty million
7700 Americans <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">citizens,</span>&#8221;</span> not <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">felons.</span>&#8221;</span>
7701 </p><p>
7702 When at least forty-three million citizens download content from the
7703 Internet, and when they use tools to combine that content in ways
7704 unauthorized by copyright holders, the first question we should be asking is
7705 not how best to involve the FBI. The first question should be whether this
7706 particular prohibition is really necessary in order to achieve the proper
7707 ends that copyright law serves. Is there another way to assure that artists
7708 get paid without transforming forty-three million Americans into felons?
7709 Does it make sense if there are other ways to assure that artists get paid
7710 without transforming America into a nation of felons?
7711 </p><p>
7712 This abstract point can be made more clear with a particular example.
7713 </p><p>
7714
7715 We all own CDs. Many of us still own phonograph records. These pieces of
7716 plastic encode music that in a certain sense we have bought.  The law
7717 protects our right to buy and sell that plastic: It is not a copyright
7718 infringement for me to sell all my classical records at a used record store
7719 and buy jazz records to replace them. That <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">use</span>&#8221;</span> of the
7720 recordings is free.
7721 </p><p>
7722 But as the MP3 craze has demonstrated, there is another use of phonograph
7723 records that is effectively free. Because these recordings were made without
7724 copy-protection technologies, I am <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free</span>&#8221;</span> to copy, or
7725 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rip,</span>&#8221;</span> music from my records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed,
7726 Apple Corporation went so far as to suggest that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">freedom</span>&#8221;</span> was
7727 a right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Rip, Mix,
7728 Burn</span>&#8221;</span> capacities of digital technologies.
7729 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3053897"></a><p>
7730 This <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">use</span>&#8221;</span> of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a
7731 large process at home of ripping all of my and my wife's CDs, and storing
7732 them in one archive. Then, using Apple's iTunes, or a wonderful program
7733 called Andromeda, we can build different play lists of our music: Bach,
7734 Baroque, Love Songs, Love Songs of Significant Others&#8212;the potential is
7735 endless. And by reducing the costs of mixing play lists, these technologies
7736 help build a creativity with play lists that is itself independently
7737 valuable. Compilations of songs are creative and meaningful in their own
7738 right.
7739 </p><p>
7740 This use is enabled by unprotected media&#8212;either CDs or records.  But
7741 unprotected media also enable file sharing. File sharing threatens (or so
7742 the content industry believes) the ability of creators to earn a fair return
7743 from their creativity. And thus, many are beginning to experiment with
7744 technologies to eliminate unprotected media. These technologies, for
7745 example, would enable CDs that could not be ripped. Or they might enable spy
7746 programs to identify ripped content on people's machines.
7747 </p><p>
7748
7749 If these technologies took off, then the building of large archives of your
7750 own music would become quite difficult. You might hang in hacker circles,
7751 and get technology to disable the technologies that protect the
7752 content. Trading in those technologies is illegal, but maybe that doesn't
7753 bother you much. In any case, for the vast majority of people, these
7754 protection technologies would effectively destroy the archiving use of
7755 CDs. The technology, in other words, would force us all back to the world
7756 where we either listened to music by manipulating pieces of plastic or were
7757 part of a massively complex <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">digital rights management</span>&#8221;</span> system.
7758 </p><p>
7759 If the only way to assure that artists get paid were the elimination of the
7760 ability to freely move content, then these technologies to interfere with
7761 the freedom to move content would be justifiable. But what if there were
7762 another way to assure that artists are paid, without locking down any
7763 content? What if, in other words, a different system could assure
7764 compensation to artists while also preserving the freedom to move content
7765 easily?
7766 </p><p>
7767 My point just now is not to prove that there is such a system. I offer a
7768 version of such a system in the last chapter of this book. For now, the only
7769 point is the relatively uncontroversial one: If a different system achieved
7770 the same legitimate objectives that the existing copyright system achieved,
7771 but left consumers and creators much more free, then we'd have a very good
7772 reason to pursue this alternative&#8212;namely, freedom.  The choice, in
7773 other words, would not be between property and piracy; the choice would be
7774 between different property systems and the freedoms each allowed.
7775 </p><p>
7776 I believe there is a way to assure that artists are paid without turning
7777 forty-three million Americans into felons. But the salient feature of this
7778 alternative is that it would lead to a very different market for producing
7779 and distributing creativity. The dominant few, who today control the vast
7780 majority of the distribution of content in the world, would no longer
7781 exercise this extreme of control. Rather, they would go the way of the
7782 horse-drawn buggy.
7783 </p><p>
7784 Except that this generation's buggy manufacturers have already saddled
7785 Congress, and are riding the law to protect themselves against this new form
7786 of competition. For them the choice is between fortythree million Americans
7787 as criminals and their own survival.
7788 </p><p>
7789 It is understandable why they choose as they do. It is not understandable
7790 why we as a democracy continue to choose as we do. Jack Valenti is charming;
7791 but not so charming as to justify giving up a tradition as deep and
7792 important as our tradition of free culture.  There's one more aspect to this
7793 corruption that is particularly important to civil liberties, and follows
7794 directly from any war of prohibition.  As Electronic Frontier Foundation
7795 attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">collateral
7796 damage</span>&#8221;</span> that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">arises whenever you turn a very large percentage
7797 of the population into criminals.</span>&#8221;</span> This is the collateral damage to
7798 civil liberties generally.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3054014"></a>
7799 </p><p>
7800 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">If you can treat someone as a putative lawbreaker,</span>&#8221;</span> von
7801 Lohmann explains, <a class="indexterm" name="id3054030"></a>
7802 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7803 then all of a sudden a lot of basic civil liberty protections evaporate to
7804 one degree or another. &#8230; If you're a copyright infringer, how can you
7805 hope to have any privacy rights? If you're a copyright infringer, how can
7806 you hope to be secure against seizures of your computer? How can you hope to
7807 continue to receive Internet access? &#8230; Our sensibilities change as
7808 soon as we think, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Oh, well, but that person's a criminal, a
7809 lawbreaker.</span>&#8221;</span> Well, what this campaign against file sharing has done
7810 is turn a remarkable percentage of the American Internet-using population
7811 into <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lawbreakers.</span>&#8221;</span>
7812 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7813 And the consequence of this transformation of the American public into
7814 criminals is that it becomes trivial, as a matter of due process, to
7815 effectively erase much of the privacy most would presume.
7816 </p><p>
7817 Users of the Internet began to see this generally in 2003 as the RIAA
7818 launched its campaign to force Internet service providers to turn over the
7819 names of customers who the RIAA believed were violating copyright
7820 law. Verizon fought that demand and lost. With a simple request to a judge,
7821 and without any notice to the customer at all, the identity of an Internet
7822 user is revealed.
7823 </p><p>
7824
7825 The RIAA then expanded this campaign, by announcing a general strategy to
7826 sue individual users of the Internet who are alleged to have downloaded
7827 copyrighted music from file-sharing systems. But as we've seen, the
7828 potential damages from these suits are astronomical: If a family's computer
7829 is used to download a single CD's worth of music, the family could be liable
7830 for $2 million in damages. That didn't stop the RIAA from suing a number of
7831 these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.<sup>[<a name="id3054088" href="#ftn.id3054088" class="footnote">176</a>]</sup>
7832
7833 </p><p>
7834 Even this understates the espionage that is being waged by the RIAA. A
7835 report from CNN late last summer described a strategy the RIAA had adopted
7836 to track Napster users.<sup>[<a name="id3054143" href="#ftn.id3054143" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> Using a
7837 sophisticated hashing algorithm, the RIAA took what is in effect a
7838 fingerprint of every song in the Napster catalog. Any copy of one of those
7839 MP3s will have the same <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fingerprint.</span>&#8221;</span>
7840 </p><p>
7841 So imagine the following not-implausible scenario: Imagine a friend gives a
7842 CD to your daughter&#8212;a collection of songs just like the cassettes you
7843 used to make as a kid. You don't know, and neither does your daughter, where
7844 these songs came from. But she copies these songs onto her computer. She
7845 then takes her computer to college and connects it to a college network, and
7846 if the college network is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">cooperating</span>&#8221;</span> with the RIAA's
7847 espionage, and she hasn't properly protected her content from the network
7848 (do you know how to do that yourself ?), then the RIAA will be able to
7849 identify your daughter as a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">criminal.</span>&#8221;</span> And under the rules
7850 that universities are beginning to deploy,<sup>[<a name="id3054188" href="#ftn.id3054188" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer
7851 network.  She can, in some cases, be expelled.
7852 </p><p>
7853 Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire a
7854 lawyer for her (at $300 per hour, if you're lucky), and she can plead that
7855 she didn't know anything about the source of the songs or that they came
7856 from Napster. And it may well be that the university believes her. But the
7857 university might not believe her. It might treat this
7858 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">contraband</span>&#8221;</span> as presumptive of guilt. And as any number of
7859 college students have already learned, our presumptions about innocence
7860 disappear in the middle of wars of prohibition. This war is no different.
7861 Says von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id3054275"></a>
7862 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7863 So when we're talking about numbers like forty to sixty million Americans
7864 that are essentially copyright infringers, you create a situation where the
7865 civil liberties of those people are very much in peril in a general
7866 matter. [I don't] think [there is any] analog where you could randomly
7867 choose any person off the street and be confident that they were committing
7868 an unlawful act that could put them on the hook for potential felony
7869 liability or hundreds of millions of dollars of civil liability. Certainly
7870 we all speed, but speeding isn't the kind of an act for which we routinely
7871 forfeit civil liberties. Some people use drugs, and I think that's the
7872 closest analog, [but] many have noted that the war against drugs has eroded
7873 all of our civil liberties because it's treated so many Americans as
7874 criminals. Well, I think it's fair to say that file sharing is an order of
7875 magnitude larger number of Americans than drug use. &#8230; If forty to
7876 sixty million Americans have become lawbreakers, then we're really on a
7877 slippery slope to lose a lot of civil liberties for all forty to sixty
7878 million of them.
7879 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7880 When forty to sixty million Americans are considered
7881 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">criminals</span>&#8221;</span> under the law, and when the law could achieve the
7882 same objective&#8212; securing rights to authors&#8212;without these
7883 millions being considered <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">criminals,</span>&#8221;</span> who is the villain?
7884 Americans or the law? Which is American, a constant war on our own people or
7885 a concerted effort through our democracy to change our law?
7886 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3052153" href="#id3052153" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
7887
7888 See Lynne W. Jeter, <em class="citetitle">Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at
7889 WorldCom</em> (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley &amp; Sons, 2003), 176, 204;
7890 for details of the settlement, see MCI press release, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">MCI Wins
7891 U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement</span>&#8221;</span> (7 July 2003),
7892 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #37</a>.
7893 <a class="indexterm" name="id3052178"></a>
7894 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3052191" href="#id3052191" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
7895  The bill, modeled after California's tort reform model, was passed in the
7896 House of Representatives but defeated in a Senate vote in July 2003. For an
7897 overview, see Tanya Albert, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be
7898 Back,' Say Tort Reformers,</span>&#8221;</span> amednews.com, 28 July 2003, available at
7899 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #38</a>, and
7900 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Senate Turns Back Malpractice Caps,</span>&#8221;</span> CBSNews.com, 9 July 2003,
7901 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7902 #39</a>. President Bush has continued to urge tort reform in recent
7903 months.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3052222"></a>
7904 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3052254" href="#id3052254" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
7905
7906
7907
7908 See Danit Lidor, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Artists Just Wanna Be Free,</span>&#8221;</span>
7909 <em class="citetitle">Wired</em>, 7 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #40</a>. For an overview of the
7910 exhibition, see <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #41</a>.
7911 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3052684" href="#id3052684" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
7912
7913
7914 See Joseph Menn, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,</span>&#8221;</span>
7915 <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 23 April 2003. For a parallel
7916 argument about the effects on innovation in the distribution of music, see
7917 Janelle Brown, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Music Revolution Will Not Be Digitized,</span>&#8221;</span>
7918 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,
7919 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Online Music Services Besieged,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
7920 Times</em>, 28 May 2001.
7921 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3052414" href="#id3052414" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
7922
7923 Rafe Needleman, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Driving in Cars with MP3s,</span>&#8221;</span>
7924 <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>, 16 June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #43</a>. I am grateful to
7925 Dr. Mohammad Al-Ubaydli for this example.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3052783"></a>
7926 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3052899" href="#id3052899" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
7927
7928 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>&#8221;</span>
7929 GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law
7930 School (2003), 33&#8211;35, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.
7931 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3052929" href="#id3052929" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
7932
7933
7934 GartnerG2, 26&#8211;27.
7935 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3052952" href="#id3052952" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
7936
7937
7938 See David McGuire, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy,</span>&#8221;</span>
7939 Newsbytes, February 2002 (Entertainment).
7940 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3053000" href="#id3053000" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
7941
7942 Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
7943 Prometheus Books, 2001).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3053007"></a>
7944 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3053036" href="#id3053036" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
7945
7946
7947 The only circuit court exception is found in <em class="citetitle">Recording Industry
7948 Association of America (RIAA)</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Diamond Multimedia
7949 Systems</em>, 180 F. 3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999). There the court of
7950 appeals for the Ninth Circuit reasoned that makers of a portable MP3 player
7951 were not liable for contributory copyright infringement for a device that is
7952 unable to record or redistribute music (a device whose only copying function
7953 is to render portable a music file already stored on a user's hard drive).
7954 At the district court level, the only exception is found in
7955 <em class="citetitle">Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,
7956 Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Grokster, Ltd</em>., 259 F. Supp. 2d
7957 1029 (C.D.  Cal., 2003), where the court found the link between the
7958 distributor and any given user's conduct too attenuated to make the
7959 distributor liable for contributory or vicarious infringement liability.
7960 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3053071" href="#id3053071" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
7961
7962 For example, in July 2002, Representative Howard Berman introduced the
7963 Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize
7964 copyright holders from liability for damage done to computers when the
7965 copyright holders use technology to stop copyright infringement. In August
7966 2002, Representative Billy Tauzin introduced a bill to mandate that
7967 technologies capable of rebroadcasting digital copies of films broadcast on
7968 TV (i.e., computers) respect a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>&#8221;</span> that would
7969 disable copying of that content. And in March of the same year, Senator
7970 Fritz Hollings introduced the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television
7971 Promotion Act, which mandated copyright protection technology in all digital
7972 media devices. See GartnerG2, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a
7973 Post-Napster World,</span>&#8221;</span> 27 June 2003, 33&#8211;34, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3053101"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3053109"></a>
7974 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3052764" href="#id3052764" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
7975
7976
7977 Lessing, 239.
7978 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3053245" href="#id3053245" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
7979
7980
7981 Ibid., 229.
7982 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3053292" href="#id3053292" class="para">170</a>] </sup>
7983
7984 This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright Arbitration
7985 Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an example offered by
7986 Professor William Fisher. Conference Proceedings, iLaw (Stanford), 3 July
7987 2003, on file with author. Professors Fisher and Zittrain submitted
7988 testimony in the CARP proceeding that was ultimately rejected.  See Jonathan
7989 Zittrain, Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral
7990 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
7991 analysis making a similar point, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright as
7992 Entry Policy: The Case of Digital Distribution,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Antitrust
7993 Bulletin</em> (Summer/Fall 2002): 461: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">This was not confusion,
7994 these are just old-fashioned entry barriers. Analog radio stations are
7995 protected from digital entrants, reducing entry in radio and diversity. Yes,
7996 this is done in the name of getting royalties to copyright holders, but,
7997 absent the play of powerful interests, that could have been done in a
7998 media-neutral way.</span>&#8221;</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id3053329"></a>
7999 <a class="indexterm" name="id3053338"></a>
8000 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3053615" href="#id3053615" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
8001
8002 Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Music Downloading Deluge,</span>&#8221;</span>
8003 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
8004 American Life Project reported that 37 million Americans had downloaded
8005 music files from the Internet by early 2001.
8006 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3053282" href="#id3053282" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
8007
8008
8009 Alex Pham, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA
8010 Case,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 10 September 2003,
8011 Business.
8012 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3053696" href="#id3053696" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
8013
8014
8015 Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Alcohol Consumption During
8016 Prohibition,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81,
8017 no. 2 (1991): 242.
8018 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3053713" href="#id3053713" class="para">174</a>] </sup>
8019
8020
8021 National Drug Control Policy: Hearing Before the House Government Reform
8022 Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (5 March 2003) (statement of John
8023 P. Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy).
8024 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3053730" href="#id3053730" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
8025
8026
8027 See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Tax
8028 Compliance,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature</em> 36
8029 (1998): 818 (survey of compliance literature).
8030 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3054088" href="#id3054088" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
8031
8032
8033 See Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single
8034 Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>&#8221;</span>
8035 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10 September 2003, E1; Chris Cobbs,
8036 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Worried Parents Pull Plug on File `Stealing'; With the Music Industry
8037 Cracking Down on File Swapping, Parents are Yanking Software from Home PCs
8038 to Avoid Being Sued,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel
8039 Tribune</em>, 30 August 2003, C1; Jefferson Graham, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Recording
8040 Industry Sues Parents,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 15
8041 September 2003, 4D; John Schwartz, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">She Says She's No Music Pirate. No
8042 Snoop Fan, Either,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 25
8043 September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Is Brianna a Criminal?</span>&#8221;</span>
8044 <em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
8045 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3054143" href="#id3054143" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
8046
8047
8048 See <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Revealed: How RIAA Tracks Downloaders: Music Industry Discloses
8049 Some Methods Used,</span>&#8221;</span> CNN.com, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #47</a>.
8050 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3054188" href="#id3054188" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
8051
8052
8053 See Jeff Adler, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not
8054 Penitent,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 18 May 2003, City
8055 Weekly, 1; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Four Students Sued over Music Sites;
8056 Industry Group Targets File Sharing at Colleges,</span>&#8221;</span>
8057 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 4 April 2003, E1; Elizabeth
8058 Armstrong, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Students `Rip, Mix, Burn' at Their Own Risk,</span>&#8221;</span>
8059 <em class="citetitle">Christian Science Monitor</em>, 2 September 2003, 20;
8060 Robert Becker and Angela Rozas, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Music Pirate Hunt Turns to Loyola;
8061 Two Students Names Are Handed Over; Lawsuit Possible,</span>&#8221;</span>
8062 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 16 July 2003, 1C; Beth Cox,
8063 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">RIAA Trains Antipiracy Guns on Universities,</span>&#8221;</span>
8064 <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,
8065 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Download Warning 101: Freshman Orientation This Fall to Include
8066 Record Industry Warnings Against File Sharing,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">San
8067 Francisco Chronicle</em>, 11 August 2003, E11; <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Raid, Letters
8068 Are Weapons at Universities,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 26
8069 September 2000, 3D.
8070 </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>
8071 Så her er bildet: Du står på siden av veien. Bilen din er på brann. Du er
8072 sint og opprørt fordi du delvis bidro til å starte brannen. Nå vet du ikke
8073 hvordan du slokker den.  Ved siden av deg er en bøtte, fylt med
8074 bensin. Bensin vil åpenbart ikke slukke brannen.
8075 </p><p>
8076 Mens du tenker over situasjonen, kommer noen andre forbi.  I panikk griper
8077 hun bøtta, og før du har hatt sjansen til å be henne stoppe&#8212;eller før
8078 hun forstår hvorfor hun bør stoppe&#8212;er bøtten i svevet.  Bensinen er på
8079 tur mot den brennende bilen.  Og brannen som bensinen kommer til å fyre opp
8080 vil straks sette fyr på alt i omgivelsene.
8081 </p><p>
8082 En krig om opphavsrett pågår over alt&#8212; og vi fokuserer alle på feil
8083 ting.  Det er ingen tvil om at dagens teknologier truer eksisterende
8084 virksomheter.  Uten tvil kan de true artister.  Men teknologier endrer seg.
8085 Industrien og teknologer har en rekke måter å bruke teknologi til å beskytte
8086 dem selv mot dagens trusler på Internet.  Dette er en brann som overlatt til
8087 seg selv vil brenne ut.
8088 </p><p>
8089
8090
8091 Likevel er ikke besluttningstagere villig til å la denne brannen i fred.
8092 Ladet med masse penger fra lobbyister er de lystne på å gå i mellom for å
8093 fjerne problemet slik de oppfatter det.  Men problemet slik de oppfatter det
8094 er ikke den reelle trusselen som denne kulturen står med ansiktet mot.  For
8095 mens vi ser på denne lille brannen i hjørnet er det en massiv endring i
8096 hvordan kultur blir skapt som pågår over alt.
8097 </p><p>
8098 På en eller annen måte må vi klare å snu oppmerksomheten mot dette mer
8099 viktige og fundametale problemet.  Vi må finne en måte å unngå å helle
8100 bensin på denne brannen.
8101 </p><p>
8102 Vi har ikke funne denne måten ennå.  Istedet synes vi å være fanget i en
8103 enklere og sort-hvit tenkning.  Uansett hvor mange folk som presser på for å
8104 gjøre rammen for debatten litt bredere, er det dette enkle sort-hvit-synet
8105 som består.  Vi kjører sakte forbi og stirrer på brannen når vi i stedet
8106 burde holde øynene på veien.
8107 </p><p>
8108 Denne utfordringen har vært livet mitt de siste årene.  Det har også vært
8109 min falitt.  I de to neste kapittlene, beskriver jeg en liten innsats, så
8110 langt uten suksess, på å finne en måte å endre fokus på denne debatten.  Vi
8111 må forstå disse mislyktede forsøkene hvis vi skal forstå hva som kreves for
8112 å lykkes.
8113 </p></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred"></a>Kapittel 13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxhawthornenathaniel"></a><p>
8114 In 1995, a father was frustrated that his daughters didn't seem to like
8115 Hawthorne. No doubt there was more than one such father, but at least one
8116 did something about it. Eric Eldred, a retired computer programmer living in
8117 New Hampshire, decided to put Hawthorne on the Web. An electronic version,
8118 Eldred thought, with links to pictures and explanatory text, would make this
8119 nineteenth-century author's work come alive.
8120 </p><p>
8121 It didn't work&#8212;at least for his daughters. They didn't find Hawthorne
8122 any more interesting than before. But Eldred's experiment gave birth to a
8123 hobby, and his hobby begat a cause: Eldred would build a library of public
8124 domain works by scanning these works and making them available for free.
8125 </p><p>
8126
8127 Eldred's library was not simply a copy of certain public domain works,
8128 though even a copy would have been of great value to people across the world
8129 who can't get access to printed versions of these works. Instead, Eldred was
8130 producing derivative works from these public domain works. Just as Disney
8131 turned Grimm into stories more accessible to the twentieth century, Eldred
8132 transformed Hawthorne, and many others, into a form more
8133 accessible&#8212;technically accessible&#8212;today.
8134 </p><p>
8135 Eldred's freedom to do this with Hawthorne's work grew from the same source
8136 as Disney's. Hawthorne's <em class="citetitle">Scarlet Letter</em> had passed
8137 into the public domain in 1907. It was free for anyone to take without the
8138 permission of the Hawthorne estate or anyone else. Some, such as Dover Press
8139 and Penguin Classics, take works from the public domain and produce printed
8140 editions, which they sell in bookstores across the country. Others, such as
8141 Disney, take these stories and turn them into animated cartoons, sometimes
8142 successfully (<em class="citetitle">Cinderella</em>), sometimes not
8143 (<em class="citetitle">The Hunchback of Notre Dame</em>, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
8144 Planet</em>). These are all commercial publications of public domain
8145 works.
8146 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3054527"></a><p>
8147 The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of public
8148 domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally thousands of
8149 others. Hundreds of thousands from across the world have discovered this
8150 platform of expression and now use it to share works that are, by law, free
8151 for the taking. This has produced what we might call the
8152 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">noncommercial publishing industry,</span>&#8221;</span> which before the Internet
8153 was limited to people with large egos or with political or social
8154 causes. But with the Internet, it includes a wide range of individuals and
8155 groups dedicated to spreading culture generally.<sup>[<a name="id3054549" href="#ftn.id3054549" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
8156 </p><p>
8157 As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In 1998, Robert Frost's collection
8158 of poems <em class="citetitle">New Hampshire</em> was slated to pass into the
8159 public domain. Eldred wanted to post that collection in his free public
8160 library.  But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;">10</a>, in 1998, for the
8161 eleventh time in forty years, Congress extended the terms of existing
8162 copyrights&#8212;this time by twenty years. Eldred would not be free to add
8163 any works more recent than 1923 to his collection until 2019.  Indeed, no
8164 copyrighted work would pass into the public domain until that year (and not
8165 even then, if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, in the same
8166 period, more than 1 million patents will pass into the public domain.
8167 </p><p>
8168
8169
8170 This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), enacted in
8171 memory of the congressman and former musician Sonny Bono, who, his widow,
8172 Mary Bono, says, believed that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyrights should be
8173 forever.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3054606" href="#ftn.id3054606" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
8174
8175 </p><p>
8176 Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
8177 civil disobedience. In a series of interviews, Eldred announced that he
8178 would publish as planned, CTEA notwithstanding. But because of a second law
8179 passed in 1998, the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act, his act of publishing
8180 would make Eldred a felon&#8212;whether or not anyone complained. This was a
8181 dangerous strategy for a disabled programmer to undertake.
8182 </p><p>
8183 It was here that I became involved in Eldred's battle. I was a
8184 constitutional scholar whose first passion was constitutional
8185 interpretation.  And though constitutional law courses never focus upon the
8186 Progress Clause of the Constitution, it had always struck me as importantly
8187 different. As you know, the Constitution says,
8188 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
8189 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science &#8230; by
8190 securing for limited Times to Authors &#8230; exclusive Right to their
8191 &#8230; Writings. &#8230;
8192 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8193 As I've described, this clause is unique within the power-granting clause of
8194 Article I, section 8 of our Constitution. Every other clause granting power
8195 to Congress simply says Congress has the power to do something&#8212;for
8196 example, to regulate <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>&#8221;</span> or
8197 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">declare War.</span>&#8221;</span> But here, the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">something</span>&#8221;</span> is
8198 something quite specific&#8212;to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">promote &#8230;
8199 Progress</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;through means that are also specific&#8212; by
8200 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">securing</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">exclusive Rights</span>&#8221;</span> (i.e., copyrights)
8201 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">for limited Times.</span>&#8221;</span>
8202 </p><p>
8203 In the past forty years, Congress has gotten into the practice of extending
8204 existing terms of copyright protection. What puzzled me about this was, if
8205 Congress has the power to extend existing terms, then the Constitution's
8206 requirement that terms be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited</span>&#8221;</span> will have no practical
8207 effect. If every time a copyright is about to expire, Congress has the power
8208 to extend its term, then Congress can achieve what the Constitution plainly
8209 forbids&#8212;perpetual terms <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">on the installment plan,</span>&#8221;</span> as
8210 Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3054710"></a>
8211 </p><p>
8212 As an academic, my first response was to hit the books. I remember sitting
8213 late at the office, scouring on-line databases for any serious consideration
8214 of the question. No one had ever challenged Congress's practice of extending
8215 existing terms. That failure may in part be why Congress seemed so
8216 untroubled in its habit. That, and the fact that the practice had become so
8217 lucrative for Congress. Congress knows that copyright owners will be willing
8218 to pay a great deal of money to see their copyright terms extended. And so
8219 Congress is quite happy to keep this gravy train going.
8220 </p><p>
8221 For this is the core of the corruption in our present system of
8222 government. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Corruption</span>&#8221;</span> not in the sense that representatives
8223 are bribed.  Rather, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">corruption</span>&#8221;</span> in the sense that the system
8224 induces the beneficiaries of Congress's acts to raise and give money to
8225 Congress to induce it to act. There's only so much time; there's only so
8226 much Congress can do. Why not limit its actions to those things it must
8227 do&#8212;and those things that pay? Extending copyright terms pays.
8228 </p><p>
8229 If that's not obvious to you, consider the following: Say you're one of the
8230 very few lucky copyright owners whose copyright continues to make money one
8231 hundred years after it was created. The Estate of Robert Frost is a good
8232 example. Frost died in 1963. His poetry continues to be extraordinarily
8233 valuable. Thus the Robert Frost estate benefits greatly from any extension
8234 of copyright, since no publisher would pay the estate any money if the poems
8235 Frost wrote could be published by anyone for free.
8236 </p><p>
8237 So imagine the Robert Frost estate is earning $100,000 a year from three of
8238 Frost's poems. And imagine the copyright for those poems is about to
8239 expire. You sit on the board of the Robert Frost estate.  Your financial
8240 adviser comes to your board meeting with a very grim report:
8241 </p><p>
8242
8243 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Next year,</span>&#8221;</span> the adviser announces, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">our copyrights in
8244 works A, B, and C will expire. That means that after next year, we will no
8245 longer be receiving the annual royalty check of $100,000 from the publishers
8246 of those works.</span>&#8221;</span>
8247 </p><p>
8248 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">There's a proposal in Congress, however,</span>&#8221;</span> she continues,
8249 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">that could change this. A few congressmen are floating a bill to
8250 extend the terms of copyright by twenty years. That bill would be
8251 extraordinarily valuable to us. So we should hope this bill passes.</span>&#8221;</span>
8252 </p><p>
8253 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hope?</span>&#8221;</span> a fellow board member says. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Can't we be doing
8254 something about it?</span>&#8221;</span>
8255 </p><p>
8256 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Well, obviously, yes,</span>&#8221;</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">We could
8257 contribute to the campaigns of a number of representatives to try to assure
8258 that they support the bill.</span>&#8221;</span>
8259 </p><p>
8260 You hate politics. You hate contributing to campaigns. So you want to know
8261 whether this disgusting practice is worth it. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">How much would we get
8262 if this extension were passed?</span>&#8221;</span> you ask the adviser. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">How much
8263 is it worth?</span>&#8221;</span>
8264 </p><p>
8265 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Well,</span>&#8221;</span> the adviser says, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">if you're confident that you
8266 will continue to get at least $100,000 a year from these copyrights, and you
8267 use the `discount rate' that we use to evaluate estate investments (6
8268 percent), then this law would be worth $1,146,000 to the estate.</span>&#8221;</span>
8269 </p><p>
8270 You're a bit shocked by the number, but you quickly come to the correct
8271 conclusion:
8272 </p><p>
8273 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">So you're saying it would be worth it for us to pay more than
8274 $1,000,000 in campaign contributions if we were confident those
8275 contributions would assure that the bill was passed?</span>&#8221;</span>
8276 </p><p>
8277 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Absolutely,</span>&#8221;</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">It is worth it to
8278 you to contribute up to the `present value' of the income you expect from
8279 these copyrights. Which for us means over $1,000,000.</span>&#8221;</span>
8280 </p><p>
8281
8282 You quickly get the point&#8212;you as the member of the board and, I trust,
8283 you the reader. Each time copyrights are about to expire, every beneficiary
8284 in the position of the Robert Frost estate faces the same choice: If they
8285 can contribute to get a law passed to extend copyrights, they will benefit
8286 greatly from that extension. And so each time copyrights are about to
8287 expire, there is a massive amount of lobbying to get the copyright term
8288 extended.
8289 </p><p>
8290 Thus a congressional perpetual motion machine: So long as legislation can be
8291 bought (albeit indirectly), there will be all the incentive in the world to
8292 buy further extensions of copyright.
8293 </p><p>
8294 In the lobbying that led to the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term
8295 Extension Act, this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">theory</span>&#8221;</span> about incentives was proved
8296 real. Ten of the thirteen original sponsors of the act in the House received
8297 the maximum contribution from Disney's political action committee; in the
8298 Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received contributions.<sup>[<a name="id3054905" href="#ftn.id3054905" class="footnote">181</a>]</sup> The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent
8299 over $1.5 million lobbying in the 1998 election cycle. They paid out more
8300 than $200,000 in campaign contributions.<sup>[<a name="id3054922" href="#ftn.id3054922" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to
8301 reelection campaigns in the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id3054941" href="#ftn.id3054941" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
8302
8303 </p><p>
8304 Constitutional law is not oblivious to the obvious. Or at least, it need not
8305 be. So when I was considering Eldred's complaint, this reality about the
8306 never-ending incentives to increase the copyright term was central to my
8307 thinking. In my view, a pragmatic court committed to interpreting and
8308 applying the Constitution of our framers would see that if Congress has the
8309 power to extend existing terms, then there would be no effective
8310 constitutional requirement that terms be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited.</span>&#8221;</span> If they
8311 could extend it once, they would extend it again and again and again.
8312 </p><p>
8313
8314 It was also my judgment that <span class="emphasis"><em>this</em></span> Supreme Court would
8315 not allow Congress to extend existing terms. As anyone close to the Supreme
8316 Court's work knows, this Court has increasingly restricted the power of
8317 Congress when it has viewed Congress's actions as exceeding the power
8318 granted to it by the Constitution. Among constitutional scholars, the most
8319 famous example of this trend was the Supreme Court's decision in 1995 to
8320 strike down a law that banned the possession of guns near schools.
8321 </p><p>
8322 Since 1937, the Supreme Court had interpreted Congress's granted powers very
8323 broadly; so, while the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate
8324 only <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>&#8221;</span> (aka <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">interstate
8325 commerce</span>&#8221;</span>), the Supreme Court had interpreted that power to include
8326 the power to regulate any activity that merely affected interstate commerce.
8327 </p><p>
8328 As the economy grew, this standard increasingly meant that there was no
8329 limit to Congress's power to regulate, since just about every activity, when
8330 considered on a national scale, affects interstate commerce.  A Constitution
8331 designed to limit Congress's power was instead interpreted to impose no
8332 limit.
8333 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3055027"></a><p>
8334 The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed that in
8335 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The
8336 government had argued that possessing guns near schools affected interstate
8337 commerce. Guns near schools increase crime, crime lowers property values,
8338 and so on. In the oral argument, the Chief Justice asked the government
8339 whether there was any activity that would not affect interstate commerce
8340 under the reasoning the government advanced. The government said there was
8341 not; if Congress says an activity affects interstate commerce, then that
8342 activity affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court, the government
8343 said, was not in the position to second-guess Congress.
8344 </p><p>
8345 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">We pause to consider the implications of the government's
8346 arguments,</span>&#8221;</span> the Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id3055061" href="#ftn.id3055061" class="footnote">184</a>]</sup> If anything Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be
8347 considered interstate commerce, then there would be no limit to Congress's
8348 power. The decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> was reaffirmed five
8349 years later in <em class="citetitle">United States</em>
8350 v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<sup>[<a name="id3055088" href="#ftn.id3055088" class="footnote">185</a>]</sup>
8351 </p><p>
8352
8353 If a principle were at work here, then it should apply to the Progress
8354 Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<sup>[<a name="id3055108" href="#ftn.id3055108" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
8355 And if it is applied to the Progress Clause, the principle should yield the
8356 conclusion that Congress can't extend an existing term. If Congress could
8357 extend an existing term, then there would be no <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stopping
8358 point</span>&#8221;</span> to Congress's power over terms, though the Constitution
8359 expressly states that there is such a limit. Thus, the same principle
8360 applied to the power to grant copyrights should entail that Congress is not
8361 allowed to extend the term of existing copyrights.
8362 </p><p>
8363 <span class="emphasis"><em>If</em></span>, that is, the principle announced in
8364 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for a principle.  Many believed the
8365 decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for politics&#8212;a
8366 conservative Supreme Court, which believed in states' rights, using its
8367 power over Congress to advance its own personal political preferences. But I
8368 rejected that view of the Supreme Court's decision. Indeed, shortly after
8369 the decision, I wrote an article demonstrating the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fidelity</span>&#8221;</span>
8370 in such an interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that the Supreme
8371 Court decides cases based upon its politics struck me as extraordinarily
8372 boring.  I was not going to devote my life to teaching constitutional law if
8373 these nine Justices were going to be petty politicians.
8374 </p><p>
8375 Now let's pause for a moment to make sure we understand what the argument in
8376 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was not about. By insisting on the
8377 Constitution's limits to copyright, obviously Eldred was not endorsing
8378 piracy.  Indeed, in an obvious sense, he was fighting a kind of
8379 piracy&#8212;piracy of the public domain. When Robert Frost wrote his work
8380 and when Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse, the maximum copyright term was
8381 just fifty-six years. Because of interim changes, Frost and Disney had
8382 already enjoyed a seventy-five-year monopoly for their work. They had gotten
8383 the benefit of the bargain that the Constitution envisions: In exchange for
8384 a monopoly protected for fifty-six years, they created new work. But now
8385 these entities were using their power&#8212;expressed through the power of
8386 lobbyists' money&#8212;to get another twenty-year dollop of monopoly. That
8387 twenty-year dollop would be taken from the public domain. Eric Eldred was
8388 fighting a piracy that affects us all.
8389 </p><p>
8390 Some people view the public domain with contempt. In their brief before the
8391 Supreme Court, the Nashville Songwriters Association wrote that the public
8392 domain is nothing more than <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3055198" href="#ftn.id3055198" class="footnote">187</a>]</sup> But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in
8393 our constitutional system, our law requires it. Some may not like the
8394 Constitution's requirements, but that doesn't make the Constitution a
8395 pirate's charter.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3055224"></a>
8396 </p><p>
8397 As we've seen, our constitutional system requires limits on copyright as a
8398 way to assure that copyright holders do not too heavily influence the
8399 development and distribution of our culture. Yet, as Eric Eldred discovered,
8400 we have set up a system that assures that copyright terms will be repeatedly
8401 extended, and extended, and extended. We have created the perfect storm for
8402 the public domain. Copyrights have not expired, and will not expire, so long
8403 as Congress is free to be bought to extend them again.
8404 </p><p>
8405 It is valuable copyrights that are responsible for terms being extended.
8406 Mickey Mouse and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Rhapsody in Blue.</span>&#8221;</span> These works are too
8407 valuable for copyright owners to ignore. But the real harm to our society
8408 from copyright extensions is not that Mickey Mouse remains Disney's.  Forget
8409 Mickey Mouse. Forget Robert Frost. Forget all the works from the 1920s and
8410 1930s that have continuing commercial value. The real harm of term extension
8411 comes not from these famous works. The real harm is to the works that are
8412 not famous, not commercially exploited, and no longer available as a result.
8413 </p><p>
8414 If you look at the work created in the first twenty years (1923 to 1942)
8415 affected by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 2 percent of that
8416 work has any continuing commercial value. It was the copyright holders for
8417 that 2 percent who pushed the CTEA through.  But the law and its effect were
8418 not limited to that 2 percent. The law extended the terms of copyright
8419 generally.<sup>[<a name="id3055268" href="#ftn.id3055268" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
8420
8421 </p><p>
8422
8423 Think practically about the consequence of this extension&#8212;practically,
8424 as a businessperson, and not as a lawyer eager for more legal work. In 1930,
8425 10,047 books were published. In 2000, 174 of those books were still in
8426 print. Let's say you were Brewster Kahle, and you wanted to make available
8427 to the world in your iArchive project the remaining 9,873. What would you
8428 have to do?
8429 </p><p>
8430 Well, first, you'd have to determine which of the 9,873 books were still
8431 under copyright. That requires going to a library (these data are not
8432 on-line) and paging through tomes of books, cross-checking the titles and
8433 authors of the 9,873 books with the copyright registration and renewal
8434 records for works published in 1930. That will produce a list of books still
8435 under copyright.
8436 </p><p>
8437 Then for the books still under copyright, you would need to locate the
8438 current copyright owners. How would you do that?
8439 </p><p>
8440 Most people think that there must be a list of these copyright owners
8441 somewhere. Practical people think this way. How could there be thousands and
8442 thousands of government monopolies without there being at least a list?
8443 </p><p>
8444 But there is no list. There may be a name from 1930, and then in 1959, of
8445 the person who registered the copyright. But just think practically about
8446 how impossibly difficult it would be to track down thousands of such
8447 records&#8212;especially since the person who registered is not necessarily
8448 the current owner. And we're just talking about 1930!
8449 </p><p>
8450 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But there isn't a list of who owns property generally,</span>&#8221;</span> the
8451 apologists for the system respond. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Why should there be a list of
8452 copyright owners?</span>&#8221;</span>
8453 </p><p>
8454 Well, actually, if you think about it, there <span class="emphasis"><em>are</em></span> plenty
8455 of lists of who owns what property. Think about deeds on houses, or titles
8456 to cars.  And where there isn't a list, the code of real space is pretty
8457 good at suggesting who the owner of a bit of property is. (A swing set in
8458 your backyard is probably yours.) So formally or informally, we have a
8459 pretty good way to know who owns what tangible property.
8460 </p><p>
8461
8462 So: You walk down a street and see a house. You can know who owns the house
8463 by looking it up in the courthouse registry. If you see a car, there is
8464 ordinarily a license plate that will link the owner to the car. If you see a
8465 bunch of children's toys sitting on the front lawn of a house, it's fairly
8466 easy to determine who owns the toys. And if you happen to see a baseball
8467 lying in a gutter on the side of the road, look around for a second for some
8468 kids playing ball. If you don't see any kids, then okay: Here's a bit of
8469 property whose owner we can't easily determine. It is the exception that
8470 proves the rule: that we ordinarily know quite well who owns what property.
8471 </p><p>
8472 Compare this story to intangible property. You go into a library.  The
8473 library owns the books. But who owns the copyrights? As I've already
8474 described, there's no list of copyright owners. There are authors' names, of
8475 course, but their copyrights could have been assigned, or passed down in an
8476 estate like Grandma's old jewelry. To know who owns what, you would have to
8477 hire a private detective. The bottom line: The owner cannot easily be
8478 located. And in a regime like ours, in which it is a felony to use such
8479 property without the property owner's permission, the property isn't going
8480 to be used.
8481 </p><p>
8482 The consequence with respect to old books is that they won't be digitized,
8483 and hence will simply rot away on shelves. But the consequence for other
8484 creative works is much more dire.
8485 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3055419"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3055426"></a><p>
8486 Consider the story of Michael Agee, chairman of Hal Roach Studios, which
8487 owns the copyrights for the Laurel and Hardy films. Agee is a direct
8488 beneficiary of the Bono Act. The Laurel and Hardy films were made between
8489 1921 and 1951. Only one of these films, <em class="citetitle">The Lucky
8490 Dog</em>, is currently out of copyright. But for the CTEA, films made
8491 after 1923 would have begun entering the public domain. Because Agee
8492 controls the exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal
8493 of money. According to one estimate, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Roach has sold about 60,000
8494 videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent
8495 films.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3055450" href="#ftn.id3055450" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3055473"></a>
8496 </p><p>
8497 Yet Agee opposed the CTEA. His reasons demonstrate a rare virtue in this
8498 culture: selflessness. He argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that
8499 the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act will, if left standing, destroy
8500 a whole generation of American film.
8501 </p><p>
8502
8503 His argument is straightforward. A tiny fraction of this work has any
8504 continuing commercial value. The rest&#8212;to the extent it survives at
8505 all&#8212;sits in vaults gathering dust. It may be that some of this work
8506 not now commercially valuable will be deemed to be valuable by the owners of
8507 the vaults. For this to occur, however, the commercial benefit from the work
8508 must exceed the costs of making the work available for distribution.
8509 </p><p>
8510 We can't know the benefits, but we do know a lot about the costs.  For most
8511 of the history of film, the costs of restoring film were very high; digital
8512 technology has lowered these costs substantially. While it cost more than
8513 $10,000 to restore a ninety-minute black-and-white film in 1993, it can now
8514 cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.<sup>[<a name="id3055510" href="#ftn.id3055510" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
8515
8516 </p><p>
8517 Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most important.
8518 Lawyers, too, are a cost, and increasingly, a very important one. In
8519 addition to preserving the film, a distributor needs to secure the rights.
8520 And to secure the rights for a film that is under copyright, you need to
8521 locate the copyright owner.
8522 </p><p>
8523 Or more accurately, <span class="emphasis"><em>owners</em></span>. As we've seen, there isn't
8524 only a single copyright associated with a film; there are many. There isn't
8525 a single person whom you can contact about those copyrights; there are as
8526 many as can hold the rights, which turns out to be an extremely large
8527 number. Thus the costs of clearing the rights to these films is
8528 exceptionally high.
8529 </p><p>
8530 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But can't you just restore the film, distribute it, and then pay the
8531 copyright owner when she shows up?</span>&#8221;</span> Sure, if you want to commit a
8532 felony. And even if you're not worried about committing a felony, when she
8533 does show up, she'll have the right to sue you for all the profits you have
8534 made. So, if you're successful, you can be fairly confident you'll be
8535 getting a call from someone's lawyer. And if you're not successful, you
8536 won't make enough to cover the costs of your own lawyer. Either way, you
8537 have to talk to a lawyer. And as is too often the case, saying you have to
8538 talk to a lawyer is the same as saying you won't make any money.
8539 </p><p>
8540
8541 For some films, the benefit of releasing the film may well exceed these
8542 costs. But for the vast majority of them, there is no way the benefit would
8543 outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old films, Agee
8544 argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until the copyright
8545 expires.
8546 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3055592"></a><p>
8547 But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will have
8548 expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and nitrate stock
8549 dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal canisters in which
8550 they are now stored will be filled with nothing more than dust.
8551 </p><p>
8552 Of all the creative work produced by humans anywhere, a tiny fraction has
8553 continuing commercial value. For that tiny fraction, the copyright is a
8554 crucially important legal device. For that tiny fraction, the copyright
8555 creates incentives to produce and distribute the creative work. For that
8556 tiny fraction, the copyright acts as an <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">engine of free
8557 expression.</span>&#8221;</span>
8558 </p><p>
8559 But even for that tiny fraction, the actual time during which the creative
8560 work has a commercial life is extremely short. As I've indicated, most books
8561 go out of print within one year. The same is true of music and
8562 film. Commercial culture is sharklike. It must keep moving.  And when a
8563 creative work falls out of favor with the commercial distributors, the
8564 commercial life ends.
8565 </p><p>
8566 Yet that doesn't mean the life of the creative work ends. We don't keep
8567 libraries of books in order to compete with Barnes &amp; Noble, and we don't
8568 have archives of films because we expect people to choose between spending
8569 Friday night watching new movies and spending Friday night watching a 1930
8570 news documentary. The noncommercial life of culture is important and
8571 valuable&#8212;for entertainment but also, and more importantly, for
8572 knowledge. To understand who we are, and where we came from, and how we have
8573 made the mistakes that we have, we need to have access to this history.
8574 </p><p>
8575
8576 Copyrights in this context do not drive an engine of free expression.  In
8577 this context, there is no need for an exclusive right. Copyrights in this
8578 context do no good.
8579 </p><p>
8580 Yet, for most of our history, they also did little harm. For most of our
8581 history, when a work ended its commercial life, there was no
8582 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright-related use</em></span> that would be inhibited by an
8583 exclusive right.  When a book went out of print, you could not buy it from a
8584 publisher.  But you could still buy it from a used book store, and when a
8585 used book store sells it, in America, at least, there is no need to pay the
8586 copyright owner anything. Thus, the ordinary use of a book after its
8587 commercial life ended was a use that was independent of copyright law.
8588 </p><p>
8589 The same was effectively true of film. Because the costs of restoring a
8590 film&#8212;the real economic costs, not the lawyer costs&#8212;were so high,
8591 it was never at all feasible to preserve or restore film. Like the remains
8592 of a great dinner, when it's over, it's over. Once a film passed out of its
8593 commercial life, it may have been archived for a bit, but that was the end
8594 of its life so long as the market didn't have more to offer.
8595 </p><p>
8596 In other words, though copyright has been relatively short for most of our
8597 history, long copyrights wouldn't have mattered for the works that lost
8598 their commercial value. Long copyrights for these works would not have
8599 interfered with anything.
8600 </p><p>
8601 But this situation has now changed.
8602 </p><p>
8603 One crucially important consequence of the emergence of digital technologies
8604 is to enable the archive that Brewster Kahle dreams of.  Digital
8605 technologies now make it possible to preserve and give access to all sorts
8606 of knowledge. Once a book goes out of print, we can now imagine digitizing
8607 it and making it available to everyone, forever. Once a film goes out of
8608 distribution, we could digitize it and make it available to everyone,
8609 forever. Digital technologies give new life to copyrighted material after it
8610 passes out of its commercial life. It is now possible to preserve and assure
8611 universal access to this knowledge and culture, whereas before it was not.
8612 </p><p>
8613
8614
8615 And now copyright law does get in the way. Every step of producing this
8616 digital archive of our culture infringes on the exclusive right of
8617 copyright. To digitize a book is to copy it. To do that requires permission
8618 of the copyright owner. The same with music, film, or any other aspect of
8619 our culture protected by copyright. The effort to make these things
8620 available to history, or to researchers, or to those who just want to
8621 explore, is now inhibited by a set of rules that were written for a
8622 radically different context.
8623 </p><p>
8624 Here is the core of the harm that comes from extending terms: Now that
8625 technology enables us to rebuild the library of Alexandria, the law gets in
8626 the way. And it doesn't get in the way for any useful
8627 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span> purpose, for the purpose of copyright is to
8628 enable the commercial market that spreads culture. No, we are talking about
8629 culture after it has lived its commercial life. In this context, copyright
8630 is serving no purpose <span class="emphasis"><em>at all</em></span> related to the spread of
8631 knowledge. In this context, copyright is not an engine of free
8632 expression. Copyright is a brake.
8633 </p><p>
8634 You may well ask, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But if digital technologies lower the costs for
8635 Brewster Kahle, then they will lower the costs for Random House, too.  So
8636 won't Random House do as well as Brewster Kahle in spreading culture
8637 widely?</span>&#8221;</span>
8638 </p><p>
8639 Maybe. Someday. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that
8640 publishers would be as complete as libraries. If Barnes &amp; Noble offered
8641 to lend books from its stores for a low price, would that eliminate the need
8642 for libraries? Only if you think that the only role of a library is to serve
8643 what <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the market</span>&#8221;</span> would demand. But if you think the role of a
8644 library is bigger than this&#8212;if you think its role is to archive
8645 culture, whether there's a demand for any particular bit of that culture or
8646 not&#8212;then we can't count on the commercial market to do our library
8647 work for us.
8648 </p><p>
8649 I would be the first to agree that it should do as much as it can: We should
8650 rely upon the market as much as possible to spread and enable culture. My
8651 message is absolutely not antimarket. But where we see the market is not
8652 doing the job, then we should allow nonmarket forces the freedom to fill the
8653 gaps. As one researcher calculated for American culture, 94 percent of the
8654 films, books, and music produced between and 1946 is not commercially
8655 available. However much you love the commercial market, if access is a
8656 value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.<sup>[<a name="id3055792" href="#ftn.id3055792" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
8657
8658 </p><p>
8659 In January 1999, we filed a lawsuit on Eric Eldred's behalf in federal
8660 district court in Washington, D.C., asking the court to declare the Sonny
8661 Bono Copyright Term Extension Act unconstitutional. The two central claims
8662 that we made were (1) that extending existing terms violated the
8663 Constitution's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited Times</span>&#8221;</span> requirement, and (2) that
8664 extending terms by another twenty years violated the First Amendment.
8665 </p><p>
8666 The district court dismissed our claims without even hearing an argument.  A
8667 panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also dismissed our
8668 claims, though after hearing an extensive argument. But that decision at
8669 least had a dissent, by one of the most conservative judges on that
8670 court. That dissent gave our claims life.
8671 </p><p>
8672 Judge David Sentelle said the CTEA violated the requirement that copyrights
8673 be for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited Times</span>&#8221;</span> only. His argument was as elegant as it
8674 was simple: If Congress can extend existing terms, then there is no
8675 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stopping point</span>&#8221;</span> to Congress's power under the Copyright
8676 Clause. The power to extend existing terms means Congress is not required to
8677 grant terms that are <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited.</span>&#8221;</span> Thus, Judge Sentelle argued,
8678 the court had to interpret the term <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited Times</span>&#8221;</span> to give it
8679 meaning. And the best interpretation, Judge Sentelle argued, would be to
8680 deny Congress the power to extend existing terms.
8681 </p><p>
8682 We asked the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as a whole to hear the
8683 case. Cases are ordinarily heard in panels of three, except for important
8684 cases or cases that raise issues specific to the circuit as a whole, where
8685 the court will sit <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">en banc</span>&#8221;</span> to hear the case.
8686 </p><p>
8687
8688 The Court of Appeals rejected our request to hear the case en banc.  This
8689 time, Judge Sentelle was joined by the most liberal member of the
8690 D.C. Circuit, Judge David Tatel. Both the most conservative and the most
8691 liberal judges in the D.C. Circuit believed Congress had overstepped its
8692 bounds.
8693 </p><p>
8694 It was here that most expected Eldred v. Ashcroft would die, for the Supreme
8695 Court rarely reviews any decision by a court of appeals. (It hears about one
8696 hundred cases a year, out of more than five thousand appeals.) And it
8697 practically never reviews a decision that upholds a statute when no other
8698 court has yet reviewed the statute.
8699 </p><p>
8700 But in February 2002, the Supreme Court surprised the world by granting our
8701 petition to review the D.C. Circuit opinion. Argument was set for October of
8702 2002. The summer would be spent writing briefs and preparing for argument.
8703 </p><p>
8704 It is over a year later as I write these words. It is still astonishingly
8705 hard. If you know anything at all about this story, you know that we lost
8706 the appeal. And if you know something more than just the minimum, you
8707 probably think there was no way this case could have been won. After our
8708 defeat, I received literally thousands of missives by well-wishers and
8709 supporters, thanking me for my work on behalf of this noble but doomed
8710 cause. And none from this pile was more significant to me than the e-mail
8711 from my client, Eric Eldred.
8712 </p><p>
8713 Men min klient og disse vennene tok feil. Denne saken kunne vært vunnet. Det
8714 burde ha vært vunnet.  Og uansett hvor hardt jeg prøver å fortelle den
8715 historien til meg selv, kan jeg aldri unnslippe troen på at det er min feil
8716 at vi ikke vant.
8717 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3055921"></a><p>
8718
8719 Feil ble gjort tidlig, skjønt den ble først åpenbart på slutten. Vår sak
8720 hadde støtte hos en ekstraordinær advokat, Geoffrey Stewart, helt fra
8721 starten, og hos advokatfirmaet hadde han flyttet til, Jones, Day, Reavis og
8722 Pogue. Jones Day mottok mye press fra sine opphavsrettsbeskyttende klienter
8723 på grunn av sin støtte til oss.  De ignorert dette presset (noe veldig få
8724 advokatfirmaer noen sinne ville gjøre), og ga alt de hadde gjennom hele
8725 saken.
8726 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3055944"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3055950"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3055956"></a><p>
8727 There were three key lawyers on the case from Jones Day. Geoff Stewart was
8728 the first, but then Dan Bromberg and Don Ayer became quite
8729 involved. Bromberg and Ayer in particular had a common view about how this
8730 case would be won: We would only win, they repeatedly told me, if we could
8731 make the issue seem <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">important</span>&#8221;</span> to the Supreme Court. It had to
8732 seem as if dramatic harm were being done to free speech and free culture;
8733 otherwise, they would never vote against <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the most powerful media
8734 companies in the world.</span>&#8221;</span>
8735 </p><p>
8736 I hate this view of the law. Of course I thought the Sonny Bono Act was a
8737 dramatic harm to free speech and free culture. Of course I still think it
8738 is. But the idea that the Supreme Court decides the law based on how
8739 important they believe the issues are is just wrong. It might be
8740 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">right</span>&#8221;</span> as in <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">true,</span>&#8221;</span> I thought, but it is
8741 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">wrong</span>&#8221;</span> as in <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">it just shouldn't be that way.</span>&#8221;</span> As
8742 I believed that any faithful interpretation of what the framers of our
8743 Constitution did would yield the conclusion that the CTEA was
8744 unconstitutional, and as I believed that any faithful interpretation of what
8745 the First Amendment means would yield the conclusion that the power to
8746 extend existing copyright terms is unconstitutional, I was not persuaded
8747 that we had to sell our case like soap.  Just as a law that bans the
8748 swastika is unconstitutional not because the Court likes Nazis but because
8749 such a law would violate the Constitution, so too, in my view, would the
8750 Court decide whether Congress's law was constitutional based on the
8751 Constitution, not based on whether they liked the values that the framers
8752 put in the Constitution.
8753 </p><p>
8754 In any case, I thought, the Court must already see the danger and the harm
8755 caused by this sort of law. Why else would they grant review? There was no
8756 reason to hear the case in the Supreme Court if they weren't convinced that
8757 this regulation was harmful. So in my view, we didn't need to persuade them
8758 that this law was bad, we needed to show why it was unconstitutional.
8759 </p><p>
8760
8761 There was one way, however, in which I felt politics would matter and in
8762 which I thought a response was appropriate. I was convinced that the Court
8763 would not hear our arguments if it thought these were just the arguments of
8764 a group of lefty loons. This Supreme Court was not about to launch into a
8765 new field of judicial review if it seemed that this field of review was
8766 simply the preference of a small political minority.  Although my focus in
8767 the case was not to demonstrate how bad the Sonny Bono Act was but to
8768 demonstrate that it was unconstitutional, my hope was to make this argument
8769 against a background of briefs that covered the full range of political
8770 views. To show that this claim against the CTEA was grounded in
8771 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> and not politics, then, we tried to gather the
8772 widest range of credible critics&#8212;credible not because they were rich
8773 and famous, but because they, in the aggregate, demonstrated that this law
8774 was unconstitutional regardless of one's politics.
8775 </p><p>
8776 The first step happened all by itself. Phyllis Schlafly's organization,
8777 Eagle Forum, had been an opponent of the CTEA from the very beginning.
8778 Mrs. Schlafly viewed the CTEA as a sellout by Congress. In November 1998,
8779 she wrote a stinging editorial attacking the Republican Congress for
8780 allowing the law to pass. As she wrote, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Do you sometimes wonder why
8781 bills that create a financial windfall to narrow special interests slide
8782 easily through the intricate legislative process, while bills that benefit
8783 the general public seem to get bogged down?</span>&#8221;</span> The answer, as the
8784 editorial documented, was the power of money.  Schlafly enumerated Disney's
8785 contributions to the key players on the committees. It was money, not
8786 justice, that gave Mickey Mouse twenty more years in Disney's control,
8787 Schlafly argued.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3056069"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3056076"></a>
8788 </p><p>
8789 In the Court of Appeals, Eagle Forum was eager to file a brief supporting
8790 our position. Their brief made the argument that became the core claim in
8791 the Supreme Court: If Congress can extend the term of existing copyrights,
8792 there is no limit to Congress's power to set terms.  That strong
8793 conservative argument persuaded a strong conservative judge, Judge Sentelle.
8794 </p><p>
8795 In the Supreme Court, the briefs on our side were about as diverse as it
8796 gets. They included an extraordinary historical brief by the Free Software
8797 Foundation (home of the GNU project that made GNU/ Linux possible). They
8798 included a powerful brief about the costs of uncertainty by Intel. There
8799 were two law professors' briefs, one by copyright scholars and one by First
8800 Amendment scholars. There was an exhaustive and uncontroverted brief by the
8801 world's experts in the history of the Progress Clause. And of course, there
8802 was a new brief by Eagle Forum, repeating and strengthening its arguments.
8803 <a class="indexterm" name="id3056105"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3056113"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3056119"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3056126"></a>
8804 </p><p>
8805 Those briefs framed a legal argument. Then to support the legal argument,
8806 there were a number of powerful briefs by libraries and archives, including
8807 the Internet Archive, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the
8808 National Writers Union.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3056139"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3056146"></a>
8809 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3056154"></a><p>
8810 But two briefs captured the policy argument best. One made the argument I've
8811 already described: A brief by Hal Roach Studios argued that unless the law
8812 was struck, a whole generation of American film would disappear. The other
8813 made the economic argument absolutely clear.
8814 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3056168"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3056174"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3056180"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3056187"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3056193"></a><p>
8815 This economists' brief was signed by seventeen economists, including five
8816 Nobel Prize winners, including Ronald Coase, James Buchanan, Milton
8817 Friedman, Kenneth Arrow, and George Akerlof. The economists, as the list of
8818 Nobel winners demonstrates, spanned the political spectrum. Their
8819 conclusions were powerful: There was no plausible claim that extending the
8820 terms of existing copyrights would do anything to increase incentives to
8821 create. Such extensions were nothing more than
8822 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rent-seeking</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;the fancy term economists use to describe
8823 special-interest legislation gone wild.
8824 </p><p>
8825 The same effort at balance was reflected in the legal team we gathered to
8826 write our briefs in the case. The Jones Day lawyers had been with us from
8827 the start. But when the case got to the Supreme Court, we added three
8828 lawyers to help us frame this argument to this Court: Alan Morrison, a
8829 lawyer from Public Citizen, a Washington group that had made constitutional
8830 history with a series of seminal victories in the Supreme Court defending
8831 individual rights; my colleague and dean, Kathleen Sullivan, who had argued
8832 many cases in the Court, and who had advised us early on about a First
8833 Amendment strategy; and finally, former solicitor general Charles Fried.
8834 <a class="indexterm" name="id3056229"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3056237"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3056243"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3056250"></a>
8835 </p><p>
8836 Fried was a special victory for our side. Every other former solicitor
8837 general was hired by the other side to defend Congress's power to give media
8838 companies the special favor of extended copyright terms. Fried was the only
8839 one who turned down that lucrative assignment to stand up for something he
8840 believed in. He had been Ronald Reagan's chief lawyer in the Supreme
8841 Court. He had helped craft the line of cases that limited Congress's power
8842 in the context of the Commerce Clause. And while he had argued many
8843 positions in the Supreme Court that I personally disagreed with, his joining
8844 the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3056270"></a>
8845 </p><p>
8846 The government, in defending the statute, had its collection of friends, as
8847 well. Significantly, however, none of these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">friends</span>&#8221;</span> included
8848 historians or economists. The briefs on the other side of the case were
8849 written exclusively by major media companies, congressmen, and copyright
8850 holders.
8851 </p><p>
8852 The media companies were not surprising. They had the most to gain from the
8853 law. The congressmen were not surprising either&#8212;they were defending
8854 their power and, indirectly, the gravy train of contributions such power
8855 induced. And of course it was not surprising that the copyright holders
8856 would defend the idea that they should continue to have the right to control
8857 who did what with content they wanted to control.
8858 </p><p>
8859 Dr. Seuss's representatives, for example, argued that it was better for the
8860 Dr. Seuss estate to control what happened to Dr. Seuss's work&#8212; better
8861 than allowing it to fall into the public domain&#8212;because if this
8862 creativity were in the public domain, then people could use it to
8863 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">glorify drugs or to create pornography.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3056309" href="#ftn.id3056309" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate,
8864 which defended its <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">protection</span>&#8221;</span> of the work of George
8865 Gershwin. They refuse, for example, to license <em class="citetitle">Porgy and
8866 Bess</em> to anyone who refuses to use African Americans in the
8867 cast.<sup>[<a name="id3056334" href="#ftn.id3056334" class="footnote">193</a>]</sup> That's their view of how this
8868 part of American culture should be controlled, and they wanted this law to
8869 help them effect that control.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3056351"></a>
8870 </p><p>
8871 This argument made clear a theme that is rarely noticed in this debate.
8872 When Congress decides to extend the term of existing copyrights, Congress is
8873 making a choice about which speakers it will favor.  Famous and beloved
8874 copyright owners, such as the Gershwin estate and Dr. Seuss, come to
8875 Congress and say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Give us twenty years to control the speech about
8876 these icons of American culture. We'll do better with them than anyone
8877 else.</span>&#8221;</span> Congress of course likes to reward the popular and famous by
8878 giving them what they want. But when Congress gives people an exclusive
8879 right to speak in a certain way, that's just what the First Amendment is
8880 traditionally meant to block.
8881 </p><p>
8882 We argued as much in a final brief. Not only would upholding the CTEA mean
8883 that there was no limit to the power of Congress to extend
8884 copyrights&#8212;extensions that would further concentrate the market; it
8885 would also mean that there was no limit to Congress's power to play
8886 favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak.  Between
8887 February and October, there was little I did beyond preparing for this
8888 case. Early on, as I said, I set the strategy.
8889 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3056380"></a><p>
8890 The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we called
8891 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the Conservatives.</span>&#8221;</span> The other we called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the
8892 Rest.</span>&#8221;</span> The Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice
8893 O'Connor, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas. These five
8894 had been the most consistent in limiting Congress's power. They were the
8895 five who had supported the <em class="citetitle">Lopez/Morrison</em> line of
8896 cases that said that an enumerated power had to be interpreted to assure
8897 that Congress's powers had limits.
8898 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3056417"></a><p>
8899
8900 The Rest were the four Justices who had strongly opposed limits on
8901 Congress's power. These four&#8212;Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice
8902 Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer&#8212;had repeatedly argued that the
8903 Constitution gives Congress broad discretion to decide how best to implement
8904 its powers. In case after case, these justices had argued that the Court's
8905 role should be one of deference. Though the votes of these four justices
8906 were the votes that I personally had most consistently agreed with, they
8907 were also the votes that we were least likely to get.
8908 </p><p>
8909 In particular, the least likely was Justice Ginsburg's. In addition to her
8910 general view about deference to Congress (except where issues of gender are
8911 involved), she had been particularly deferential in the context of
8912 intellectual property protections. She and her daughter (an excellent and
8913 well-known intellectual property scholar) were cut from the same
8914 intellectual property cloth. We expected she would agree with the writings
8915 of her daughter: that Congress had the power in this context to do as it
8916 wished, even if what Congress wished made little sense.
8917 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3056451"></a><p>
8918 Close behind Justice Ginsburg were two justices whom we also viewed as
8919 unlikely allies, though possible surprises. Justice Souter strongly favored
8920 deference to Congress, as did Justice Breyer. But both were also very
8921 sensitive to free speech concerns. And as we strongly believed, there was a
8922 very important free speech argument against these retrospective extensions.
8923 </p><p>
8924 The only vote we could be confident about was that of Justice
8925 Stevens. History will record Justice Stevens as one of the greatest judges
8926 on this Court. His votes are consistently eclectic, which just means that no
8927 simple ideology explains where he will stand. But he had consistently argued
8928 for limits in the context of intellectual property generally. We were fairly
8929 confident he would recognize limits here.
8930 </p><p>
8931 This analysis of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the Rest</span>&#8221;</span> showed most clearly where our focus
8932 had to be: on the Conservatives. To win this case, we had to crack open
8933 these five and get at least a majority to go our way. Thus, the single
8934 overriding argument that animated our claim rested on the Conservatives'
8935 most important jurisprudential innovation&#8212;the argument that Judge
8936 Sentelle had relied upon in the Court of Appeals, that Congress's power must
8937 be interpreted so that its enumerated powers have limits.
8938 </p><p>
8939
8940 This then was the core of our strategy&#8212;a strategy for which I am
8941 responsible. We would get the Court to see that just as with the
8942 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, under the government's argument here,
8943 Congress would always have unlimited power to extend existing terms. If
8944 anything was plain about Congress's power under the Progress Clause, it was
8945 that this power was supposed to be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited.</span>&#8221;</span> Our aim would be
8946 to get the Court to reconcile <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> with
8947 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>: If Congress's power to regulate commerce was
8948 limited, then so, too, must Congress's power to regulate copyright be
8949 limited.
8950 </p><p>
8951 The argument on the government's side came down to this: Congress has done
8952 it before. It should be allowed to do it again. The government claimed that
8953 from the very beginning, Congress has been extending the term of existing
8954 copyrights. So, the government argued, the Court should not now say that
8955 practice is unconstitutional.
8956 </p><p>
8957 There was some truth to the government's claim, but not much. We certainly
8958 agreed that Congress had extended existing terms in 1831 and in 1909. And of
8959 course, in 1962, Congress began extending existing terms
8960 regularly&#8212;eleven times in forty years.
8961 </p><p>
8962
8963 But this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">consistency</span>&#8221;</span> should be kept in perspective. Congress
8964 extended existing terms once in the first hundred years of the Republic.  It
8965 then extended existing terms once again in the next fifty. Those rare
8966 extensions are in contrast to the now regular practice of extending existing
8967 terms. Whatever restraint Congress had had in the past, that restraint was
8968 now gone. Congress was now in a cycle of extensions; there was no reason to
8969 expect that cycle would end. This Court had not hesitated to intervene where
8970 Congress was in a similar cycle of extension.  There was no reason it
8971 couldn't intervene here.  Oral argument was scheduled for the first week in
8972 October. I arrived in D.C. two weeks before the argument. During those two
8973 weeks, I was repeatedly <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">mooted</span>&#8221;</span> by lawyers who had volunteered
8974 to help in the case. Such <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">moots</span>&#8221;</span> are basically practice
8975 rounds, where wannabe justices fire questions at wannabe winners.
8976 </p><p>
8977 I was convinced that to win, I had to keep the Court focused on a single
8978 point: that if this extension is permitted, then there is no limit to the
8979 power to set terms. Going with the government would mean that terms would be
8980 effectively unlimited; going with us would give Congress a clear line to
8981 follow: Don't extend existing terms. The moots were an effective practice; I
8982 found ways to take every question back to this central idea.
8983 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3056578"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3056584"></a><p>
8984 One moot was before the lawyers at Jones Day. Don Ayer was the skeptic. He
8985 had served in the Reagan Justice Department with Solicitor General Charles
8986 Fried. He had argued many cases before the Supreme Court. And in his review
8987 of the moot, he let his concern speak: <a class="indexterm" name="id3056597"></a>
8988 </p><p>
8989 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I'm just afraid that unless they really see the harm, they won't be
8990 willing to upset this practice that the government says has been a
8991 consistent practice for two hundred years. You have to make them see the
8992 harm&#8212;passionately get them to see the harm. For if they don't see
8993 that, then we haven't any chance of winning.</span>&#8221;</span>
8994 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3056610"></a><p>
8995
8996 He may have argued many cases before this Court, I thought, but he didn't
8997 understand its soul. As a clerk, I had seen the Justices do the right
8998 thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it was right. As a law
8999 professor, I had spent my life teaching my students that this Court does the
9000 right thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it is right. As I
9001 listened to Ayer's plea for passion in pressing politics, I understood his
9002 point, and I rejected it. Our argument was right. That was enough.  Let the
9003 politicians learn to see that it was also good.  The night before the
9004 argument, a line of people began to form in front of the Supreme Court. The
9005 case had become a focus of the press and of the movement to free
9006 culture. Hundreds stood in line for the chance to see the
9007 proceedings. Scores spent the night on the Supreme Court steps so that they
9008 would be assured a seat.
9009 </p><p>
9010 Not everyone has to wait in line. People who know the Justices can ask for
9011 seats they control. (I asked Justice Scalia's chambers for seats for my
9012 parents, for example.) Members of the Supreme Court bar can get a seat in a
9013 special section reserved for them. And senators and congressmen have a
9014 special place where they get to sit, too. And finally, of course, the press
9015 has a gallery, as do clerks working for the Justices on the Court. As we
9016 entered that morning, there was no place that was not taken. This was an
9017 argument about intellectual property law, yet the halls were filled. As I
9018 walked in to take my seat at the front of the Court, I saw my parents
9019 sitting on the left. As I sat down at the table, I saw Jack Valenti sitting
9020 in the special section ordinarily reserved for family of the Justices.
9021 </p><p>
9022 When the Chief Justice called me to begin my argument, I began where I
9023 intended to stay: on the question of the limits on Congress's power. This
9024 was a case about enumerated powers, I said, and whether those enumerated
9025 powers had any limit.
9026 </p><p>
9027 Justice O'Connor stopped me within one minute of my opening.  The history
9028 was bothering her.
9029 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9030 justice o'connor: Congress has extended the term so often through the years,
9031 and if you are right, don't we run the risk of upsetting previous extensions
9032 of time? I mean, this seems to be a practice that began with the very first
9033 act.
9034 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9035 She was quite willing to concede <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">that this flies directly in the face
9036 of what the framers had in mind.</span>&#8221;</span> But my response again and again was
9037 to emphasize limits on Congress's power.
9038 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9039
9040 mr. lessig: Well, if it flies in the face of what the framers had in mind,
9041 then the question is, is there a way of interpreting their words that gives
9042 effect to what they had in mind, and the answer is yes.
9043 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9044 There were two points in this argument when I should have seen where the
9045 Court was going. The first was a question by Justice Kennedy, who observed,
9046 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9047 justice kennedy: Well, I suppose implicit in the argument that the '76 act,
9048 too, should have been declared void, and that we might leave it alone
9049 because of the disruption, is that for all these years the act has impeded
9050 progress in science and the useful arts.  I just don't see any empirical
9051 evidence for that.
9052 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9053 Here follows my clear mistake. Like a professor correcting a student, I
9054 answered,
9055 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9056 mr. lessig: Justice, we are not making an empirical claim at all.  Nothing
9057 in our Copyright Clause claim hangs upon the empirical assertion about
9058 impeding progress. Our only argument is this is a structural limit necessary
9059 to assure that what would be an effectively perpetual term not be permitted
9060 under the copyright laws.
9061 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3056752"></a><p>
9062 That was a correct answer, but it wasn't the right answer. The right answer
9063 was instead that there was an obvious and profound harm. Any number of
9064 briefs had been written about it. He wanted to hear it. And here was the
9065 place Don Ayer's advice should have mattered. This was a softball; my answer
9066 was a swing and a miss.
9067 </p><p>
9068 The second came from the Chief, for whom the whole case had been
9069 crafted. For the Chief Justice had crafted the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
9070 ruling, and we hoped that he would see this case as its second cousin.
9071 </p><p>
9072
9073 It was clear a second into his question that he wasn't at all sympathetic.
9074 To him, we were a bunch of anarchists. As he asked:
9075
9076
9077 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9078 chief justice: Well, but you want more than that. You want the right to copy
9079 verbatim other people's books, don't you?
9080 </p><p>
9081 mr. lessig: We want the right to copy verbatim works that should be in the
9082 public domain and would be in the public domain but for a statute that
9083 cannot be justified under ordinary First Amendment analysis or under a
9084 proper reading of the limits built into the Copyright Clause.
9085 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9086 Things went better for us when the government gave its argument; for now the
9087 Court picked up on the core of our claim. As Justice Scalia asked Solicitor
9088 General Olson,
9089 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9090 justice scalia: You say that the functional equivalent of an unlimited time
9091 would be a violation [of the Constitution], but that's precisely the
9092 argument that's being made by petitioners here, that a limited time which is
9093 extendable is the functional equivalent of an unlimited time.
9094 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9095 When Olson was finished, it was my turn to give a closing rebuttal.  Olson's
9096 flailing had revived my anger. But my anger still was directed to the
9097 academic, not the practical. The government was arguing as if this were the
9098 first case ever to consider limits on Congress's Copyright and Patent Clause
9099 power. Ever the professor and not the advocate, I closed by pointing out the
9100 long history of the Court imposing limits on Congress's power in the name of
9101 the Copyright and Patent Clause&#8212; indeed, the very first case striking
9102 a law of Congress as exceeding a specific enumerated power was based upon
9103 the Copyright and Patent Clause. All true. But it wasn't going to move the
9104 Court to my side.
9105 </p><p>
9106
9107 As I left the court that day, I knew there were a hundred points I wished I
9108 could remake. There were a hundred questions I wished I had answered
9109 differently. But one way of thinking about this case left me optimistic.
9110 </p><p>
9111 The government had been asked over and over again, what is the limit? Over
9112 and over again, it had answered there is no limit. This was precisely the
9113 answer I wanted the Court to hear. For I could not imagine how the Court
9114 could understand that the government believed Congress's power was unlimited
9115 under the terms of the Copyright Clause, and sustain the government's
9116 argument. The solicitor general had made my argument for me. No matter how
9117 often I tried, I could not understand how the Court could find that
9118 Congress's power under the Commerce Clause was limited, but under the
9119 Copyright Clause, unlimited. In those rare moments when I let myself believe
9120 that we may have prevailed, it was because I felt this Court&#8212;in
9121 particular, the Conservatives&#8212;would feel itself constrained by the
9122 rule of law that it had established elsewhere.
9123 </p><p>
9124 The morning of January 15, 2003, I was five minutes late to the office and
9125 missed the 7:00 A.M. call from the Supreme Court clerk. Listening to the
9126 message, I could tell in an instant that she had bad news to report.The
9127 Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Seven
9128 justices had voted in the majority. There were two dissents.
9129 </p><p>
9130 A few seconds later, the opinions arrived by e-mail. I took the phone off
9131 the hook, posted an announcement to our blog, and sat down to see where I
9132 had been wrong in my reasoning.
9133 </p><p>
9134 My <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. Here was a case that pitted all the money
9135 in the world against <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. And here was the last
9136 naïve law professor, scouring the pages, looking for reasoning.
9137 </p><p>
9138 I first scoured the opinion, looking for how the Court would distinguish the
9139 principle in this case from the principle in
9140 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The argument was nowhere to be found. The case
9141 was not even cited. The argument that was the core argument of our case did
9142 not even appear in the Court's opinion.
9143 </p><p>
9144
9145
9146
9147 Justice Ginsburg simply ignored the enumerated powers argument.  Consistent
9148 with her view that Congress's power was not limited generally, she had found
9149 Congress's power not limited here.
9150 </p><p>
9151 Her opinion was perfectly reasonable&#8212;for her, and for Justice
9152 Souter. Neither believes in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. It would be too
9153 much to expect them to write an opinion that recognized, much less
9154 explained, the doctrine they had worked so hard to defeat.
9155 </p><p>
9156 But as I realized what had happened, I couldn't quite believe what I was
9157 reading. I had said there was no way this Court could reconcile limited
9158 powers with the Commerce Clause and unlimited powers with the Progress
9159 Clause. It had never even occurred to me that they could reconcile the two
9160 simply <span class="emphasis"><em>by not addressing the argument</em></span>. There was no
9161 inconsistency because they would not talk about the two together.  There was
9162 therefore no principle that followed from the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
9163 case: In that context, Congress's power would be limited, but in this
9164 context it would not.
9165 </p><p>
9166 Yet by what right did they get to choose which of the framers' values they
9167 would respect? By what right did they&#8212;the silent five&#8212;get to
9168 select the part of the Constitution they would enforce based on the values
9169 they thought important? We were right back to the argument that I said I
9170 hated at the start: I had failed to convince them that the issue here was
9171 important, and I had failed to recognize that however much I might hate a
9172 system in which the Court gets to pick the constitutional values that it
9173 will respect, that is the system we have.
9174 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3056943"></a><p>
9175 Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote very strong dissents. Stevens's opinion
9176 was crafted internal to the law: He argued that the tradition of
9177 intellectual property law should not support this unjustified extension of
9178 terms. He based his argument on a parallel analysis that had governed in the
9179 context of patents (so had we). But the rest of the Court discounted the
9180 parallel&#8212;without explaining how the very same words in the Progress
9181 Clause could come to mean totally different things depending upon whether
9182 the words were about patents or copyrights.  The Court let Justice Stevens's
9183 charge go unanswered.
9184 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3056962"></a><p>
9185
9186
9187 Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever written, was
9188 external to the Constitution. He argued that the term of copyrights has
9189 become so long as to be effectively unlimited. We had said that under the
9190 current term, a copyright gave an author 99.8 percent of the value of a
9191 perpetual term. Breyer said we were wrong, that the actual number was
9192 99.9997 percent of a perpetual term. Either way, the point was clear: If the
9193 Constitution said a term had to be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited,</span>&#8221;</span> and the existing
9194 term was so long as to be effectively unlimited, then it was
9195 unconstitutional.
9196 </p><p>
9197 These two justices understood all the arguments we had made. But because
9198 neither believed in the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, neither was
9199 willing to push it as a reason to reject this extension. The case was
9200 decided without anyone having addressed the argument that we had carried
9201 from Judge Sentelle. It was <em class="citetitle">Hamlet</em> without the
9202 Prince.
9203 </p><p>
9204 Defeat brings depression. They say it is a sign of health when depression
9205 gives way to anger. My anger came quickly, but it didn't cure the
9206 depression. This anger was of two sorts.
9207 </p><p>
9208 It was first anger with the five <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Conservatives.</span>&#8221;</span> It would have
9209 been one thing for them to have explained why the principle of
9210 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> didn't apply in this case. That wouldn't have
9211 been a very convincing argument, I don't believe, having read it made by
9212 others, and having tried to make it myself. But it at least would have been
9213 an act of integrity.  These justices in particular have repeatedly said that
9214 the proper mode of interpreting the Constitution is
9215 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">originalism</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;to first understand the framers' text,
9216 interpreted in their context, in light of the structure of the
9217 Constitution. That method had produced <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> and many
9218 other <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">originalist</span>&#8221;</span> rulings. Where was their
9219 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">originalism</span>&#8221;</span> now?
9220 </p><p>
9221
9222 Here, they had joined an opinion that never once tried to explain what the
9223 framers had meant by crafting the Progress Clause as they did; they joined
9224 an opinion that never once tried to explain how the structure of that clause
9225 would affect the interpretation of Congress's power. And they joined an
9226 opinion that didn't even try to explain why this grant of power could be
9227 unlimited, whereas the Commerce Clause would be limited. In short, they had
9228 joined an opinion that did not apply to, and was inconsistent with, their
9229 own method for interpreting the Constitution. This opinion may well have
9230 yielded a result that they liked. It did not produce a reason that was
9231 consistent with their own principles.
9232 </p><p>
9233 My anger with the Conservatives quickly yielded to anger with myself.  For I
9234 had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with a view of the law as
9235 it is.
9236 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3057075"></a><p>
9237 Most lawyers, and most law professors, have little patience for idealism
9238 about courts in general and this Supreme Court in particular.  Most have a
9239 much more pragmatic view. When Don Ayer said that this case would be won
9240 based on whether I could convince the Justices that the framers' values were
9241 important, I fought the idea, because I didn't want to believe that that is
9242 how this Court decides. I insisted on arguing this case as if it were a
9243 simple application of a set of principles.  I had an argument that followed
9244 in logic. I didn't need to waste my time showing it should also follow in
9245 popularity.
9246 </p><p>
9247
9248 As I read back over the transcript from that argument in October, I can see
9249 a hundred places where the answers could have taken the conversation in
9250 different directions, where the truth about the harm that this unchecked
9251 power will cause could have been made clear to this Court. Justice Kennedy
9252 in good faith wanted to be shown. I, idiotically, corrected his
9253 question. Justice Souter in good faith wanted to be shown the First
9254 Amendment harms. I, like a math teacher, reframed the question to make the
9255 logical point. I had shown them how they could strike this law of Congress
9256 if they wanted to. There were a hundred places where I could have helped
9257 them want to, yet my stubbornness, my refusal to give in, stopped me. I have
9258 stood before hundreds of audiences trying to persuade; I have used passion
9259 in that effort to persuade; but I refused to stand before this audience and
9260 try to persuade with the passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis
9261 on which a court should decide the issue.
9262 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3057117"></a><p>
9263 Would it have been different if I had argued it differently? Would it have
9264 been different if Don Ayer had argued it? Or Charles Fried? Or Kathleen
9265 Sullivan? <a class="indexterm" name="id3057128"></a>
9266 </p><p>
9267 My friends huddled around me to insist it would not. The Court was not
9268 ready, my friends insisted. This was a loss that was destined. It would take
9269 a great deal more to show our society why our framers were right. And when
9270 we do that, we will be able to show that Court.
9271 </p><p>
9272 Maybe, but I doubt it. These Justices have no financial interest in doing
9273 anything except the right thing. They are not lobbied. They have little
9274 reason to resist doing right. I can't help but think that if I had stepped
9275 down from this pretty picture of dispassionate justice, I could have
9276 persuaded.
9277 </p><p>
9278 And even if I couldn't, then that doesn't excuse what happened in
9279 January. For at the start of this case, one of America's leading
9280 intellectual property professors stated publicly that my bringing this case
9281 was a mistake. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Court is not ready,</span>&#8221;</span> Peter Jaszi said; this
9282 issue should not be raised until it is.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3057162"></a>
9283 </p><p>
9284
9285 After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly,
9286 that he was wrong. But if indeed that Court could not have been persuaded,
9287 then that is all the evidence that's needed to know that here again Peter
9288 was right. Either I was not ready to argue this case in a way that would do
9289 some good or they were not ready to hear this case in a way that would do
9290 some good. Either way, the decision to bring this case&#8212;a decision I
9291 had made four years before&#8212;was wrong.  While the reaction to the Sonny
9292 Bono Act itself was almost unanimously negative, the reaction to the Court's
9293 decision was mixed.  No one, at least in the press, tried to say that
9294 extending the term of copyright was a good idea. We had won that battle over
9295 ideas. Where the decision was praised, it was praised by papers that had
9296 been skeptical of the Court's activism in other cases. Deference was a good
9297 thing, even if it left standing a silly law. But where the decision was
9298 attacked, it was attacked because it left standing a silly and harmful
9299 law. <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> wrote in its editorial,
9300 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9301 In effect, the Supreme Court's decision makes it likely that we are seeing
9302 the beginning of the end of public domain and the birth of copyright
9303 perpetuity. The public domain has been a grand experiment, one that should
9304 not be allowed to die. The ability to draw freely on the entire creative
9305 output of humanity is one of the reasons we live in a time of such fruitful
9306 creative ferment.
9307 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9308 The best responses were in the cartoons. There was a gaggle of hilarious
9309 images&#8212;of Mickey in jail and the like. The best, from my view of the
9310 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">&#8220;<span class="quote">powerful and wealthy</span>&#8221;</span> line is a bit
9311 unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3057223"></a>
9312 </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="id3057244"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
9313 The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the quote from
9314 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>. That <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">grand
9315 experiment</span>&#8221;</span> we call the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">public domain</span>&#8221;</span> is over? When I
9316 can make light of it, I think, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Honey, I shrunk the
9317 Constitution.</span>&#8221;</span> But I can rarely make light of it. We had in our
9318 Constitution a commitment to free culture. In the case that I fathered, the
9319 Supreme Court effectively renounced that commitment. A better lawyer would
9320 have made them see differently.
9321 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3054549" href="#id3054549" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
9322
9323
9324 There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to describe, but
9325 it's a strong one. One phenomenon that the Internet created was a world of
9326 noncommercial pornographers&#8212;people who were distributing porn but were
9327 not making money directly or indirectly from that distribution.  Such a
9328 class didn't exist before the Internet came into being because the costs of
9329 distributing porn were so high. Yet this new class of distributors got
9330 special attention in the Supreme Court, when the Court struck down the
9331 Communications Decency Act of 1996. It was partly because of the burden on
9332 noncommercial speakers that the statute was found to exceed Congress's
9333 power. The same point could have been made about noncommercial publishers
9334 after the advent of the Internet. The Eric Eldreds of the world before the
9335 Internet were extremely few. Yet one would think it at least as important to
9336 protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3054606" href="#id3054606" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
9337
9338
9339 The full text is: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
9340 protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would
9341 violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen
9342 our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is
9343 also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last forever less one
9344 day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress,</span>&#8221;</span> 144
9345 Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
9346 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3054905" href="#id3054905" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
9347
9348 Associated Press, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey
9349 Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years,</span>&#8221;</span>
9350 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17 October 1998, 22.
9351 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3054922" href="#id3054922" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
9352
9353 See Nick Brown, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
9354 Age,</span>&#8221;</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
9355 #49</a>.
9356 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3054941" href="#id3054941" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
9357
9358
9359 Alan K. Ota, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars,</span>&#8221;</span>
9360 <em class="citetitle">Congressional Quarterly This Week</em>, 8 August 1990,
9361 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #50</a>.
9362 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3055061" href="#id3055061" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
9363
9364 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>, 514
9365 U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
9366 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3055088" href="#id3055088" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
9367
9368
9369 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>, 529
9370 U.S. 598 (2000).
9371 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3055108" href="#id3055108" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
9372
9373
9374 If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle carries
9375 from one enumerated power to another. The animating point in the context of
9376 the Commerce Clause was that the interpretation offered by the government
9377 would allow the government unending power to regulate commerce&#8212;the
9378 limitation to interstate commerce notwithstanding. The same point is true in
9379 the context of the Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's
9380 interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate
9381 copyrights&#8212;the limitation to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited times</span>&#8221;</span>
9382 notwithstanding.
9383 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3055198" href="#id3055198" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
9384
9385
9386 Brief of the Nashville Songwriters Association,
9387 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.
9388 186 (2003) (No. 01-618), n.10, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #51</a>.
9389 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3055268" href="#id3055268" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
9390
9391 The figure of 2 percent is an extrapolation from the study by the
9392 Congressional Research Service, in light of the estimated renewal
9393 ranges. See Brief of Petitioners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9394 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 7, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #52</a>.
9395 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3055450" href="#id3055450" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
9396
9397
9398 See David G. Savage, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright
9399 Law,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 6 October 2002; David
9400 Streitfeld, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court
9401 Hears Arguments Today on Striking Down Copyright Extension,</span>&#8221;</span>
9402 <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 9 October 2002.
9403 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3055510" href="#id3055510" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
9404
9405
9406 Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae Supporting the
9407 Petitoners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9408 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01- 618),
9409 12. See also Brief of Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of Petitioners by the
9410 Internet Archive, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9411 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #53</a>.
9412 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3055792" href="#id3055792" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
9413
9414
9415 Jason Schultz, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory,</span>&#8221;</span>
9416 20 December 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #54</a>.
9417 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3056309" href="#id3056309" class="para">192</a>] </sup>
9418
9419
9420 Brief of Amici Dr. Seuss Enterprise et al., <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9421 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.  (2003) (No. 01-618), 19.
9422 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3056334" href="#id3056334" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
9423
9424
9425 Dinitia Smith, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse
9426 Joins the Fray,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March
9427 1998, B7.
9428 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred-ii"></a>Kapittel 14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</h2></div></div></div><p>
9429 The day <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was decided, fate would have it that I
9430 was to travel to Washington, D.C. (The day the rehearing petition in
9431 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was denied&#8212;meaning the case was really
9432 finally over&#8212;fate would have it that I was giving a speech to
9433 technologists at Disney World.)  This was a particularly long flight to my
9434 least favorite city. The drive into the city from Dulles was delayed because
9435 of traffic, so I opened up my computer and wrote an op-ed piece.
9436 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3057296"></a><p>
9437 It was an act of contrition. During the whole of the flight from San
9438 Francisco to Washington, I had heard over and over again in my head the same
9439 advice from Don Ayer: You need to make them see why it is important. And
9440 alternating with that command was the question of Justice Kennedy:
9441 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">For all these years the act has impeded progress in science and the
9442 useful arts. I just don't see any empirical evidence for that.</span>&#8221;</span> And
9443 so, having failed in the argument of constitutional principle, finally, I
9444 turned to an argument of politics.
9445 </p><p>
9446
9447 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> published the piece. In it, I
9448 proposed a simple fix: Fifty years after a work has been published, the
9449 copyright owner would be required to register the work and pay a small
9450 fee. If he paid the fee, he got the benefit of the full term of
9451 copyright. If he did not, the work passed into the public domain.
9452 </p><p>
9453 We called this the Eldred Act, but that was just to give it a name.  Eric
9454 Eldred was kind enough to let his name be used once again, but as he said
9455 early on, it won't get passed unless it has another name.
9456 </p><p>
9457 Or another two names. For depending upon your perspective, this is either
9458 the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Public Domain Enhancement Act</span>&#8221;</span> or the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright
9459 Term Deregulation Act.</span>&#8221;</span> Either way, the essence of the idea is clear
9460 and obvious: Remove copyright where it is doing nothing except blocking
9461 access and the spread of knowledge. Leave it for as long as Congress allows
9462 for those works where its worth is at least $1. But for everything else, let
9463 the content go.
9464 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3057366"></a><p>
9465 The reaction to this idea was amazingly strong. Steve Forbes endorsed it in
9466 an editorial. I received an avalanche of e-mail and letters expressing
9467 support. When you focus the issue on lost creativity, people can see the
9468 copyright system makes no sense. As a good Republican might say, here
9469 government regulation is simply getting in the way of innovation and
9470 creativity. And as a good Democrat might say, here the government is
9471 blocking access and the spread of knowledge for no good reason. Indeed,
9472 there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans on this
9473 issue. Anyone can recognize the stupid harm of the present system.
9474 </p><p>
9475 Indeed, many recognized the obvious benefit of the registration
9476 requirement.  For one of the hardest things about the current system for
9477 people who want to license content is that there is no obvious place to look
9478 for the current copyright owners. Since registration is not required, since
9479 marking content is not required, since no formality at all is required, it
9480 is often impossibly hard to locate copyright owners to ask permission to use
9481 or license their work. This system would lower these costs, by establishing
9482 at least one registry where copyright owners could be identified.
9483 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3057400"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3057406"></a><p>
9484
9485 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;">10</a>, formalities in copyright law were removed in 1976,
9486 when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal requirement
9487 before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id3057424" href="#ftn.id3057424" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The
9488 Europeans are said to view copyright as a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">natural right.</span>&#8221;</span>
9489 Natural rights don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the
9490 Anglo-American tradition that required copyright owners to follow form if
9491 their rights were to be protected, did not, the Europeans thought, properly
9492 respect the dignity of the author. My right as a creator turns on my
9493 creativity, not upon the special favor of the government.
9494 </p><p>
9495 That's great rhetoric. It sounds wonderfully romantic. But it is absurd
9496 copyright policy. It is absurd especially for authors, because a world
9497 without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Walt
9498 Disney creativity</span>&#8221;</span> is destroyed when there is no simple way to know
9499 what's protected and what's not.
9500 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3057486"></a><p>
9501 The fight against formalities achieved its first real victory in Berlin in
9502 1908. International copyright lawyers amended the Berne Convention in 1908,
9503 to require copyright terms of life plus fifty years, as well as the
9504 abolition of copyright formalities. The formalities were hated because the
9505 stories of inadvertent loss were increasingly common. It was as if a Charles
9506 Dickens character ran all copyright offices, and the failure to dot an
9507 <em class="citetitle">i</em> or cross a <em class="citetitle">t</em> resulted in the
9508 loss of widows' only income.
9509 </p><p>
9510 These complaints were real and sensible. And the strictness of the
9511 formalities, especially in the United States, was absurd. The law should
9512 always have ways of forgiving innocent mistakes. There is no reason
9513 copyright law couldn't, as well. Rather than abandoning formalities totally,
9514 the response in Berlin should have been to embrace a more equitable system
9515 of registration.
9516 </p><p>
9517 Even that would have been resisted, however, because registration in the
9518 nineteenth and twentieth centuries was still expensive. It was also a
9519 hassle. The abolishment of formalities promised not only to save the
9520 starving widows, but also to lighten an unnecessary regulatory burden
9521 imposed upon creators.
9522 </p><p>
9523
9524 In addition to the practical complaint of authors in 1908, there was a moral
9525 claim as well. There was no reason that creative property should be a
9526 second-class form of property. If a carpenter builds a table, his rights
9527 over the table don't depend upon filing a form with the government.  He has
9528 a property right over the table <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">naturally,</span>&#8221;</span> and he can assert
9529 that right against anyone who would steal the table, whether or not he has
9530 informed the government of his ownership of the table.
9531 </p><p>
9532 This argument is correct, but its implications are misleading. For the
9533 argument in favor of formalities does not depend upon creative property
9534 being second-class property. The argument in favor of formalities turns upon
9535 the special problems that creative property presents.  The law of
9536 formalities responds to the special physics of creative property, to assure
9537 that it can be efficiently and fairly spread.
9538 </p><p>
9539 No one thinks, for example, that land is second-class property just because
9540 you have to register a deed with a court if your sale of land is to be
9541 effective. And few would think a car is second-class property just because
9542 you must register the car with the state and tag it with a license.  In both
9543 of those cases, everyone sees that there is an important reason to secure
9544 registration&#8212;both because it makes the markets more efficient and
9545 because it better secures the rights of the owner. Without a registration
9546 system for land, landowners would perpetually have to guard their
9547 property. With registration, they can simply point the police to a
9548 deed. Without a registration system for cars, auto theft would be much
9549 easier. With a registration system, the thief has a high burden to sell a
9550 stolen car. A slight burden is placed on the property owner, but those
9551 burdens produce a much better system of protection for property generally.
9552 </p><p>
9553 It is similarly special physics that makes formalities important in
9554 copyright law. Unlike a carpenter's table, there's nothing in nature that
9555 makes it relatively obvious who might own a particular bit of creative
9556 property. A recording of Lyle Lovett's latest album can exist in a billion
9557 places without anything necessarily linking it back to a particular
9558 owner. And like a car, there's no way to buy and sell creative property with
9559 confidence unless there is some simple way to authenticate who is the author
9560 and what rights he has. Simple transactions are destroyed in a world without
9561 formalities. Complex, expensive, <span class="emphasis"><em>lawyer</em></span> transactions
9562 take their place.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3057591"></a>
9563 </p><p>
9564 This was the understanding of the problem with the Sonny Bono Act that we
9565 tried to demonstrate to the Court. This was the part it didn't
9566 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">get.</span>&#8221;</span> Because we live in a system without formalities, there
9567 is no way easily to build upon or use culture from our past. If copyright
9568 terms were, as Justice Story said they would be, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">short,</span>&#8221;</span> then
9569 this wouldn't matter much. For fourteen years, under the framers' system, a
9570 work would be presumptively controlled. After fourteen years, it would be
9571 presumptively uncontrolled.
9572 </p><p>
9573 But now that copyrights can be just about a century long, the inability to
9574 know what is protected and what is not protected becomes a huge and obvious
9575 burden on the creative process. If the only way a library can offer an
9576 Internet exhibit about the New Deal is to hire a lawyer to clear the rights
9577 to every image and sound, then the copyright system is burdening creativity
9578 in a way that has never been seen before <span class="emphasis"><em>because there are no
9579 formalities</em></span>.
9580 </p><p>
9581 The Eldred Act was designed to respond to exactly this problem. If it is
9582 worth $1 to you, then register your work and you can get the longer
9583 term. Others will know how to contact you and, therefore, how to get your
9584 permission if they want to use your work. And you will get the benefit of an
9585 extended copyright term.
9586 </p><p>
9587 If it isn't worth it to you to register to get the benefit of an extended
9588 term, then it shouldn't be worth it for the government to defend your
9589 monopoly over that work either. The work should pass into the public domain
9590 where anyone can copy it, or build archives with it, or create a movie based
9591 on it. It should become free if it is not worth $1 to you.
9592 </p><p>
9593 Noen bekymrer seg over byrden på forfattere. Gjør ikke byrden med å
9594 registrere verket at beløpet $1 egentlig er misvisende?  Er ikke
9595 ekstraarbeidet verdt mer enn $1? Er ikke dette det virkelige problemet med
9596 registrering?
9597 </p><p>
9598
9599 It is. The hassle is terrible. The system that exists now is awful. I
9600 completely agree that the Copyright Office has done a terrible job (no doubt
9601 because they are terribly funded) in enabling simple and cheap
9602 registrations. Any real solution to the problem of formalities must address
9603 the real problem of <span class="emphasis"><em>governments</em></span> standing at the core of
9604 any system of formalities. In this book, I offer such a solution. That
9605 solution essentially remakes the Copyright Office. For now, assume it was
9606 Amazon that ran the registration system. Assume it was one-click
9607 registration.  The Eldred Act would propose a simple, one-click registration
9608 fifty years after a work was published. Based upon historical data, that
9609 system would move up to 98 percent of commercial work, commercial work that
9610 no longer had a commercial life, into the public domain within fifty
9611 years. What do you think?
9612 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3057685"></a><p>
9613 Da Steve Forbes støttet idéen, begynte enkelte i Washington å følge
9614 med. Mange kontaktet meg med tips til representanter som kan være villig til
9615 å introdusere en Eldred-lov. og jeg hadde noen få som foreslo direkte at de
9616 kan være villige til å ta det første skrittet.
9617 </p><p>
9618 One representative, Zoe Lofgren of California, went so far as to get the
9619 bill drafted. The draft solved any problem with international law. It
9620 imposed the simplest requirement upon copyright owners possible. In May
9621 2003, it looked as if the bill would be introduced. On May 16, I posted on
9622 the Eldred Act blog, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">we are close.</span>&#8221;</span> There was a general
9623 reaction in the blog community that something good might happen here.
9624 <a class="indexterm" name="id3057716"></a>
9625 </p><p>
9626 But at this stage, the lobbyists began to intervene. Jack Valenti and the
9627 MPAA general counsel came to the congresswoman's office to give the view of
9628 the MPAA. Aided by his lawyer, as Valenti told me, Valenti informed the
9629 congresswoman that the MPAA would oppose the Eldred Act. The reasons are
9630 embarrassingly thin. More importantly, their thinness shows something clear
9631 about what this debate is really about.
9632 </p><p>
9633
9634 The MPAA argued first that Congress had <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">firmly rejected the central
9635 concept in the proposed bill</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;that copyrights be renewed. That
9636 was true, but irrelevant, as Congress's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">firm rejection</span>&#8221;</span> had
9637 occurred long before the Internet made subsequent uses much more likely.
9638 Second, they argued that the proposal would harm poor copyright
9639 owners&#8212;apparently those who could not afford the $1 fee. Third, they
9640 argued that Congress had determined that extending a copyright term would
9641 encourage restoration work. Maybe in the case of the small percentage of
9642 work covered by copyright law that is still commercially valuable, but again
9643 this was irrelevant, as the proposal would not cut off the extended term
9644 unless the $1 fee was not paid. Fourth, the MPAA argued that the bill would
9645 impose <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">enormous</span>&#8221;</span> costs, since a registration system is not
9646 free. True enough, but those costs are certainly less than the costs of
9647 clearing the rights for a copyright whose owner is not known. Fifth, they
9648 worried about the risks if the copyright to a story underlying a film were
9649 to pass into the public domain. But what risk is that? If it is in the
9650 public domain, then the film is a valid derivative use.
9651 </p><p>
9652 Finally, the MPAA argued that existing law enabled copyright owners to do
9653 this if they wanted. But the whole point is that there are thousands of
9654 copyright owners who don't even know they have a copyright to give. Whether
9655 they are free to give away their copyright or not&#8212;a controversial
9656 claim in any case&#8212;unless they know about a copyright, they're not
9657 likely to.
9658 </p><p>
9659 At the beginning of this book, I told two stories about the law reacting to
9660 changes in technology. In the one, common sense prevailed.  In the other,
9661 common sense was delayed. The difference between the two stories was the
9662 power of the opposition&#8212;the power of the side that fought to defend
9663 the status quo. In both cases, a new technology threatened old
9664 interests. But in only one case did those interest's have the power to
9665 protect themselves against this new competitive threat.
9666 </p><p>
9667 Jeg brukte disse to tilfellene som en måte å ramme inn krigen som denne
9668 boken har handlet om.  For her er det også en ny teknologi som tvinger loven
9669 til å reagere.  Og her bør vi også spørre, er loven i tråd med eller i strid
9670 med sunn fornuft.  Hvis sunn fornuft støtter loven, hva forklarer denne
9671 sunne fornuften?
9672 </p><p>
9673
9674
9675
9676 When the issue is piracy, it is right for the law to back the copyright
9677 owners. The commercial piracy that I described is wrong and harmful, and the
9678 law should work to eliminate it. When the issue is p2p sharing, it is easy
9679 to understand why the law backs the owners still: Much of this sharing is
9680 wrong, even if much is harmless. When the issue is copyright terms for the
9681 Mickey Mouses of the world, it is possible still to understand why the law
9682 favors Hollywood: Most people don't recognize the reasons for limiting
9683 copyright terms; it is thus still possible to see good faith within the
9684 resistance.
9685 </p><p>
9686 But when the copyright owners oppose a proposal such as the Eldred Act,
9687 then, finally, there is an example that lays bare the naked selfinterest
9688 driving this war. This act would free an extraordinary range of content that
9689 is otherwise unused. It wouldn't interfere with any copyright owner's desire
9690 to exercise continued control over his content. It would simply liberate
9691 what Kevin Kelly calls the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Dark Content</span>&#8221;</span> that fills archives
9692 around the world. So when the warriors oppose a change like this, we should
9693 ask one simple question: <a class="indexterm" name="id3057834"></a>
9694 </p><p>
9695 Hva ønsker denne industrien egentlig?
9696 </p><p>
9697 With very little effort, the warriors could protect their content. So the
9698 effort to block something like the Eldred Act is not really about protecting
9699 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> content. The effort to block the Eldred Act is an
9700 effort to assure that nothing more passes into the public domain. It is
9701 another step to assure that the public domain will never compete, that there
9702 will be no use of content that is not commercially controlled, and that
9703 there will be no commercial use of content that doesn't require
9704 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> permission first.
9705 </p><p>
9706 The opposition to the Eldred Act reveals how extreme the other side is. The
9707 most powerful and sexy and well loved of lobbies really has as its aim not
9708 the protection of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> but the rejection of a tradition.
9709 Their aim is not simply to protect what is theirs. <span class="emphasis"><em>Their aim is to
9710 assure that all there is is what is theirs</em></span>.
9711 </p><p>
9712
9713 It is not hard to understand why the warriors take this view. It is not hard
9714 to see why it would benefit them if the competition of the public domain
9715 tied to the Internet could somehow be quashed. Just as RCA feared the
9716 competition of FM, they fear the competition of a public domain connected to
9717 a public that now has the means to create with it and to share its own
9718 creation.
9719 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3057891"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3057897"></a><p>
9720 Det som er vanskelig å forstå er hvorfor folket innehar dette synet. Det er
9721 som om loven gjorde at flymaskiner tok seg inn på annen manns eiendom.  MPAA
9722 står side om side med Causbyene og krever at deres fjerne og ubrukelige
9723 eierrettigheter blir respektert, slik at disse fjerne og glemte
9724 opphavsrettsinnehaverne kan blokkere fremgangen til andre.
9725 </p><p>
9726 All this seems to follow easily from this untroubled acceptance of the
9727 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> in intellectual property. Common sense supports it,
9728 and so long as it does, the assaults will rain down upon the technologies of
9729 the Internet. The consequence will be an increasing <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">permission
9730 society.</span>&#8221;</span> The past can be cultivated only if you can identify the
9731 owner and gain permission to build upon his work. The future will be
9732 controlled by this dead (and often unfindable) hand of the past.
9733 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3057424" href="#id3057424" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
9734
9735
9736 Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright
9737 legislation sometimes made protection depend upon compliance with
9738 formalities such as registration, deposit, and affixation of notice of the
9739 author's claim of copyright. However, starting with the 1908 act, every text
9740 of the Convention has provided that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the enjoyment and the
9741 exercise</span>&#8221;</span> of rights guaranteed by the Convention <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">shall not be
9742 subject to any formality.</span>&#8221;</span> The prohibition against formalities is
9743 presently embodied in Article 5(2) of the Paris Text of the Berne
9744 Convention. Many countries continue to impose some form of deposit or
9745 registration requirement, albeit not as a condition of copyright. French
9746 law, for example, requires the deposit of copies of works in national
9747 repositories, principally the National Museum.  Copies of books published in
9748 the United Kingdom must be deposited in the British Library. The German
9749 Copyright Act provides for a Registrar of Authors where the author's true
9750 name can be filed in the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works. Paul
9751 Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">International Intellectual Property Law, Cases and
9752 Materials</em> (New York: Foundation Press, 2001), 153&#8211;54.  </p></div></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 15. Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>Kapittel 15. Konklusjon</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxantiretroviraldrugs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhivaidstherapies"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxafricahivmed"></a><p>
9753 Det er mer enn trettifem millioner mennesker over hele verden med
9754 AIDS-viruset. Tjuefem millioner av dem bor i Afrika sør for Sahara.  Sytten
9755 millioner har allerede dødd.  Sytten millioner afrikanere er prosentvis
9756 proporsjonalt med syv millioner amerikanere.  Viktigere er det at dette er
9757 17 millioner afrikanere.
9758 </p><p>
9759 Det finnes ingen kur for AIDS, men det finnes medisiner som kan hemme
9760 sykdommens utvikling.  Disse antiretrovirale terapiene er fortsatt
9761 eksperimentelle, men de har hatt en dramatisk effekt allerede.  I USA øker
9762 AIDS-pasienter som regelmessig tar en cocktail av disse medisinene sin
9763 levealder med ti til tjue år. For noen gjøre medisinene sykdommen nesten
9764 usynlig.
9765 </p><p>
9766 Disse medisinene er dyre.  Da de ble først introdusert i USA, kostet de
9767 mellom $10 000 og $15 000 pr. person hvert år.  I dag koster noen
9768 av dem $25 000 pr. år.  Med disse prisene har, selvfølgelig, ingen
9769 afrikansk stat  råd til medisinen for det store flertall av sine innbyggere:
9770 $15 000 er tredve ganger brutto nasjonalprodukt pr. innbygger i
9771 Zimbabwe.  Med slike priser er disse medisinene fullstendig
9772 utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id3058021" href="#ftn.id3058021" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
9773 </p><p>
9774
9775
9776 Disse prisene er ikke høye fordi ingrediensene til medisinene er dyre.
9777 Disse prisene er høye fordi medisinene er beskyttet av patenter.
9778 Farmasiselskapene som produserer disse livreddende blandingene nyter minst
9779 tjue års monopol på sine oppfinnelser.  De bruker denne monopolmakten til å
9780 hente ut så mye de kan fra markedet.  Ved hjelp av denne makten holder de
9781 prisene høye.
9782 </p><p>
9783 Det er mange som er skeptiske til patenter, spesielt patenter på
9784 medisiner. Det er ikke jeg. Faktisk av alle forskningsområder som kan være
9785 støttet av patenter, er forskning på medisiner, etter min mening, det
9786 klareste tilfelle der patenter er nødvendig. Patenter gir et farmasøytiske
9787 firma en viss forsikring om at hvis det lykkes i å finne opp et nytt
9788 medikament som kan behandle en sykdom, vil det kunne tjene tilbake
9789 investeringen og mer til. Dette ber sosialt et ekstremt verdifullt
9790 insentiv. Jeg er den siste personen som vil argumentere for at loven skal
9791 avskaffe dette, i det minste uten andre endringer.
9792 </p><p>
9793 Men det er én ting å støtte patenter, selv patenter på medisiner. Det er en
9794 annen ting å avgjøre hvordan en best skal håndtere en krise. Og i det
9795 afrikanske ledere begynte å erkjenne ødeleggelsen AIDS brakte, begynte de å
9796 se etter måter å importere HIV-medisiner til kostnader betydelig under
9797 markedspris.
9798 </p><p>
9799 In 1997, South Africa tried one tack. It passed a law to allow the
9800 importation of patented medicines that had been produced or sold in another
9801 nation's market with the consent of the patent owner. For example, if the
9802 drug was sold in India, it could be imported into Africa from India. This is
9803 called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">parallel importation,</span>&#8221;</span> and it is generally permitted
9804 under international trade law and is specifically permitted within the
9805 European Union.<sup>[<a name="id3058108" href="#ftn.id3058108" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
9806 </p><p>
9807 However, the United States government opposed the bill. Indeed, more than
9808 opposed. As the International Intellectual Property Association
9809 characterized it, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The U.S. government pressured South Africa &#8230;
9810 not to permit compulsory licensing or parallel imports.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id3054680" href="#ftn.id3054680" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup> Through the Office of the United States Trade
9811 Representative, the government asked South Africa to change the
9812 law&#8212;and to add pressure to that request, in 1998, the USTR listed
9813 South Africa for possible trade sanctions.  That same year, more than forty
9814 pharmaceutical companies began proceedings in the South African courts to
9815 challenge the government's actions. The United States was then joined by
9816 other governments from the EU. Their claim, and the claim of the
9817 pharmaceutical companies, was that South Africa was violating its
9818 obligations under international law by discriminating against a particular
9819 kind of patent&#8212; pharmaceutical patents. The demand of these
9820 governments, with the United States in the lead, was that South Africa
9821 respect these patents as it respects any other patent, regardless of any
9822 effect on the treatment of AIDS within South Africa.<sup>[<a name="id3058164" href="#ftn.id3058164" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
9823 </p><p>
9824 Vi bør sette intervensjonen til USA i sammenheng.  Det er ingen tvil om at
9825 patenter ikke er den viktigste årsaken til at Afrikanere ikke har tilgang
9826 til medisiner.  Fattigdom og den totale mangel på effektivt helsevesen betyr
9827 mer. Men uansett om patenter er en viktigste grunnen eller ikke, så har
9828 prisen på medisiner en effekt på etterspørselen, og patenter påvirker
9829 prisen. Så uansett, massiv eller marginal, så var det en effekt av våre
9830 myndigheters intervensjon for å stoppe flyten av medisiner inn til Afrika.
9831 </p><p>
9832 Ved å stoppe flyten av HIV-behandling til Afrika, sikret ikke myndighetene i
9833 USA medisiner til USA borgere. Dette er ikke som hvete (hvis de spise det så
9834 kan ikke vi spise det). Det som USA i effekt intervenerte for å stoppe, var
9835 flyten av kunnskap: Informasjon om hvordan en kan ta kjemikalier som finnes
9836 i Afrika og gjøre disse kjemikaliene om til medisiner som kan redde 15 til
9837 30 millioner liv.
9838 </p><p>
9839 Intervensjonen fra USA ville heller ikke beskytte fortjenesten til
9840 medisinselskapene i USA&#8212; i hvert fall ikke betydelig.  Det var jo ikke
9841 slik at disse landene hadde mulighet til å kjøpe medisinene til de prisene
9842 som medisinselskapene forlangte.  Igjen var afrikanerne for fattige til å ha
9843 råd til disse medisinene til de tilbudte prisene.  Å blokkere for
9844 parallellimport av disse medisinene ville ikke øke salget til de amerikanske
9845 selskapene betydelig.
9846 </p><p>
9847 Instead, the argument in favor of restricting this flow of information,
9848 which was needed to save the lives of millions, was an argument about the
9849 sanctity of property.<sup>[<a name="id3058252" href="#ftn.id3058252" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup> It was because
9850 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>&#8221;</span> would be violated that these drugs
9851 should not flow into Africa. It was a principle about the importance of
9852 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>&#8221;</span> that led these government actors to
9853 intervene against the South African response to AIDS.
9854 </p><p>
9855 Now just step back for a moment. There will be a time thirty years from now
9856 when our children look back at us and ask, how could we have let this
9857 happen? How could we allow a policy to be pursued whose direct cost would be
9858 to speed the death of 15 to 30 million Africans, and whose only real benefit
9859 would be to uphold the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sanctity</span>&#8221;</span> of an idea? What possible
9860 justification could there ever be for a policy that results in so many
9861 deaths? What exactly is the insanity that would allow so many to die for
9862 such an abstraction?
9863 </p><p>
9864 Noen skylder på farmasiselskapene.  Det gjør ikke jeg.  De er selskaper, og
9865 deres ledere er lovpålagt å tjene penger for selskapene.  De presser på for
9866 en bestemt patentpolitikk, ikke på grunn av idealer, men fordi det er dette
9867 som gjør at de tjener mest penger.  Og dette gjør kun at de tjener mest
9868 penger på grunn av en slags korrupsjon i vårt politiske system&#8212; en
9869 korrupsjon som farmasiselskapene helt klart ikke er ansvarlige for.
9870 </p><p>
9871 Denne korrupsjonen er våre egne politikeres manglende integritet.  For
9872 medisinprodusentene ville elske&#8212;sier de selv, og jeg tror dem &#8212;
9873 å selge sine medisiner så billig som de kan til land i Afrika og andre
9874 steder. Det er utfordringer de må løse å sikre at medisinene ikke kommer
9875 tilbake til USA, men dette er bare teknologiske utfordring. De kan bli
9876 overvunnet.
9877 </p><p>
9878
9879 A different problem, however, could not be overcome. This is the fear of the
9880 grandstanding politician who would call the presidents of the drug companies
9881 before a Senate or House hearing, and ask, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">How is it you can sell
9882 this HIV drug in Africa for only $1 a pill, but the same drug would cost an
9883 American $1,500?</span>&#8221;</span> Because there is no <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sound bite</span>&#8221;</span>
9884 answer to that question, its effect would be to induce regulation of prices
9885 in America. The drug companies thus avoid this spiral by avoiding the first
9886 step. They reinforce the idea that property should be sacred. They adopt a
9887 rational strategy in an irrational context, with the unintended consequence
9888 that perhaps millions die. And that rational strategy thus becomes framed in
9889 terms of this ideal&#8212;the sanctity of an idea called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual
9890 property.</span>&#8221;</span>
9891 </p><p>
9892 Så når du konfronteres av ditt barns sunne fornuft, hva vil du si?  Når den
9893 sunne fornuften hos en generasjon endelig gjør opprør mot hva vi har gjort,
9894 hvordan vil vi rettferdiggjøre det?  Hva er argumentet?
9895 </p><p>
9896 En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk støtte til
9897 patentsystemet uten å måtte nå alle overalt på nøyaktig samme måte. På samme
9898 måte som en fornuftig opphavsrettspolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk
9899 støtte til et opphavsretts-system uten å måtte regulere spredningen av
9900 kultur perfekt og for alltid.  En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for
9901 og gi sterk støtte til et patentsystem uten å måtte blokkere spredning av
9902 medisiner til et land som uansett ikke er rikt nok til å ha råd til
9903 markedsprisen.  En fornuftig politikk kan en dermed si kunne være en
9904 balansert politikk.  For det meste av vår historie har både opphavsrett- og
9905 patentpolitikken i denne forstand vært balansert.
9906 </p><p>
9907 Men vi som kultur har mistet denne følelsen for balanse.  Vi har mistet det
9908 kritiske blikket som hjelper oss til å se forskjellen mellom sannhet og
9909 ekstremisme.  En slags eiendomsfundamentalisme, uten grunnlag i vår
9910 tradisjon, hersker nå i vår kultur&#8212;sært, og med konsekvenser mer
9911 alvorlig for spredningen av idéer og kultur enn nesten enhver annen politisk
9912 enkeltavgjørelse vi som demokrati kan fatte.
9913 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3058430"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3058454"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3058463"></a><p>
9914
9915 En enkel idé blender oss, og under dekke av mørket skjer mye som de fleste
9916 av oss ville avvist hvis vi hadde fulgt med.  Så ukritisk aksepterer vi
9917 idéen om eierskap til idéer at vi ikke engang legger merke til hvor uhyrlig
9918 det er å nekte tilgang til idéer for et folk som dør uten dem.  Så ukritisk
9919 aksepterer vi idéen om eiendom til kulturen at vi ikke engang stiller
9920 spørsmål ved når kontrollen over denne eiendommen fjerner vår evne, som
9921 folk, til å utvikle vår kultur demokratisk.  Blindhet blir vår sunne
9922 fornuft, og utfordringen for enhver som vil gjenvinne retten til å dyrke vår
9923 kultur er å finne en måte å få denne sunne fornuften til å åpne sine øyne.
9924 </p><p>
9925 So far, common sense sleeps. There is no revolt. Common sense does not yet
9926 see what there could be to revolt about. The extremism that now dominates
9927 this debate fits with ideas that seem natural, and that fit is reinforced by
9928 the RCAs of our day. They wage a frantic war to fight <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy,</span>&#8221;</span>
9929 and devastate a culture for creativity. They defend the idea of
9930 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property,</span>&#8221;</span> while transforming real creators into
9931 modern-day sharecroppers. They are insulted by the idea that rights should
9932 be balanced, even though each of the major players in this content war was
9933 itself a beneficiary of a more balanced ideal. The hypocrisy reeks. Yet in a
9934 city like Washington, hypocrisy is not even noticed. Powerful lobbies,
9935 complex issues, and MTV attention spans produce the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">perfect
9936 storm</span>&#8221;</span> for free culture.
9937 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3058525"></a><p>
9938 In August 2003, a fight broke out in the United States about a decision by
9939 the World Intellectual Property Organization to cancel a
9940 meeting.<sup>[<a name="id3058536" href="#ftn.id3058536" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> At the request of a wide range
9941 of interests, WIPO had decided to hold a meeting to discuss <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open and
9942 collaborative projects to create public goods.</span>&#8221;</span> These are projects
9943 that have been successful in producing public goods without relying
9944 exclusively upon a proprietary use of intellectual property. Examples
9945 include the Internet and the World Wide Web, both of which were developed on
9946 the basis of protocols in the public domain. It included an emerging trend
9947 to support open academic journals, including the Public Library of Science
9948 project that I describe in the Afterword. It included a project to develop
9949 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which are thought to have great
9950 significance in biomedical research. (That nonprofit project comprised a
9951 consortium of the Wellcome Trust and pharmaceutical and technological
9952 companies, including Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer,
9953 Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola,
9954 Novartis, Pfizer, and Searle.) It included the Global Positioning System,
9955 which Ronald Reagan set free in the early 1980s. And it included <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open
9956 source and free software.</span>&#8221;</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id3058611"></a>
9957 <a class="indexterm" name="id3058620"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3058626"></a>
9958 </p><p>
9959 Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles
9960 perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell
9961 ekstremisme. I stedet, hos alle disse, ble immaterielle rettigheter
9962 balansert med avtaler om å holde tilgang åpen, eller for å legge
9963 begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
9964 </p><p>
9965 Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen
9966 ideell.<sup>[<a name="id3058651" href="#ftn.id3058651" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
9967 både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker.  De involverte i hovedsak
9968 vitenskapen, men fra mange perspektiver.  Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for
9969 denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som
9970 drev med immaterielle rettighetsspørsmål.
9971 </p><p>
9972
9973 Indeed, I was once publicly scolded for not recognizing this fact about
9974 WIPO. In February 2003, I delivered a keynote address to a preparatory
9975 conference for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). At a
9976 press conference before the address, I was asked what I would say. I
9977 responded that I would be talking a little about the importance of balance
9978 in intellectual property for the development of an information society. The
9979 moderator for the event then promptly interrupted to inform me and the
9980 assembled reporters that no question about intellectual property would be
9981 discussed by WSIS, since those questions were the exclusive domain of
9982 WIPO. In the talk that I had prepared, I had actually made the issue of
9983 intellectual property relatively minor. But after this astonishing
9984 statement, I made intellectual property the sole focus of my talk. There was
9985 no way to talk about an <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Information Society</span>&#8221;</span> unless one also
9986 talked about the range of information and culture that would be free. My
9987 talk did not make my immoderate moderator very happy. And she was no doubt
9988 correct that the scope of intellectual property protections was ordinarily
9989 the stuff of WIPO. But in my view, there couldn't be too much of a
9990 conversation about how much intellectual property is needed, since in my
9991 view, the very idea of balance in intellectual property had been lost.
9992 </p><p>
9993 So whether or not WSIS can discuss balance in intellectual property, I had
9994 thought it was taken for granted that WIPO could and should. And thus the
9995 meeting about <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open and collaborative projects to create public
9996 goods</span>&#8221;</span> seemed perfectly appropriate within the WIPO agenda.
9997 </p><p>
9998 But there is one project within that list that is highly controversial, at
9999 least among lobbyists. That project is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open source and free
10000 software.</span>&#8221;</span> Microsoft in particular is wary of discussion of the
10001 subject. From its perspective, a conference to discuss open source and free
10002 software would be like a conference to discuss Apple's operating
10003 system. Both open source and free software compete with Microsoft's
10004 software. And internationally, many governments have begun to explore
10005 requirements that they use open source or free software, rather than
10006 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">proprietary software,</span>&#8221;</span> for their own internal uses.
10007 </p><p>
10008 I don't mean to enter that debate here. It is important only to make clear
10009 that the distinction is not between commercial and noncommercial
10010 software. There are many important companies that depend fundamentally upon
10011 open source and free software, IBM being the most prominent. IBM is
10012 increasingly shifting its focus to the GNU/Linux operating system, the most
10013 famous bit of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free software</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;and IBM is emphatically a
10014 commercial entity. Thus, to support <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open source and free
10015 software</span>&#8221;</span> is not to oppose commercial entities. It is, instead, to
10016 support a mode of software development that is different from
10017 Microsoft's.<sup>[<a name="id3058752" href="#ftn.id3058752" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3058804"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3058810"></a>
10018 <a class="indexterm" name="id3058819"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3058825"></a>
10019 </p><p>
10020
10021 More important for our purposes, to support <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open source and free
10022 software</span>&#8221;</span> is not to oppose copyright. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Open source and free
10023 software</span>&#8221;</span> is not software in the public domain. Instead, like
10024 Microsoft's software, the copyright owners of free and open source software
10025 insist quite strongly that the terms of their software license be respected
10026 by adopters of free and open source software. The terms of that license are
10027 no doubt different from the terms of a proprietary software license.  Free
10028 software licensed under the General Public License (GPL), for example,
10029 requires that the source code for the software be made available by anyone
10030 who modifies and redistributes the software. But that requirement is
10031 effective only if copyright governs software. If copyright did not govern
10032 software, then free software could not impose the same kind of requirements
10033 on its adopters. It thus depends upon copyright law just as Microsoft does.
10034 </p><p>
10035 Det er dermed forståelig at Microsoft, som utviklere av proprietær
10036 programvare, gikk imot et slikt WIPO-møte, og like fullt forståelig at de
10037 bruker sine lobbyister til å få USAs myndigheter til å gå imot møtet.  Og
10038 ganske riktig, det er akkurat dette som i følge rapporter hadde skjedd.  I
10039 følge Jonathan Krim i <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, lyktes
10040 Microsofts lobbyister i å få USAs myndigheter til å legge ned veto mot et
10041 slikt møte.<sup>[<a name="id3058880" href="#ftn.id3058880" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
10042 møtet avlyst.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3058898"></a>
10043 </p><p>
10044 Jeg klandrer ikke Microsoft for å gjøre det de kan for å fremme sine egne
10045 interesser i samsvar med loven. Og lobbyvirksomhet mot myndighetene er
10046 åpenbart i samsvar med loven. Det er ikke noe overraskende her med deres
10047 lobbyvirksomhet, og ikke veldig overraskende at den mektigste
10048 programvareprodusenten i USA har lyktes med sin lobbyvirksomhet.
10049 </p><p>
10050 What was surprising was the United States government's reason for opposing
10051 the meeting. Again, as reported by Krim, Lois Boland, acting director of
10052 international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, explained
10053 that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which
10054 is to promote intellectual-property rights.</span>&#8221;</span> She is quoted as saying,
10055 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such
10056 rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO.</span>&#8221;</span>
10057 </p><p>
10058 Disse utsagnene er forbløffende på flere nivåer.
10059 </p><p>
10060 First, they are just flat wrong. As I described, most open source and free
10061 software relies fundamentally upon the intellectual property right called
10062 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span>.  Without it, restrictions imposed by those
10063 licenses wouldn't work. Thus, to say it <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">runs counter</span>&#8221;</span> to the
10064 mission of promoting intellectual property rights reveals an extraordinary
10065 gap in understanding&#8212;the sort of mistake that is excusable in a
10066 first-year law student, but an embarrassment from a high government official
10067 dealing with intellectual property issues.
10068 </p><p>
10069 Second, who ever said that WIPO's exclusive aim was to
10070 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">promote</span>&#8221;</span> intellectual property maximally? As I had been
10071 scolded at the preparatory conference of WSIS, WIPO is to consider not only
10072 how best to protect intellectual property, but also what the best balance of
10073 intellectual property is. As every economist and lawyer knows, the hard
10074 question in intellectual property law is to find that balance. But that
10075 there should be limits is, I had thought, uncontested. One wants to ask
10076 Ms. Boland, are generic drugs (drugs based on drugs whose patent has
10077 expired) contrary to the WIPO mission? Does the public domain weaken
10078 intellectual property? Would it have been better if the protocols of the
10079 Internet had been patented?
10080 </p><p>
10081 Third, even if one believed that the purpose of WIPO was to maximize
10082 intellectual property rights, in our tradition, intellectual property rights
10083 are held by individuals and corporations. They get to decide what to do with
10084 those rights because, again, they are <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> rights. If
10085 they want to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">waive</span>&#8221;</span> or <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">disclaim</span>&#8221;</span> their rights,
10086 that is, within our tradition, totally appropriate. When Bill Gates gives
10087 away more than $20 billion to do good in the world, that is not inconsistent
10088 with the objectives of the property system. That is, on the contrary, just
10089 what a property system is supposed to be about: giving individuals the right
10090 to decide what to do with <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> property.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3059008"></a>
10091 </p><p>
10092
10093 When Ms. Boland says that there is something wrong with a meeting
10094 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights,</span>&#8221;</span>
10095 she's saying that WIPO has an interest in interfering with the choices of
10096 the individuals who own intellectual property rights. That somehow, WIPO's
10097 objective should be to stop an individual from <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">waiving</span>&#8221;</span> or
10098 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">disclaiming</span>&#8221;</span> an intellectual property right. That the interest
10099 of WIPO is not just that intellectual property rights be maximized, but that
10100 they also should be exercised in the most extreme and restrictive way
10101 possible.
10102 </p><p>
10103 There is a history of just such a property system that is well known in the
10104 Anglo-American tradition. It is called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">feudalism.</span>&#8221;</span> Under
10105 feudalism, not only was property held by a relatively small number of
10106 individuals and entities. And not only were the rights that ran with that
10107 property powerful and extensive. But the feudal system had a strong interest
10108 in assuring that property holders within that system not weaken feudalism by
10109 liberating people or property within their control to the free
10110 market. Feudalism depended upon maximum control and concentration. It fought
10111 any freedom that might interfere with that control.
10112 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3059056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3059062"></a><p>
10113 Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
10114 vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id3059075" href="#ftn.id3059075" class="footnote">204</a>]</sup>
10115 Vi kommer til å få et informasjonssamfunn.  Så mye er sikkert.  Vårt eneste
10116 valg nå er hvorvidt dette informasjonssamfunnet skal være
10117 <span class="emphasis"><em>fritt</em></span> eller <span class="emphasis"><em>føydalt</em></span>.  Trenden er
10118 mot det føydale.
10119 </p><p>
10120 Da denne bataljen brøt ut, blogget jeg om dette.  En heftig debatt brøt ut i
10121 kommentarfeltet.  Ms. Boland hadde en rekke støttespillere som forsøkte å
10122 vise hvorfor hennes kommentarer ga mening.  Men det var spesielt en
10123 kommentar som gjorde meg trist.  En anonym kommentator skrev,
10124 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
10125
10126 George, you misunderstand Lessig: He's only talking about the world as it
10127 should be (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the goal of WIPO, and the goal of any government, should
10128 be to promote the right balance of intellectual property rights, not simply
10129 to promote intellectual property rights</span>&#8221;</span>), not as it is. If we were
10130 talking about the world as it is, then of course Boland didn't say anything
10131 wrong. But in the world as Lessig would have it, then of course she
10132 did. Always pay attention to the distinction between Lessig's world and
10133 ours.
10134 </p></blockquote></div><p>
10135 Jeg gikk glipp av ironien først gangen jeg leste den. Jeg lese den raskt og
10136 trodde forfatteren støttet idéen om at det våre myndigheter burde gjøre var
10137 å søke balanse. (Min kritikk av Ms Boland, selvfølgelig, var ikke om
10138 hvorvidt hun søkte balanse eller ikke; min kritikk var at hennes kommentarer
10139 avslørte en feil kun en førsteårs jusstudent burde kunne gjøre. Jeg har noen
10140 illusjon om ekstremismen hos våre myndigheter, uansett om de er
10141 republikanere eller demokrater. Min eneste tilsynelatende illusjon er
10142 hvorvidt våre myndigheter bør snakke sant eller ikke.)
10143 </p><p>
10144 Obviously, however, the poster was not supporting that idea.  Instead, the
10145 poster was ridiculing the very idea that in the real world, the
10146 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">goal</span>&#8221;</span> of a government should be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">to promote the right
10147 balance</span>&#8221;</span> of intellectual property. That was obviously silly to
10148 him. And it obviously betrayed, he believed, my own silly
10149 utopianism. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Typical for an academic,</span>&#8221;</span> the poster might well
10150 have continued.
10151 </p><p>
10152 Jeg forstår kritikken av akademisk utopisme.  Jeg mener også at utopisme er
10153 tåpelig, og jeg vil være blant de første til å gjøre narr av de absurde
10154 urealistiske idealer til akademikere gjennom historien (og ikke bare i vårt
10155 eget lands historie).
10156 </p><p>
10157 But when it has become silly to suppose that the role of our government
10158 should be to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">seek balance,</span>&#8221;</span> then count me with the silly, for
10159 that means that this has become quite serious indeed. If it should be
10160 obvious to everyone that the government does not seek balance, that the
10161 government is simply the tool of the most powerful lobbyists, that the idea
10162 of holding the government to a different standard is absurd, that the idea
10163 of demanding of the government that it speak truth and not lies is just
10164 naïve, then who have we, the most powerful democracy in the world,
10165 become?
10166 </p><p>
10167
10168 Det kan være galskap å forvente at en mektig myndigshetsperson skal si
10169 sannheten. Det kan være galskap å tro at myndighetenes politikk skal gjøre
10170 mer enn å tjene de mektigste interesser. Det kan være galskap å argumentere
10171 for å bevare en tradisjon som har vært en del av vår tradisjon for
10172 mesteparten av vår historie&#8212;fri kultur.
10173 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3059203"></a><p>
10174 Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger.  Snart. Det finnes
10175 øyeblikk av håp i denne kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte
10176 mindre strenge eierskapsregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere
10177 medieeierskap, dannet det seg en en ekstraordinær koalisjon på tvers av
10178 partiene for å bekjempe endringen. For kanskje første gang i historien
10179 organiserte interesser så forskjellige som NRA, ACLU, moveon.org, William
10180 Safire, Ted Turner og Codepink Women for Piece seg for å protestere på denne
10181 endringen i FCC-reglene.  Så mange som 700 000 brev ble sendt til FCC med
10182 krav om flere høringer og et annet resultat.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3059231"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3059238"></a>
10183 </p><p>
10184 Disse protestene stoppet ikke FCC, men like etter stemte en bred koalisjon i
10185 senatet for å reversere avgjørelsen i FCC. De fiendtlige høringene som ledet
10186 til avstemmingen avslørte hvor mektig denne bevegelsen hadde blitt.  Det var
10187 ingen betydningsfull støtte for FCCs avgjørelse, mens det var bred og
10188 vedvarende støtte for å bekjempe ytterligere konsentrasjon i media.
10189 </p><p>
10190 Men selv denne bevegelsen går glipp av en viktig brikke i puslespillet.  Å
10191 være stor er ikke ille i seg selv. Frihet er ikke truet bare på grunn av at
10192 noen blir veldig rik, eller på grunn av at det bare er en håndfull store
10193 aktører.  Den dårlige kvaliteten til Big Macs eller Quartar Punders betyr
10194 ikke at du ikke kan få en god hamburger andre steder.
10195 </p><p>
10196 Faren med mediekonsentrasjon kommer ikke fra selve konsentrasjonen, men
10197 kommer fra føydalismen som denne konsentrasjonen fører til når den kobles
10198 til endringer i opphavsretten. Det er ikke kun at det er noen mektige
10199 selskaper som styrer en stadig voksende andel av mediene. Det er at denne
10200 konsentrasjonen kan påkalle en like oppsvulmet rekke
10201 rettigheter&#8212;eiendomsrettigheter i en historisk ekstrem form&#8212;som
10202 gjør størrelsen ille.
10203 </p><p>
10204 It is therefore significant that so many would rally to demand competition
10205 and increased diversity. Still, if the rally is understood as being about
10206 bigness alone, it is not terribly surprising. We Americans have a long
10207 history of fighting <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">big,</span>&#8221;</span> wisely or not. That we could be
10208 motivated to fight <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">big</span>&#8221;</span> again is not something new.
10209 </p><p>
10210 It would be something new, and something very important, if an equal number
10211 could be rallied to fight the increasing extremism built within the idea of
10212 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>&#8221;</span> Not because balance is alien to our
10213 tradition; indeed, as I've argued, balance is our tradition. But because the
10214 muscle to think critically about the scope of anything called
10215 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> is not well exercised within this tradition anymore.
10216 </p><p>
10217 Hvis vi var Akilles, så ville dette være vår hæl. Dette ville være stedet
10218 for våre tragedie.
10219 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3059335"></a><p>
10220 As I write these final words, the news is filled with stories about the RIAA
10221 lawsuits against almost three hundred individuals.<sup>[<a name="id3059347" href="#ftn.id3059347" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup> Eminem has just been sued for
10222 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sampling</span>&#8221;</span> someone else's music.<sup>[<a name="id3059413" href="#ftn.id3059413" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup> The story about Bob Dylan <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stealing</span>&#8221;</span> from a Japanese
10223 author has just finished making the rounds.<sup>[<a name="id3059434" href="#ftn.id3059434" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup> An insider from Hollywood&#8212;who insists he must remain
10224 anonymous&#8212;reports <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">an amazing conversation with these studio
10225 guys. They've got extraordinary [old] content that they'd love to use but
10226 can't because they can't begin to clear the rights. They've got scores of
10227 kids who could do amazing things with the content, but it would take scores
10228 of lawyers to clean it first.</span>&#8221;</span> Congressmen are talking about
10229 deputizing computer viruses to bring down computers thought to violate the
10230 law. Universities are threatening expulsion for kids who use a computer to
10231 share content.
10232 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3059469"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3059475"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3059481"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3059488"></a><p>
10233
10234 Yet on the other side of the Atlantic, the BBC has just announced that it
10235 will build a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Creative Archive,</span>&#8221;</span> from which British citizens
10236 can download BBC content, and rip, mix, and burn it.<sup>[<a name="id3059504" href="#ftn.id3059504" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup> And in Brazil, the culture minister, Gilberto Gil,
10237 himself a folk hero of Brazilian music, has joined with Creative Commons to
10238 release content and free licenses in that Latin American
10239 country.<sup>[<a name="id3059525" href="#ftn.id3059525" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup> I've told a dark story. The
10240 truth is more mixed. A technology has given us a new freedom. Slowly, some
10241 begin to understand that this freedom need not mean anarchy. We can carry a
10242 free culture into the twenty-first century, without artists losing and
10243 without the potential of digital technology being destroyed. It will take
10244 some thought, and more importantly, it will take some will to transform the
10245 RCAs of our day into the Causbys.
10246 </p><p>
10247
10248 Sunn fornuft må gjøre opprør. Den må handle for å frigjøre kulturen. Og
10249 snart, hvis dette potensialet skal noen gang bli realisert.
10250
10251
10252
10253 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058021" href="#id3058021" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
10254
10255 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Final Report: Integrating
10256 Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy</span>&#8221;</span> (London, 2002),
10257 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10258 #55</a>. According to a World Health Organization press release issued 9
10259 July 2002, only 230,000 of the 6 million who need drugs in the developing
10260 world receive them&#8212;and half of them are in Brazil.
10261 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058108" href="#id3058108" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
10262
10263 Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: <em class="citetitle">Who
10264 Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New Press, 2003),
10265 37.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3058117"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3058125"></a>
10266 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3054680" href="#id3054680" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
10267
10268
10269 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10270 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, a
10271 Report Prepared for the World Intellectual Property Organization</em>
10272 (Washington, D.C., 2000), 14, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #56</a>. For a firsthand
10273 account of the struggle over South Africa, see Hearing Before the
10274 Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, House
10275 Committee on Government Reform, H. Rep., 1st sess., Ser. No. 106-126 (22
10276 July 1999), 150&#8211;57 (statement of James Love).
10277 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058164" href="#id3058164" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
10278
10279
10280 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10281 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, en
10282 rapport forberedt for the World Intellectual Property
10283 Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058252" href="#id3058252" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
10284
10285
10286
10287 See Sabin Russell, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's
10288 Needs at Odds with Firms' Profit Motive,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
10289 Chronicle</em>, 24 May 1999, A1, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #57</a> (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">compulsory
10290 licenses and gray markets pose a threat to the entire system of intellectual
10291 property protection</span>&#8221;</span>); Robert Weissman, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">AIDS and Developing
10292 Countries: Democratizing Access to Essential Medicines,</span>&#8221;</span>
10293 <em class="citetitle">Foreign Policy in Focus</em> 4:23 (August 1999), available
10294 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #58</a> (describing
10295 U.S. policy); John A. Harrelson, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents, and
10296 the HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between Intellectual
10297 Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Widener Law
10298 Symposium Journal</em> (Spring 2001): 175.
10299
10300 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058536" href="#id3058536" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
10301
10302 Jonathan Krim, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source,</span>&#8221;</span>
10303 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, August 2003, E1, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #59</a>; William New,
10304 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Global Group's Shift on `Open Source' Meeting Spurs Stir,</span>&#8221;</span>
10305 <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19 August 2003,
10306 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #60</a>;
10307 William New, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks at
10308 WIPO,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19
10309 August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10310 #61</a>.
10311 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058651" href="#id3058651" class="para">201</a>] </sup>
10312
10313 Jeg bør nevne at jeg var en av folkene som ba WIPO om dette møtet.
10314 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058752" href="#id3058752" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
10315
10316
10317 Microsoft's position about free and open source software is more
10318 sophisticated.  As it has repeatedly asserted, it has no problem with
10319 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open source</span>&#8221;</span> software or software in the public
10320 domain. Microsoft's principal opposition is to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free software</span>&#8221;</span>
10321 licensed under a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyleft</span>&#8221;</span> license, meaning a license that
10322 requires the licensee to adopt the same terms on any derivative work. See
10323 Bradford L. Smith, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Future of Software: Enabling the Marketplace
10324 to Decide,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Government Policy Toward Open Source
10325 Software</em> (Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for
10326 Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
10327 Research, 2002), 69, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #62</a>. See also Craig Mundie,
10328 Microsoft senior vice president, <em class="citetitle">The Commercial Software
10329 Model</em>, discussion at New York University Stern School of
10330 Business (3 May 2001), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #63</a>.
10331 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3058880" href="#id3058880" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
10332
10333
10334 Krim, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source,</span>&#8221;</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #64</a>.
10335 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059075" href="#id3059075" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
10336
10337 Se Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
10338 210&#8211;20.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3058167"></a>
10339 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059347" href="#id3059347" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
10340
10341
10342 John Borland, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers,</span>&#8221;</span> CNET News.com,
10343 September 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10344 #65</a>; Paul R. La Monica, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Music Industry Sues Swappers,</span>&#8221;</span>
10345 CNN/Money, 8 September 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #66</a>; Soni Sangha and
10346 Phyllis Furman with Robert Gearty, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Sued for a Song, N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old
10347 Among 261 Cited as Sharers,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Daily
10348 News</em>, 9 September 2003, 3; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits
10349 Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in
10350 N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10
10351 September 2003, E1; Katie Dean, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA,</span>&#8221;</span>
10352 <em class="citetitle">Wired News</em>, 10 September 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #67</a>.
10353 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059413" href="#id3059413" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
10354
10355
10356 Jon Wiederhorn, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Eminem Gets Sued &#8230; by a Little Old
10357 Lady,</span>&#8221;</span> mtv.com, 17 September 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #68</a>.
10358 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059434" href="#id3059434" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
10359
10360
10361
10362 Kenji Hall, Associated Press, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for
10363 Dylan Songs,</span>&#8221;</span> Kansascity.com, 9 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #69</a>.
10364
10365 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059504" href="#id3059504" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
10366
10367 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public,</span>&#8221;</span> BBC press
10368 release, 24 August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #70</a>.
10369 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059525" href="#id3059525" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
10370
10371
10372 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Creative Commons and Brazil,</span>&#8221;</span> Creative Commons Weblog, 6
10373 August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10374 #71</a>.
10375 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 16. Etterord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-afterword"></a>Kapittel 16. Etterord</h2></div></div></div><p>
10376
10377
10378
10379 I hvert fall noen av de som har lest helt hit vil være enig med meg om at
10380 noe må gjøres for å endre retningen vi holder.  Balansen i denne boken
10381 kartlegger hva som kan gjøres.
10382 </p><p>
10383 Jeg deler dette kartet i to deler: det som enhver kan gjøre nå, og det som
10384 krever hjelp fra lovgiverne.  Hvis det er en lærdom vi kan trekke fra
10385 historien om å endre på sunn fornuft, så er det at det krever å endre
10386 hvordan mange mennesker tenker på den aktuelle saken.
10387 </p><p>
10388 Det betyr at denne bevegelsen må starte i gatene.  Det må rekrutteres et
10389 signifikant antall foreldre, lærere, bibliotekarer, skapere, forfattere,
10390 musikere, filmskapere, forskere&#8212;som alle må fortelle denne historien
10391 med sine egne ord, og som kan fortelle sine naboer hvorfor denne kampen er
10392 så viktig.
10393 </p><p>
10394 Når denne bevegelsen har hatt sin effekt i gatene, så er det et visst håp om
10395 at det kan ha effekt i Washington.  Vi er fortsatt et demokrati. Hva folk
10396 mener betyr noe.  Ikke så mye som det burde, i hvert fall når en RCA står
10397 imot, men likevel, det betyr noe.  Og dermed vil jeg skissere, i den andre
10398 delen som følger, endringer som kongressen kunne gjøre for å bedre sikre en
10399 fri kultur.
10400 </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>
10401 Common sense is with the copyright warriors because the debate so far has
10402 been framed at the extremes&#8212;as a grand either/or: either property or
10403 anarchy, either total control or artists won't be paid. If that really is
10404 the choice, then the warriors should win.
10405 </p><p>
10406 The mistake here is the error of the excluded middle. There are extremes in
10407 this debate, but the extremes are not all that there is. There are those who
10408 believe in maximal copyright&#8212;<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;
10409 and those who reject copyright&#8212;<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved.</span>&#8221;</span> The
10410 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>&#8221;</span> sorts believe that you should ask
10411 permission before you <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">use</span>&#8221;</span> a copyrighted work in any way. The
10412 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved</span>&#8221;</span> sorts believe you should be able to do
10413 with content as you wish, regardless of whether you have permission or not.
10414 </p><p>
10415
10416 When the Internet was first born, its initial architecture effectively
10417 tilted in the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>&#8221;</span> direction. Content could be
10418 copied perfectly and cheaply; rights could not easily be controlled. Thus,
10419 regardless of anyone's desire, the effective regime of copyright under the
10420 original design of the Internet was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">no rights reserved.</span>&#8221;</span>
10421 Content was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taken</span>&#8221;</span> regardless of the rights. Any rights were
10422 effectively unprotected.
10423 </p><p>
10424 This initial character produced a reaction (opposite, but not quite equal)
10425 by copyright owners. That reaction has been the topic of this book. Through
10426 legislation, litigation, and changes to the network's design, copyright
10427 holders have been able to change the essential character of the environment
10428 of the original Internet. If the original architecture made the effective
10429 default <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">no rights reserved,</span>&#8221;</span> the future architecture will make
10430 the effective default <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">all rights reserved.</span>&#8221;</span> The architecture
10431 and law that surround the Internet's design will increasingly produce an
10432 environment where all use of content requires permission.  The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">cut
10433 and paste</span>&#8221;</span> world that defines the Internet today will become a
10434 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">get permission to cut and paste</span>&#8221;</span> world that is a creator's
10435 nightmare.
10436 </p><p>
10437 What's needed is a way to say something in the middle&#8212;neither
10438 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">all rights reserved</span>&#8221;</span> nor <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>&#8221;</span> but
10439 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">some rights reserved</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212; and thus a way to respect
10440 copyrights but enable creators to free content as they see fit. In other
10441 words, we need a way to restore a set of freedoms that we could just take
10442 for granted before.
10443 </p><div class="section" title="16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="examples"></a>16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</h3></div></div></div><p>
10444 If you step back from the battle I've been describing here, you will
10445 recognize this problem from other contexts. Think about privacy. Before the
10446 Internet, most of us didn't have to worry much about data about our lives
10447 that we broadcast to the world. If you walked into a bookstore and browsed
10448 through some of the works of Karl Marx, you didn't need to worry about
10449 explaining your browsing habits to your neighbors or boss. The
10450 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">privacy</span>&#8221;</span> of your browsing habits was assured.
10451 </p><p>
10452 Hva gjorde at det var sikret?
10453 </p><p>
10454 Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;">10</a>, your privacy was
10455 assured because of an inefficient architecture for gathering data and hence
10456 a market constraint (cost) on anyone who wanted to gather that data. If you
10457 were a suspected spy for North Korea, working for the CIA, no doubt your
10458 privacy would not be assured.  But that's because the CIA would (we hope)
10459 find it valuable enough to spend the thousands required to track you. But
10460 for most of us (again, we can hope), spying doesn't pay. The highly
10461 inefficient architecture of real space means we all enjoy a fairly robust
10462 amount of privacy. That privacy is guaranteed to us by friction. Not by law
10463 (there is no law protecting <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">privacy</span>&#8221;</span> in public places), and in
10464 many places, not by norms (snooping and gossip are just fun), but instead,
10465 by the costs that friction imposes on anyone who would want to spy.
10466 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3059792"></a><p>
10467 Enter the Internet, where the cost of tracking browsing in particular has
10468 become quite tiny. If you're a customer at Amazon, then as you browse the
10469 pages, Amazon collects the data about what you've looked at. You know this
10470 because at the side of the page, there's a list of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">recently
10471 viewed</span>&#8221;</span> pages. Now, because of the architecture of the Net and the
10472 function of cookies on the Net, it is easier to collect the data than
10473 not. The friction has disappeared, and hence any <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">privacy</span>&#8221;</span>
10474 protected by the friction disappears, too.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3059816"></a>
10475 </p><p>
10476 Amazon, of course, is not the problem. But we might begin to worry about
10477 libraries. If you're one of those crazy lefties who thinks that people
10478 should have the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">right</span>&#8221;</span> to browse in a library without the
10479 government knowing which books you look at (I'm one of those lefties, too),
10480 then this change in the technology of monitoring might concern you. If it
10481 becomes simple to gather and sort who does what in electronic spaces, then
10482 the friction-induced privacy of yesterday disappears.
10483 </p><p>
10484
10485 It is this reality that explains the push of many to define
10486 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">privacy</span>&#8221;</span> on the Internet. It is the recognition that
10487 technology can remove what friction before gave us that leads many to push
10488 for laws to do what friction did.<sup>[<a name="id3059849" href="#ftn.id3059849" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup> And
10489 whether you're in favor of those laws or not, it is the pattern that is
10490 important here. We must take affirmative steps to secure a kind of freedom
10491 that was passively provided before. A change in technology now forces those
10492 who believe in privacy to affirmatively act where, before, privacy was given
10493 by default.
10494 </p><p>
10495 A similar story could be told about the birth of the free software
10496 movement. When computers with software were first made available
10497 commercially, the software&#8212;both the source code and the
10498 binaries&#8212; was free. You couldn't run a program written for a Data
10499 General machine on an IBM machine, so Data General and IBM didn't care much
10500 about controlling their software.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3059890"></a>
10501 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3059902"></a><p>
10502 Dette var verden Richard Stallman ble født inn i, og mens han var forsker
10503 ved MIT, lærte han til å elske samfunnet som utviklet seg når en var fri til
10504 å utforske og fikle med programvaren som kjørte på datamaskiner. Av den
10505 smarte sorten selv, og en talentfull programmerer, begynte Stallman å basere
10506 seg frihet til å legge til eller endre på andre personers arbeid.
10507 </p><p>
10508 In an academic setting, at least, that's not a terribly radical idea. In a
10509 math department, anyone would be free to tinker with a proof that someone
10510 offered. If you thought you had a better way to prove a theorem, you could
10511 take what someone else did and change it. In a classics department, if you
10512 believed a colleague's translation of a recently discovered text was flawed,
10513 you were free to improve it. Thus, to Stallman, it seemed obvious that you
10514 should be free to tinker with and improve the code that ran a machine. This,
10515 too, was knowledge. Why shouldn't it be open for criticism like anything
10516 else?
10517 </p><p>
10518 No one answered that question. Instead, the architecture of revenue for
10519 computing changed. As it became possible to import programs from one system
10520 to another, it became economically attractive (at least in the view of some)
10521 to hide the code of your program. So, too, as companies started selling
10522 peripherals for mainframe systems. If I could just take your printer driver
10523 and copy it, then that would make it easier for me to sell a printer to the
10524 market than it was for you.
10525 </p><p>
10526
10527 Thus, the practice of proprietary code began to spread, and by the early
10528 1980s, Stallman found himself surrounded by proprietary code.  The world of
10529 free software had been erased by a change in the economics of computing. And
10530 as he believed, if he did nothing about it, then the freedom to change and
10531 share software would be fundamentally weakened.
10532 </p><p>
10533 Therefore, in 1984, Stallman began a project to build a free operating
10534 system, so that at least a strain of free software would survive. That was
10535 the birth of the GNU project, into which Linus Torvalds's
10536 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Linux</span>&#8221;</span> kernel was added to produce the GNU/Linux operating
10537 system.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3059979"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3059986"></a>
10538 </p><p>
10539 Stallman's technique was to use copyright law to build a world of software
10540 that must be kept free. Software licensed under the Free Software
10541 Foundation's GPL cannot be modified and distributed unless the source code
10542 for that software is made available as well. Thus, anyone building upon
10543 GPL'd software would have to make their buildings free as well. This would
10544 assure, Stallman believed, that an ecology of code would develop that
10545 remained free for others to build upon. His fundamental goal was freedom;
10546 innovative creative code was a byproduct.
10547 </p><p>
10548 Stallman was thus doing for software what privacy advocates now do for
10549 privacy. He was seeking a way to rebuild a kind of freedom that was taken
10550 for granted before. Through the affirmative use of licenses that bind
10551 copyrighted code, Stallman was affirmatively reclaiming a space where free
10552 software would survive. He was actively protecting what before had been
10553 passively guaranteed.
10554 </p><p>
10555 Finally, consider a very recent example that more directly resonates with
10556 the story of this book. This is the shift in the way academic and scientific
10557 journals are produced.
10558 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxacademocjournals"></a><p>
10559
10560 As digital technologies develop, it is becoming obvious to many that
10561 printing thousands of copies of journals every month and sending them to
10562 libraries is perhaps not the most efficient way to distribute
10563 knowledge. Instead, journals are increasingly becoming electronic, and
10564 libraries and their users are given access to these electronic journals
10565 through password-protected sites. Something similar to this has been
10566 happening in law for almost thirty years: Lexis and Westlaw have had
10567 electronic versions of case reports available to subscribers to their
10568 service.  Although a Supreme Court opinion is not copyrighted, and anyone is
10569 free to go to a library and read it, Lexis and Westlaw are also free to
10570 charge users for the privilege of gaining access to that Supreme Court
10571 opinion through their respective services.
10572 </p><p>
10573 There's nothing wrong in general with this, and indeed, the ability to
10574 charge for access to even public domain materials is a good incentive for
10575 people to develop new and innovative ways to spread knowledge.  The law has
10576 agreed, which is why Lexis and Westlaw have been allowed to flourish. And if
10577 there's nothing wrong with selling the public domain, then there could be
10578 nothing wrong, in principle, with selling access to material that is not in
10579 the public domain.
10580 </p><p>
10581 But what if the only way to get access to social and scientific data was
10582 through proprietary services? What if no one had the ability to browse this
10583 data except by paying for a subscription?
10584 </p><p>
10585 As many are beginning to notice, this is increasingly the reality with
10586 scientific journals. When these journals were distributed in paper form,
10587 libraries could make the journals available to anyone who had access to the
10588 library. Thus, patients with cancer could become cancer experts because the
10589 library gave them access. Or patients trying to understand the risks of a
10590 certain treatment could research those risks by reading all available
10591 articles about that treatment. This freedom was therefore a function of the
10592 institution of libraries (norms) and the technology of paper journals
10593 (architecture)&#8212;namely, that it was very hard to control access to a
10594 paper journal.
10595 </p><p>
10596 As journals become electronic, however, the publishers are demanding that
10597 libraries not give the general public access to the journals. This means
10598 that the freedoms provided by print journals in public libraries begin to
10599 disappear. Thus, as with privacy and with software, a changing technology
10600 and market shrink a freedom taken for granted before.
10601 </p><p>
10602 This shrinking freedom has led many to take affirmative steps to restore the
10603 freedom that has been lost. The Public Library of Science (PLoS), for
10604 example, is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making scientific research
10605 available to anyone with a Web connection. Authors of scientific work submit
10606 that work to the Public Library of Science.  That work is then subject to
10607 peer review. If accepted, the work is then deposited in a public, electronic
10608 archive and made permanently available for free. PLoS also sells a print
10609 version of its work, but the copyright for the print journal does not
10610 inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3060108"></a>
10611 </p><p>
10612 This is one of many such efforts to restore a freedom taken for granted
10613 before, but now threatened by changing technology and markets.  There's no
10614 doubt that this alternative competes with the traditional publishers and
10615 their efforts to make money from the exclusive distribution of content. But
10616 competition in our tradition is presumptively a good&#8212;especially when
10617 it helps spread knowledge and science.
10618 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3060119"></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>
10619 Den samme strategien kan brukes på kultur, som et svar på den økende
10620 kontrollen som gjennomføres gjennom lov og teknologi.
10621 </p><p>
10622 Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation
10623 established in Massachusetts, but with its home at Stanford University. Its
10624 aim is to build a layer of <span class="emphasis"><em>reasonable</em></span> copyright on top
10625 of the extremes that now reign. It does this by making it easy for people to
10626 build upon other people's work, by making it simple for creators to express
10627 the freedom for others to take and build upon their work. Simple tags, tied
10628 to human-readable descriptions, tied to bulletproof licenses, make this
10629 possible.
10630 </p><p>
10631
10632 <span class="emphasis"><em>Simple</em></span>&#8212;which means without a middleman, or
10633 without a lawyer.  By developing a free set of licenses that people can
10634 attach to their content, Creative Commons aims to mark a range of content
10635 that can easily, and reliably, be built upon. These tags are then linked to
10636 machine-readable versions of the license that enable computers automatically
10637 to identify content that can easily be shared. These three expressions
10638 together&#8212;a legal license, a human-readable description, and
10639 machine-readable tags&#8212;constitute a Creative Commons license. A
10640 Creative Commons license constitutes a grant of freedom to anyone who
10641 accesses the license, and more importantly, an expression of the ideal that
10642 the person associated with the license believes in something different than
10643 the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All</span>&#8221;</span> or <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No</span>&#8221;</span> extremes. Content is marked with
10644 the CC mark, which does not mean that copyright is waived, but that certain
10645 freedoms are given.
10646 </p><p>
10647 These freedoms are beyond the freedoms promised by fair use. Their precise
10648 contours depend upon the choices the creator makes. The creator can choose a
10649 license that permits any use, so long as attribution is given. She can
10650 choose a license that permits only noncommercial use.  She can choose a
10651 license that permits any use so long as the same freedoms are given to other
10652 uses (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">share and share alike</span>&#8221;</span>). Or any use so long as no
10653 derivative use is made. Or any use at all within developing nations. Or any
10654 sampling use, so long as full copies are not made. Or lastly, any
10655 educational use.
10656 </p><p>
10657 These choices thus establish a range of freedoms beyond the default of
10658 copyright law. They also enable freedoms that go beyond traditional fair
10659 use. And most importantly, they express these freedoms in a way that
10660 subsequent users can use and rely upon without the need to hire a
10661 lawyer. Creative Commons thus aims to build a layer of content, governed by
10662 a layer of reasonable copyright law, that others can build upon. Voluntary
10663 choice of individuals and creators will make this content available. And
10664 that content will in turn enable us to rebuild a public domain.
10665 </p><p>
10666 This is just one project among many within the Creative Commons.  And of
10667 course, Creative Commons is not the only organization pursuing such
10668 freedoms. But the point that distinguishes the Creative Commons from many is
10669 that we are not interested only in talking about a public domain or in
10670 getting legislators to help build a public domain. Our aim is to build a
10671 movement of consumers and producers of content (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">content
10672 conducers,</span>&#8221;</span> as attorney Mia Garlick calls them)  who help build the
10673 public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the importance of the public
10674 domain to other creativity.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3060258"></a>
10675 </p><p>
10676 The aim is not to fight the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>&#8221;</span> sorts. The
10677 aim is to complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a
10678 culture are produced by insane and unintended consequences of laws written
10679 centuries ago, applied to a technology that only Jefferson could have
10680 imagined. The rules may well have made sense against a background of
10681 technologies from centuries ago, but they do not make sense against the
10682 background of digital technologies. New rules&#8212;with different freedoms,
10683 expressed in ways so that humans without lawyers can use them&#8212;are
10684 needed. Creative Commons gives people a way effectively to begin to build
10685 those rules.
10686 </p><p>
10687 Why would creators participate in giving up total control? Some participate
10688 to better spread their content. Cory Doctorow, for example, is a science
10689 fiction author. His first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
10690 Kingdom</em>, was released on-line and for free, under a Creative
10691 Commons license, on the same day that it went on sale in bookstores.
10692 </p><p>
10693 Why would a publisher ever agree to this? I suspect his publisher reasoned
10694 like this: There are two groups of people out there: (1)  those who will buy
10695 Cory's book whether or not it's on the Internet, and (2) those who may never
10696 hear of Cory's book, if it isn't made available for free on the
10697 Internet. Some part of (1) will download Cory's book instead of buying
10698 it. Call them bad-(1)s. Some part of (2)  will download Cory's book, like
10699 it, and then decide to buy it. Call them (2)-goods.  If there are more
10700 (2)-goods than bad-(1)s, the strategy of releasing Cory's book free on-line
10701 will probably <span class="emphasis"><em>increase</em></span> sales of Cory's book.
10702 </p><p>
10703 Indeed, the experience of his publisher clearly supports that conclusion.
10704 The book's first printing was exhausted months before the publisher had
10705 expected. This first novel of a science fiction author was a total success.
10706 </p><p>
10707 The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content was
10708 confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner, who wrote a
10709 book about the free software movement titled <em class="citetitle">Free for
10710 All</em>, made an electronic version of his book free on-line under a
10711 Creative Commons license after the book went out of print. He then monitored
10712 used book store prices for the book. As predicted, as the number of
10713 downloads increased, the used book price for his book increased, as well.
10714 <a class="indexterm" name="id3060333"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3060342"></a>
10715 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3060349"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3060355"></a><p>
10716 These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary
10717 content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the Commons. There
10718 are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other reasons. Many who use
10719 the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sampling license</span>&#8221;</span> do so because anything else would be
10720 hypocritical. The sampling license says that others are free, for commercial
10721 or noncommercial purposes, to sample content from the licensed work; they
10722 are just not free to make full copies of the licensed work available to
10723 others. This is consistent with their own art&#8212;they, too, sample from
10724 others. Because the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal</em></span> costs of sampling are so high
10725 (Walter Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born
10726 sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not
10727 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">allow</span>&#8221;</span> Public Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs
10728 are so high<sup>[<a name="id3060387" href="#ftn.id3060387" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), these artists release
10729 into the creative environment content that others can build upon, so that
10730 their form of creativity might grow.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3060409"></a>
10731 </p><p>
10732 Finally, there are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons
10733 license just because they want to express to others the importance of
10734 balance in this debate. If you just go along with the system as it is, you
10735 are effectively saying you believe in the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>&#8221;</span>
10736 model. Good for you, but many do not. Many believe that however appropriate
10737 that rule is for Hollywood and freaks, it is not an appropriate description
10738 of how most creators view the rights associated with their content. The
10739 Creative Commons license expresses this notion of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Some Rights
10740 Reserved,</span>&#8221;</span> and gives many the chance to say it to others.
10741 </p><p>
10742
10743 In the first six months of the Creative Commons experiment, over 1 million
10744 objects were licensed with these free-culture licenses. The next step is
10745 partnerships with middleware content providers to help them build into their
10746 technologies simple ways for users to mark their content with Creative
10747 Commons freedoms. Then the next step is to watch and celebrate creators who
10748 build content based upon content set free.
10749 </p><p>
10750 These are first steps to rebuilding a public domain. They are not mere
10751 arguments; they are action. Building a public domain is the first step to
10752 showing people how important that domain is to creativity and
10753 innovation. Creative Commons relies upon voluntary steps to achieve this
10754 rebuilding. They will lead to a world in which more than voluntary steps are
10755 possible.
10756 </p><p>
10757 Creative Commons is just one example of voluntary efforts by individuals and
10758 creators to change the mix of rights that now govern the creative field. The
10759 project does not compete with copyright; it complements it. Its aim is not
10760 to defeat the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and
10761 creators to exercise their rights more flexibly and cheaply. That
10762 difference, we believe, will enable creativity to spread more easily.
10763 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3060468"></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>
10764 We will not reclaim a free culture by individual action alone. It will also
10765 take important reforms of laws. We have a long way to go before the
10766 politicians will listen to these ideas and implement these reforms.  But
10767 that also means that we have time to build awareness around the changes that
10768 we need.
10769 </p><p>
10770 In this chapter, I outline five kinds of changes: four that are general, and
10771 one that's specific to the most heated battle of the day, music. Each is a
10772 step, not an end. But any of these steps would carry us a long way to our
10773 end.
10774 </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>
10775 If you buy a house, you have to record the sale in a deed. If you buy land
10776 upon which to build a house, you have to record the purchase in a deed.  If
10777 you buy a car, you get a bill of sale and register the car. If you buy an
10778 airplane ticket, it has your name on it.
10779 </p><p>
10780
10781
10782 These are all formalities associated with property. They are requirements
10783 that we all must bear if we want our property to be protected.
10784 </p><p>
10785 In contrast, under current copyright law, you automatically get a copyright,
10786 regardless of whether you comply with any formality. You don't have to
10787 register. You don't even have to mark your content. The default is control,
10788 and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">formalities</span>&#8221;</span> are banished.
10789 </p><p>
10790 Why?
10791 </p><p>
10792 As I suggested in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel 10. Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;">10</a>, the motivation to abolish formalities was a good
10793 one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities imposed a burden
10794 on copyright holders without much benefit. Thus, it was progress when the
10795 law relaxed the formal requirements that a copyright owner must bear to
10796 protect and secure his work. Those formalities were getting in the way.
10797 </p><p>
10798 But the Internet changes all this. Formalities today need not be a
10799 burden. Rather, the world without formalities is the world that burdens
10800 creativity. Today, there is no simple way to know who owns what, or with
10801 whom one must deal in order to use or build upon the creative work of
10802 others. There are no records, there is no system to trace&#8212; there is no
10803 simple way to know how to get permission. Yet given the massive increase in
10804 the scope of copyright's rule, getting permission is a necessary step for
10805 any work that builds upon our past. And thus, the <span class="emphasis"><em>lack</em></span>
10806 of formalities forces many into silence where they otherwise could speak.
10807 </p><p>
10808 The law should therefore change this requirement<sup>[<a name="id3060576" href="#ftn.id3060576" class="footnote">212</a>]</sup>&#8212;but it should not change it by going back to the old, broken
10809 system. We should require formalities, but we should establish a system that
10810 will create the incentives to minimize the burden of these formalities.
10811 </p><p>
10812 The important formalities are three: marking copyrighted work, registering
10813 copyrights, and renewing the claim to copyright. Traditionally, the first of
10814 these three was something the copyright owner did; the second two were
10815 something the government did. But a revised system of formalities would
10816 banish the government from the process, except for the sole purpose of
10817 approving standards developed by others.
10818 </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>
10819 Under the old system, a copyright owner had to file a registration with the
10820 Copyright Office to register or renew a copyright. When filing that
10821 registration, the copyright owner paid a fee. As with most government
10822 agencies, the Copyright Office had little incentive to minimize the burden
10823 of registration; it also had little incentive to minimize the fee.  And as
10824 the Copyright Office is not a main target of government policymaking, the
10825 office has historically been terribly underfunded. Thus, when people who
10826 know something about the process hear this idea about formalities, their
10827 first reaction is panic&#8212;nothing could be worse than forcing people to
10828 deal with the mess that is the Copyright Office.
10829 </p><p>
10830 Yet it is always astonishing to me that we, who come from a tradition of
10831 extraordinary innovation in governmental design, can no longer think
10832 innovatively about how governmental functions can be designed.  Just because
10833 there is a public purpose to a government role, it doesn't follow that the
10834 government must actually administer the role. Instead, we should be creating
10835 incentives for private parties to serve the public, subject to standards
10836 that the government sets.
10837 </p><p>
10838 In the context of registration, one obvious model is the Internet.  There
10839 are at least 32 million Web sites registered around the world.  Domain name
10840 owners for these Web sites have to pay a fee to keep their registration
10841 alive. In the main top-level domains (.com, .org, .net), there is a central
10842 registry. The actual registrations are, however, performed by many competing
10843 registrars. That competition drives the cost of registering down, and more
10844 importantly, it drives the ease with which registration occurs up.
10845 </p><p>
10846
10847 We should adopt a similar model for the registration and renewal of
10848 copyrights. The Copyright Office may well serve as the central registry, but
10849 it should not be in the registrar business. Instead, it should establish a
10850 database, and a set of standards for registrars. It should approve
10851 registrars that meet its standards. Those registrars would then compete with
10852 one another to deliver the cheapest and simplest systems for registering and
10853 renewing copyrights. That competition would substantially lower the burden
10854 of this formality&#8212;while producing a database of registrations that
10855 would facilitate the licensing of content.
10856 </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>
10857 It used to be that the failure to include a copyright notice on a creative
10858 work meant that the copyright was forfeited. That was a harsh punishment for
10859 failing to comply with a regulatory rule&#8212;akin to imposing the death
10860 penalty for a parking ticket in the world of creative rights.  Here again,
10861 there is no reason that a marking requirement needs to be enforced in this
10862 way. And more importantly, there is no reason a marking requirement needs to
10863 be enforced uniformly across all media.
10864 </p><p>
10865 The aim of marking is to signal to the public that this work is copyrighted
10866 and that the author wants to enforce his rights. The mark also makes it easy
10867 to locate a copyright owner to secure permission to use the work.
10868 </p><p>
10869 One of the problems the copyright system confronted early on was that
10870 different copyrighted works had to be differently marked. It wasn't clear
10871 how or where a statue was to be marked, or a record, or a film. A new
10872 marking requirement could solve these problems by recognizing the
10873 differences in media, and by allowing the system of marking to evolve as
10874 technologies enable it to. The system could enable a special signal from the
10875 failure to mark&#8212;not the loss of the copyright, but the loss of the
10876 right to punish someone for failing to get permission first.
10877 </p><p>
10878
10879 Let's start with the last point. If a copyright owner allows his work to be
10880 published without a copyright notice, the consequence of that failure need
10881 not be that the copyright is lost. The consequence could instead be that
10882 anyone has the right to use this work, until the copyright owner complains
10883 and demonstrates that it is his work and he doesn't give
10884 permission.<sup>[<a name="id3060699" href="#ftn.id3060699" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
10885 work would therefore be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">use unless someone complains.</span>&#8221;</span> If
10886 someone does complain, then the obligation would be to stop using the work
10887 in any new work from then on though no penalty would attach for existing
10888 uses.  This would create a strong incentive for copyright owners to mark
10889 their work.
10890 </p><p>
10891 That in turn raises the question about how work should best be marked. Here
10892 again, the system needs to adjust as the technologies evolve. The best way
10893 to ensure that the system evolves is to limit the Copyright Office's role to
10894 that of approving standards for marking content that have been crafted
10895 elsewhere.
10896 </p><p>
10897 For example, if a recording industry association devises a method for
10898 marking CDs, it would propose that to the Copyright Office. The Copyright
10899 Office would hold a hearing, at which other proposals could be made. The
10900 Copyright Office would then select the proposal that it judged preferable,
10901 and it would base that choice <span class="emphasis"><em>solely</em></span> upon the
10902 consideration of which method could best be integrated into the registration
10903 and renewal system. We would not count on the government to innovate; but we
10904 would count on the government to keep the product of innovation in line with
10905 its other important functions.
10906 </p><p>
10907 Finally, marking content clearly would simplify registration requirements.
10908 If photographs were marked by author and year, there would be little reason
10909 not to allow a photographer to reregister, for example, all photographs
10910 taken in a particular year in one quick step. The aim of the formality is
10911 not to burden the creator; the system itself should be kept as simple as
10912 possible.
10913 </p><p>
10914 The objective of formalities is to make things clear. The existing system
10915 does nothing to make things clear. Indeed, it seems designed to make things
10916 unclear.
10917 </p><p>
10918 If formalities such as registration were reinstated, one of the most
10919 difficult aspects of relying upon the public domain would be removed.  It
10920 would be simple to identify what content is presumptively free; it would be
10921 simple to identify who controls the rights for a particular kind of content;
10922 it would be simple to assert those rights, and to renew that assertion at
10923 the appropriate time.
10924 </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>
10925 Vernetiden i opphavsretten har gått fra fjorten år til nittifem år der
10926 selskap har forfatterskapet , og livstiden til forfatteren pluss sytti år
10927 for individuelle forfattere.
10928 </p><p>
10929 In <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>, I proposed a
10930 seventy-five-year term, granted in five-year increments with a requirement
10931 of renewal every five years.  That seemed radical enough at the time. But
10932 after we lost <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
10933 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, the proposals became even more
10934 radical. <em class="citetitle">The Economist</em> endorsed a proposal for a
10935 fourteen-year copyright term.<sup>[<a name="id3060828" href="#ftn.id3060828" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup> Others
10936 have proposed tying the term to the term for patents.
10937 </p><p>
10938 I agree with those who believe that we need a radical change in copyright's
10939 term. But whether fourteen years or seventy-five, there are four principles
10940 that are important to keep in mind about copyright terms.
10941 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
10942
10943
10944 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it short:</em></span> The term should be as long as necessary
10945 to give incentives to create, but no longer. If it were tied to very strong
10946 protections for authors (so authors were able to reclaim rights from
10947 publishers), rights to the same work (not derivative works) might be
10948 extended further. The key is not to tie the work up with legal regulations
10949 when it no longer benefits an author.
10950 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10951
10952
10953
10954 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it simple:</em></span> The line between the public domain and
10955 protected content must be kept clear. Lawyers like the fuzziness of
10956 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use,</span>&#8221;</span> and the distinction between <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ideas</span>&#8221;</span>
10957 and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">expression.</span>&#8221;</span> That kind of law gives them lots of work. But
10958 our framers had a simpler idea in mind: protected versus unprotected.  The
10959 value of short terms is that there is little need to build exceptions into
10960 copyright when the term itself is kept short. A clear and active
10961 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lawyer-free zone</span>&#8221;</span> makes the complexities of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair
10962 use</span>&#8221;</span> and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">idea/expression</span>&#8221;</span> less necessary to navigate.
10963
10964 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10965
10966 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it alive:</em></span> Copyright should have to be renewed.
10967 Especially if the maximum term is long, the copyright owner should be
10968 required to signal periodically that he wants the protection continued. This
10969 need not be an onerous burden, but there is no reason this monopoly
10970 protection has to be granted for free. On average, it takes ninety minutes
10971 for a veteran to apply for a pension.<sup>[<a name="id3060932" href="#ftn.id3060932" class="footnote">215</a>]</sup>
10972 If we make veterans suffer that burden, I don't see why we couldn't require
10973 authors to spend ten minutes every fifty years to file a single form.
10974 <a class="indexterm" name="id3060951"></a>
10975 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10976
10977
10978 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it prospective:</em></span> Whatever the term of copyright
10979 should be, the clearest lesson that economists teach is that a term once
10980 given should not be extended. It might have been a mistake in 1923 for the
10981 law to offer authors only a fifty-six-year term. I don't think so, but it's
10982 possible. If it was a mistake, then the consequence was that we got fewer
10983 authors to create in 1923 than we otherwise would have. But we can't correct
10984 that mistake today by increasing the term. No matter what we do today, we
10985 will not increase the number of authors who wrote in 1923. Of course, we can
10986 increase the reward that those who write now get (or alternatively, increase
10987 the copyright burden that smothers many works that are today invisible). But
10988 increasing their reward will not increase their creativity in 1923.  What's
10989 not done is not done, and there's nothing we can do about that now.  </p></li></ol></div><p>
10990 Disse endringene vil sammen gi en <span class="emphasis"><em>gjennomsnittlig</em></span>
10991 opphavsrettslig vernetid som er mye kortere enn den gjeldende vernetiden.
10992 Frem til 1976 var gjennomsnittlig vernetid kun 32.2 år.  Vårt mål bør være
10993 det samme.
10994 </p><p>
10995 No doubt the extremists will call these ideas <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">radical.</span>&#8221;</span> (After
10996 all, I call them <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">extremists.</span>&#8221;</span>) But again, the term I
10997 recommended was longer than the term under Richard Nixon. How
10998 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">radical</span>&#8221;</span> can it be to ask for a more generous copyright law
10999 than Richard Nixon presided over?
11000 </p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="freefairuse"></a>16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</h3></div></div></div><p>
11001 As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally granted
11002 property owners the right to control their property from the ground to the
11003 heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property rights quickly
11004 changed. There was no fuss, no constitutional challenge.  It made no sense
11005 anymore to grant that much control, given the emergence of that new
11006 technology.
11007 </p><p>
11008 Our Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">exclusive
11009 right</span>&#8221;</span> to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">their writings.</span>&#8221;</span> Congress has given authors
11010 an exclusive right to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">their writings</span>&#8221;</span> plus any derivative
11011 writings (made by others) that are sufficiently close to the author's
11012 original work. Thus, if I write a book, and you base a movie on that book, I
11013 have the power to deny you the right to release that movie, even though that
11014 movie is not <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">my writing.</span>&#8221;</span>
11015 </p><p>
11016 Congress granted the beginnings of this right in 1870, when it expanded the
11017 exclusive right of copyright to include a right to control translations and
11018 dramatizations of a work.<sup>[<a name="id3061062" href="#ftn.id3061062" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> The courts
11019 have expanded it slowly through judicial interpretation ever since. This
11020 expansion has been commented upon by one of the law's greatest judges, Judge
11021 Benjamin Kaplan.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3061076"></a>
11022 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
11023 So inured have we become to the extension of the monopoly to a large range
11024 of so-called derivative works, that we no longer sense the oddity of
11025 accepting such an enlargement of copyright while yet intoning the
11026 abracadabra of idea and expression.<sup>[<a name="id3061092" href="#ftn.id3061092" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
11027 </p></blockquote></div><p>
11028 I think it's time to recognize that there are airplanes in this field and
11029 the expansiveness of these rights of derivative use no longer make
11030 sense. More precisely, they don't make sense for the period of time that a
11031 copyright runs. And they don't make sense as an amorphous grant.  Consider
11032 each limitation in turn.
11033 </p><p>
11034 <span class="emphasis"><em>Term:</em></span> If Congress wants to grant a derivative right,
11035 then that right should be for a much shorter term. It makes sense to protect
11036 John Grisham's right to sell the movie rights to his latest novel (or at
11037 least I'm willing to assume it does); but it does not make sense for that
11038 right to run for the same term as the underlying copyright. The derivative
11039 right could be important in inducing creativity; it is not important long
11040 after the creative work is done.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3061122"></a>
11041 </p><p>
11042 <span class="emphasis"><em>Scope:</em></span> Likewise should the scope of derivative rights
11043 be narrowed.  Again, there are some cases in which derivative rights are
11044 important.  Those should be specified. But the law should draw clear lines
11045 around regulated and unregulated uses of copyrighted material. When all
11046 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">reuse</span>&#8221;</span> of creative material was within the control of
11047 businesses, perhaps it made sense to require lawyers to negotiate the
11048 lines. It no longer makes sense for lawyers to negotiate the lines. Think
11049 about all the creative possibilities that digital technologies enable; now
11050 imagine pouring molasses into the machines. That's what this general
11051 requirement of permission does to the creative process. Smothers it.
11052 </p><p>
11053 This was the point that Alben made when describing the making of the Clint
11054 Eastwood CD. While it makes sense to require negotiation for foreseeable
11055 derivative rights&#8212;turning a book into a movie, or a poem into a
11056 musical score&#8212;it doesn't make sense to require negotiation for the
11057 unforeseeable. Here, a statutory right would make much more sense.
11058 </p><p>
11059 In each of these cases, the law should mark the uses that are protected, and
11060 the presumption should be that other uses are not protected.  This is the
11061 reverse of the recommendation of my colleague Paul Goldstein.<sup>[<a name="id3061169" href="#ftn.id3061169" class="footnote">218</a>]</sup> His view is that the law should be written so that
11062 expanded protections follow expanded uses.
11063 </p><p>
11064 Goldstein's analysis would make perfect sense if the cost of the legal
11065 system were small. But as we are currently seeing in the context of the
11066 Internet, the uncertainty about the scope of protection, and the incentives
11067 to protect existing architectures of revenue, combined with a strong
11068 copyright, weaken the process of innovation.
11069 </p><p>
11070
11071 The law could remedy this problem either by removing protection beyond the
11072 part explicitly drawn or by granting reuse rights upon certain statutory
11073 conditions. Either way, the effect would be to free a great deal of culture
11074 to others to cultivate. And under a statutory rights regime, that reuse
11075 would earn artists more income.
11076 </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>
11077 The battle that got this whole war going was about music, so it wouldn't be
11078 fair to end this book without addressing the issue that is, to most people,
11079 most pressing&#8212;music. There is no other policy issue that better
11080 teaches the lessons of this book than the battles around the sharing of
11081 music.
11082 </p><p>
11083 The appeal of file-sharing music was the crack cocaine of the Internet's
11084 growth. It drove demand for access to the Internet more powerfully than any
11085 other single application. It was the Internet's killer app&#8212;possibly in
11086 two senses of that word. It no doubt was the application that drove demand
11087 for bandwidth. It may well be the application that drives demand for
11088 regulations that in the end kill innovation on the network.
11089 </p><p>
11090 The aim of copyright, with respect to content in general and music in
11091 particular, is to create the incentives for music to be composed, performed,
11092 and, most importantly, spread. The law does this by giving an exclusive
11093 right to a composer to control public performances of his work, and to a
11094 performing artist to control copies of her performance.
11095 </p><p>
11096 File-sharing networks complicate this model by enabling the spread of
11097 content for which the performer has not been paid. But of course, that's not
11098 all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: &#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;">5</a>, they enable four
11099 different kinds of sharing:
11100 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
11101
11102
11103 Det er noen som bruker delingsnettverk som erstatninger for å kjøpe CDer.
11104 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11105
11106
11107 There are also some who are using sharing networks to sample, on the way to
11108 purchasing CDs.
11109 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11110
11111
11112
11113
11114 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk til å få tilgang til innhold som
11115 ikke lenger er i salg, men fortsatt er vernet av opphavsrett eller som ville
11116 ha vært altfor vanskelig å få kjøpt via nettet.
11117 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11118
11119
11120 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk for å få tilgang til innhold som
11121 ikke er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, eller for å få tilgang som
11122 opphavsrettsinnehaveren åpenbart går god for.
11123 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11124 Any reform of the law needs to keep these different uses in focus. It must
11125 avoid burdening type D even if it aims to eliminate type A. The eagerness
11126 with which the law aims to eliminate type A, moreover, should depend upon
11127 the magnitude of type B. As with VCRs, if the net effect of sharing is
11128 actually not very harmful, the need for regulation is significantly
11129 weakened.
11130 </p><p>
11131 As I said in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Kapittel 5. Kapittel fem: &#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;">5</a>, the actual harm caused by sharing is controversial.  For
11132 the purposes of this chapter, however, I assume the harm is real. I assume,
11133 in other words, that type A sharing is significantly greater than type B,
11134 and is the dominant use of sharing networks.
11135 </p><p>
11136 Uansett, det er et avgjørende faktum om den gjeldende teknologiske
11137 omgivelsen som vi må huske på hvis vi skal forstå hvordan loven bør reagere.
11138 </p><p>
11139 Today, file sharing is addictive. In ten years, it won't be. It is addictive
11140 today because it is the easiest way to gain access to a broad range of
11141 content.  It won't be the easiest way to get access to a broad range of
11142 content in ten years. Today, access to the Internet is cumbersome and
11143 slow&#8212;we in the United States are lucky to have broadband service at
11144 1.5 MBs, and very rarely do we get service at that speed both up and
11145 down. Although wireless access is growing, most of us still get access
11146 across wires. Most only gain access through a machine with a keyboard. The
11147 idea of the always on, always connected Internet is mainly just an idea.
11148 </p><p>
11149
11150 But it will become a reality, and that means the way we get access to the
11151 Internet today is a technology in transition. Policy makers should not make
11152 policy on the basis of technology in transition. They should make policy on
11153 the basis of where the technology is going. The question should not be, how
11154 should the law regulate sharing in this world? The question should be, what
11155 law will we require when the network becomes the network it is clearly
11156 becoming? That network is one in which every machine with electricity is
11157 essentially on the Net; where everywhere you are&#8212;except maybe the
11158 desert or the Rockies&#8212;you can instantaneously be connected to the
11159 Internet. Imagine the Internet as ubiquitous as the best cell-phone service,
11160 where with the flip of a device, you are connected.
11161 </p><p>
11162 In that world, it will be extremely easy to connect to services that give
11163 you access to content on the fly&#8212;such as Internet radio, content that
11164 is streamed to the user when the user demands. Here, then, is the critical
11165 point: When it is <span class="emphasis"><em>extremely</em></span> easy to connect to services
11166 that give access to content, it will be <span class="emphasis"><em>easier</em></span> to
11167 connect to services that give you access to content than it will be to
11168 download and store content <span class="emphasis"><em>on the many devices you will have for
11169 playing content</em></span>. It will be easier, in other words, to subscribe
11170 than it will be to be a database manager, as everyone in the
11171 download-sharing world of Napster-like technologies essentially is. Content
11172 services will compete with content sharing, even if the services charge
11173 money for the content they give access to. Already cell-phone services in
11174 Japan offer music (for a fee) streamed over cell phones (enhanced with plugs
11175 for headphones). The Japanese are paying for this content even though
11176 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free</span>&#8221;</span> content is available in the form of MP3s across the
11177 Web.<sup>[<a name="id3061417" href="#ftn.id3061417" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
11178
11179 </p><p>
11180
11181 This point about the future is meant to suggest a perspective on the
11182 present: It is emphatically temporary. The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">problem</span>&#8221;</span> with file
11183 sharing&#8212;to the extent there is a real problem&#8212;is a problem that
11184 will increasingly disappear as it becomes easier to connect to the
11185 Internet.  And thus it is an extraordinary mistake for policy makers today
11186 to be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">solving</span>&#8221;</span> this problem in light of a technology that will
11187 be gone tomorrow.  The question should not be how to regulate the Internet
11188 to eliminate file sharing (the Net will evolve that problem away). The
11189 question instead should be how to assure that artists get paid, during this
11190 transition between twentieth-century models for doing business and
11191 twenty-first-century technologies.
11192 </p><p>
11193 The answer begins with recognizing that there are different
11194 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">problems</span>&#8221;</span> here to solve. Let's start with type D
11195 content&#8212;uncopyrighted content or copyrighted content that the artist
11196 wants shared. The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">problem</span>&#8221;</span> with this content is to make sure
11197 that the technology that would enable this kind of sharing is not rendered
11198 illegal. You can think of it this way: Pay phones are used to deliver ransom
11199 demands, no doubt.  But there are many who need to use pay phones who have
11200 nothing to do with ransoms. It would be wrong to ban pay phones in order to
11201 eliminate kidnapping.
11202 </p><p>
11203 Type C content raises a different <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">problem.</span>&#8221;</span> This is content
11204 that was, at one time, published and is no longer available. It may be
11205 unavailable because the artist is no longer valuable enough for the record
11206 label he signed with to carry his work. Or it may be unavailable because the
11207 work is forgotten. Either way, the aim of the law should be to facilitate
11208 the access to this content, ideally in a way that returns something to the
11209 artist.
11210 </p><p>
11211 Again, the model here is the used book store. Once a book goes out of print,
11212 it may still be available in libraries and used book stores. But libraries
11213 and used book stores don't pay the copyright owner when someone reads or
11214 buys an out-of-print book. That makes total sense, of course, since any
11215 other system would be so burdensome as to eliminate the possibility of used
11216 book stores' existing. But from the author's perspective, this
11217 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sharing</span>&#8221;</span> of his content without his being compensated is less
11218 than ideal.
11219 </p><p>
11220 The model of used book stores suggests that the law could simply deem
11221 out-of-print music fair game. If the publisher does not make copies of the
11222 music available for sale, then commercial and noncommercial providers would
11223 be free, under this rule, to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">share</span>&#8221;</span> that content, even though
11224 the sharing involved making a copy. The copy here would be incidental to the
11225 trade; in a context where commercial publishing has ended, trading music
11226 should be as free as trading books.
11227 </p><p>
11228
11229
11230
11231 Alternatively, the law could create a statutory license that would ensure
11232 that artists get something from the trade of their work. For example, if the
11233 law set a low statutory rate for the commercial sharing of content that was
11234 not offered for sale by a commercial publisher, and if that rate were
11235 automatically transferred to a trust for the benefit of the artist, then
11236 businesses could develop around the idea of trading this content, and
11237 artists would benefit from this trade.
11238 </p><p>
11239 This system would also create an incentive for publishers to keep works
11240 available commercially. Works that are available commercially would not be
11241 subject to this license. Thus, publishers could protect the right to charge
11242 whatever they want for content if they kept the work commercially
11243 available. But if they don't keep it available, and instead, the computer
11244 hard disks of fans around the world keep it alive, then any royalty owed for
11245 such copying should be much less than the amount owed a commercial
11246 publisher.
11247 </p><p>
11248 The hard case is content of types A and B, and again, this case is hard only
11249 because the extent of the problem will change over time, as the technologies
11250 for gaining access to content change. The law's solution should be as
11251 flexible as the problem is, understanding that we are in the middle of a
11252 radical transformation in the technology for delivering and accessing
11253 content.
11254 </p><p>
11255 Så her er en løsning som i første omgang kan virke veldig undelig for begge
11256 sider i denne krigen, men som jeg tror vil gi mer mening når en får tenkt
11257 seg om.
11258 </p><p>
11259 Stripped of the rhetoric about the sanctity of property, the basic claim of
11260 the content industry is this: A new technology (the Internet)  has harmed a
11261 set of rights that secure copyright. If those rights are to be protected,
11262 then the content industry should be compensated for that harm. Just as the
11263 technology of tobacco harmed the health of millions of Americans, or the
11264 technology of asbestos caused grave illness to thousands of miners, so, too,
11265 has the technology of digital networks harmed the interests of the content
11266 industry.
11267 </p><p>
11268
11269
11270 Jeg elsker internett, så jeg liker ikke å sammenligne det med tobakk eller
11271 asbest.  Men analogien er rimelig når en ser det fra lovens perspektiv. Og
11272 det foreslår en rimelig respons: I stedet for å forsøke å ødelegge internett
11273 eller p2p-teknologien som i dag skader innholdsleverandører på internett, så
11274 bør vi finne en relativt enkel måte å kompensere de som blir skadelidende.
11275 </p><p>
11276 The idea would be a modification of a proposal that has been floated by
11277 Harvard law professor William Fisher.<sup>[<a name="id3061606" href="#ftn.id3061606" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
11278 Fisher suggests a very clever way around the current impasse of the
11279 Internet. Under his plan, all content capable of digital transmission would
11280 (1) be marked with a digital watermark (don't worry about how easy it is to
11281 evade these marks; as you'll see, there's no incentive to evade them). Once
11282 the content is marked, then entrepreneurs would develop (2) systems to
11283 monitor how many items of each content were distributed. On the basis of
11284 those numbers, then (3) artists would be compensated. The compensation would
11285 be paid for by (4) an appropriate tax.
11286 </p><p>
11287 Fisher's proposal is careful and comprehensive. It raises a million
11288 questions, most of which he answers well in his upcoming book,
11289 <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep</em>. The modification that I would make
11290 is relatively simple: Fisher imagines his proposal replacing the existing
11291 copyright system.  I imagine it complementing the existing system. The aim
11292 of the proposal would be to facilitate compensation to the extent that harm
11293 could be shown. This compensation would be temporary, aimed at facilitating
11294 a transition between regimes. And it would require renewal after a period of
11295 years. If it continues to make sense to facilitate free exchange of content,
11296 supported through a taxation system, then it can be continued. If this form
11297 of protection is no longer necessary, then the system could lapse into the
11298 old system of controlling access.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3061771"></a>
11299 </p><p>
11300
11301 Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim is
11302 not just to ensure that artists are paid, but also to ensure that the system
11303 supports the widest range of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">semiotic democracy</span>&#8221;</span> possible. But
11304 the aims of semiotic democracy would be satisfied if the other changes I
11305 described were accomplished&#8212;in particular, the limits on derivative
11306 uses. A system that simply charges for access would not greatly burden
11307 semiotic democracy if there were few limitations on what one was allowed to
11308 do with the content itself.
11309 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3061789"></a><p>
11310 No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of
11311 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">harm</span>&#8221;</span> to an industry. But the difficulty of making that
11312 calculation would be outweighed by the benefit of facilitating
11313 innovation. This background system to compensate would also not need to
11314 interfere with innovative proposals such as Apple's MusicStore. As experts
11315 predicted when Apple launched the MusicStore, it could beat
11316 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free</span>&#8221;</span> by being easier than free is. This has proven correct:
11317 Apple has sold millions of songs at even the very high price of 99 cents a
11318 song. (At 99 cents, the cost is the equivalent of a per-song CD price,
11319 though the labels have none of the costs of a CD to pay.) Apple's move was
11320 countered by Real Networks, offering music at just 79 cents a song. And no
11321 doubt there will be a great deal of competition to offer and sell music
11322 on-line.
11323 </p><p>
11324 This competition has already occurred against the background of
11325 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free</span>&#8221;</span> music from p2p systems. As the sellers of cable
11326 television have known for thirty years, and the sellers of bottled water for
11327 much more than that, there is nothing impossible at all about
11328 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">competing with free.</span>&#8221;</span> Indeed, if anything, the competition
11329 spurs the competitors to offer new and better products. This is precisely
11330 what the competitive market was to be about. Thus in Singapore, though
11331 piracy is rampant, movie theaters are often luxurious&#8212;with
11332 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">first class</span>&#8221;</span> seats, and meals served while you watch a
11333 movie&#8212;as they struggle and succeed in finding ways to compete with
11334 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free.</span>&#8221;</span>
11335 </p><p>
11336 Dette konkurranseregimet, med en sikringsmekanisme for å sikre at kunstnere
11337 ikke taper, ville bidra mye til nyskapning innen levering av
11338 innhold. Konkurransen ville fortsette å redusere type-A-deling.  Det ville
11339 inspirere en ekstraordinær rekke av nye innovatører&#8212;som ville ha
11340 retten til a bruke innhold, og ikke lenger frykte usikre og barbarisk
11341 strenge straffer fra loven.
11342 </p><p>
11343 Oppsummert, så er dette mitt forslag:
11344 </p><p>
11345
11346
11347
11348 Internett er i endring. Vi bør ikke regulere en teknologi i endring. Vi bør
11349 i stedet regulere for å minimere skaden påført interesser som er berørt av
11350 denne teknologiske endringen, samtidig vi muliggjør, og oppmuntrer, den mest
11351 effektive teknologien vi kan lage.
11352 </p><p>
11353 Vi kan minimere skaden og samtidig maksimere fordelen med innovasjon ved å
11354 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
11355
11356
11357 garantere retten til å engasjere seg i type-D-deling;
11358 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11359
11360
11361 tillate ikke-kommersiell type-C-deling uten erstatningsansvar, og
11362 kommersiell type-C-deling med en lav og fast rate fastsatt ved lov.
11363 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11364
11365
11366 mens denne overgangen pågår, skattlegge og kompensere for type-A-deling, i
11367 den grad faktiske skade kan påvises.
11368 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11369 But what if <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> doesn't disappear? What if there is a
11370 competitive market providing content at a low cost, but a significant number
11371 of consumers continue to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">take</span>&#8221;</span> content for nothing? Should the
11372 law do something then?
11373 </p><p>
11374 Ja, det bør den.  Men, nok en gang, hva den bør gjøre avhenger hvordan
11375 realitetene utvikler seg. Disse endringene fjerner kanskje ikke all
11376 type-A-deling. Men det virkelige spørmålet er ikke om de eliminerer deling i
11377 abstrakt betydning.  Det virkelige spørsmålet er hvilken effekt det har på
11378 markedet.  Er det bedre (a) å ha en teknologi som er 95 prosent sikker og
11379 gir et marked av størrelse <em class="citetitle">x</em>, eller (b) å ha en
11380 teknologi som er 50 prosent sikker, og som gir et marked som er fem ganger
11381 større enn <em class="citetitle">x</em>?  Mindre sikker kan gi mer uautorisert
11382 deling, men det vil sannsynligvis også gi et mye større marked for
11383 autorisert deling. Det viktigste er å sikre kunstneres kompensasjon uten å
11384 ødelegge internettet.  Når det er på plass, kan det hende det er riktig å
11385 finne måter å spore opp de smålige piratene.
11386 </p><p>
11387
11388 Men vi er langt unna å spikke problemet ned til dette delsettet av
11389 type-A-delere.  Og vårt fokus inntil er der bør ikke være å finne måter å
11390 ødelegge internettet.  Var fokus inntil vi er der bør være hvordan sikre at
11391 artister får betalt, mens vi beskytter rommet for nyskapning og kreativitet
11392 som internettet er.
11393 </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>
11394 Jeg er en advokat. Jeg lever av å utdanne advokater. Jeg tror på loven. Jeg
11395 tror på opphavsrettsloven. Jeg har faktisk viet livet til å jobbe med loven,
11396 ikke fordi det er mye penger å tjene, men fordi det innebærer idealer som
11397 jeg elsker å leve opp til.
11398 </p><p>
11399 Likevel har mye av denne boken vært kritikk av advokater, eller rollen
11400 advokater har spilt i denne debatten.  Loven taler om idealer, mens det er
11401 min oppfatning av vår yrkesgruppe er blitt for knyttet til klienten.  Og i
11402 en verden der rike klienter har sterke synspunkter vil uviljen hos vår
11403 yrkesgruppe til å stille spørsmål med eller protestere mot dette sterke
11404 synet ødelegge loven.
11405 </p><p>
11406 The evidence of this bending is compelling. I'm attacked as a
11407 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">radical</span>&#8221;</span> by many within the profession, yet the positions that
11408 I am advocating are precisely the positions of some of the most moderate and
11409 significant figures in the history of this branch of the law. Many, for
11410 example, thought crazy the challenge that we brought to the Copyright Term
11411 Extension Act. Yet just thirty years ago, the dominant scholar and
11412 practitioner in the field of copyright, Melville Nimmer, thought it
11413 obvious.<sup>[<a name="id3062037" href="#ftn.id3062037" class="footnote">221</a>]</sup>
11414
11415 </p><p>
11416 Min kritikk av rollen som advokater har spilt i denne debatten handler
11417 imidlertid ikke bare om en profesjonell skjevhet. Det handler enda viktigere
11418 om vår manglende evne til å faktisk ta inn over oss hva loven koster.
11419 </p><p>
11420 Økonomer er forventet å være gode til å forstå utgifter og inntekter.  Men
11421 som oftest antar økonomene uten peiling på hvordan det juridiske systemet
11422 egentlig fungerer, at transaksjonskostnaden i det juridiske systemet er
11423 lav.<sup>[<a name="id3062073" href="#ftn.id3062073" class="footnote">222</a>]</sup>  De ser et system som har
11424 eksistert i hundrevis av år, og de antar at det fungerer slik grunnskolens
11425 samfunnsfagsundervisning lærte dem at det fungerer.
11426 </p><p>
11427
11428
11429 Men det juridiske systemet fungerer ikke. Eller for å være mer nøyaktig, det
11430 fungerer kun for de med mest ressurser.  Det er ikke fordi systemet er
11431 korrupt. Jeg tror overhodet ikke vårt juridisk system (på føderalt nivå, i
11432 hvert fall) er korrupt. Jeg mener ganske enkelt at på grunn av at kostnadene
11433 med vårt juridiske systemet er så hårreisende høyt vil en praktisk talt
11434 aldri oppnå rettferdighet.
11435 </p><p>
11436 Disse kostnadene forstyrrer fri kultur på mange vis.  En advokats tid
11437 faktureres hos de største firmaene for mer enn $400 pr. time. Hvor mye tid
11438 bør en slik advokat bruke på å lese sakene nøye, eller undersøke obskure
11439 rettskilder.  Svaret er i økende grad: svært lite. Jussen er avhengig av
11440 nøye formulering og utvikling av doktrine, men nøye formulering og utvikling
11441 av doktrine er avhengig av nøyaktig arbeid.  Men nøyaktig arbeid koster for
11442 mye, bortsett fra i de mest høyprofilerte og kostbare sakene.
11443 </p><p>
11444 Kostbarheten, klomsetheten og tilfeldigheten til dette systemet håner vår
11445 tradisjon. Og advokater, såvel som akademikere, bør se det som sin plikt å
11446 endre hvordan loven praktiseres&#8212; eller bedre, endre loven slik at den
11447 fungerer. Det er galt at systemet fungerer godt bare for den øverste
11448 1-prosenten av klientene.  Det kan gjøres radikalt mer effektivt, og billig,
11449 og dermed radikalt mer rettferdig.
11450 </p><p>
11451 Men inntil en slik reform er gjennomført, bør vi som samfunn holde lover
11452 unna områder der vi vet den bare vil skade.  Og det er nettopp det loven
11453 altfor ofte vil gjøre hvis for mye av vår kultur er lovregulert.
11454 </p><p>
11455 Tenk på de fantastiske tingene ditt barn kan gjøre eller lage med digital
11456 teknologi&#8212;filmen, musikken, web-siden, bloggen. Eller tenk på de
11457 fantastiske tingene ditt fellesskap kunne få til med digital
11458 teknologi&#8212;en wiki, oppsetting av låve, kampanje til å endre noe. Tenk
11459 på alle de kreative tingene, og tenk deretter på kald sirup helt inn i
11460 maskinene. Dette er hva et hvert regime som krever tillatelser fører
11461 til. Dette er virkeligheten slik den var i Brezhnevs Russland.
11462 </p><p>
11463
11464 Loven bør regulere i visse områder av kulturen&#8212;men det bør regulere
11465 kultur bare der reguleringen bidrar positivt. Likevel tester advokater
11466 sjeldent sin kraft, eller kraften som de fremmer, mot dette enkle pragmatisk
11467 spørsmålet: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">vil det bidra positivt?</span>&#8221;</span>.  Når de blir utfordret
11468 om det utvidede rekkevidden til loven, er advokat-svaret, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hvorfor
11469 ikke?</span>&#8221;</span>
11470 </p><p>
11471 Vi burde spørre: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hvorfor?</span>&#8221;</span>. Vis meg hvorfor din regulering av
11472 kultur er nødvendig og vis meg hvordan reguleringen bidrar positivt.  Før du
11473 kan vise meg begge, holde advokatene din unna.
11474 </p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3059849" href="#id3059849" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
11475
11476
11477
11478 See, for example, Marc Rotenberg, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Fair Information Practices and the
11479 Architecture of Privacy (What Larry Doesn't Get),</span>&#8221;</span>
11480 <em class="citetitle">Stanford Technology Law Review</em> 1 (2001):
11481 par. 6&#8211;18, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a> (describing examples in
11482 which technology defines privacy policy). See also Jeffrey Rosen,
11483 <em class="citetitle">The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious
11484 Age</em> (New York: Random House, 2004) (mapping tradeoffs between
11485 technology and privacy).</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3060387" href="#id3060387" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
11486
11487
11488 <em class="citetitle">Willful Infringement: A Report from the Front Lines of the Real
11489 Culture Wars</em> (2003), produced by Jed Horovitz, directed by Greg
11490 Hittelman, a Fiat Lucre production, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a>.
11491 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3060576" href="#id3060576" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
11492
11493
11494 The proposal I am advancing here would apply to American works only.
11495 Obviously, I believe it would be beneficial for the same idea to be adopted
11496 by other countries as well.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3060699" href="#id3060699" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
11497
11498
11499 There would be a complication with derivative works that I have not solved
11500 here. In my view, the law of derivatives creates a more complicated system
11501 than is justified by the marginal incentive it creates.
11502 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3060828" href="#id3060828" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
11503
11504
11505
11506 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">A Radical Rethink,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 366:8308
11507 (25 January 2003): 15, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #74</a>.
11508 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3060932" href="#id3060932" class="para">215</a>] </sup>
11509
11510
11511 Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation
11512 and/or Pension, VA Form 21-526 (OMB Approved No. 2900-0001), tilgjengelig
11513 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #75</a>.
11514 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3061062" href="#id3061062" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
11515
11516
11517 Benjamin Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">An Unhurried View of Copyright</em> (New
11518 York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 32.
11519 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3061092" href="#id3061092" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
11520
11521 Ibid., 56.
11522 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3061169" href="#id3061169" class="para">218</a>] </sup>
11523
11524 Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the
11525 Celestial Jukebox</em> (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003),
11526 187&#8211;216.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3059864"></a>
11527 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3061417" href="#id3061417" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
11528
11529
11530 See, for example, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Music Media Watch,</span>&#8221;</span> The J@pan
11531 Inc. Newsletter, 3 April 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #76</a>.
11532 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3061606" href="#id3061606" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
11533
11534 William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital Music: Problems and
11535 Possibilities</em> (last revised: 10 October 2000), available at
11536 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #77</a>; William Fisher,
11537 <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep: Technology, Law, and the Future of
11538 Entertainment</em> (forthcoming) (Stanford: Stanford University
11539 Press, 2004), ch. 6, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #78</a>. Professor Netanel has
11540 proposed a related idea that would exempt noncommercial sharing from the
11541 reach of copyright and would establish compensation to artists to balance
11542 any loss. See Neil Weinstock Netanel, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Impose a Noncommercial Use Levy
11543 to Allow Free P2P File Sharing,</span>&#8221;</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #79</a>. For other proposals,
11544 see Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Who's Holding Back Broadband?</span>&#8221;</span>
11545 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 8 January 2002, A17; Philip
11546 S. Corwin on behalf of Sharman Networks, A Letter to Senator Joseph
11547 R. Biden, Jr., Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 26
11548 February 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11549 #80</a>; Serguei Osokine, <em class="citetitle">A Quick Case for Intellectual
11550 Property Use Fee (IPUF)</em>, 3 March 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #81</a>; Jefferson Graham,
11551 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Kazaa, Verizon Propose to Pay Artists Directly,</span>&#8221;</span>
11552 <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 13 May 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #82</a>; Steven M. Cherry,
11553 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Getting Copyright Right,</span>&#8221;</span> IEEE Spectrum Online, 1 July 2002,
11554 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #83</a>;
11555 Declan McCullagh, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Verizon's Copyright Campaign,</span>&#8221;</span> CNET
11556 News.com, 27 August 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #84</a>.  Fisher's proposal is
11557 very similar to Richard Stallman's proposal for DAT. Unlike Fisher's,
11558 Stallman's proposal would not pay artists directly proportionally, though
11559 more popular artists would get more than the less popular. As is typical
11560 with Stallman, his proposal predates the current debate by about a
11561 decade. See <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #85</a>.
11562 <a class="indexterm" name="id3061720"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3061728"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3061734"></a>
11563 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062037" href="#id3062037" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
11564
11565
11566 Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright's First Amendment</span>&#8221;</span> (Melville
11567 B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture), <em class="citetitle">UCLA Law Review</em> 48
11568 (2001): 1057, 1069&#8211;70.
11569 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3062073" href="#id3062073" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
11570
11571 A good example is the work of Professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz is to be
11572 commended for his careful review of data about infringement, leading him to
11573 question his own publicly stated position&#8212;twice. He initially
11574 predicted that downloading would substantially harm the industry. He then
11575 revised his view in light of the data, and he has since revised his view
11576 again.  Compare Stan J. Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network
11577 Economy: The True Forces That Drive the Digital Marketplace</em> (New
11578 York: Amacom, 2002), (reviewing his original view but expressing skepticism)
11579 with Stan J.  Liebowitz, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Will MP3s Annihilate the Record
11580 Industry?</span>&#8221;</span> working paper, June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #86</a>.  Liebowitz's careful
11581 analysis is extremely valuable in estimating the effect of file-sharing
11582 technology. In my view, however, he underestimates the costs of the legal
11583 system. See, for example, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174&#8211;76.
11584 <a class="indexterm" name="id3062050"></a>
11585 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 17. Notater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>Kapittel 17. Notater</h2></div></div></div><p>
11586 I denne teksten er det referanser til lenker på verdensveven.  Og som alle
11587 som har forsøkt å bruke nettet vet, så vil disse lenkene være svært
11588 ustabile.  Jeg har forsøkt å motvirke denne ustabiliteten ved å omdirigere
11589 lesere til den originale kilden gjennom en nettside som hører til denne
11590 boken.  For hver lenke under, så kan du gå til http://free-culture.cc/notes
11591 og finne den originale kilden ved å klikke på nummeret etter #-tegnet.  Hvis
11592 den originale lenken fortsatt er i live, så vil du bli omdirigert til den
11593 lenken.  Hvis den originale lenken har forsvunnet, så vil du bli omdirigert
11594 til en passende referanse til materialet.
11595 </p></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel 18. Takk til"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>Kapittel 18. Takk til</h2></div></div></div><p>
11596 Denne boken er produktet av en lang og så langt mislykket kamp som begynte
11597 da jeg leste om Eric Eldreds krig for å sørge for at bøker forble
11598 frie. Eldreds innsats bidro til å lansere en bevegelse, fri
11599 kultur-bevegelsen, og denne boken er tilegnet ham.
11600 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3062294"></a><p>
11601 Jeg fikk veiledning på ulike steder fra venner og akademikere, inkludert
11602 Glenn Brown, Peter DiCola, Jennifer Mnookin, Richard Posner, Mark Rose og
11603 Kathleen Sullivan. Og jeg fikk korreksjoner og veiledning fra mange
11604 fantastiske studenter ved Stanford Law School og Stanford University. Det
11605 inkluderer Andrew B. Coan, John Eden, James P. Fellers, Christopher
11606 Guzelian, Erica Goldberg, Robert Hallman, Andrew Harris, Matthew Kahn,
11607 Brian-Link, Ohad Mayblum, Alina Ng og Erica Platt. Jeg er særlig takknemlig
11608 overfor Catherine Crump og Harry Surden, som hjalp til med å styre deres
11609 forskning og til Laura Lynch, som briljant håndterte hæren de samlet, samt
11610 bidro med sitt egen kritisk blikk på mye av dette.
11611 </p><p>
11612
11613 Yuko Noguchi hjalp meg å forstå lovene i Japan, så vel som Japans
11614 kultur. Jeg er henne takknemlig, og til de mange i Japan som hjalp meg med
11615 forundersøkelsene til denne boken: Joi Ito, Takayuki Matsutani, Naoto
11616 Misaki, Michihiro Sasaki, Hiromichi Tanaka, Hiroo Yamagata og Yoshihiro
11617 Yonezawa.  Jeg er også takknemlig til professor Nobuhiro Nakayama og Tokyo
11618 University Business Law Center, som ga meg muligheten til å bruke tid i
11619 Japan, og Tadashi Shiraishi og Kiyokazu Yamagami for deres generøse hjelp
11620 mens jeg var der.
11621 </p><p>
11622 Dette er de tradisjonelle former for hjelp som akademikere regelmessig
11623 trekker på. Men i tillegg til dem, har Internett gjort det mulig å motta råd
11624 og korrigering fra mange som jeg har aldri møtt.  Blant de som har svart med
11625 svært nyttig råd etter forespørsler om boken på bloggen min er Dr. Muhammed
11626 Al-Ubaydli, David Gerstein og Peter Dimauro, I tillegg en lang liste med de
11627 som hadde spesifikke idéer om måter å utvikle mine argumenter på.  De
11628 inkluderte Richard Bondi, Steven Cherry, David Coe, Nik Cubrilovic, Bob
11629 Devine, Charles Eicher, Thomas Guida, Elihu M. Gerson, Jeremy Hunsinger,
11630 Vaughn Iverson, John Karabaic, Jeff Keltner, James Lindenschmidt,
11631 K. L. Mann, Mark Manning, Nora McCauley, Jeffrey McHugh, Evan McMullen, Fred
11632 Norton, John Pormann, Pedro A. D.  Rezende, Shabbir Safdar, Saul Schleimer,
11633 Clay Shirky, Adam Shostack, Kragen Sitaker, Chris Smith, Bruce Steinberg,
11634 Andrzej Jan Taramina, Sean Walsh, Matt Wasserman, Miljenko Williams,
11635 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Wink,</span>&#8221;</span> Roger Wood, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Ximmbo da Jazz,</span>&#8221;</span> og Richard
11636 Yanco. (jeg beklager hvis jeg gikk glipp av noen, med datamaskiner kommer
11637 feil og en krasj i e-postsystemet mitt gjorde at jeg mistet en haug med
11638 flotte svar.)
11639 </p><p>
11640 Richard Stallman og Michael Carroll har begge lest hele boken i utkast, og
11641 hver av dem har bidratt med svært nyttige korreksjoner og råd. Michael hjalp
11642 meg å se mer tydelig betydningen av regulering for avledede verker . Og
11643 Richard korrigerte en pinlig stor mengde feil.  Selv om mitt arbeid er
11644 delvis inspirert av Stallmans, er han ikke enig med meg på vesentlige steder
11645 i denne boken.
11646 </p><p>
11647 Til slutt, og for evig, er jeg Bettina takknemlig, som alltid har insistert
11648 på at det ville være endeløs lykke utenfor disse kampene, og som alltid har
11649 hatt rett.  Denne trege eleven er som alltid takknemlig for hennes
11650 evigvarende tålmodighet og kjærlighet.
11651 </p></div><div class="index" title="Indeks"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id3062423"></a>Indeks</h2></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>A</h3><dl><dt>ABC, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Adobe eBook Reader, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Adromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>advertising, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</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>Africa, medications for HIV patients in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>agricultural patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Aibo robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>akademiske tidsskrifter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>antiretroviral drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Aristoteles, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>artister</dt><dd><dl><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3036344">&#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;</a></dt><dt>AT&amp;T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bern-konvensjonen (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>chimeras, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">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: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Coase, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>CodePink Women in Peace, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Coe, Brian, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</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: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>copyleft licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Creative Commons, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Crichton, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Crosskey, William W., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>D</h3><dl><dt>Daguerre, Louis, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Daley, Elizabeth, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>dataspill, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Day After Trinity, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>DDT, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Dean, Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</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="#id3036344">&#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Elektronisk forpost-stiftelsen (EFF), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3036344">&#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>fotografering, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Fried, Charles, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Friedman, Milton, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>G</h3><dl><dt>Garlick, Mia, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Gates, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>General Film Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, Konge av England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS therapies, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Internet Explorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>jernbaneindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>kjørehastighet, begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">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: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3036344">&#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3036344">&#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Marijuana Policy Project, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Microsoft</dt><dd><dl><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Picker, Randal C., <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Politikk, (Aristotles), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Public Citizen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Public Enemy, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Q</h3><dl><dt>Quayle, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>R</h3><dl><dt>rap music, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Reagan, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Real Networks, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Rehnquist, William H., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Rise of the Creative Class, The (Florida), <a class="indexterm" href="#id3036344">&#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></dt><dt>RPI (Se Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Silent Sprint (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robothund produsert av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>tegnefilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>veterans' pensions, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: &#8220;Eiendom&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Worldcom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: &#8220;Kun etter-apere&#8221;</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3036344">&#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div></body></html>