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="id2861720"></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="id2817756"></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="#id2901872">Indeks</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Kolofon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id2818462"></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="id2817336"></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="id2817381" href="#ftn.id2817381" 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="id2817461"></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="id2818092"></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="id2818115" href="#ftn.id2818115" 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.id2817381" href="#id2817381" 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.id2818115" href="#id2818115" 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="id2818126"></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="id2818288" href="#ftn.id2818288" 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="id2818308"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2818334"></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="id2874198"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2874204"></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="id2874255" href="#ftn.id2874255" 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="id2874341"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2874348"></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="id2874411"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2874420"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2874427"></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="id2874504" href="#ftn.id2874504" 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="id2874549"></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="id2874439" href="#ftn.id2874439" 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="id2874594"></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="id2874620" href="#ftn.id2874620" 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="id2874636" href="#ftn.id2874636" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
 392 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2874676"></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="id2816663" href="#ftn.id2816663" 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="id2816748"></a>
 461 <a class="indexterm" name="id2816758"></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="id2875032" href="#ftn.id2875032" 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="id2875074" href="#ftn.id2875074" 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="id2875215" href="#ftn.id2875215" 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="id2875294" href="#ftn.id2875294" 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="id2875380"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2875386"></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="id2875437"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2875444"></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="id2875541"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2875548"></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.id2818288" href="#id2818288" 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.id2874255" href="#id2874255" 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="id2874294"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2874290"></a>
 690 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874504" href="#id2874504" 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.id2874439" href="#id2874439" 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.id2874620" href="#id2874620" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
 697 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874636" href="#id2874636" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
 698 Lessing, 256.
 699 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2816663" href="#id2816663" 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.id2875032" href="#id2875032" 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="id2874477"></a>
 713 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2875074" href="#id2875074" 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="id2875082"></a>
 716 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2875215" href="#id2875215" 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.id2875294" href="#id2875294" 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="id2875304"></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="id2875712" href="#ftn.id2875712" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
 734 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2875726"></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="id2875848"></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="id2875864" href="#ftn.id2875864" 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="id2875887" href="#ftn.id2875887" 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="id2875931"></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="id2875988"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2875994"></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="id2876033" href="#ftn.id2876033" 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.id2875712" href="#id2875712" 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.id2875864" href="#id2875864" 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.id2875887" href="#id2875887" 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="id2875912"></a>
 851 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876033" href="#id2876033" 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="id2876075"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2876083"></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="id2876213" href="#ftn.id2876213" 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="id2876240"></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>. appeared before Disney's cartoon
 916 Steamboat Willie.  The coincidence of titles is not coincidental. Steamboat
 917 Willie is a direct cartoon parody of Steamboat Bill,<sup>[<a name="id2876308" href="#ftn.id2876308" class="footnote">20</a>]</sup> and both are built upon a common song as a
 918 source. It is not just from the invention of synchronized sound in
 919 <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em> that we get <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
 920 Willie</em>. It is also from Buster Keaton's invention of Steamboat
 921 Bill, Jr., itself inspired by the song <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill,</span>&#8221;</span> that
 922 we get Steamboat Willie, and then from Steamboat Willie, Mickey Mouse.
 923 </p><p>
 924 This <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">borrowing</span>&#8221;</span> was nothing unique, either for Disney or for
 925 the industry. Disney was always parroting the feature-length mainstream
 926 films of his day.<sup>[<a name="id2876376" href="#ftn.id2876376" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> So did many
 927 others. Early cartoons are filled with knockoffs&#8212;slight variations on
 928 winning themes; retellings of ancient stories. The key to success was the
 929 brilliance of the differences. With Disney, it was sound that gave his
 930 animation its spark. Later, it was the quality of his work relative to the
 931 production-line cartoons with which he competed. Yet these additions were
 932 built upon a base that was borrowed.  Disney added to the work of others
 933 before him, creating something new out of something just barely old.
 934 </p><p>
 935 Noen ganger var låningen begrenset, og noen ganger var den betydelig. Tenkt
 936 på eventyrene til brødrene Grimm.  Hvis du er like ubevisst som jeg var, så
 937 tror du sannsynlighvis at disse fortellingene er glade, søte historier som
 938 passer for ethvert barn ved leggetid.  Realiteten er at Grimm-eventyrene er,
 939 for oss, ganske dystre.  Det er noen sjeldne og kanskje spesielt ambisiøse
 940 foreldre som ville våge å lese disse blodige moralistiske historiene til
 941 sine barn, ved leggetid eller hvilken som helst annet tidspunkt.
 942 </p><p>
 943
 944 Disney tok disse historiene og fortalte dem på nytt på en måte som førte dem
 945 inn i en ny tidsalder. Han ga historiene liv, med både karakterer og
 946 lys. Uten å fjerne bitene av frykt og fare helt, gjorde han morsomt det som
 947 var mørkt og satte inn en ekte følelse av medfølelse der det før var
 948 frykt. Og ikke bare med verkene av brødrene Grimm.  Faktisk er katalogen
 949 over Disney-arbeid som baserer seg på arbeidet til andre ganske forbløffende
 950 når den blir samlet: <em class="citetitle">Snøhvit</em> (1937),
 951 <em class="citetitle">Fantasia</em> (1940), <em class="citetitle">Pinocchio</em>
 952 (1940), <em class="citetitle">Dumbo</em> (1941), <em class="citetitle">Bambi</em>
 953 (1942), <em class="citetitle">Song of the South</em> (1946),
 954 <em class="citetitle">Askepott</em> (1950), <em class="citetitle">Alice in
 955 Wonderland</em> (1951), <em class="citetitle">Robin Hood</em> (1952),
 956 <em class="citetitle">Peter Pan</em> (1953), <em class="citetitle">Lady og
 957 landstrykeren</em> (1955), <em class="citetitle">Mulan</em> (1998),
 958 <em class="citetitle">Tornerose</em> (1959), <em class="citetitle">101
 959 dalmatinere</em> (1961), <em class="citetitle">Sverdet i steinen</em>
 960 (1963), og <em class="citetitle">Jungelboken</em> (1967)&#8212;for ikke å nevne
 961 et nylig eksempel som vi bør kanskje glemme raskt, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
 962 Planet</em> (2003). I alle disse tilfellene, har Disney (eller
 963 Disney, Inc.) hentet kreativitet fra kultur rundt ham, blandet med
 964 kreativiteten fra sitt eget ekstraordinære talent, og deretter brent denne
 965 blandingen inn i sjelen til sin kultur. Hente, blande og brenne.
 966 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2876501"></a><p>
 967 This is a kind of creativity. It is a creativity that we should remember and
 968 celebrate. There are some who would say that there is no creativity except
 969 this kind. We don't need to go that far to recognize its importance. We
 970 could call this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Disney creativity,</span>&#8221;</span> though that would be a bit
 971 misleading. It is, more precisely, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Walt Disney
 972 creativity</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;a form of expression and genius that builds upon
 973 the culture around us and makes it something different.
 974 </p><p> In 1928, the culture that Disney was free to draw upon was relatively
 975 fresh. The public domain in 1928 was not very old and was therefore quite
 976 vibrant. The average term of copyright was just around thirty
 977 years&#8212;for that minority of creative work that was in fact
 978 copyrighted.<sup>[<a name="id2876522" href="#ftn.id2876522" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> That means that for thirty
 979 years, on average, the authors or copyright holders of a creative work had
 980 an <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">exclusive right</span>&#8221;</span> to control certain uses of the work. To
 981 use this copyrighted work in limited ways required the permission of the
 982 copyright owner.
 983 </p><p>
 984 At the end of a copyright term, a work passes into the public domain.  No
 985 permission is then needed to draw upon or use that work. No permission and,
 986 hence, no lawyers. The public domain is a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lawyer-free zone.</span>&#8221;</span>
 987 Thus, most of the content from the nineteenth century was free for Disney to
 988 use and build upon in 1928. It was free for anyone&#8212; whether connected
 989 or not, whether rich or not, whether approved or not&#8212;to use and build
 990 upon.
 991 </p><p>
 992
 993 Dette er slik det alltid har vært&#8212;inntil ganske nylig.  For
 994 mesteparten av vår historie, har allemannseiet vært like over horisonten.
 995 Fram til 1978 var den gjennomsnittlige opphavsrettslige vernetiden aldri mer
 996 enn trettito år, som gjorde at det meste av kultur fra en og en halv
 997 generasjon tidligere var tilgjengelig for enhver å bygge på uten tillatelse
 998 fra noen.  Tilsvarende for i dag ville være at kreative verker fra 1960- og
 999 1970-tallet nå ville være fritt tilgjengelig for de neste Walt Disney å
1000 bygge på uten tillatelse.  Men i dag er allemannseie presumtivt kun for
1001 innhold fra før mellomkrigstiden.
1002 </p><p>
1003 Of course, Walt Disney had no monopoly on <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Walt Disney
1004 creativity.</span>&#8221;</span> Nor does America. The norm of free culture has, until
1005 recently, and except within totalitarian nations, been broadly exploited and
1006 quite universal.
1007 </p><p>
1008 Vurder for eksempel en form for kreativitet som synes underlig for mange
1009 amerikanere, men som er overalt i japansk kultur:
1010 <em class="citetitle">manga</em>, eller tegneserier.  Japanerne er fanatiske når
1011 det gjelder tegneserier.  Over 40 prosent av publikasjoner er tegneserier,
1012 og 30 prosent av publikasjonsomsetningen stammer fra tegneserier.  De er
1013 over alt i det japanske samfunnet, tilgjengelig fra ethvert
1014 tidsskriftsutsalg, og i hendene på en stor andel av pendlere på Japans
1015 ekstraordinære system for offentlig transport.
1016 </p><p>
1017 Americans tend to look down upon this form of culture. That's an
1018 unattractive characteristic of ours. We're likely to misunderstand much
1019 about manga, because few of us have ever read anything close to the stories
1020 that these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">graphic novels</span>&#8221;</span> tell. For the Japanese, manga cover
1021 every aspect of social life. For us, comics are <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">men in
1022 tights.</span>&#8221;</span> And anyway, it's not as if the New York subways are filled
1023 with readers of Joyce or even Hemingway. People of different cultures
1024 distract themselves in different ways, the Japanese in this interestingly
1025 different way.
1026 </p><p>
1027 Men mitt formål her er ikke å forstå manga.  Det er å beskrive en variant av
1028 manga som fra en advokats perspektiv er ganske merkelig, men som fra en
1029 Disneys perspektiv er ganske godt kjent.
1030 </p><p>
1031
1032 This is the phenomenon of <em class="citetitle">doujinshi</em>. Doujinshi are
1033 also comics, but they are a kind of copycat comic. A rich ethic governs the
1034 creation of doujinshi. It is not doujinshi if it is
1035 <span class="emphasis"><em>just</em></span> a copy; the artist must make a contribution to the
1036 art he copies, by transforming it either subtly or significantly. A
1037 doujinshi comic can thus take a mainstream comic and develop it
1038 differently&#8212;with a different story line. Or the comic can keep the
1039 character in character but change its look slightly. There is no formula for
1040 what makes the doujinshi sufficiently <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">different.</span>&#8221;</span> But they
1041 must be different if they are to be considered true doujinshi. Indeed, there
1042 are committees that review doujinshi for inclusion within shows and reject
1043 any copycat comic that is merely a copy.
1044 </p><p>
1045 These copycat comics are not a tiny part of the manga market. They are
1046 huge. More than 33,000 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">circles</span>&#8221;</span> of creators from across Japan
1047 produce these bits of Walt Disney creativity. More than 450,000 Japanese
1048 come together twice a year, in the largest public gathering in the country,
1049 to exchange and sell them. This market exists in parallel to the mainstream
1050 commercial manga market. In some ways, it obviously competes with that
1051 market, but there is no sustained effort by those who control the commercial
1052 manga market to shut the doujinshi market down. It flourishes, despite the
1053 competition and despite the law.
1054 </p><p>
1055 The most puzzling feature of the doujinshi market, for those trained in the
1056 law, at least, is that it is allowed to exist at all. Under Japanese
1057 copyright law, which in this respect (on paper) mirrors American copyright
1058 law, the doujinshi market is an illegal one. Doujinshi are plainly
1059 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">derivative works.</span>&#8221;</span> There is no general practice by doujinshi
1060 artists of securing the permission of the manga creators. Instead, the
1061 practice is simply to take and modify the creations of others, as Walt
1062 Disney did with <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>. Under both
1063 Japanese and American law, that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taking</span>&#8221;</span> without the permission
1064 of the original copyright owner is illegal. It is an infringement of the
1065 original copyright to make a copy or a derivative work without the original
1066 copyright owner's permission.
1067 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
1068 Yet this illegal market exists and indeed flourishes in Japan, and in the
1069 view of many, it is precisely because it exists that Japanese manga
1070 flourish. As American graphic novelist Judd Winick said to me, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The
1071 early days of comics in America are very much like what's going on in Japan
1072 now. &#8230; American comics were born out of copying each other. &#8230;
1073 That's how [the artists] learn to draw&#8212;by going into comic books and
1074 not tracing them, but looking at them and copying them</span>&#8221;</span> and building
1075 from them.<sup>[<a name="id2876748" href="#ftn.id2876748" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
1076 </p><p>
1077 American comics now are quite different, Winick explains, in part because of
1078 the legal difficulty of adapting comics the way doujinshi are
1079 allowed. Speaking of Superman, Winick told me, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">there are these rules
1080 and you have to stick to them.</span>&#8221;</span> There are things Superman
1081 <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
1082 stick to some parameters which are fifty years old.</span>&#8221;</span>
1083 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2876787"></a><p>
1084 Normen i Japan reduserer denne juridiske utfordringen.  Noen sier at det
1085 nettopp er den oppsamlede fordelen i det japanske mangamarkedet som
1086 forklarer denne reduksjonen.  Jussprofessor Salil Mehra ved Temple
1087 University hypnotiserer for eksempel med at manga-markedet aksepterer disse
1088 teoretiske bruddene fordi de får mangamarkedet til å bli rikere og mer
1089 produktivt.  Alle ville få det verre hvis doujinshi ble bannlyst, så loven
1090 bannlyser ikke doujinshi.<sup>[<a name="id2876813" href="#ftn.id2876813" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
1091 </p><p>
1092 The problem with this story, however, as Mehra plainly acknowledges, is that
1093 the mechanism producing this laissez faire response is not clear. It may
1094 well be that the market as a whole is better off if doujinshi are permitted
1095 rather than banned, but that doesn't explain why individual copyright owners
1096 don't sue nonetheless. If the law has no general exception for doujinshi,
1097 and indeed in some cases individual manga artists have sued doujinshi
1098 artists, why is there not a more general pattern of blocking this
1099 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free taking</span>&#8221;</span> by the doujinshi culture?
1100 </p><p>
1101 I spent four wonderful months in Japan, and I asked this question as often
1102 as I could. Perhaps the best account in the end was offered by a friend from
1103 a major Japanese law firm. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">We don't have enough lawyers,</span>&#8221;</span> he
1104 told me one afternoon. There <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">just aren't enough resources to
1105 prosecute cases like this.</span>&#8221;</span>
1106 </p><p>
1107
1108 Dette er et tema vi kommer tilbake til: at lovens regulering både er en
1109 funksjon av ordene i bøkene, og kostnadene med å få disse ordene til å ha
1110 effekt.  Akkurat nå er det endel åpenbare spørsmål som presser seg frem:
1111 Ville Japan gjøre det bedre med flere advokater? Ville manga være rikere
1112 hvis doujinshi-kunstnere ble regelmessig rettsforfulgt?  Ville Japan vinne
1113 noe viktig hvis de kunne stoppe praksisen med deling uten kompensasjon?
1114 Skader piratvirksomhet ofrene for piratvirksomheten, eller hjelper den dem?
1115 Ville advokaters kamp mot denne piratvirksomheten hjelpe deres klienter,
1116 eller skade dem? La oss ta et øyeblikks pause.
1117 </p><p>
1118 Hvis du er som meg et tiår tilbake, eller som folk flest når de først
1119 begynner å tenke på disse temaene, da bør du omtrent nå være rådvill om noe
1120 du ikke hadde tenkt igjennom før.
1121 </p><p>
1122 We live in a world that celebrates <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property.</span>&#8221;</span> I am one of
1123 those celebrants.  I believe in the value of property in general, and I also
1124 believe in the value of that weird form of property that lawyers call
1125 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2876906" href="#ftn.id2876906" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> A
1126 large, diverse society cannot survive without property; a large, diverse,
1127 and modern society cannot flourish without intellectual property.
1128 </p><p>
1129 But it takes just a second's reflection to realize that there is plenty of
1130 value out there that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> doesn't capture. I don't mean
1131 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">money can't buy you love,</span>&#8221;</span> but rather, value that is plainly
1132 part of a process of production, including commercial as well as
1133 noncommercial production.  If Disney animators had stolen a set of pencils
1134 to draw Steamboat Willie, we'd have no hesitation in condemning that taking
1135 as wrong&#8212; even though trivial, even if unnoticed. Yet there was
1136 nothing wrong, at least under the law of the day, with Disney's taking from
1137 Buster Keaton or from the Brothers Grimm. There was nothing wrong with the
1138 taking from Keaton because Disney's use would have been considered
1139 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair.</span>&#8221;</span> There was nothing wrong with the taking from the Grimms
1140 because the Grimms' work was in the public domain.
1141 </p><p>
1142
1143 Dermed, selv om de tingene som Disney tok&#8212;eller mer generelt, tingene
1144 som blir tatt av enhver som utøver Walt Disney-kreativitet&#8212;er
1145 verdifulle, så anser ikke vår tradisjon det som galt å ta disse tingene.
1146 Noen ting forblir frie til å bli tatt i en fri kultur og denne friheten er
1147 bra.
1148 </p><p>
1149 Det er det samme med doujinshi-kulturen.  Hvis en doujinshi-kunstner brøt
1150 seg inn på kontoret til en forlegger, og stakk av med tusen kopier av hans
1151 siste verk&#8212;eller bare en kopi&#8212;uten å betale, så ville vi uten å
1152 nøle si at kunstneren har gjort noe galt.  I tillegg til å ha trengt seg inn
1153 på andres eiendom, ville han ha stjålet noe av verdi. Loven forbyr stjeling
1154 i enhver form, uansett hvor stort eller lite som blir tatt.
1155 </p><p>
1156 Yet there is an obvious reluctance, even among Japanese lawyers, to say that
1157 the copycat comic artists are <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stealing.</span>&#8221;</span> This form of Walt
1158 Disney creativity is seen as fair and right, even if lawyers in particular
1159 find it hard to say why.
1160 </p><p>
1161 It's the same with a thousand examples that appear everywhere once you begin
1162 to look. Scientists build upon the work of other scientists without asking
1163 or paying for the privilege. (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Excuse me, Professor Einstein, but may
1164 I have permission to use your theory of relativity to show that you were
1165 wrong about quantum physics?</span>&#8221;</span>) Acting companies perform adaptations
1166 of the works of Shakespeare without securing permission from anyone. (Does
1167 <span class="emphasis"><em>anyone</em></span> believe Shakespeare would be better spread
1168 within our culture if there were a central Shakespeare rights clearinghouse
1169 that all productions of Shakespeare must appeal to first?) And Hollywood
1170 goes through cycles with a certain kind of movie: five asteroid films in the
1171 late 1990s; two volcano disaster films in 1997.
1172 </p><p>
1173
1174 Skapere her og overalt har alltid og til alle tider bygd på kreativiteten
1175 som eksisterte før og som omringer dem nå.  Denne byggingen er alltid og
1176 overalt i det minste delvis gjort uten tillatelse og uten å kompensere den
1177 opprinnelige skaperen.  Intet samfunn, fritt eller kontrollert, har noen
1178 gang krevd at enhver bruk skulle bli betalt for eller at tillatelse for Walt
1179 Disney-kreativitet alltid måtte skaffes.  Istedet har ethvert samfunn latt
1180 en bestemt bit av sin kultur være fritt tilgjengelig for alle å
1181 ta&#8212;frie samfunn muligens i større grad enn ufrie, men en viss grad i
1182 alle samfunn.
1183
1184 </p><p>
1185 The hard question is therefore not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> a culture is
1186 free. All cultures are free to some degree. The hard question instead is
1187 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote"><span class="emphasis"><em>How</em></span> free is this culture?</span>&#8221;</span> How much, and
1188 how broadly, is the culture free for others to take and build upon? Is that
1189 freedom limited to party members? To members of the royal family? To the top
1190 ten corporations on the New York Stock Exchange? Or is that freedom spread
1191 broadly? To artists generally, whether affiliated with the Met or not? To
1192 musicians generally, whether white or not? To filmmakers generally, whether
1193 affiliated with a studio or not?
1194 </p><p>
1195 Frie kulturer er kulturer som etterlater mye åpent for andre å bygge på.
1196 Ufrie, eller tillatelse-kulturer etterlater mye mindre.  Vår var en fri
1197 kultur. Den er på tur til å bli mindre fri.
1198 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876213" href="#id2876213" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
1199
1200
1201 Leonard Maltin, <em class="citetitle">Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated
1202 Cartoons</em> (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 34&#8211;35.
1203 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876308" href="#id2876308" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
1204
1205
1206 Jeg er takknemlig overfor David Gerstein og hans nøyaktige historie,
1207 beskrevet på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #4</a>.  I
1208 følge Dave Smith ved the Disney Archives, betalte Disney for å bruke
1209 musikken til fem sanger i <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willie</em>:
1210 <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),
1211 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Mischief Makers</span>&#8221;</span> (Carbonara), <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Joyful Hurry
1212 No. 1</span>&#8221;</span> (Baron), og <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Gawky Rube</span>&#8221;</span> (Lakay). En sjette sang,
1213 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Turkey in the Straw,</span>&#8221;</span> var allerede allemannseie.  Brev fra
1214 David Smith til Harry Surden, 10. juli 2003, tilgjenglig i arkivet til
1215 forfatteren.
1216 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876376" href="#id2876376" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
1217
1218
1219 He was also a fan of the public domain. See Chris Sprigman, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Mouse
1220 that Ate the Public Domain,</span>&#8221;</span> Findlaw, 5 March 2002, at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #5</a>.
1221 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876522" href="#id2876522" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
1222
1223
1224 Until 1976, copyright law granted an author the possibility of two terms: an
1225 initial term and a renewal term. I have calculated the
1226 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">average</span>&#8221;</span> term by determining the weighted average of total
1227 registrations for any particular year, and the proportion renewing. Thus, if
1228 100 copyrights are registered in year 1, and only 15 are renewed, and the
1229 renewal term is 28 years, then the average term is 32.2 years. For the
1230 renewal data and other relevant data, see the Web site associated with this
1231 book, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
1232 #6</a>.
1233 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876748" href="#id2876748" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
1234
1235
1236 For en utmerket historie, se Scott McCloud, <em class="citetitle">Reinventing
1237 Comics</em> (New York: Perennial, 2000).
1238 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876813" href="#id2876813" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
1239
1240
1241 See Salil K. Mehra, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain
1242 Why All the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?</span>&#8221;</span>
1243 <em class="citetitle">Rutgers Law Review</em> 55 (2002): 155,
1244 182. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">[T]here might be a collective economic rationality that would
1245 lead manga and anime artists to forgo bringing legal actions for
1246 infringement. One hypothesis is that all manga artists may be better off
1247 collectively if they set aside their individual self-interest and decide not
1248 to press their legal rights. This is essentially a prisoner's dilemma
1249 solved.</span>&#8221;</span>
1250 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2876906" href="#id2876906" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
1251
1252 The term <em class="citetitle">intellectual property</em> is of relatively
1253 recent origin. See Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
1254 Copywrongs</em>, 11 (New York: New York University Press, 2001). See
1255 also Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> (New York:
1256 Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. The term accurately describes a set of
1257 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> rights&#8212;copyright, patents, trademark, and
1258 trade-secret&#8212;but the nature of those rights is very different.
1259 <a class="indexterm" name="id2876926"></a>
1260 </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>
1261 In 1839, Louis Daguerre invented the first practical technology for
1262 producing what we would call <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">photographs.</span>&#8221;</span> Appropriately
1263 enough, they were called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">daguerreotypes.</span>&#8221;</span> The process was
1264 complicated and expensive, and the field was thus limited to professionals
1265 and a few zealous and wealthy amateurs. (There was even an American Daguerre
1266 Association that helped regulate the industry, as do all such associations,
1267 by keeping competition down so as to keep prices up.)  <a class="indexterm" name="id2877135"></a>
1268 </p><p>
1269 Yet despite high prices, the demand for daguerreotypes was strong.  This
1270 pushed inventors to find simpler and cheaper ways to make <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">automatic
1271 pictures.</span>&#8221;</span> William Talbot soon discovered a process for making
1272 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">negatives.</span>&#8221;</span> But because the negatives were glass, and had to
1273 be kept wet, the process still remained expensive and cumbersome. In the
1274 1870s, dry plates were developed, making it easier to separate the taking of
1275 a picture from its developing. These were still plates of glass, and thus it
1276 was still not a process within reach of most amateurs.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2877160"></a>
1277 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxeastmangeorge"></a><p>
1278
1279 Den teknologiske endringen som gjorde masse-fotografering mulig skjedde ikke
1280 før i 1888, og det var takket være en eneste mann. George Eastman, selv en
1281 amatørfotograf, var frustrert over den plate-baserte fotografi-teknologien.
1282 I et lysglimt av innsikt (for å si det slik), forsto Eastman at hvis filmen
1283 kunne gjøres bøyelig, så kunne den holdes på en enkel rull.  Denne rullen
1284 kunne så sendes til en fremkaller, og senke kostnadene til fotografering
1285 vesentlig.  Ved å redusere kostnadene, forventet Eastman at han dramatisk
1286 kunne utvide andelen fotografer.
1287 </p><p>
1288 Eastman developed flexible, emulsion-coated paper film and placed rolls of
1289 it in small, simple cameras: the Kodak. The device was marketed on the basis
1290 of its simplicity. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">You press the button and we do the
1291 rest.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2877206" href="#ftn.id2877206" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> As he described in
1292 <em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>: <a class="indexterm" name="id2877220"></a>
1293 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1294 Prinsippet til Kodak-systemet er skillet mellom arbeidet som enhver kan
1295 utføre når en tar fotografier, fra arbeidet som kun en ekspert kan
1296 gjøre. &#8230; Vi utstyrte alle, menn, kvinner og barn, som hadde
1297 tilstrekkelig intelligens til å peke en boks i riktig retning og trykke på
1298 en knapp, med et instrument som helt fjernet fra praksisen med å fotografere
1299 nødvendigheten av uvanlig utstyr eller for den del, noe som helst spesiell
1300 kunnskap om kunstarten.  Det kan tas i bruk uten forutgående studier, uten
1301 et mørkerom og uten kjemikalier.<sup>[<a name="id2874682" href="#ftn.id2874682" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
1302 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1303 For $25 kunne alle ta bilder.  Det var allerede film i kameraet, og når det
1304 var brukt ble kameraet returnert til en Eastman-fabrikk hvor filmen ble
1305 fremkalt.  Etter hvert, naturligvis, ble både kostnaden til kameraet og hvor
1306 enkelt et var å bruke forbedret.  Film på rull ble dermed grunnlaget for en
1307 eksplosiv vekst i fotografering blant folket. Eastmans kamera ble lagt ut
1308 for salg i 1888, og et år senere trykket Kodak mer enn seks tusen negativer
1309 om dagen.  Fra 1888 til 1909, mens produksjonen i industrien vokste med 4,7
1310 prosent, økte salget av fotografisk utstyr og materiale med 11
1311 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2877285" href="#ftn.id2877285" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
1312 samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2877294" href="#ftn.id2877294" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
1313 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2877304"></a><p>
1314
1315
1316 The real significance of Eastman's invention, however, was not economic. It
1317 was social. Professional photography gave individuals a glimpse of places
1318 they would never otherwise see. Amateur photography gave them the ability to
1319 record their own lives in a way they had never been able to do before. As
1320 author Brian Coe notes, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">For the first time the snapshot album
1321 provided the man on the street with a permanent record of his family and its
1322 activities. &#8230; For the first time in history there exists an authentic
1323 visual record of the appearance and activities of the common man made
1324 without [literary] interpretation or bias.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2877237" href="#ftn.id2877237" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
1325 </p><p>
1326 In this way, the Kodak camera and film were technologies of expression.  The
1327 pencil or paintbrush was also a technology of expression, of course. But it
1328 took years of training before they could be deployed by amateurs in any
1329 useful or effective way. With the Kodak, expression was possible much sooner
1330 and more simply. The barrier to expression was lowered. Snobs would sneer at
1331 its <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">quality</span>&#8221;</span>; professionals would discount it as
1332 irrelevant. But watch a child study how best to frame a picture and you get
1333 a sense of the experience of creativity that the Kodak enabled. Democratic
1334 tools gave ordinary people a way to express themselves more easily than any
1335 tools could have before.
1336 </p><p>
1337 Hva krevdes for at denne teknologien skulle blomstre.  Eastmans genialitet
1338 var åpenbart en viktig del.  Men den juridiske miljøet som Eastmans
1339 oppfinnelse vokste i var også viktig.  For tidlig i historien til
1340 fotografering, var det en rekke av rettsavgjørelser som godt kunne ha endret
1341 kursen til fotograferingen betydelig.  Domstoler ble spurt om fotografen,
1342 amatør eller profesjonell, måtte ha ha tillatelse før han kunne fange og
1343 trykke hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket.  Svaret var nei.<sup>[<a name="id2877368" href="#ftn.id2877368" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
1344 </p><p>
1345
1346 The arguments in favor of requiring permission will sound surprisingly
1347 familiar. The photographer was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taking</span>&#8221;</span> something from the
1348 person or building whose photograph he shot&#8212;pirating something of
1349 value. Some even thought he was taking the target's soul. Just as Disney was
1350 not free to take the pencils that his animators used to draw Mickey, so,
1351 too, should these photographers not be free to take images that they thought
1352 valuable.
1353 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2877406"></a><p>
1354 På den andre siden var et argument som også bør bør være kjent. Joda, det
1355 var kanskje noe av verdi som ble brukt.  Men borgerne burde ha rett til å
1356 fange i hvert fall de bildene som var tatt av offentlig område.  (Louis
1357 Brandeis, som senere ble høyesterettsjustitiarus, mente regelen skulle være
1358 annerledes for bilder tatt av private områder.<sup>[<a name="id2877431" href="#ftn.id2877431" class="footnote">32</a>]</sup>) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting.
1359 På samme måte som Disney kunne hente inspirasjon fra <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
1360 Bill, Jr</em>. eller Grimm-brødrene, så burde fotografene stå fritt
1361 til å fange et bilde uten å kompensere kilden.
1362 </p><p>
1363 Heldigvis for Mr. Eastman, og for fotografering generelt, gikk disse
1364 tidligere avgjørelsene i favør av piratene.  Generelt ble det ikke nødvendig
1365 å sikre seg tillatelse før et bilde kunne tas og deles med andre.  I stedet
1366 var det antatt at tillatelse var gitt.  Frihet var utgangspunktet.  (Loven
1367 ga etter en stund et unntak for berømte personer: kommersielle fotografer
1368 som tok bilder av berømte personer for kommersielle formål har flere
1369 begrensninger enn resten av oss.  Men i det vanlige tilfellet, kan bildet
1370 fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.<sup>[<a name="id2877486" href="#ftn.id2877486" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
1371 </p><p>
1372 We can only speculate about how photography would have developed had the law
1373 gone the other way. If the presumption had been against the photographer,
1374 then the photographer would have had to demonstrate permission. Perhaps
1375 Eastman Kodak would have had to demonstrate permission, too, before it
1376 developed the film upon which images were captured. After all, if permission
1377 were not granted, then Eastman Kodak would be benefiting from the
1378 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">theft</span>&#8221;</span> committed by the photographer. Just as Napster
1379 benefited from the copyright infringements committed by Napster users, Kodak
1380 would be benefiting from the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">image-right</span>&#8221;</span> infringement of its
1381 photographers. We could imagine the law then requiring that some form of
1382 permission be demonstrated before a company developed pictures. We could
1383 imagine a system developing to demonstrate that permission.
1384 </p><p>
1385
1386
1387
1388 But though we could imagine this system of permission, it would be very hard
1389 to see how photography could have flourished as it did if the requirement
1390 for permission had been built into the rules that govern it. Photography
1391 would have existed. It would have grown in importance over
1392 time. Professionals would have continued to use the technology as they
1393 did&#8212;since professionals could have more easily borne the burdens of
1394 the permission system. But the spread of photography to ordinary people
1395 would not have occurred. Nothing like that growth would have been
1396 realized. And certainly, nothing like that growth in a democratic technology
1397 of expression would have been realized.  If you drive through San
1398 Francisco's Presidio, you might see two gaudy yellow school buses painted
1399 over with colorful and striking images, and the logo <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Just
1400 Think!</span>&#8221;</span> in place of the name of a school. But there's little that's
1401 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">just</span>&#8221;</span> cerebral in the projects that these busses enable.
1402 These buses are filled with technologies that teach kids to tinker with
1403 film. Not the film of Eastman. Not even the film of your VCR.  Rather the
1404 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">film</span>&#8221;</span> of digital cameras. Just Think! is a project that
1405 enables kids to make films, as a way to understand and critique the filmed
1406 culture that they find all around them. Each year, these busses travel to
1407 more than thirty schools and enable three hundred to five hundred children
1408 to learn something about media by doing something with media.  By doing,
1409 they think. By tinkering, they learn.
1410 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2877580"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2877588"></a><p>
1411 These buses are not cheap, but the technology they carry is increasingly
1412 so. The cost of a high-quality digital video system has fallen
1413 dramatically.  As one analyst puts it, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Five years ago, a good
1414 real-time digital video editing system cost $25,000. Today you can get
1415 professional quality for $595.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2877606" href="#ftn.id2877606" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup>
1416 These buses are filled with technology that would have cost hundreds of
1417 thousands just ten years ago. And it is now feasible to imagine not just
1418 buses like this, but classrooms across the country where kids are learning
1419 more and more of something teachers call <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">media literacy.</span>&#8221;</span>
1420 </p><p>
1421
1422 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Media literacy,</span>&#8221;</span> as Dave Yanofsky, the executive director of
1423 Just Think!, puts it, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">is the ability &#8230; to understand, analyze,
1424 and deconstruct media images. Its aim is to make [kids] literate about the
1425 way media works, the way it's constructed, the way it's delivered, and the
1426 way people access it.</span>&#8221;</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2877646"></a>
1427 </p><p>
1428 This may seem like an odd way to think about <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">literacy.</span>&#8221;</span> For
1429 most people, literacy is about reading and writing. Faulkner and Hemingway
1430 and noticing split infinitives are the things that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">literate</span>&#8221;</span>
1431 people know about.
1432 </p><p>
1433 Maybe. But in a world where children see on average 390 hours of television
1434 commercials per year, or between 20,000 and 45,000 commercials
1435 generally,<sup>[<a name="id2877673" href="#ftn.id2877673" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> it is increasingly important
1436 to understand the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">grammar</span>&#8221;</span> of media. For just as there is a
1437 grammar for the written word, so, too, is there one for media. And just as
1438 kids learn how to write by writing lots of terrible prose, kids learn how to
1439 write media by constructing lots of (at least at first) terrible media.
1440 </p><p>
1441 Et voksende felt av akademikere og aktivister ser denne formen for
1442 skriveføre som avgjørende for den neste generasjonen av kultur. For selv om
1443 de som har skrevet forstår hvor vanskelig det er å skrive&#8212;hvor
1444 vanskelig det er å bestemme rekkefølge i historien, å holde på
1445 oppmerksomheten hos leseren, å forme språket slik at det er
1446 forståelig&#8212;så har få av oss en reell følelse av hvor vanskelig medier
1447 er. Eller mer fundamentalt, de færreste av av oss har en følelse for
1448 hvordan media fungerer, hvordan det holder et publikum eller leder leseren
1449 gjennom historien, hvordan det utløser følelser eller bygger opp spenningen.
1450 </p><p>
1451 Det tok filmkusten en generasjon før den kunne gjøre disse tingene bra.  Men
1452 selv da, så var kunnskapen i filmingen, ikke i å skrive om filmen.
1453 Ferdigheten kom fra erfaring med å lage en film, ikke fra å lese en bok om
1454 den.  En lærer å skrive ved å skrive, og deretter reflektere over det en har
1455 skrevet.  En lærer å skrive med bilder ved å lage dem, og deretter
1456 reflektere over det en har laget.
1457 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2877707"></a><p>
1458 This grammar has changed as media has changed. When it was just film, as
1459 Elizabeth Daley, executive director of the University of Southern
1460 California's Annenberg Center for Communication and dean of the USC School
1461 of Cinema-Television, explained to me, the grammar was about <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the
1462 placement of objects, color, &#8230; rhythm, pacing, and
1463 texture.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2877641" href="#ftn.id2877641" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> But as computers open
1464 up an interactive space where a story is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">played</span>&#8221;</span> as well as
1465 experienced, that grammar changes. The simple control of narrative is lost,
1466 and so other techniques are necessary. Author Michael Crichton had mastered
1467 the narrative of science fiction.  But when he tried to design a computer
1468 game based on one of his works, it was a new craft he had to learn. How to
1469 lead people through a game without their feeling they have been led was not
1470 obvious, even to a wildly successful author.<sup>[<a name="id2877793" href="#ftn.id2877793" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
1471 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2877820"></a><p>
1472 This skill is precisely the craft a filmmaker learns. As Daley describes,
1473 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">people are very surprised about how they are led through a film. [I]t
1474 is perfectly constructed to keep you from seeing it, so you have no idea. If
1475 a filmmaker succeeds you do not know how you were led.</span>&#8221;</span> If you know
1476 you were led through a film, the film has failed.
1477 </p><p>
1478 Likevel er innsatsen for å utvide skriveføren&#8212;til en som går ut over
1479 tekst til å ta med lyd og visuelle elementer&#8212;handler ikke om å lage
1480 bedre filmregisører.  Målet er ikke å forbedre filmyrket i det hele tatt.  I
1481 stedet, som Daley forklarer,
1482 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1483 Fra mitt perspektiv er antagelig det viktigste digitale skillet ikke om en
1484 har tilgang til en boks eller ikke.  Det er evnen til å ha kontroll over
1485 språket som boksen bruker.  I motsatt fall er det bare noen få som kan
1486 skrive i dette språket, og alle oss andre er redusert til å ikke kunne
1487 skrive.
1488 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1489 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Read-only.</span>&#8221;</span> Passive recipients of culture produced elsewhere.
1490 Couch potatoes. Consumers. This is the world of media from the twentieth
1491 century.
1492 </p><p>
1493 The twenty-first century could be different. This is the crucial point: It
1494 could be both read and write. Or at least reading and better understanding
1495 the craft of writing. Or best, reading and understanding the tools that
1496 enable the writing to lead or mislead. The aim of any literacy, and this
1497 literacy in particular, is to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">empower people to choose the
1498 appropriate language for what they need to create or
1499 express.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2877889" href="#ftn.id2877889" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> It is to enable
1500 students <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">to communicate in the language of the twenty-first
1501 century.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2877908" href="#ftn.id2877908" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
1502 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2877915"></a><p>
1503 Som det alle andre språk, læres dette språket lettere for noen enn for
1504 andre.  Det kommer ikke nødvendigvis lettere for de som gjør det godt
1505 skriftlig. Daley og Stephanie Barish, direktør for Institutt for
1506 Multimedia-skriveføre ved Annenberg-senteret, beskriver et spesielt sterkt
1507 eksempel fra et prosjekt de gjennomførte i en videregående skole.  Den
1508 videregående skolen var en veldig fattig skole i den indre byen i Los
1509 Angeles.  Etter alle tradisjonelle måleenheter for suksess var denne skolen
1510 en fiasko.  Men Daley og Barish gjennomførte et program som ga ungene en
1511 mulighet til å bruke film til å uttrykke sine meninger om noe som studentene
1512 visste noe om&#8212;våpen-relatert vold.
1513 </p><p>
1514 The class was held on Friday afternoons, and it created a relatively new
1515 problem for the school. While the challenge in most classes was getting the
1516 kids to come, the challenge in this class was keeping them away. The
1517 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kids were showing up at 6 A.M. and leaving at 5 at night,</span>&#8221;</span>
1518 said Barish. They were working harder than in any other class to do what
1519 education should be about&#8212;learning how to express themselves.
1520 </p><p>
1521 Using whatever <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free web stuff they could find,</span>&#8221;</span> and relatively
1522 simple tools to enable the kids to mix <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">image, sound, and
1523 text,</span>&#8221;</span> Barish said this class produced a series of projects that
1524 showed something about gun violence that few would otherwise
1525 understand. This was an issue close to the lives of these students. The
1526 project <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">gave them a tool and empowered them to be able to both
1527 understand it and talk about it,</span>&#8221;</span> Barish explained. That tool
1528 succeeded in creating expression&#8212;far more successfully and powerfully
1529 than could have been created using only text. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">If you had said to
1530 these students, `you have to do it in text,' they would've just thrown their
1531 hands up and gone and done something else,</span>&#8221;</span> Barish described, in
1532 part, no doubt, because expressing themselves in text is not something these
1533 students can do well. Yet neither is text a form in which
1534 <span class="emphasis"><em>these</em></span> ideas can be expressed well. The power of this
1535 message depended upon its connection to this form of expression.
1536 </p><p>
1537
1538
1539
1540 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But isn't education about teaching kids to write?</span>&#8221;</span> I asked. In
1541 part, of course, it is. But why are we teaching kids to write? Education,
1542 Daley explained, is about giving students a way of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">constructing
1543 meaning.</span>&#8221;</span> To say that that means just writing is like saying teaching
1544 writing is only about teaching kids how to spell. Text is one part&#8212;and
1545 increasingly, not the most powerful part&#8212;of constructing meaning. As
1546 Daley explained in the most moving part of our interview,
1547 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1548 What you want is to give these students ways of constructing meaning. If all
1549 you give them is text, they're not going to do it.  Because they can't. You
1550 know, you've got Johnny who can look at a video, he can play a video game,
1551 he can do graffiti all over your walls, he can take your car apart, and he
1552 can do all sorts of other things. He just can't read your text. So Johnny
1553 comes to school and you say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Johnny, you're illiterate. Nothing you
1554 can do matters.</span>&#8221;</span> Well, Johnny then has two choices: He can dismiss
1555 you or he [can] dismiss himself. If his ego is healthy at all, he's going to
1556 dismiss you. [But i]nstead, if you say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Well, with all these things
1557 that you can do, let's talk about this issue. Play for me music that you
1558 think reflects that, or show me images that you think reflect that, or draw
1559 for me something that reflects that.</span>&#8221;</span> Not by giving a kid a video
1560 camera and &#8230; saying, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Let's go have fun with the video camera
1561 and make a little movie.</span>&#8221;</span> But instead, really help you take these
1562 elements that you understand, that are your language, and construct meaning
1563 about the topic.&#8230;
1564 </p><p>
1565 That empowers enormously. And then what happens, of course, is eventually,
1566 as it has happened in all these classes, they bump up against the fact,
1567 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I need to explain this and I really need to write something.</span>&#8221;</span>
1568 And as one of the teachers told Stephanie, they would rewrite a paragraph 5,
1569 6, 7, 8 times, till they got it right.
1570 </p><p>
1571
1572 Because they needed to. There was a reason for doing it. They needed to say
1573 something, as opposed to just jumping through your hoops. They actually
1574 needed to use a language that they didn't speak very well. But they had come
1575 to understand that they had a lot of power with this language.
1576 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1577 Da to fly krasjet inn i World Trade Center, og et annet inn i Pentagon, og
1578 et fjerde inn i et jorde i Pennsylvania, snudde alle medier verden rundt seg
1579 til denne nyheten.  Ethvert moment for omtreng hver eneste dag den uka, og
1580 ukene som fulgte gjenfortalte TV spesielt, men media generelt, historien om
1581 disse hendelsene som vi nettopp hadde vært vitne til.  Genialiteten i denne
1582 forferdelige terrorhandlingen var at det forsinkede andre-angrepet var
1583 perfekt tidsatt for å sikre at hele verden ville være der for å se på.
1584 </p><p>
1585 These retellings had an increasingly familiar feel. There was music scored
1586 for the intermissions, and fancy graphics that flashed across the
1587 screen. There was a formula to interviews. There was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">balance,</span>&#8221;</span>
1588 and seriousness. This was news choreographed in the way we have increasingly
1589 come to expect it, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">news as entertainment,</span>&#8221;</span> even if the
1590 entertainment is tragedy.
1591 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2878116"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2878122"></a><p>
1592 But in addition to this produced news about the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">tragedy of September
1593 11,</span>&#8221;</span> those of us tied to the Internet came to see a very different
1594 production as well. The Internet was filled with accounts of the same
1595 events. Yet these Internet accounts had a very different flavor. Some people
1596 constructed photo pages that captured images from around the world and
1597 presented them as slide shows with text. Some offered open letters. There
1598 were sound recordings. There was anger and frustration.  There were attempts
1599 to provide context. There was, in short, an extraordinary worldwide barn
1600 raising, in the sense Mike Godwin uses the term in his book <em class="citetitle">Cyber
1601 Rights</em>, around a news event that had captured the attention of
1602 the world. There was ABC and CBS, but there was also the Internet.
1603 </p><p>
1604
1605 I don't mean simply to praise the Internet&#8212;though I do think the
1606 people who supported this form of speech should be praised. I mean instead
1607 to point to a significance in this form of speech. For like a Kodak, the
1608 Internet enables people to capture images. And like in a movie by a student
1609 on the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Just Think!</span>&#8221;</span> bus, the visual images could be mixed with
1610 sound or text.
1611 </p><p>
1612 Men i motsetning til en hvilken som helst teknologi for å enkelt fange
1613 bilder, tillater internettet at en nesten umiddelbart deler disse
1614 kreasjonene med et ekstraordinært antall menesker.  Dette er noe nytt i vår
1615 tradisjon&#8212;ikke bare kan kultur fanges inn mekanisk, og åpenbart heller
1616 ikke at hendelser blir kommentert kritisk, men at denne blandingen av
1617 bilder, lyd og kommentar kan spres vidt omkring nesten umiddelbart.
1618 </p><p>
1619 11. september var ikke et avvik.  Det var en start.  Omtrent på samme tid,
1620 begynte en form for kommunkasjon som hadde vokst dramatisk å komme inn i
1621 offentlig bevissthet: web-loggen, eller blog.  Bloggen er en slags offentlig
1622 dagbok, og i noen kulturer, slik som i Japan, fungerer den veldig lik en
1623 dagbok.  I disse kulturene registrerer den private fakta på en offentlig
1624 måte&#8212;det er en slags elektronisk <em class="citetitle">Jerry
1625 Springer</em>, tilgjengelig overalt i verden.
1626 </p><p>
1627 Men i USA har blogger inntatt en svært annerledes karakter.  Det er noen som
1628 bruker denne plassen til å snakke om sitt private liv.  Men det er mange som
1629 bruker denne plassen til å delta i offentlig debatt. Diskuterer saker med
1630 offentlig interesse, kritiserer andre som har feil synspunkt, kritisere
1631 politigere for avgjørelser de tar, tilbyr løsninger på problemer vi alle
1632 ser.  Blogger skaper en følelse av et virtuelt offentlig møte, men et hvor
1633 vi ikke alle håper å være tilstede på samme tid og hvor konversasjonene ikke
1634 nødvendigvis er koblet sammen.  De beste av bloggoppføringene er relativt
1635 korte.  De peker direkte til ord bruk av andre, kritiserer dem eller bidrar
1636 til dem.  Det kan argumenteres for at de er den viktigste form for
1637 ukoreografert offentlig debatt som vi har.
1638 </p><p>
1639
1640 Dette er en sterk uttalelse.  Likevel sier den like mye om vårt demokrati
1641 som den sier om blogger.  Dette er delen av USA som det er mest vanskelig
1642 for oss som elsker USA å akseptere: vårt demokrati har svunnet hen.  Vi har
1643 naturligvis valg, og mesteparten av tiden tillater domstolene at disse
1644 valgene teller.  Et relativt lite antall mennesker stemmer i disse valgene.
1645 Syklusen med disse valgene har blitt totalt profesjonalisert og
1646 rutinepreget.  De fleste av oss tenker på dette som demokrati.
1647 </p><p>
1648 But democracy has never just been about elections. Democracy means rule by
1649 the people, but rule means something more than mere elections. In our
1650 tradition, it also means control through reasoned discourse.  This was the
1651 idea that captured the imagination of Alexis de Tocqueville, the
1652 nineteenth-century French lawyer who wrote the most important account of
1653 early <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Democracy in America.</span>&#8221;</span> It wasn't popular elections that
1654 fascinated him&#8212;it was the jury, an institution that gave ordinary
1655 people the right to choose life or death for other citizens.  And most
1656 fascinating for him was that the jury didn't just vote about the outcome
1657 they would impose. They deliberated. Members argued about the
1658 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">right</span>&#8221;</span> result; they tried to persuade each other of the
1659 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">right</span>&#8221;</span> result, and in criminal cases at least, they had to
1660 agree upon a unanimous result for the process to come to an end.<sup>[<a name="id2878273" href="#ftn.id2878273" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
1661 </p><p>
1662 Yet even this institution flags in American life today. And in its place,
1663 there is no systematic effort to enable citizen deliberation. Some are
1664 pushing to create just such an institution.<sup>[<a name="id2878290" href="#ftn.id2878290" class="footnote">41</a>]</sup> And in some towns in New England, something close to deliberation
1665 remains. But for most of us for most of the time, there is no time or place
1666 for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">democratic deliberation</span>&#8221;</span> to occur.
1667 </p><p>
1668 Mer merkelig er at en generelt sett ikke engang har aksept for at det skal
1669 skje.  Vi, det mektigste demokratiet i verden, har utviklet en sterk norm
1670 mot å diskutere politikk.  Det er greit å diskutere politikk med folk du er
1671 enig med, men det er uhøflig å diskutere politikk med folk du er uenig med.
1672 Politisk debatt blir isolert, og isolert diskusjon blir mer
1673 ekstrem.<sup>[<a name="id2878326" href="#ftn.id2878326" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> Vi sier det våre venner vil
1674 høre, og hører veldig lite utenom hva våre venner sier.
1675 </p><p>
1676
1677 Så kommer bloggen.  Selve bloggens arkitektur løser en del av dette
1678 problemet.  Folk publiserer det de ønsker å publisere, og folk leser det de
1679 ønsker å lese.  Det vanskeligste tiden er synkron tid. Teknologier som
1680 muliggjør asynkron kommunasjons, slik som epost, øker muligheten for
1681 kommunikasjon.  Blogger gjør det mulig med offentlig debatt uten at folket
1682 noen gang trenger å samle seg på et enkelt offentlig sted.
1683 </p><p>
1684 Men i tillegg til arkitektur, har blogger også løst problemet med normer.
1685 Det er (ennå) ingen norm i blogg-sfæren om å ikke snakke om politikk.
1686 Sfæren er faktisk fylt med politiske innlegg, både på høyre- og
1687 venstresiden.  Noen av de mest populære stedene er konservative eller
1688 libertarianske, men det er mange av alle politiske farger.  Til og med
1689 blogger som ikke er politiske dekker politiske temaer når anledningen krever
1690 det.
1691 </p><p>
1692 Betydningene av disse bloggene er liten nå, men ikke ubetydelig. Navnet
1693 Howard Dean har i stor grad forsvunnet fra 2004-presidentvalgkampen bortsett
1694 fra hos noen få blogger.  Men selv om antallet lesere er lavt, så har det å
1695 lese dem en effekt. <a class="indexterm" name="id2878383"></a>
1696 </p><p>
1697 One direct effect is on stories that had a different life cycle in the
1698 mainstream media. The Trent Lott affair is an example. When Lott
1699 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">misspoke</span>&#8221;</span> at a party for Senator Strom Thurmond, essentially
1700 praising Thurmond's segregationist policies, he calculated correctly that
1701 this story would disappear from the mainstream press within forty-eight
1702 hours. It did. But he didn't calculate its life cycle in blog space. The
1703 bloggers kept researching the story. Over time, more and more instances of
1704 the same <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">misspeaking</span>&#8221;</span> emerged. Finally, the story broke back
1705 into the mainstream press. In the end, Lott was forced to resign as senate
1706 majority leader.<sup>[<a name="id2878409" href="#ftn.id2878409" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2878420"></a>
1707 </p><p>
1708 Denne annerledes syklusen er mulig på grunn av at et tilsvarende kommersielt
1709 press ikke eksisterer hos blogger slik det gjør hos andre kanaler.
1710 Televisjon og aviser er kommersielle aktører.  De må arbeide for å holde på
1711 oppmerksomheten.  Hvis de mister lesere, så mister de inntekter.  Som haier,
1712 må de bevege seg videre.
1713 </p><p>
1714 Men bloggere har ikke tilsvarende begresninger.  De kan bli opphengt, de kan
1715 fokusere, de kan bli seriøse.  Hvis en bestemt blogger skriver en spesielt
1716 interessant historie, så vil flere og flere folk lenke til den historien.
1717 Og etter hvert som antalet lenker til en bestemt historie øker, så stiger
1718 den i rangeringen for historier.  Folk leser det som er populært, og hva som
1719 er populært har blitt valgt gjennom en svært demokratisk prosess av
1720 likemanns-generert rangering.
1721 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinerdave"></a><p>
1722
1723 There's a second way, as well, in which blogs have a different cycle from
1724 the mainstream press. As Dave Winer, one of the fathers of this movement and
1725 a software author for many decades, told me, another difference is the
1726 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
1727 you have to take the conflict of interest</span>&#8221;</span> out of journalism, Winer
1728 told me.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">An amateur journalist simply doesn't have a conflict of
1729 interest, or the conflict of interest is so easily disclosed that you know
1730 you can sort of get it out of the way.</span>&#8221;</span>
1731 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2878495"></a><p>
1732 These conflicts become more important as media becomes more concentrated
1733 (more on this below). A concentrated media can hide more from the public
1734 than an unconcentrated media can&#8212;as CNN admitted it did after the Iraq
1735 war because it was afraid of the consequences to its own
1736 employees.<sup>[<a name="id2878259" href="#ftn.id2878259" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> It also needs to sustain a
1737 more coherent account. (In the middle of the Iraq war, I read a post on the
1738 Internet from someone who was at that time listening to a satellite uplink
1739 with a reporter in Iraq. The New York headquarters was telling the reporter
1740 over and over that her account of the war was too bleak: She needed to offer
1741 a more optimistic story. When she told New York that wasn't warranted, they
1742 told her that <span class="emphasis"><em>they</em></span> were writing <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the
1743 story.</span>&#8221;</span>)
1744 </p><p> Blog space gives amateurs a way to enter the
1745 debate&#8212;<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">amateur</span>&#8221;</span> not in the sense of inexperienced, but
1746 in the sense of an Olympic athlete, meaning not paid by anyone to give their
1747 reports. It allows for a much broader range of input into a story, as
1748 reporting on the Columbia disaster revealed, when hundreds from across the
1749 southwest United States turned to the Internet to retell what they had
1750 seen.<sup>[<a name="id2878542" href="#ftn.id2878542" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> And it drives readers to read
1751 across the range of accounts and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">triangulate,</span>&#8221;</span> as Winer puts
1752 it, the truth. Blogs, Winer says, are <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">communicating directly with our
1753 constituency, and the middle man is out of it</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;with all the
1754 benefits, and costs, that might entail.
1755 </p><p>
1756
1757 Winer is optimistic about the future of journalism infected with
1758 blogs. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">It's going to become an essential skill,</span>&#8221;</span> Winer
1759 predicts, for public figures and increasingly for private figures as
1760 well. It's not clear that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">journalism</span>&#8221;</span> is happy about
1761 this&#8212;some journalists have been told to curtail their
1762 blogging.<sup>[<a name="id2878578" href="#ftn.id2878578" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> But it is clear that we are
1763 still in transition. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">A lot of what we are doing now is warm-up
1764 exercises,</span>&#8221;</span> Winer told me.  There is a lot that must mature before
1765 this space has its mature effect.  And as the inclusion of content in this
1766 space is the least infringing use of the Internet (meaning infringing on
1767 copyright), Winer said, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">we will be the last thing that gets shut
1768 down.</span>&#8221;</span>
1769 </p><p>
1770 This speech affects democracy. Winer thinks that happens because <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">you
1771 don't have to work for somebody who controls, [for] a gatekeeper.</span>&#8221;</span>
1772 That is true. But it affects democracy in another way as well.  As more and
1773 more citizens express what they think, and defend it in writing, that will
1774 change the way people understand public issues. It is easy to be wrong and
1775 misguided in your head. It is harder when the product of your mind can be
1776 criticized by others. Of course, it is a rare human who admits that he has
1777 been persuaded that he is wrong. But it is even rarer for a human to ignore
1778 when he has been proven wrong.  The writing of ideas, arguments, and
1779 criticism improves democracy.  Today there are probably a couple of million
1780 blogs where such writing happens. When there are ten million, there will be
1781 something extraordinary to report.
1782 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2878666"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><p>
1783 John Seely Brown is the chief scientist of the Xerox Corporation.  His work,
1784 as his Web site describes it, is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">human learning and &#8230; the
1785 creation of knowledge ecologies for creating &#8230; innovation.</span>&#8221;</span>
1786 </p><p>
1787 Brown ser dermed på disse teknologiene for digital kreativitet litt
1788 annerledes enn fra perspektivene jeg har skissert opp så langt.  Jeg er
1789 sikker på at han blir begeistret for enhver teknologi som kan forbedre
1790 demokratiet.  Men det han virkelig blir begeistret over er hvordan disse
1791 teknologiene påvirker læring.
1792 </p><p>
1793
1794 As Brown believes, we learn by tinkering. When <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">a lot of us grew
1795 up,</span>&#8221;</span> he explains, that tinkering was done <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">on motorcycle
1796 engines, lawnmower engines, automobiles, radios, and so on.</span>&#8221;</span> But
1797 digital technologies enable a different kind of tinkering&#8212;with
1798 abstract ideas though in concrete form. The kids at Just Think! not only
1799 think about how a commercial portrays a politician; using digital
1800 technology, they can take the commercial apart and manipulate it, tinker
1801 with it to see how it does what it does. Digital technologies launch a kind
1802 of bricolage, or <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free collage,</span>&#8221;</span> as Brown calls it. Many get to
1803 add to or transform the tinkering of many others.
1804 </p><p>
1805 Det beste eksemplet i større skala så langt på denne typen fikling er fri
1806 programvare og åpen kildekode (FS/OSS).  FS/OSS er programvare der
1807 kildekoden deles ut.  Alle kan laste ned teknologien som får et
1808 FS/OSS-program til å fungere.  Og enhver som har lyst til å lære hvordan en
1809 bestemt bit av FS/OSS-teknologi fungerer kan fikle med koden.
1810 </p><p>
1811 Denne muligheten gir en <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">helt ny type læringsplattform</span>&#8221;</span>, i
1812 følge Brown.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Så snart du begynner å gjøre dette, så &#8230; slipper
1813 du løs en fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling til fellesskapet, slik at andre
1814 folk kan begynne å se på koden din, fikle med den, teste den, seom de kan
1815 forbedre den</span>&#8221;</span>.  Og hver innsats er et slags læretid.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Åpen
1816 kildekode blir en stor lærlingeplatform.</span>&#8221;</span>.
1817 </p><p>
1818 I denne prossesen, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">er de konkrete tingene du fikler med abstrakte. De
1819 er kildekode</span>&#8221;</span>.  Unger <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">endres til å få evnen til å fikle med
1820 det abstrakte, og denne fiklingen er ikke lenger en isolert aktivitet som du
1821 gjør i garasjen din.  Du fikler med en fellesskapsplatform. &#8230; Du
1822 fikler med andre folks greier.  Og jo mer du fikler, jo mer forbedrer
1823 du.</span>&#8221;</span> Jo mer du forbedrer, jo mer lærer du.
1824 </p><p>
1825 Denne sammen tingen skjer også med innhold.  Og det skjer på samme
1826 samarbeidende måte når dette innholdet er del av nettet.  Som Brown
1827 formulerer det, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">nettet er det første medium som virkelig tar hensyn
1828 til flere former for intelligens</span>&#8221;</span>.  Tidligere teknologier, slik som
1829 skrivemaskin eller tekstbehandling, hjelper med å fremme tekst.  Men nettet
1830 fremmer mye mer enn tekst.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Nettet &#8230; si hvis du er musikalsk,
1831 hvis du er kunstnerisk, hvis du er visuell, hvis du er interessert i film
1832 &#8230;da er det en masse du kan gå igang med på dette mediet.  Det kan
1833 fremme og ta hensyn til alle disse formene for intelligens.</span>&#8221;</span>
1834 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2878824"></a><p>
1835
1836 Brown snakker om hva Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish Og Just Think! lærer
1837 bort: at denne fiklingen med kultur lærer såvel som den skaper. Den utvikler
1838 talenter litt anderledes, og den bygger en annen type gjenkjenning.
1839 </p><p>
1840 Likevel er friheten til å fikle med disse objektene ikke garantert. Faktisk,
1841 som vi vil se i løpet av denne boken, er den friheten i stadig større grad
1842 omstridt.  Mens det ikke er noe tvil om at din far hadde rett til å fikle
1843 med bilmotoren, så er det stor tvil om dine barn vil ha retten til å fikle
1844 med bilder som hun finner over alt. Loven, og teknologi i stadig større
1845 grad, forstyrrer friheten som teknolog, nysgjerrigheten, ellers ville sikre.
1846 </p><p>
1847 Disse begresningene har blitt fokusen for forskere og akademikere. Professor
1848 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
1849 kraftfylt argument til fordel for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">retten til å fikle</span>&#8221;</span> slik det
1850 gjøres i informatikk og til kunnskap generelt.<sup>[<a name="id2878875" href="#ftn.id2878875" class="footnote">47</a>]</sup> Men bekymringen til Brown er tidligere, og mer fundamentalt.  Det
1851 handler om hva slags læring unger kan få, eller ikke kan få, på grunn av
1852 loven.
1853 </p><p>
1854 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Dette er dit utviklingen av utdanning i det tjueførste århundret er
1855 på vei</span>&#8221;</span>, forklarer Brown.  Vi må <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">forstå hvordan unger som
1856 vokser opp digitalt tenker og ønsker å lære</span>&#8221;</span>.
1857 </p><p>
1858 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Likevel</span>&#8221;</span>, fortsatte Brown, og som balansen i denne boken vil
1859 føre bevis for, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">bygger vi et juridisk system som fullstendig
1860 undertrykker den naturlige tendensen i dagens digitale unger. &#8230; We
1861 bygger en arkitektur som frigjør 60 prosent av hjernen [og] et juridisk
1862 system som stenger ned den delen av hjernen</span>&#8221;</span>.
1863 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2878934"></a><p>
1864 Vi bygger en teknologi som tar magien til Kodak, mikser inn bevegelige
1865 bilder og lyd, og legger inn plass for kommentarer og en mulighet til å spre
1866 denne kreativiteten over alt.  Men vi bygger loven for å stenge ned denne
1867 teknologien.
1868 </p><p>
1869 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Ikke måten å drive en kultur på</span>&#8221;</span>, sa Brewster Kahle, som vi
1870 møtte i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="Kapittel 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere">9</a>, kommenterte til meg i et sjeldent øyeblikk av
1871 nedstemthet.
1872 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877206" href="#id2877206" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
1873
1874
1875 Reese V. Jenkins, <em class="citetitle">Images and Enterprise</em> (Baltimore:
1876 Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 112.
1877 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874682" href="#id2874682" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
1878
1879 Brian Coe, <em class="citetitle">The Birth of Photography</em> (New York:
1880 Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2877259"></a>
1881 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877285" href="#id2877285" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
1882
1883
1884 Jenkins, 177.
1885 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877294" href="#id2877294" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
1886
1887
1888 Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178.
1889 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877237" href="#id2877237" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
1890
1891
1892 Coe, 58.
1893 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877368" href="#id2877368" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
1894
1895
1896 For illustrerende saker, se for eksempel, <em class="citetitle">Pavesich</em>
1897 mot <em class="citetitle">N.E. Life Ins. Co</em>., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905);
1898 <em class="citetitle">Foster-Milburn Co</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Chinn</em>,
1899 123090 S.W. 364, 366 (Ky. 1909); <em class="citetitle">Corliss</em> mot
1900 <em class="citetitle">Walker</em>, 64 F. 280 (Mass.  Dist. Ct. 1894).
1901 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877431" href="#id2877431" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
1902
1903 Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy,</span>&#8221;</span>
1904 <em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2877443"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2877451"></a>
1905 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877486" href="#id2877486" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
1906
1907
1908 See Melville B. Nimmer, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Right of Publicity,</span>&#8221;</span>
1909 <em class="citetitle">Law and Contemporary Problems</em> 19 (1954): 203; William
1910 L. Prosser, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Privacy,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">California Law
1911 Review</em> 48 (1960) 398&#8211;407; <em class="citetitle">White</em>
1912 v. <em class="citetitle">Samsung Electronics America, Inc</em>., 971 F.  2d 1395
1913 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951 (1993).
1914 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877606" href="#id2877606" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
1915
1916
1917 H. Edward Goldberg, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and
1918 Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations,</span>&#8221;</span>
1919 cadalyst, February 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #7</a>.
1920 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877673" href="#id2877673" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
1921
1922
1923 Judith Van Evra, <em class="citetitle">Television and Child Development</em>
1924 (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Findings on
1925 Family and TV Study,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25 May
1926 1997, B6.
1927 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877641" href="#id2877641" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
1928
1929 Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002.
1930 <a class="indexterm" name="id2877765"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2877774"></a>
1931 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877793" href="#id2877793" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
1932
1933
1934 See Scott Steinberg, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs,</span>&#8221;</span> E!online,
1935 4 November 2000, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #8</a>;
1936 <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>.
1937 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877889" href="#id2877889" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
1938
1939 Intervju med Daley og Barish.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2877896"></a>
1940 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2877908" href="#id2877908" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
1941
1942
1943 ibid.
1944 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2878273" href="#id2878273" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
1945
1946
1947 Se for eksempel Alexis de Tocqueville, <em class="citetitle">Democracy in
1948 America</em>, bk. 1, overs.  Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books,
1949 2000), kap. 16.
1950 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2878290" href="#id2878290" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
1951
1952
1953 Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Deliberation Day,</span>&#8221;</span>
1954 <em class="citetitle">Journal of Political Philosophy</em> 10 (2) (2002): 129.
1955 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2878326" href="#id2878326" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
1956
1957
1958 Cass Sunstein, <em class="citetitle">Republic.com</em> (Princeton: Princeton
1959 University Press, 2001), 65&#8211;80, 175, 182, 183, 192.
1960 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2878409" href="#id2878409" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
1961
1962
1963 Noah Shachtman, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the
1964 Pot,</span>&#8221;</span> New York Times, 16 January 2003, G5.
1965 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2878259" href="#id2878259" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
1966
1967
1968 Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003.
1969 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2878542" href="#id2878542" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
1970
1971
1972 John Schwartz, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
1973 Information Online,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 2
1974 February 2003, A28; Staci D. Kramer, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed,
1975 but Strong Overall,</span>&#8221;</span> Online Journalism Review, 2 February 2003,
1976 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #10</a>.
1977 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2878578" href="#id2878578" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
1978
1979 See Michael Falcone, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?</span>&#8221;</span>
1980 <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 29 September 2003, C4. (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Not
1981 all news organizations have been as accepting of employees who blog. Kevin
1982 Sites, a CNN correspondent in Iraq who started a blog about his reporting of
1983 the war on March 9, stopped posting 12 days later at his bosses'
1984 request. Last year Steve Olafson, a <em class="citetitle">Houston Chronicle</em>
1985 reporter, was fired for keeping a personal Web log, published under a
1986 pseudonym, that dealt with some of the issues and people he was
1987 covering.</span>&#8221;</span>)  <a class="indexterm" name="id2878622"></a>
1988 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2878875" href="#id2878875" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
1989
1990
1991 Se for eksempel, Edward Felten og Andrew Appel, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Technological Access
1992 Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,</span>&#8221;</span>
1993 <em class="citetitle">Communications of the Association for Computer
1994 Machinery</em> 43 (2000): 9.
1995 </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="id2878984"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><p>
1996 Høsten 2001, ble Jesse Jordan fra Oceanside, New York, innrullert som
1997 førsteårsstudent ved Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, i Troy, New York.
1998 Hans studieprogram ved RPI var informasjonsteknologi.  Selv om han ikke var
1999 en programmerer, bestemte Jesse seg i oktober å begynne å fikle med en
2000 søkemotorteknologi som var tilgjengelig på RPI-nettverket.
2001 </p><p>
2002 RPI er en av Amerikas fremste teknologiske forskningsinstitusjoner. De
2003 tilbyr grader innen områder som går fra arkitektur og ingeniørfag til
2004 informasjonsvitenskap.  Mer enn 65 prosent av de fem tusen
2005 laveregradsstudentene fullførte blant de 10 prosent beste i deres klasse på
2006 videregående.  Skolen er dermed en perfekt blanding av talent og erfaring
2007 for å se for seg og deretter bygge, en generasjon tilpasset
2008 nettverksalderen.
2009 </p><p>
2010 RPIs data-nettverk kobler studenter, forelesere og administrasjon sammen.
2011 Det kobler også RPI til internettet.  Ikke alt som er tilgjengelig på
2012 RPI-nettet er tilgjengelig på internettet.  Men nettverket er utformet for å
2013 gi alle studentene mulighet til å bruke internettet, i tillegg til mer
2014 direkte tilgang til andre medlemmer i RPI-fellesskapet.
2015 </p><p>
2016
2017 Søkemotorer er et mål pa hvor nært et nettverk oppleves å være. Google
2018 brakte internettet mye nærmere oss alle ved en utrolig forbedring av
2019 kvaliteten på søk i nettverket.  Spesialiserte søkemotorer kan gjøre dette
2020 enda bedre.  Ideen med <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intranett</span>&#8221;</span>-søkemotorer, søkemotorer som
2021 kun søker internt i nettverket til en bestemt institusjon, er å tilby
2022 brukerne i denne institusjonen bedre tilgang til materiale fra denne
2023 institusjonen. Bedrifter gjør dette hele tiden, ved å gi ansatte mulighet
2024 til å få tak i materiale som folk på utsiden av bedriften ikke kan få tak
2025 i. Universitetet gjør også dette.
2026 </p><p>
2027 Disse motorene blir muliggjort av netverksteknologien selv.  For eksempel
2028 har Microsoft et nettverksfilsystem som gjør det veldig enkelt for
2029 søkemotorer tilpasset det nettverket å spørre systemet etter informasjon om
2030 det offentlig (innen nettverket) tilgjengelige innholdet.  Søkemotoren til
2031 Jesse var bygget for å dra nytte av denne teknologien.  Den brukte
2032 Microsofts nettverksfilsystem for å bygge en indeks over alle filene
2033 tilgjengelig inne i RPI-nettverket.
2034 </p><p>
2035 Jesse sin var ikke den første søkemotoren bygget for RPI-nettverket. Hans
2036 motor var faktisk en enkel endring av motorer som andre hadde bygget.  Hans
2037 viktigste enkeltforbedring i forhold til disse motorene var å fikse en feil
2038 i Microsofts fildelings-system som fikk en brukers datamaskin til å krasje.
2039 Med motorene som hadde eksistert tidligere, hvis du forsøkte å koble deg ved
2040 hjelp av Windows-utforskeren til en fil som var på en datamaskin som ikke
2041 var på nett, så ville din datamaskin krasje.  Jesse endret systemet litt for
2042 å fikse det problemet, ved å legge til en knapp som en bruker kunne klikke
2043 på for å se om maskinen som hadde filen fortsatt var på nett.
2044 </p><p>
2045 Motoren til Jesse kom pa nett i slutten av oktober.  I løpet av de følgende
2046 seks månedene fortsatte han å justere den for å forbedre dens
2047 funksjonalitet.  I mars fungerte systemet ganske bra.  Jesse hadde mer enn
2048 en million filer i sin katalog, inkludert alle mulige typer innhold som
2049 fantes på brukernes datamaskiner.
2050 </p><p>
2051
2052 Dermed inneholdt indeksen som hans søkemotor produserte bilder, som
2053 studentene kunne bruke til å legge inn på sine egne nettsider, kopier av
2054 notater og forskning, kopier av informasjonshefter, filmklipp som studentene
2055 kanskje hadde laget, universitetsbrosjyrer&#8212;ganske enkelt alt som
2056 brukerne av RPI-nettverket hadde gjort tilgjengelig i en fellesmappe på sine
2057 datamaskiner.
2058 </p><p>
2059 Men indeksen inneholdt også musikkfiler.  Faktisk var en fjerdedel av filene
2060 som Jesses søkemotor inneholdt musikkfiler.  Men det betyr, naturligvis, at
2061 tre fjerdedeler ikke var det, og&#8212;slik at dette poenget er helt
2062 klart&#8212;Jesse gjorde ingenting for å få folk til å plassere musikkfiler
2063 i deres fellesmapper.  Han gjorde ingenting for å sikte søkemotoren mot
2064 disse filene.  Han var en ungdom som fiklet med Google-lignende teknologi
2065 ved et universitet der han studerte informasjonsvitenskap, og dermed var
2066 fiklingen målet.  I motsetning til Google, eller Microsoft for den saks
2067 skyld, tjente han ingen penger på denne fiklingen.  Han var ikke knyttet til
2068 noen bedrift som skulle tjene penger fra dette eksperimentet.  Han var en
2069 ungdom som fiklet med teknologi i en omgivelse hvor fikling med teknologi
2070 var nøyaktig hva han var ment å gjøre.
2071 </p><p>
2072 Den 3. april 2003 ble Jesse kontaktet av lederen for studentkontoret ved
2073 RPI.  Lederen fortalte Jesse at Foreningen for innspillingsindustri i USA,
2074 RIAA, wille levere inn et søksmål mot han og tre andre studenter som han
2075 ikke en gang kjente, to av dem på andre undersiteter.  Noen få timer senere
2076 ble Jesse forkynt søksmålet og fikk overlevert dokumentene.  Mens han leste
2077 disse dokumentene og så på nyhetsrapportene om den, ble han stadig mer
2078 forbauset.
2079 </p><p>
2080 <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
2081 ikke gjorde noe galt. &#8230; Jeg mener det ikke er noe galt med
2082 søkemotoren som jeg kjørte eller &#8230; hva jeg hadde gjort med den.  Jeg
2083 mener, jeg hadde ikke endret den på noen måte som fremmet eller forbedret
2084 arbeidet til pirater.  Jeg endret kun søkemotoren slik at den ble enklere å
2085 bruke</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;igjen, en <span class="emphasis"><em>søkemotor</em></span>, som Jesse ikke
2086 hadde bygd selv, som brukte fildelingssystemet til Windows, som Jesse ikke
2087 hadde bygd selv, for å gjøre det mulig for medlemmer av RPI-fellesskapet å
2088 få tilgang til innhold, som Jesse ikke hadde laget eller gjort tilgjengelig,
2089 og der det store flertall av dette ikke hadde noe å gjøre med musikk.
2090 </p><p>
2091
2092 Men RIAA kalte Jesse en pirat.  De hevdet at han opererte et nettverk og
2093 dermed <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">med vilje</span>&#8221;</span> hadde brutt opphavsrettslovene.  De krevde
2094 at han betalte dem skadeerstatning for det han hadde gjort galt.  I saker
2095 med <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">krenkelser med vilje</span>&#8221;</span>, spesifiserer opphavsrettsloven noe
2096 som advokater kaller <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lovbestemte skader</span>&#8221;</span>.  Disse skadene
2097 tillater en opphavsrettighetseier å kreve $150 000 per krenkelse.
2098 Etter som RIAA påsto det var mer enn et hundre spesifikke
2099 opphavsrettskrenkelser, krevde de dermed at Jesse betalte dem minst
2100 $15 000 000.
2101 </p><p>
2102 Lignende søksmål ble gjort mot tre andre studenter: en annen student ved
2103 RPI, en ved Michegan Technical University og en ved Princeton. Deres
2104 situasjoner var lik den til Jesse.  Selv om hver sak hadde forskjellige
2105 detaljer, var hovedpoenget nøyaktig det samme: store krav om
2106 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">erstatning</span>&#8221;</span> som RIAA påsto de hadde rett på.  Hvis du summerte
2107 opp disse kravene, ba disse fire søksmålene domstolene i USA å tildele
2108 saksøkerne nesten $100 <span class="emphasis"><em>milliarder</em></span>&#8212;seks ganger det
2109 <span class="emphasis"><em>totale</em></span> overskuddet til filmindustrien i
2110 2001.<sup>[<a name="id2879283" href="#ftn.id2879283" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
2111 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2879301"></a><p>
2112 Jesse kontaktet sine foreldre.  De støttet ham, men var litt skremt. En
2113 onkel var advokat.  Han startet forhandlinger med RIAA.  De krevde å få vite
2114 hvor mye penger Jesse hadde.  Jesse hadde spart opp $12 000 fra
2115 sommerjobber og annet arbeid.  De krevde 12 000 for å trekke saken.
2116 </p><p>
2117 RIAA ville at Jesse skulle innrømme at han hadde gjort noe galt.  Han
2118 nektet.  De ville ha han til å godta en kjennelse som i praksis ville gjøre
2119 det umulig for han å arbeide i mange områder innen teknologi for resten av
2120 hans liv.  Han nektet.  De fikk han til å forstå at denne prosessen med å
2121 bli saksøkt ikke kom til å bli hyggelig.  (Som faren til Jesse refererte til
2122 meg, fortalte sjefsadvokaten på saken, Matt Oppenheimer, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Du ønsker
2123 ikke et tannlegebesøk hos meg flere ganger</span>&#8221;</span>) Og gjennom det hele
2124 insisterte RIAA at de ikke ville inngå forlik før de hadde tatt hver eneste
2125 øre som Jesse hadde spart opp.
2126 </p><p>
2127
2128 Familien til Jessie ble opprørt over disse påstandene.  De ønsket å kjempe.
2129 Men onkelen til Jessie gjorde en innsats for å lære familien om hvordan det
2130 amerikanske juridiske systemet fungerte.  Jesse kunne sloss mot RIAA.  Han
2131 kunne til og med vinne.  Men kostnaden med å loss mot et søksmål som dette,
2132 ble Jesse fortalt, ville være minst $250 000.  Hvis han vant ville han
2133 ikke få tilbake noen av de pengene.  Hvis han vant, så ville han ha en bit
2134 papir som sa at han vant, og en bit papir som sa at han og hans familie var
2135 konkurs.
2136 </p><p>
2137 Så Jesse hadde et mafia-lignende valg: $250 000 og en sjanse til å
2138 vinne, eller $12 000 og et forlik.
2139 </p><p>
2140 Innspillingsindustrien insisterer at dette er et spørsmål om lov og moral.
2141 La oss legge loven til side for et øyeblikk og tenke på moralen.  Hvor er
2142 moralen i et søksmål som dette?  Hva er dyden i å skape offerlam.  RIAA er
2143 en spesielt mektig lobby.  Presidenten i RIAA tjener i følge rapporter mer
2144 enn $1 million i året.  Artister, på den andre siden, får ikke godt betalt.
2145 Den gjennomsnittelige innspillingsartist tjener $45 900.<sup>[<a name="id2879364" href="#ftn.id2879364" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> Det er utallige måter som RIAA kan bruke for å
2146 påvirke og styre politikken.  Så hva er det moralske i å ta penger fra en
2147 student for å drive en søkemotor?<sup>[<a name="id2879409" href="#ftn.id2879409" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
2148 </p><p>
2149 23. juni overførte Jesse alle sine oppsparte midler til advokaten som jobbet
2150 for RIAA.  Saken mot ham ble trukket.  Og med dette, ble unggutten som hadde
2151 fiklet med en datamaskin og blitt saksøkt for 15 millioner dollar en
2152 aktivist:
2153 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2154 Jeg var definitivt ikke en aktivist [tidligere].  Jeg mente egentlig aldri å
2155 være en aktivist. &#8230; [men] jeg har blitt skjøvet inn i dette.  Jeg
2156 forutså over hodet ikke noe slik som dette, men jeg tror det er bare helt
2157 absurd det RIAA har gjort.
2158 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2159 Foreldrene til Jesse avslører en viss stolthet over deres motvillige
2160 aktivist.  Som hans far fortalte meg, Jesse <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">anser seg selv for å være
2161 konservativ, og det samme gjør jeg. &#8230; Han er ingen
2162 treklemmer. &#8230; Jeg synes det er sært at de ville lage bråk med ham.
2163 Men han ønsker å la folk vite at de sender feil budskap.  Og han ønsker å
2164 korrigere rullebladet.</span>&#8221;</span>
2165 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879283" href="#id2879283" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
2166
2167
2168
2169 Tim Goral, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks: Suit
2170 Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Professional Media
2171 Group LCC</em> 6 (2003): 5, tilgjengelig fra 2003 WL 55179443.
2172 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879364" href="#id2879364" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
2173
2174
2175 Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001)
2176 (27&#8211;2042&#8212;Musikere og Sangere). Se også National Endowment for
2177 the Arts, <em class="citetitle">More Than One in a Blue Moon</em> (2000).
2178 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879409" href="#id2879409" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
2179
2180
2181 Douglas Lichtman kommer med et relatert poeng i <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">KaZaA and
2182 Punishment,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>,
2183 10. september 2003, A24.
2184 </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>
2185 Hvis <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>&#8221;</span> betyr å bruke den kreative eiendommen
2186 til andre uten deres tillatelse&#8212;hvis <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så
2187 rettighet</span>&#8221;</span> er sant&#8212;da er historien om innholdsindustrien en
2188 historie om piratvirksomhet.  Hver eneste viktige sektor av <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">store
2189 medier</span>&#8221;</span> i dag&#8212;film, plater, radio og kabel-TV&#8212;kom fra en
2190 slags piratvirksomhet etter den definisjonen.  Den konsekvente fortellingen
2191 er at forrige generasjon pirater blir del av denne generasjonens
2192 borgerskap&#8212;inntil nå.
2193 </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>
2194
2195 Filmindustrien i Hollywood var bygget av flyktende pirater.<sup>[<a name="id2879522" href="#ftn.id2879522" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> Skapere og regisører migrerte fra østkysten til
2196 California tidlig i det tjuende århundret delvis for å slippe unna
2197 kontrollene som patenter ga oppfinneren av det å lage filmer, Thomas
2198 Edison.  Disse kontrollene be utøvet gjennom et
2199 monopol-<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">kartell</span>&#8221;</span>, The Motion Pictures Patents company, og var
2200 basert på Tomhas Edisons kreative eierrettigheter&#8212;patenter. Edison
2201 stiftet MPPC for å utøve rettighetene som disse kreative eierrettighetene ga
2202 ham, og MPPC var seriøst med kontrollen de krevde.
2203 </p><p>
2204 Som en kommentaror forteller en del av historien,
2205 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2206 En tidsfrist ble satt til januar 1909 for alle selskaper å komme i samsvar
2207 med lisensen.  Når februar kom, protesterte de ulisensierte fredløse, som
2208 refererte til seg selv som uavhengige, mot kartellet og fortsatte sin
2209 forretningsvirksomhet uten å bøye seg for Edisons monopol.  Sommeren 1909
2210 var bevegelsen med uavhenginge i full sving, med produsenter og kinoeiere
2211 som brukte ulovlig utstyr og importerte filmlager for å opprette sitt eget
2212 undergrunnsmarked.
2213 </p><p>
2214 With the country experiencing a tremendous expansion in the number of
2215 nickelodeons, the Patents Company reacted to the independent movement by
2216 forming a strong-arm subsidiary known as the General Film Company to block
2217 the entry of non-licensed independents. With coercive tactics that have
2218 become legendary, General Film confiscated unlicensed equipment,
2219 discontinued product supply to theaters which showed unlicensed films, and
2220 effectively monopolized distribution with the acquisition of all U.S. film
2221 exchanges, except for the one owned by the independent William Fox who
2222 defied the Trust even after his license was revoked.<sup>[<a name="id2879603" href="#ftn.id2879603" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2879635"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2879642"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2879648"></a>
2223 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2224 The Napsters of those days, the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">independents,</span>&#8221;</span> were companies
2225 like Fox. And no less than today, these independents were vigorously
2226 resisted.  <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Shooting was disrupted by machinery stolen, and
2227 `accidents' resulting in loss of negatives, equipment, buildings and
2228 sometimes life and limb frequently occurred.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2879669" href="#ftn.id2879669" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> That led the independents to flee the East
2229 Coast. California was remote enough from Edison's reach that filmmakers
2230 there could pirate his inventions without fear of the law. And the leaders
2231 of Hollywood filmmaking, Fox most prominently, did just that.
2232 </p><p>
2233
2234 California vokste naturligvis raskt, og effektiv håndhevelse av føderale
2235 lover spredte seg til slutt vestover.  Men fordi patenter tildeler
2236 patentinnehaveren et i sannhet <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">begrenset</span>&#8221;</span> monopol (kun sytten
2237 år på den tiden), så patentene var utgått før nok føderale lovmenn dukket
2238 opp. En ny industri var født, delvis fra piratvirksomhet mot Edison's
2239 kreative rettigheter.
2240 </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>
2241 Plateindustrien ble født av en annen type piratvirksomhet, dog for å forstå
2242 hvordan krever at en setter seg inn i detaljer om hvordan loven regulerer
2243 musikk.
2244 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2879744"></a><p>
2245 På den tiden da Edison og Henri Fourneaux fant opp maskiner for å
2246 reprodusere musikk (Edison fonografen, Fourneaux det automatiske pianoet),
2247 gav loven komponister eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere kopier av
2248 deres musikk og eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere fremføringer av
2249 deres musikk.  Med andre ord, i 1900, hvis jeg ønsket et kopi av Phil
2250 Russels populære låt <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>&#8221;</span>, sa loven at jeg måtte betale
2251 for rettigheten til å få en kopi av notearkene, og jeg måtte også betale for
2252 å ha rett til å fremføre det offentlig.
2253 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2879773"></a><p>
2254 Men hva hvis jeg ønsket å spille inn <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>&#8221;</span> ved hjelp av
2255 Edisons fonograf eller Fourneaux automatiske piano?  Her snublet loven.  Det
2256 var klart nok at jeg måtte kjøpe en kopi av notene som jeg fremførte når jeg
2257 gjorde innspillingen.  Og det var klart nok at jeg måtte betale for enhver
2258 offentlig fremførelse av verket jeg spilte inn.  Men det var ikke helt klart
2259 at jeg måtte betale for en <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>&#8221;</span> hvis jeg
2260 spilte inn sangen i mitt eget hus (selv i dag skylder du ingenting til
2261 Beatles hvis du synger en av deres sanger i dusjen), eller hvis jeg spilte
2262 inn sangen fra hukommelsen (kopier i din hjerne er
2263 ikke&#8212;ennå&#8212;regulert av opphavsrettsloven).  Så hvis jeg ganske
2264 enkelt sang sangen inn i et innspillingsaparat i mitt eget hjem, så var det
2265 ikke klart at jeg skyldte komponisten noe.  Og enda viktigere, det var ikke
2266 klart om jeg skyldte komponisten noe hvis jeg så laget kopier av disse
2267 innspillingene.  På grunn av dette hullet i loven, sa kunne jeg i effekt
2268 røve noen andres sang uten å betale dets komponist noe.
2269 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2879802"></a><p>
2270 Komponistene (og utgiverne) var ikke veldig glade for denne kapasiteten til
2271 å røve.  Som Senator Alfred Kittredge fra Sør-Dakota formulerte
2272 det,<a class="indexterm" name="id2879837"></a>
2273 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2274 Forestill dere denne urettferdigheten.  En komponist skriver en sang eller
2275 en opera.  En utgiver kjøper til et høy sum rettighetene til denne, og
2276 registrerer opphavsretten til den.  Så kommer de fonografiske selskapene og
2277 selskapene som skjærer musikk-ruller og med vitende og vilje stjeler
2278 arbeidet som kommer fra hjernet til komponisten og utgiveren uten å bry seg
2279 om [deres] rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2879864" href="#ftn.id2879864" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
2280 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2281 The innovators who developed the technology to record other people's works
2282 were <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sponging upon the toil, the work, the talent, and genius of
2283 American composers,</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2879898" href="#ftn.id2879898" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> and the
2284 <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
2285 mercy of this one pirate.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2879913" href="#ftn.id2879913" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> As
2286 John Philip Sousa put it, in as direct a way as possible, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">When they
2287 make money out of my pieces, I want a share of it.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2879926" href="#ftn.id2879926" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
2288 </p><p>
2289 These arguments have familiar echoes in the wars of our day. So, too, do the
2290 arguments on the other side. The innovators who developed the player piano
2291 argued that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">it is perfectly demonstrable that the introduction of
2292 automatic music players has not deprived any composer of anything he had
2293 before their introduction.</span>&#8221;</span> Rather, the machines increased the sales
2294 of sheet music.<sup>[<a name="id2879948" href="#ftn.id2879948" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> In any case, the
2295 innovators argued, the job of Congress was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">to consider first the
2296 interest of [the public], whom they represent, and whose servants they
2297 are.</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All talk about `theft,'</span>&#8221;</span> the general counsel of
2298 the American Graphophone Company wrote, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">is the merest claptrap, for
2299 there exists no property in ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as
2300 defined by statute.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2879972" href="#ftn.id2879972" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
2301 <a class="indexterm" name="id2879981"></a>
2302 </p><p>
2303
2304 The law soon resolved this battle in favor of the composer
2305 <span class="emphasis"><em>and</em></span> the recording artist. Congress amended the law to
2306 make sure that composers would be paid for the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">mechanical
2307 reproductions</span>&#8221;</span> of their music. But rather than simply granting the
2308 composer complete control over the right to make mechanical reproductions,
2309 Congress gave recording artists a right to record the music, at a price set
2310 by Congress, once the composer allowed it to be recorded once. This is the
2311 part of copyright law that makes cover songs possible. Once a composer
2312 authorizes a recording of his song, others are free to record the same song,
2313 so long as they pay the original composer a fee set by the law.
2314 </p><p>
2315 American law ordinarily calls this a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">compulsory license,</span>&#8221;</span> but
2316 I will refer to it as a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">statutory license.</span>&#8221;</span> A statutory
2317 license is a license whose key terms are set by law. After Congress's
2318 amendment of the Copyright Act in 1909, record companies were free to
2319 distribute copies of recordings so long as they paid the composer (or
2320 copyright holder)  the fee set by the statute.
2321 </p><p>
2322 This is an exception within the law of copyright. When John Grisham writes a
2323 novel, a publisher is free to publish that novel only if Grisham gives the
2324 publisher permission. Grisham, in turn, is free to charge whatever he wants
2325 for that permission. The price to publish Grisham is thus set by Grisham,
2326 and copyright law ordinarily says you have no permission to use Grisham's
2327 work except with permission of Grisham.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2880036"></a>
2328 </p><p>
2329 But the law governing recordings gives recording artists less. And thus, in
2330 effect, the law <span class="emphasis"><em>subsidizes</em></span> the recording industry
2331 through a kind of piracy&#8212;by giving recording artists a weaker right
2332 than it otherwise gives creative authors. The Beatles have less control over
2333 their creative work than Grisham does. And the beneficiaries of this less
2334 control are the recording industry and the public. The recording industry
2335 gets something of value for less than it otherwise would pay; the public
2336 gets access to a much wider range of musical creativity. Indeed, Congress
2337 was quite explicit about its reasons for granting this right. Its fear was
2338 the monopoly power of rights holders, and that that power would stifle
2339 follow-on creativity.<sup>[<a name="id2879562" href="#ftn.id2879562" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2880077"></a>
2340 </p><p>
2341 While the recording industry has been quite coy about this recently,
2342 historically it has been quite a supporter of the statutory license for
2343 records. As a 1967 report from the House Committee on the Judiciary relates,
2344 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2345 the record producers argued vigorously that the compulsory license system
2346 must be retained. They asserted that the record industry is a
2347 half-billion-dollar business of great economic importance in the United
2348 States and throughout the world; records today are the principal means of
2349 disseminating music, and this creates special problems, since performers
2350 need unhampered access to musical material on nondiscriminatory
2351 terms. Historically, the record producers pointed out, there were no
2352 recording rights before 1909 and the 1909 statute adopted the compulsory
2353 license as a deliberate anti-monopoly condition on the grant of these
2354 rights. They argue that the result has been an outpouring of recorded music,
2355 with the public being given lower prices, improved quality, and a greater
2356 choice.<sup>[<a name="id2880109" href="#ftn.id2880109" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
2357 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2358 By limiting the rights musicians have, by partially pirating their creative
2359 work, the record producers, and the public, benefit.
2360 </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>
2361 Radio kom også fra piratvirksomhet.
2362 </p><p>
2363 When a radio station plays a record on the air, that constitutes a
2364 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">public performance</span>&#8221;</span> of the composer's work.<sup>[<a name="id2880149" href="#ftn.id2880149" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> As I described above, the law gives the composer
2365 (or copyright holder)  an exclusive right to public performances of his
2366 work. The radio station thus owes the composer money for that performance.
2367 </p><p>
2368
2369 But when the radio station plays a record, it is not only performing a copy
2370 of the <span class="emphasis"><em>composer's</em></span> work. The radio station is also
2371 performing a copy of the <span class="emphasis"><em>recording artist's</em></span> work. It's
2372 one thing to have <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>&#8221;</span> sung on the radio by the
2373 local children's choir; it's quite another to have it sung by the Rolling
2374 Stones or Lyle Lovett. The recording artist is adding to the value of the
2375 composition performed on the radio station.  And if the law were perfectly
2376 consistent, the radio station would have to pay the recording artist for his
2377 work, just as it pays the composer of the music for his work.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2880225"></a>
2378
2379
2380 </p><p>
2381 But it doesn't. Under the law governing radio performances, the radio
2382 station does not have to pay the recording artist. The radio station need
2383 only pay the composer. The radio station thus gets a bit of something for
2384 nothing. It gets to perform the recording artist's work for free, even if it
2385 must pay the composer something for the privilege of playing the song.
2386 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmadonna"></a><p>
2387 Denne forskjellen kan bli stor.  Forestill deg at du komponerer et stykke
2388 musikk.  Se for deg at det er ditt første stykke.  Du eier de eksklusive
2389 rettighetene til å godkjenne offentlig fremføring av den musikken.  Så hvis
2390 Madonna ønsker å synge din sang offentlig, må hun få din tillatelse.
2391 </p><p>
2392 Tenkt deg videre at hun synger din sang, og at hun liker den veldig
2393 godt. Hun bestemmer seg deretter for å spille inn sangen din, og den blir en
2394 populær hitlåt.  Med vår lov vil du få litt penger hver gang en radiostasjon
2395 spiller din sang.  Men Madonna får ingenting, fortsett fra de indirekte
2396 effektene fra salg av hennes CD-er.  Den offentlige fremføringen av hennes
2397 innspilling er ikke en <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">beskyttet</span>&#8221;</span> rettighet. Radiostasjonen
2398 får dermed <span class="emphasis"><em>røve</em></span> verdien av Madonnas arbeid uten å
2399 betale henne noen ting.
2400 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2880294"></a><p>
2401 No doubt, one might argue that, on balance, the recording artists
2402 benefit. On average, the promotion they get is worth more than the
2403 performance rights they give up. Maybe. But even if so, the law ordinarily
2404 gives the creator the right to make this choice. By making the choice for
2405 him or her, the law gives the radio station the right to take something for
2406 nothing.
2407 </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>
2408
2409 Kabel-TV kom også fra en form for piratvirksomhet.
2410 </p><p>
2411
2412 When cable entrepreneurs first started wiring communities with cable
2413 television in 1948, most refused to pay broadcasters for the content that
2414 they echoed to their customers. Even when the cable companies started
2415 selling access to television broadcasts, they refused to pay for what they
2416 sold. Cable companies were thus Napsterizing broadcasters' content, but more
2417 egregiously than anything Napster ever did&#8212; Napster never charged for
2418 the content it enabled others to give away.
2419 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2880329"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2880346"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2880352"></a><p>
2420 Broadcasters and copyright owners were quick to attack this theft.  Rosel
2421 Hyde, chairman of the FCC, viewed the practice as a kind of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">unfair
2422 and potentially destructive competition.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2880366" href="#ftn.id2880366" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup> There may have been a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">public interest</span>&#8221;</span> in spreading
2423 the reach of cable TV, but as Douglas Anello, general counsel to the
2424 National Association of Broadcasters, asked Senator Quentin Burdick during
2425 testimony, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Does public interest dictate that you use somebody else's
2426 property?</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2880392" href="#ftn.id2880392" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> As another
2427 broadcaster put it,
2428 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2429 The extraordinary thing about the CATV business is that it is the only
2430 business I know of where the product that is being sold is not paid
2431 for.<sup>[<a name="id2880410" href="#ftn.id2880410" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
2432 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2433 Igjen, kravene til opphavsrettsinnehaverne virket rimelige nok:
2434 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2435 Alt vi ber om er en veldig enkel ting, at folk som tar vår eiendom gratis
2436 betaler for den.  Vi forsøker å stoppe piratvirksomhet og jeg kan ikke tenke
2437 på et svakere ord for å beskrive det.  Jeg tror det er sterkere ord som
2438 ville passe.<sup>[<a name="id2880438" href="#ftn.id2880438" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
2439 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2880449"></a><p>
2440 Disse var <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">gratispassasjerer</span>&#8221;</span>, sa presidenten Charlton Heston i
2441 Screen Actor's Guild, som <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">tok lønna fra
2442 skuespillerne</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2880465" href="#ftn.id2880465" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
2443 </p><p>
2444 Men igjen, det er en annen side i debatten.  Som assisterende justisminister
2445 Edwin Zimmerman sa det,
2446 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2447 Our point here is that unlike the problem of whether you have any copyright
2448 protection at all, the problem here is whether copyright holders who are
2449 already compensated, who already have a monopoly, should be permitted to
2450 extend that monopoly. &#8230; The question here is how much compensation
2451 they should have and how far back they should carry their right to
2452 compensation.<sup>[<a name="id2879443" href="#ftn.id2879443" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2880517"></a>
2453 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2454 Opphavsrettinnehaverne tok kabelselskapene til retten. Høyesterett fant to
2455 ganger at kabelselskaper ikke skyldte opphavsrettinnehaverne noen ting.
2456 </p><p>
2457 It took Congress almost thirty years before it resolved the question of
2458 whether cable companies had to pay for the content they
2459 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirated.</span>&#8221;</span> In the end, Congress resolved this question in the
2460 same way that it resolved the question about record players and player
2461 pianos. Yes, cable companies would have to pay for the content that they
2462 broadcast; but the price they would have to pay was not set by the copyright
2463 owner.  The price was set by law, so that the broadcasters couldn't exercise
2464 veto power over the emerging technologies of cable. Cable companies thus
2465 built their empire in part upon a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> of the value created
2466 by broadcasters' content.
2467 </p><p>
2468 These separate stories sing a common theme. If <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> means
2469 using value from someone else's creative property without permission from
2470 that creator&#8212;as it is increasingly described today<sup>[<a name="id2880506" href="#ftn.id2880506" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup> &#8212; then <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> industry
2471 affected by copyright today is the product and beneficiary of a certain kind
2472 of piracy. Film, records, radio, cable TV. &#8230; The list is long and
2473 could well be expanded. Every generation welcomes the pirates from the
2474 last. Every generation&#8212;until now.
2475 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879522" href="#id2879522" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
2476
2477 Jeg er takknemlig til Peter DiMauro for å ha pekt meg i retning av denne
2478 ekstraordinære historien.  Se også Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights
2479 and Copywrongs</em>, 87&#8211;93, som forteller detaljer om Edisons
2480 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">eventyr</span>&#8221;</span> med opphavsrett og patent. <a class="indexterm" name="id2879538"></a>
2481 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879603" href="#id2879603" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
2482
2483
2484 J. A. Aberdeen, <em class="citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent
2485 Motion Picture Producers</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) and
2486 expanded texts posted at <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion
2487 Picture Patents Company vs. the Independent Outlaws,</span>&#8221;</span> available at
2488 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #11</a>. For a
2489 discussion of the economic motive behind both these limits and the limits
2490 imposed by Victor on phonographs, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">From Edison
2491 to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the
2492 Propertization of Copyright</span>&#8221;</span> (September 2002), University of Chicago
2493 Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working Paper
2494 No. 159.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879669" href="#id2879669" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
2495
2496
2497 Marc Wanamaker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The First Studios,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">The Silents
2498 Majority</em>, arkivert på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #12</a>.
2499 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879864" href="#id2879864" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
2500
2501 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright: Hearings on S. 6330
2502 and H.R. 19853 Before the ( Joint) Committees on Patents, 59th Cong. 59, 1st
2503 sess. (1906) (statement of Senator Alfred B. Kittredge, of South Dakota,
2504 chairman), reprinted in <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the Copyright
2505 Act</em>, E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South
2506 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2879878"></a>
2507 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879898" href="#id2879898" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
2508
2509
2510 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223 (uttalelse fra
2511 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2512 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879913" href="#id2879913" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
2513
2514
2515 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (uttalelse fra
2516 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2517 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879926" href="#id2879926" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
2518
2519
2520 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (uttalelse fra
2521 John Philip Sousa, komponist).
2522 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879948" href="#id2879948" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
2523
2524
2525
2526 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283&#8211;84
2527 (uttalelse fra Albert Walker, representant for the Auto-Music Perforating
2528 Company of New York).
2529 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879972" href="#id2879972" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
2530
2531
2532 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 376 (prepared
2533 memorandum of Philip Mauro, general patent counsel of the American
2534 Graphophone Company Association).
2535 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879562" href="#id2879562" class="para">60</a>] </sup>
2536
2537
2538
2539 Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on S. 2499, S. 2900, H.R. 243, and
2540 H.R. 11794 Before the ( Joint) Committee on Patents, 60th Cong., 1st sess.,
2541 217 (1908) (statement of Senator Reed Smoot, chairman), reprinted in
2542 <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act</em>,
2543 E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman
2544 Reprints, 1976).
2545 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880109" href="#id2880109" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
2546
2547
2548 Copyright Law Revision: Report to Accompany H.R. 2512, House Committee on
2549 the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 1st sess., House Document no. 83, (8 March
2550 1967). I am grateful to Glenn Brown for drawing my attention to this report.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880149" href="#id2880149" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
2551
2552 See 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, sections 106 and 110. At
2553 the beginning, record companies printed <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Not Licensed for Radio
2554 Broadcast</span>&#8221;</span> and other messages purporting to restrict the ability to
2555 play a record on a radio station.  Judge Learned Hand rejected the argument
2556 that a warning attached to a record might restrict the rights of the radio
2557 station. See <em class="citetitle">RCA Manufacturing
2558 Co</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Whiteman</em>, 114 F. 2d 86 (2nd
2559 Cir. 1940). See also Randal C.  Picker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast
2560 Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of
2561 Copyright,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em>
2562 70 (2003): 281.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2880181"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2880189"></a>
2563 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880366" href="#id2880366" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
2564
2565 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV: Hearing on S. 1006 Before the
2566 Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee
2567 on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 78 (1966)  (statement of Rosel
2568 H. Hyde, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2880336"></a>
2569 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880392" href="#id2880392" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
2570
2571
2572 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 116 (statement of Douglas A. Anello,
2573 general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters).
2574 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880410" href="#id2880410" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
2575
2576
2577 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 126 (statement of Ernest W. Jennes,
2578 general counsel of the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.).
2579 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880438" href="#id2880438" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
2580
2581
2582 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 169 (joint statement of Arthur B.  Krim,
2583 president of United Artists Corp., and John Sinn, president of United
2584 Artists Television, Inc.).
2585 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880465" href="#id2880465" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
2586
2587 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 209 (vitnemål fra Charlton Heston,
2588 president i Screen Actors Guild).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2880443"></a>
2589 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879443" href="#id2879443" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
2590
2591 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 216 (uttalelse fra Edwin M. Zimmerman,
2592 fungerende assisterende justisministeren).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2880468"></a>
2593 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880506" href="#id2880506" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
2594
2595
2596 See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The
2597 Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet&#8212;The Myth of Free
2598 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
2599 piracy&#8212;the use of someone else's creative work without permission or
2600 compensation&#8212;has grown with the Internet.</span>&#8221;</span>
2601 </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>
2602 There is piracy of copyrighted material. Lots of it. This piracy comes in
2603 many forms. The most significant is commercial piracy, the unauthorized
2604 taking of other people's content within a commercial context. Despite the
2605 many justifications that are offered in its defense, this taking is
2606 wrong. No one should condone it, and the law should stop it.
2607 </p><p>
2608
2609 But as well as copy-shop piracy, there is another kind of
2610 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taking</span>&#8221;</span> that is more directly related to the Internet. That
2611 taking, too, seems wrong to many, and it is wrong much of the time. Before
2612 we paint this taking <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy,</span>&#8221;</span> however, we should understand
2613 its nature a bit more.  For the harm of this taking is significantly more
2614 ambiguous than outright copying, and the law should account for that
2615 ambiguity, as it has so often done in the past.
2616
2617 </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>
2618 All across the world, but especially in Asia and Eastern Europe, there are
2619 businesses that do nothing but take others people's copyrighted content,
2620 copy it, and sell it&#8212;all without the permission of a copyright
2621 owner. The recording industry estimates that it loses about $4.6 billion
2622 every year to physical piracy<sup>[<a name="id2880497" href="#ftn.id2880497" class="footnote">70</a>]</sup> (that
2623 works out to one in three CDs sold worldwide). The MPAA estimates that it
2624 loses $3 billion annually worldwide to piracy.
2625 </p><p>
2626 This is piracy plain and simple. Nothing in the argument of this book, nor
2627 in the argument that most people make when talking about the subject of this
2628 book, should draw into doubt this simple point: This piracy is wrong.
2629 </p><p>
2630 Which is not to say that excuses and justifications couldn't be made for
2631 it. We could, for example, remind ourselves that for the first one hundred
2632 years of the American Republic, America did not honor foreign copyrights. We
2633 were born, in this sense, a pirate nation. It might therefore seem
2634 hypocritical for us to insist so strongly that other developing nations
2635 treat as wrong what we, for the first hundred years of our existence,
2636 treated as right.
2637 </p><p>
2638 That excuse isn't terribly strong. Technically, our law did not ban the
2639 taking of foreign works. It explicitly limited itself to American
2640 works. Thus the American publishers who published foreign works without the
2641 permission of foreign authors were not violating any rule.  The copy shops
2642 in Asia, by contrast, are violating Asian law. Asian law does protect
2643 foreign copyrights, and the actions of the copy shops violate that law. So
2644 the wrong of piracy that they engage in is not just a moral wrong, but a
2645 legal wrong, and not just an internationally legal wrong, but a locally
2646 legal wrong as well.
2647 </p><p>
2648 True, these local rules have, in effect, been imposed upon these
2649 countries. No country can be part of the world economy and choose
2650
2651 not to protect copyright internationally. We may have been born a pirate
2652 nation, but we will not allow any other nation to have a similar childhood.
2653 </p><p>
2654 If a country is to be treated as a sovereign, however, then its laws are its
2655 laws regardless of their source. The international law under which these
2656 nations live gives them some opportunities to escape the burden of
2657 intellectual property law.<sup>[<a name="id2880741" href="#ftn.id2880741" class="footnote">71</a>]</sup> In my view,
2658 more developing nations should take advantage of that opportunity, but when
2659 they don't, then their laws should be respected. And under the laws of these
2660 nations, this piracy is wrong.
2661 </p><p>
2662 Alternatively, we could try to excuse this piracy by noting that in any
2663 case, it does no harm to the industry. The Chinese who get access to
2664 American CDs at 50 cents a copy are not people who would have bought those
2665 American CDs at $15 a copy. So no one really has any less money than they
2666 otherwise would have had.<sup>[<a name="id2880791" href="#ftn.id2880791" class="footnote">72</a>]</sup>
2667 </p><p>
2668 This is often true (though I have friends who have purchased many thousands
2669 of pirated DVDs who certainly have enough money to pay for the content they
2670 have taken), and it does mitigate to some degree the harm caused by such
2671 taking. Extremists in this debate love to say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">You wouldn't go into
2672 Barnes &amp; Noble and take a book off of the shelf without paying; why
2673 should it be any different with on-line music?</span>&#8221;</span> The difference is, of
2674 course, that when you take a book from Barnes &amp; Noble, it has one less
2675 book to sell. By contrast, when you take an MP3 from a computer network,
2676 there is not one less CD that can be sold.  The physics of piracy of the
2677 intangible are different from the physics of piracy of the tangible.
2678 </p><p>
2679
2680 This argument is still very weak. However, although copyright is a property
2681 right of a very special sort, it <span class="emphasis"><em>is</em></span> a property
2682 right. Like all property rights, the copyright gives the owner the right to
2683 decide the terms under which content is shared. If the copyright owner
2684 doesn't want to sell, she doesn't have to. There are exceptions: important
2685 statutory licenses that apply to copyrighted content regardless of the wish
2686 of the copyright owner. Those licenses give people the right to
2687 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">take</span>&#8221;</span> copyrighted content whether or not the copyright owner
2688 wants to sell. But where the law does not give people the right to take
2689 content, it is wrong to take that content even if the wrong does no harm. If
2690 we have a property system, and that system is properly balanced to the
2691 technology of a time, then it is wrong to take property without the
2692 permission of a property owner. That is exactly what <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span>
2693 means.
2694 </p><p>
2695 Finally, we could try to excuse this piracy with the argument that the
2696 piracy actually helps the copyright owner. When the Chinese
2697 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">steal</span>&#8221;</span> Windows, that makes the Chinese dependent on
2698 Microsoft.  Microsoft loses the value of the software that was taken. But it
2699 gains users who are used to life in the Microsoft world. Over time, as the
2700 nation grows more wealthy, more and more people will buy software rather
2701 than steal it. And hence over time, because that buying will benefit
2702 Microsoft, Microsoft benefits from the piracy. If instead of pirating
2703 Microsoft Windows, the Chinese used the free GNU/Linux operating system,
2704 then these Chinese users would not eventually be buying Microsoft.  Without
2705 piracy, then, Microsoft would lose.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2880897"></a>
2706 <a class="indexterm" name="id2880903"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2880909"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2880921"></a>
2707 </p><p>
2708 This argument, too, is somewhat true. The addiction strategy is a good
2709 one. Many businesses practice it. Some thrive because of it. Law students,
2710 for example, are given free access to the two largest legal databases. The
2711 companies marketing both hope the students will become so used to their
2712 service that they will want to use it and not the other when they become
2713 lawyers (and must pay high subscription fees).
2714 </p><p>
2715 Still, the argument is not terribly persuasive. We don't give the alcoholic
2716 a defense when he steals his first beer, merely because that will make it
2717 more likely that he will buy the next three. Instead, we ordinarily allow
2718 businesses to decide for themselves when it is best to give their product
2719 away. If Microsoft fears the competition of GNU/Linux, then Microsoft can
2720 give its product away, as it did, for example, with Internet Explorer to
2721 fight Netscape. A property right means giving the property owner the right
2722 to say who gets access to what&#8212;at least ordinarily. And if the law
2723 properly balances the rights of the copyright owner with the rights of
2724 access, then violating the law is still wrong.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2880661"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2880946"></a>
2725 <a class="indexterm" name="id2880966"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2880972"></a>
2726 </p><p>
2727
2728
2729 Thus, while I understand the pull of these justifications for piracy, and I
2730 certainly see the motivation, in my view, in the end, these efforts at
2731 justifying commercial piracy simply don't cut it. This kind of piracy is
2732 rampant and just plain wrong. It doesn't transform the content it steals; it
2733 doesn't transform the market it competes in. It merely gives someone access
2734 to something that the law says he should not have.  Nothing has changed to
2735 draw that law into doubt. This form of piracy is flat out wrong.
2736 </p><p>
2737 But as the examples from the four chapters that introduced this part
2738 suggest, even if some piracy is plainly wrong, not all <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span>
2739 is. Or at least, not all <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> is wrong if that term is
2740 understood in the way it is increasingly used today. Many kinds of
2741 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> are useful and productive, to produce either new
2742 content or new ways of doing business.  Neither our tradition nor any
2743 tradition has ever banned all <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> in that sense of the
2744 term.
2745 </p><p>
2746 This doesn't mean that there are no questions raised by the latest piracy
2747 concern, peer-to-peer file sharing. But it does mean that we need to
2748 understand the harm in peer-to-peer sharing a bit more before we condemn it
2749 to the gallows with the charge of piracy.
2750 </p><p>
2751 For (1) like the original Hollywood, p2p sharing escapes an overly
2752 controlling industry; and (2) like the original recording industry, it
2753 simply exploits a new way to distribute content; but (3) unlike cable TV, no
2754 one is selling the content that is shared on p2p services.
2755 </p><p>
2756 These differences distinguish p2p sharing from true piracy. They should push
2757 us to find a way to protect artists while enabling this sharing to survive.
2758 </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>
2759
2760 The key to the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> that the law aims to quash is a use
2761 that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rob[s] the author of [his] profit.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2881065" href="#ftn.id2881065" class="footnote">73</a>]</sup> This means we must determine whether and how much
2762 p2p sharing harms before we know how strongly the law should seek to either
2763 prevent it or find an alternative to assure the author of his profit.
2764 </p><p>
2765 Peer-to-peer sharing was made famous by Napster. But the inventors of the
2766 Napster technology had not made any major technological innovations.  Like
2767 every great advance in innovation on the Internet (and, arguably, off the
2768 Internet as well<sup>[<a name="id2881090" href="#ftn.id2881090" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
2769 crew had simply put together components that had been developed
2770 independently.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2881120"></a>
2771 </p><p>
2772 The result was spontaneous combustion. Launched in July 1999, Napster
2773 amassed over 10 million users within nine months. After eighteen months,
2774 there were close to 80 million registered users of the system.<sup>[<a name="id2881133" href="#ftn.id2881133" class="footnote">75</a>]</sup> Courts quickly shut Napster down, but other
2775 services emerged to take its place. (Kazaa is currently the most popular p2p
2776 service. It boasts over 100 million members.) These services' systems are
2777 different architecturally, though not very different in function: Each
2778 enables users to make content available to any number of other users. With a
2779 p2p system, you can share your favorite songs with your best friend&#8212;
2780 or your 20,000 best friends.
2781 </p><p>
2782 According to a number of estimates, a huge proportion of Americans have
2783 tasted file-sharing technology. A study by Ipsos-Insight in September 2002
2784 estimated that 60 million Americans had downloaded music&#8212;28 percent of
2785 Americans older than 12.<sup>[<a name="id2881182" href="#ftn.id2881182" class="footnote">76</a>]</sup> A survey by
2786 the NPD group quoted in <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> estimated
2787 that 43 million citizens used file-sharing networks to exchange content in
2788 May 2003.<sup>[<a name="id2881210" href="#ftn.id2881210" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these
2789 are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a massive quantity of content is
2790 being <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taken</span>&#8221;</span> on these networks. The ease and inexpensiveness
2791 of file-sharing networks have inspired millions to enjoy music in a way that
2792 they hadn't before.
2793 </p><p>
2794 Some of this enjoying involves copyright infringement. Some of it does
2795 not. And even among the part that is technically copyright infringement,
2796 calculating the actual harm to copyright owners is more complicated than one
2797 might think. So consider&#8212;a bit more carefully than the polarized
2798 voices around this debate usually do&#8212;the kinds of sharing that file
2799 sharing enables, and the kinds of harm it entails.
2800 </p><p>
2801
2802
2803 Fildelerne deler ulike typer innhold.  Vi kan dele disse ulike typene inn i
2804 fire typer.
2805 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
2806
2807 There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing
2808 content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD,
2809 these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who
2810 takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available
2811 for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who
2812 would.  The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead
2813 of purchasing.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2881270"></a>
2814 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2815
2816
2817 There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing
2818 it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard
2819 of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of
2820 targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed.  If the friend recommending
2821 the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect
2822 that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this
2823 sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.
2824 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2825
2826
2827 There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content
2828 that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the
2829 transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is
2830 among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood
2831 but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the
2832 network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a
2833 solid weekend <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">recalling</span>&#8221;</span> old songs. She was astonished at the
2834 range and mix of content that was available.)  For content not sold, this is
2835 still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright
2836 owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is
2837 zero&#8212;the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s
2838 45-rpm records to a local collector.
2839 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844 Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content
2845 that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.
2846 </p></li></ol></div><p>
2847 Hvordan balanserer disse ulike delingstypene?
2848 </p><p>
2849 Let's start with some simple but important points. From the perspective of
2850 the law, only type D sharing is clearly legal. From the perspective of
2851 economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.<sup>[<a name="id2881340" href="#ftn.id2881340" class="footnote">78</a>]</sup> Type B sharing is illegal but plainly
2852 beneficial. Type C sharing is illegal, yet good for society (since more
2853 exposure to music is good)  and harmless to the artist (since the work is
2854 not otherwise available). So how sharing matters on balance is a hard
2855 question to answer&#8212;and certainly much more difficult than the current
2856 rhetoric around the issue suggests.
2857 </p><p>
2858 Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how harmful
2859 type A sharing is. Just as Edison complained about Hollywood, composers
2860 complained about piano rolls, recording artists complained about radio, and
2861 broadcasters complained about cable TV, the music industry complains that
2862 type A sharing is a kind of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">theft</span>&#8221;</span> that is
2863 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">devastating</span>&#8221;</span> the industry.
2864 </p><p>
2865 While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder
2866 to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame
2867 technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a
2868 good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst &amp; Young put it,
2869 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels
2870 fought it.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2881393" href="#ftn.id2881393" class="footnote">79</a>]</sup> The labels claimed
2871 that every album taped was an album unsold, and when record sales fell by
2872 11.4 percent in 1981, the industry claimed that its point was
2873 proved. Technology was the problem, and banning or regulating technology was
2874 the answer.
2875 </p><p>
2876 Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity to enact
2877 regulation, MTV was launched, and the industry had a record
2878 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
2879 `crisis' &#8230; was not the fault of the tapers&#8212;who did not [stop
2880 after MTV came into being]&#8212;but had to a large extent resulted from
2881 stagnation in musical innovation at the major labels.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2880803" href="#ftn.id2880803" class="footnote">80</a>]</sup>
2882 </p><p>
2883 But just because the industry was wrong before does not mean it is wrong
2884 today. To evaluate the real threat that p2p sharing presents to the industry
2885 in particular, and society in general&#8212;or at least the society that
2886 inherits the tradition that gave us the film industry, the record industry,
2887 the radio industry, cable TV, and the VCR&#8212;the question is not simply
2888 whether type A sharing is harmful. The question is also
2889 <span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> harmful type A sharing is, and how beneficial the
2890 other types of sharing are.
2891 </p><p>
2892 We start to answer this question by focusing on the net harm, from the
2893 standpoint of the industry as a whole, that sharing networks cause.  The
2894 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">net harm</span>&#8221;</span> to the industry as a whole is the amount by which
2895 type A sharing exceeds type B. If the record companies sold more records
2896 through sampling than they lost through substitution, then sharing networks
2897 would actually benefit music companies on balance. They would therefore have
2898 little <span class="emphasis"><em>static</em></span> reason to resist them.
2899
2900 </p><p>
2901 Could that be true? Could the industry as a whole be gaining because of file
2902 sharing? Odd as that might sound, the data about CD sales actually suggest
2903 it might be close.
2904 </p><p>
2905 In 2002, the RIAA reported that CD sales had fallen by 8.9 percent, from 882
2906 million to 803 million units; revenues fell 6.7 percent.<sup>[<a name="id2881498" href="#ftn.id2881498" class="footnote">81</a>]</sup> This confirms a trend over the past few years. The
2907 RIAA blames Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other
2908 causes that could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a
2909 more than 20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since 1999. That no
2910 doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales. Rising prices could
2911 account for at least some of the loss. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">From 1999 to 2001, the average
2912 price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2881548" href="#ftn.id2881548" class="footnote">82</a>]</sup> Competition from other forms of media could also
2913 account for some of the decline. As Jane Black of
2914 <em class="citetitle">BusinessWeek</em> notes, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The soundtrack to the film
2915 <em class="citetitle">High Fidelity</em> has a list price of $18.98. You could
2916 get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2881585" href="#ftn.id2881585" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
2917 </p><p>
2918
2919
2920
2921 But let's assume the RIAA is right, and all of the decline in CD sales is
2922 because of Internet sharing. Here's the rub: In the same period that the
2923 RIAA estimates that 803 million CDs were sold, the RIAA estimates that 2.1
2924 billion CDs were downloaded for free. Thus, although 2.6 times the total
2925 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, sales revenue fell by just 6.7
2926 percent.
2927 </p><p>
2928 There are too many different things happening at the same time to explain
2929 these numbers definitively, but one conclusion is unavoidable: The recording
2930 industry constantly asks, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">What's the difference between downloading a
2931 song and stealing a CD?</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;but their own numbers reveal the
2932 difference. If I steal a CD, then there is one less CD to sell. Every taking
2933 is a lost sale. But on the basis of the numbers the RIAA provides, it is
2934 absolutely clear that the same is not true of downloads. If every download
2935 were a lost sale&#8212;if every use of Kazaa <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rob[bed] the author of
2936 [his] profit</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;then the industry would have suffered a 100
2937 percent drop in sales last year, not a 7 percent drop. If 2.6 times the
2938 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, and yet sales revenue dropped
2939 by just 6.7 percent, then there is a huge difference between
2940 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">downloading a song and stealing a CD.</span>&#8221;</span>
2941 </p><p>
2942 These are the harms&#8212;alleged and perhaps exaggerated but, let's assume,
2943 real. What of the benefits? File sharing may impose costs on the recording
2944 industry. What value does it produce in addition to these costs?
2945 </p><p>
2946 One benefit is type C sharing&#8212;making available content that is
2947 technically still under copyright but is no longer commercially available.
2948 This is not a small category of content. There are millions of tracks that
2949 are no longer commercially available.<sup>[<a name="id2881635" href="#ftn.id2881635" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup>
2950 And while it's conceivable that some of this content is not available
2951 because the artist producing the content doesn't want it to be made
2952 available, the vast majority of it is unavailable solely because the
2953 publisher or the distributor has decided it no longer makes economic sense
2954 <span class="emphasis"><em>to the company</em></span> to make it available.
2955 </p><p>
2956 In real space&#8212;long before the Internet&#8212;the market had a simple
2957 response to this problem: used book and record stores. There are thousands
2958 of used book and used record stores in America today.<sup>[<a name="id2881676" href="#ftn.id2881676" class="footnote">85</a>]</sup> These stores buy content from owners, then sell the
2959 content they buy. And under American copyright law, when they buy and sell
2960 this content, <span class="emphasis"><em>even if the content is still under
2961 copyright</em></span>, the copyright owner doesn't get a dime. Used book and
2962 record stores are commercial entities; their owners make money from the
2963 content they sell; but as with cable companies before statutory licensing,
2964 they don't have to pay the copyright owner for the content they sell.
2965 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2881725"></a><p>
2966 Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used record
2967 stores. It is different, of course, because the person making the content
2968 available isn't making money from making the content available.  It is also
2969 different, of course, because in real space, when I sell a record, I don't
2970 have it anymore, while in cyberspace, when someone shares my 1949 recording
2971 of Bernstein's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Two Love Songs,</span>&#8221;</span> I still have it. That
2972 difference would matter economically if the owner of the copyright were
2973 selling the record in competition to my sharing. But we're talking about the
2974 class of content that is not currently commercially available. The Internet
2975 is making it available, through cooperative sharing, without competing with
2976 the market.
2977 </p><p>
2978 It may well be, all things considered, that it would be better if the
2979 copyright owner got something from this trade. But just because it may well
2980 be better, it doesn't follow that it would be good to ban used book
2981 stores. Or put differently, if you think that type C sharing should be
2982 stopped, do you think that libraries and used book stores should be shut as
2983 well?
2984 </p><p>
2985
2986 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, file-sharing networks enable type D
2987 sharing to occur&#8212;the sharing of content that copyright owners want to
2988 have shared or for which there is no continuing copyright. This sharing
2989 clearly benefits authors and society. Science fiction author Cory Doctorow,
2990 for example, released his first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
2991 Kingdom</em>, both free on-line and in bookstores on the same
2992 day. His (and his publisher's) thinking was that the on-line distribution
2993 would be a great advertisement for the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">real</span>&#8221;</span> book. People
2994 would read part on-line, and then decide whether they liked the book or
2995 not. If they liked it, they would be more likely to buy it. Doctorow's
2996 content is type D content. If sharing networks enable his work to be spread,
2997 then both he and society are better off. (Actually, much better off: It is a
2998 great book!)
2999 </p><p>
3000 Likewise for work in the public domain: This sharing benefits society with
3001 no legal harm to authors at all. If efforts to solve the problem of type A
3002 sharing destroy the opportunity for type D sharing, then we lose something
3003 important in order to protect type A content.
3004 </p><p>
3005 The point throughout is this: While the recording industry understandably
3006 says, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">This is how much we've lost,</span>&#8221;</span> we must also ask,
3007 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">How much has society gained from p2p sharing? What are the
3008 efficiencies? What is the content that otherwise would be
3009 unavailable?</span>&#8221;</span>
3010 </p><p>
3011 For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this chapter, much
3012 of the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> that file sharing enables is plainly legal and
3013 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
3014 way of spreading content caused by changes in the technology of
3015 distribution. Thus, consistent with the tradition that gave us Hollywood,
3016 radio, the recording industry, and cable TV, the question we should be
3017 asking about file sharing is how best to preserve its benefits while
3018 minimizing (to the extent possible) the wrongful harm it causes artists. The
3019 question is one of balance. The law should seek that balance, and that
3020 balance will be found only with time.
3021 </p><p>
3022 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But isn't the war just a war against illegal sharing? Isn't the
3023 target just what you call type A sharing?</span>&#8221;</span>
3024 </p><p>
3025 You would think. And we should hope. But so far, it is not. The effect of
3026 the war purportedly on type A sharing alone has been felt far beyond that
3027 one class of sharing. That much is obvious from the Napster case
3028 itself. When Napster told the district court that it had developed a
3029 technology to block the transfer of 99.4 percent of identified infringing
3030 material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4 percent was not
3031 good enough. Napster had to push the infringements <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">down to
3032 zero.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2881860" href="#ftn.id2881860" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
3033 </p><p>
3034 If 99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing
3035 technologies, not a war on copyright infringement. There is no way to assure
3036 that a p2p system is used 100 percent of the time in compliance with the
3037 law, any more than there is a way to assure that 100 percent of VCRs or 100
3038 percent of Xerox machines or 100 percent of handguns are used in compliance
3039 with the law. Zero tolerance means zero p2p.  The court's ruling means that
3040 we as a society must lose the benefits of p2p, even for the totally legal
3041 and beneficial uses they serve, simply to assure that there are zero
3042 copyright infringements caused by p2p.
3043 </p><p>
3044 Zero tolerance has not been our history. It has not produced the content
3045 industry that we know today. The history of American law has been a process
3046 of balance. As new technologies changed the way content was distributed, the
3047 law adjusted, after some time, to the new technology.  In this adjustment,
3048 the law sought to ensure the legitimate rights of creators while protecting
3049 innovation. Sometimes this has meant more rights for creators. Sometimes
3050 less.
3051 </p><p>
3052 So, as we've seen, when <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">mechanical reproduction</span>&#8221;</span> threatened
3053 the interests of composers, Congress balanced the rights of composers
3054 against the interests of the recording industry. It granted rights to
3055 composers, but also to the recording artists: Composers were to be paid, but
3056 at a price set by Congress. But when radio started broadcasting the
3057 recordings made by these recording artists, and they complained to Congress
3058 that their <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> was not being respected (since
3059 the radio station did not have to pay them for the creativity it broadcast),
3060 Congress rejected their claim. An indirect benefit was enough.
3061 </p><p>
3062 Cable TV followed the pattern of record albums. When the courts rejected the
3063 claim that cable broadcasters had to pay for the content they rebroadcast,
3064 Congress responded by giving broadcasters a right to compensation, but at a
3065 level set by the law. It likewise gave cable companies the right to the
3066 content, so long as they paid the statutory price.
3067 </p><p>
3068
3069
3070
3071 This compromise, like the compromise affecting records and player pianos,
3072 served two important goals&#8212;indeed, the two central goals of any
3073 copyright legislation. First, the law assured that new innovators would have
3074 the freedom to develop new ways to deliver content.  Second, the law assured
3075 that copyright holders would be paid for the content that was
3076 distributed. One fear was that if Congress simply required cable TV to pay
3077 copyright holders whatever they demanded for their content, then copyright
3078 holders associated with broadcasters would use their power to stifle this
3079 new technology, cable. But if Congress had permitted cable to use
3080 broadcasters' content for free, then it would have unfairly subsidized
3081 cable. Thus Congress chose a path that would assure
3082 <span class="emphasis"><em>compensation</em></span> without giving the past (broadcasters)
3083 control over the future (cable).
3084 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2881961"></a><p>
3085 In the same year that Congress struck this balance, two major producers and
3086 distributors of film content filed a lawsuit against another technology, the
3087 video tape recorder (VTR, or as we refer to them today, VCRs) that Sony had
3088 produced, the Betamax. Disney's and Universal's claim against Sony was
3089 relatively simple: Sony produced a device, Disney and Universal claimed,
3090 that enabled consumers to engage in copyright infringement. Because the
3091 device that Sony built had a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">record</span>&#8221;</span> button, the device could
3092 be used to record copyrighted movies and shows. Sony was therefore
3093 benefiting from the copyright infringement of its customers. It should
3094 therefore, Disney and Universal claimed, be partially liable for that
3095 infringement.
3096 </p><p>
3097
3098 There was something to Disney's and Universal's claim. Sony did decide to
3099 design its machine to make it very simple to record television shows. It
3100 could have built the machine to block or inhibit any direct copying from a
3101 television broadcast. Or possibly, it could have built the machine to copy
3102 only if there were a special <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy me</span>&#8221;</span> signal on the line. It
3103 was clear that there were many television shows that did not grant anyone
3104 permission to copy. Indeed, if anyone had asked, no doubt the majority of
3105 shows would not have authorized copying. And in the face of this obvious
3106 preference, Sony could have designed its system to minimize the opportunity
3107 for copyright infringement. It did not, and for that, Disney and Universal
3108 wanted to hold it responsible for the architecture it chose.
3109 </p><p>
3110 MPAA president Jack Valenti became the studios' most vocal champion. Valenti
3111 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,
3112 30, 40 million of these VCRs in the land, we will be invaded by millions of
3113 `tapeworms,' eating away at the very heart and essence of the most precious
3114 asset the copyright owner has, his copyright.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2882021" href="#ftn.id2882021" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">One does not have to be trained in
3115 sophisticated marketing and creative judgment,</span>&#8221;</span> he told Congress,
3116 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">to understand the devastation on the after-theater marketplace caused
3117 by the hundreds of millions of tapings that will adversely impact on the
3118 future of the creative community in this country. It is simply a question of
3119 basic economics and plain common sense.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2882043" href="#ftn.id2882043" class="footnote">88</a>]</sup> Indeed, as surveys would later show, percent of VCR owners had
3120 movie libraries of ten videos or more<sup>[<a name="id2882052" href="#ftn.id2882052" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup>
3121 &#8212; a use the Court would later hold was not <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair.</span>&#8221;</span> By
3122 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the means of an exemption from
3123 copyright infringementwithout creating a mechanism to compensate
3124 copyrightowners,</span>&#8221;</span> Valenti testified, Congress would <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">take from
3125 the owners the very essence of their property: the exclusive right to
3126 control who may use their work, that is, who may copy it and thereby profit
3127 from its reproduction.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2882081" href="#ftn.id2882081" class="footnote">90</a>]</sup>
3128 </p><p>
3129 It took eight years for this case to be resolved by the Supreme Court. In
3130 the interim, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Hollywood in
3131 its jurisdiction&#8212;leading Judge Alex Kozinski, who sits on that court,
3132 refers to it as the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hollywood Circuit</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;held that Sony
3133 would be liable for the copyright infringement made possible by its
3134 machines. Under the Ninth Circuit's rule, this totally familiar
3135 technology&#8212;which Jack Valenti had called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the Boston Strangler
3136 of the American film industry</span>&#8221;</span> (worse yet, it was a
3137 <span class="emphasis"><em>Japanese</em></span> Boston Strangler of the American film
3138 industry)&#8212;was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id2882103" href="#ftn.id2882103" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2882127"></a>
3139 </p><p>
3140
3141 But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit.  And in
3142 its reversal, the Court clearly articulated its understanding of when and
3143 whether courts should intervene in such disputes. As the Court wrote,
3144 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3145 Sound policy, as well as history, supports our consistent deference to
3146 Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for
3147 copyrighted materials. Congress has the constitutional authority and the
3148 institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of
3149 competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new
3150 technology.<sup>[<a name="id2882153" href="#ftn.id2882153" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
3151 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3152 Congress was asked to respond to the Supreme Court's decision.  But as with
3153 the plea of recording artists about radio broadcasts, Congress ignored the
3154 request. Congress was convinced that American film got enough, this
3155 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taking</span>&#8221;</span> notwithstanding.  If we put these cases together, a
3156 pattern is clear:
3157 </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>
3158 In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the way
3159 content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id2882285" href="#ftn.id2882285" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
3160 throughout our history, that change meant that someone got a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free
3161 ride</span>&#8221;</span> on someone else's work.
3162 </p><p>
3163
3164 In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these cases did either the courts or
3165 Congress eliminate all free riding. In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these
3166 cases did the courts or Congress insist that the law should assure that the
3167 copyright holder get all the value that his copyright created. In every
3168 case, the copyright owners complained of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy.</span>&#8221;</span> In every
3169 case, Congress acted to recognize some of the legitimacy in the behavior of
3170 the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirates.</span>&#8221;</span> In each case, Congress allowed some new
3171 technology to benefit from content made before. It balanced the interests at
3172 stake.
3173
3174 </p><p>
3175 When you think across these examples, and the other examples that make up
3176 the first four chapters of this section, this balance makes sense. Was Walt
3177 Disney a pirate? Would doujinshi be better if creators had to ask
3178 permission? Should tools that enable others to capture and spread images as
3179 a way to cultivate or criticize our culture be better regulated? Is it
3180 really right that building a search engine should expose you to $15 million
3181 in damages? Would it have been better if Edison had controlled film? Should
3182 every cover band have to hire a lawyer to get permission to record a song?
3183 </p><p>
3184 We could answer yes to each of these questions, but our tradition has
3185 answered no. In our tradition, as the Supreme Court has stated, copyright
3186 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all
3187 possible uses of his work.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2882379" href="#ftn.id2882379" class="footnote">94</a>]</sup>
3188 Instead, the particular uses that the law regulates have been defined by
3189 balancing the good that comes from granting an exclusive right against the
3190 burdens such an exclusive right creates. And this balancing has historically
3191 been done <span class="emphasis"><em>after</em></span> a technology has matured, or settled
3192 into the mix of technologies that facilitate the distribution of content.
3193 </p><p>
3194 We should be doing the same thing today. The technology of the Internet is
3195 changing quickly. The way people connect to the Internet (wires
3196 vs. wireless) is changing very quickly. No doubt the network should not
3197 become a tool for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stealing</span>&#8221;</span> from artists. But neither should
3198 the law become a tool to entrench one particular way in which artists (or
3199 more accurately, distributors) get paid. As I describe in some detail in the
3200 last chapter of this book, we should be securing income to artists while we
3201 allow the market to secure the most efficient way to promote and distribute
3202 content. This will require changes in the law, at least in the
3203 interim. These changes should be designed to balance the protection of the
3204 law against the strong public interest that innovation continue.
3205 </p><p>
3206
3207
3208 This is especially true when a new technology enables a vastly superior mode
3209 of distribution. And this p2p has done. P2p technologies can be ideally
3210 efficient in moving content across a widely diverse network.  Left to
3211 develop, they could make the network vastly more efficient.  Yet these
3212 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">potential public benefits,</span>&#8221;</span> as John Schwartz writes in
3213 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">could be delayed in the
3214 P2P fight.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2882439" href="#ftn.id2882439" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup> Yet when anyone
3215 begins to talk about <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">balance,</span>&#8221;</span> the copyright warriors raise a
3216 different argument. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All this hand waving about balance and
3217 incentives,</span>&#8221;</span> they say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">misses a fundamental point. Our
3218 content,</span>&#8221;</span> the warriors insist, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">is our
3219 <span class="emphasis"><em>property</em></span>. Why should we wait for Congress to
3220 `rebalance' our property rights? Do you have to wait before calling the
3221 police when your car has been stolen? And why should Congress deliberate at
3222 all about the merits of this theft? Do we ask whether the car thief had a
3223 good use for the car before we arrest him?</span>&#8221;</span>
3224 </p><p>
3225 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">It is <span class="emphasis"><em>our property</em></span>,</span>&#8221;</span> the warriors
3226 insist. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">And it should be protected just as any other property is
3227 protected.</span>&#8221;</span>
3228 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880497" href="#id2880497" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
3229
3230
3231 See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry),
3232 <em class="citetitle">The Recording Industry Commercial Piracy Report 2003</em>,
3233 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
3234 #14</a>. See also Ben Hunt, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Companies Warned on Music Piracy
3235 Risk,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Financial Times</em>, 14 February 2003, 11.
3236 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880741" href="#id2880741" class="para">71</a>] </sup>
3237
3238 See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism:
3239 <em class="citetitle">Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New
3240 Press, 2003), 10&#8211;13, 209.  The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
3241 Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement obligates member nations to create
3242 administrative and enforcement mechanisms for intellectual property rights,
3243 a costly proposition for developing countries. Additionally, patent rights
3244 may lead to higher prices for staple industries such as agriculture. Critics
3245 of TRIPS question the disparity between burdens imposed upon developing
3246 countries and benefits conferred to industrialized nations. TRIPS does
3247 permit governments to use patents for public, noncommercial uses without
3248 first obtaining the patent holder's permission. Developing nations may be
3249 able to use this to gain the benefits of foreign patents at lower
3250 prices. This is a promising strategy for developing nations within the TRIPS
3251 framework.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2879954"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2880772"></a>
3252 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880791" href="#id2880791" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
3253
3254 For an analysis of the economic impact of copying technology, see Stan
3255 Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em> (New York:
3256 Amacom, 2002), 144&#8211;90. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In some instances &#8230; the impact of
3257 piracy on the copyright holder's ability to appropriate the value of the
3258 work will be negligible. One obvious instance is the case where the
3259 individual engaging in pirating would not have purchased an original even if
3260 pirating were not an option.</span>&#8221;</span> Ibid., 149.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2880809"></a>
3261 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881065" href="#id2881065" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
3262
3263
3264 <em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
3265 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777).
3266 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881090" href="#id2881090" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
3267
3268 See Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
3269 Revolutionary National Bestseller That Changed the Way We Do
3270 Business</em> (New York: HarperBusiness, 2000). Professor Christensen
3271 examines why companies that give rise to and dominate a product area are
3272 frequently unable to come up with the most creative, paradigm-shifting uses
3273 for their own products.  This job usually falls to outside innovators, who
3274 reassemble existing technology in inventive ways. For a discussion of
3275 Christensen's ideas, see Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>,
3276 89&#8211;92, 139.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2880801"></a>
3277 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881133" href="#id2881133" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
3278
3279
3280 See Carolyn Lochhead, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood
3281 Nightmare,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24
3282 September 2002, A1; <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Rock 'n' Roll Suicide,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New
3283 Scientist</em>, 6 July 2002, 42; Benny Evangelista, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Napster
3284 Names CEO, Secures New Financing,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
3285 Chronicle</em>, 23 May 2003, C1; <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Napster's Wake-Up
3286 Call,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24 June 2000, 23; John
3287 Naughton, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hollywood at War with the Internet</span>&#8221;</span> (London)
3288 <em class="citetitle">Times</em>, 26 July 2002, 18.
3289 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881182" href="#id2881182" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
3290
3291
3292
3293 See Ipsos-Insight, <em class="citetitle">TEMPO: Keeping Pace with Online Music
3294 Distribution</em> (September 2002), reporting that 28 percent of
3295 Americans aged twelve and older have downloaded music off of the Internet
3296 and 30 percent have listened to digital music files stored on their
3297 computers.
3298 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881210" href="#id2881210" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
3299
3300
3301 Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,</span>&#8221;</span>
3302 <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 6 June 2003, A1.
3303 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881340" href="#id2881340" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
3304
3305 Se Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
3306 148&#8211;49.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2881108"></a>
3307 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881393" href="#id2881393" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
3308
3309
3310 See Cap Gemini Ernst &amp; Young, <em class="citetitle">Technology Evolution and the
3311 Music Industry's Business Model Crisis</em> (2003), 3. This report
3312 describes the music industry's effort to stigmatize the budding practice of
3313 cassette taping in the 1970s, including an advertising campaign featuring a
3314 cassette-shape skull and the caption <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Home taping is killing
3315 music.</span>&#8221;</span> At the time digital audio tape became a threat, the Office of
3316 Technical Assessment conducted a survey of consumer behavior. In 1988, 40
3317 percent of consumers older than ten had taped music to a cassette
3318 format. U.S.  Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,
3319 <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the
3320 Law</em>, OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.  Government Printing
3321 Office, October 1989), 145&#8211;56.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880803" href="#id2880803" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
3322
3323
3324 U.S. Congress, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying</em>, 4.
3325 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881498" href="#id2881498" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
3326
3327
3328 See Recording Industry Association of America, <em class="citetitle">2002 Yearend
3329 Statistics</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #15</a>. A later report
3330 indicates even greater losses. See Recording Industry Association of
3331 America, <em class="citetitle">Some Facts About Music Piracy</em>, 25 June 2003,
3332 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #16</a>:
3333 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In the past four years, unit shipments of recorded music have fallen
3334 by 26 percent from 1.16 billion units in to 860 million units in 2002 in the
3335 United States (based on units shipped).  In terms of sales, revenues are
3336 down 14 percent, from $14.6 billion in to $12.6 billion last year (based on
3337 U.S. dollar value of shipments). The music industry worldwide has gone from
3338 a $39 billion industry in 2000 down to a $32 billion industry in 2002 (based
3339 on U.S. dollar value of shipments).</span>&#8221;</span>
3340 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881548" href="#id2881548" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
3341 Jane Black, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Big Music's Broken Record,</span>&#8221;</span> BusinessWeek online,
3342 13 February 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2881565"></a>
3343 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881585" href="#id2881585" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
3344
3345
3346 ibid.
3347 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881635" href="#id2881635" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
3348
3349
3350 By one estimate, 75 percent of the music released by the major labels is no
3351 longer in print. See Online Entertainment and Copyright Law&#8212;Coming
3352 Soon to a Digital Device Near You: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on
3353 the Judiciary, 107th Cong., 1st sess. (3 April 2001) (prepared statement of
3354 the Future of Music Coalition), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #18</a>.
3355 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881676" href="#id2881676" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
3356
3357
3358 While there are not good estimates of the number of used record stores in
3359 existence, in 2002, there were 7,198 used book dealers in the United States,
3360 an increase of 20 percent since 1993. See Book Hunter Press, <em class="citetitle">The
3361 Quiet Revolution: The Expansion of the Used Book Market</em> (2002),
3362 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
3363 #19</a>. Used records accounted for $260 million in sales in 2002. See
3364 National Association of Recording Merchandisers, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">2002 Annual Survey
3365 Results,</span>&#8221;</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #20</a>.
3366 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881860" href="#id2881860" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
3367
3368
3369 See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34- 35
3370 (N.D. Cal., 11 July 2001), nos. MDL-00-1369 MHP, C 99-5183 MHP, available at
3371 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #21</a>. For an account
3372 of the litigation and its toll on Napster, see Joseph Menn, <em class="citetitle">All
3373 the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster</em> (New
3374 York: Crown Business, 2003), 269&#8211;82.
3375 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882021" href="#id2882021" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
3376
3377
3378 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders): Hearing on S. 1758
3379 Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess.,
3380 459 (1982) (testimony of Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association
3381 of America, Inc.).
3382 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882043" href="#id2882043" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
3383
3384
3385 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
3386 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882052" href="#id2882052" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
3387
3388
3389 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Sony
3390 Corp. of America</em>, 480 F. Supp. 429, (C.D. Cal., 1979).
3391 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882081" href="#id2882081" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
3392
3393
3394 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (testimony of Jack
3395 Valenti).
3396 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882103" href="#id2882103" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
3397
3398
3399 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Sony
3400 Corp. of America</em>, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th Cir.  1981).
3401 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882153" href="#id2882153" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
3402
3403
3404 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3405 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984).
3406 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882285" href="#id2882285" class="para">93</a>] </sup>
3407
3408 These are the most important instances in our history, but there are other
3409 cases as well. The technology of digital audio tape (DAT), for example, was
3410 regulated by Congress to minimize the risk of piracy. The remedy Congress
3411 imposed did burden DAT producers, by taxing tape sales and controlling the
3412 technology of DAT. See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (Title 17 of the
3413 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>), Pub. L. No. 102-563, 106 Stat.
3414 4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. §1001. Again, however, this regulation did not
3415 eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
3416 Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. See also Picker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">From
3417 Edison to the Broadcast Flag,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law
3418 Review</em> 70 (2003): 293&#8211;96.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2881882"></a>
3419 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882379" href="#id2882379" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
3420
3421
3422 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3423 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, (1984).
3424 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882439" href="#id2882439" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
3425
3426
3427 John Schwartz, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software
3428 Echoes Past Efforts,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 22
3429 September 2003, C3.
3430 </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>
3431
3432
3433
3434 Opphavsretts-krigerne har rett: Opphavsretten er en type eiendom. Den kan
3435 eies og selges, og loven beskytter mot at den blir stjålet. Vanligvis, kan
3436 opphavsrettseieren be om hvilken som helst pris som han ønsker.  Markeder
3437 bestemmer tilbud og etterspørsel som i hvert tilfelle bestemmer prisen hun
3438 kan få.
3439 </p><p>
3440 But in ordinary language, to call a copyright a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span>
3441 right is a bit misleading, for the property of copyright is an odd kind of
3442 property.  Indeed, the very idea of property in any idea or any expression
3443 is very odd. I understand what I am taking when I take the picnic table you
3444 put in your backyard. I am taking a thing, the picnic table, and after I
3445 take it, you don't have it. But what am I taking when I take the good
3446 <span class="emphasis"><em>idea</em></span> you had to put a picnic table in the
3447 backyard&#8212;by, for example, going to Sears, buying a table, and putting
3448 it in my backyard? What is the thing I am taking then?
3449 </p><p>
3450 The point is not just about the thingness of picnic tables versus ideas,
3451 though that's an important difference. The point instead is that in the
3452 ordinary case&#8212;indeed, in practically every case except for a narrow
3453 range of exceptions&#8212;ideas released to the world are free. I don't take
3454 anything from you when I copy the way you dress&#8212;though I might seem
3455 weird if I did it every day, and especially weird if you are a
3456 woman. Instead, as Thomas Jefferson said (and as is especially true when I
3457 copy the way someone else dresses), <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">He who receives an idea from me,
3458 receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his
3459 taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2882550" href="#ftn.id2882550" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
3460 </p><p>
3461 Unntakene til fri bruk er ideer og uttrykk innenfor dekningsområdet til
3462 loven om patent og opphavsrett, og noen få andre områder som jeg ikke vil
3463 diskutere her.  Her sier loven at du ikke kan ta min ide eller uttrykk uten
3464 min tilatelse: Loven gjør det flyktige til eiendom.
3465 </p><p>
3466 But how, and to what extent, and in what form&#8212;the details, in other
3467 words&#8212;matter. To get a good sense of how this practice of turning the
3468 intangible into property emerged, we need to place this
3469 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> in its proper context.<sup>[<a name="id2882601" href="#ftn.id2882601" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
3470 </p><p>
3471 My strategy in doing this will be the same as my strategy in the preceding
3472 part. I offer four stories to help put the idea of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright material
3473 is property</span>&#8221;</span> in context. Where did the idea come from? What are its
3474 limits? How does it function in practice? After these stories, the
3475 significance of this true statement&#8212;<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright material is
3476 property</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212; will be a bit more clear, and its implications will
3477 be revealed as quite different from the implications that the copyright
3478 warriors would have us draw.
3479 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882550" href="#id2882550" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
3480
3481
3482 Brev fra Thomas Jefferson til Isaac McPherson (13. august 1813) i
3483 <em class="citetitle">The Writings of Thomas Jefferson</em>, vol. 6 (Andrew
3484 A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, eds., 1903), 330, 333&#8211;34.
3485 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882601" href="#id2882601" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
3486
3487
3488 As the legal realists taught American law, all property rights are
3489 intangible.  A property right is simply a right that an individual has
3490 against the world to do or not do certain things that may or may not attach
3491 to a physical object. The right itself is intangible, even if the object to
3492 which it is (metaphorically) attached is tangible. See Adam Mossoff,
3493 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">What Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together,</span>&#8221;</span>
3494 <em class="citetitle">Arizona Law Review</em> 45 (2003): 373, 429 n. 241.
3495 </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="id2882654"></a><p>
3496 William Shakespeare wrote <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> in
3497 1595. The play was first published in 1597. It was the eleventh major play
3498 that Shakespeare had written. He would continue to write plays through 1613,
3499 and the plays that he wrote have continued to define Anglo-American culture
3500 ever since. So deeply have the works of a sixteenth-century writer seeped
3501 into our culture that we often don't even recognize their source.  I once
3502 overheard someone commenting on Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Henry V:
3503 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I liked it, but Shakespeare is so full of clichés.</span>&#8221;</span>
3504 </p><p>
3505
3506 In 1774, almost 180 years after <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> was
3507 written, the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy-right</span>&#8221;</span> for the work was still thought by
3508 many to be the exclusive right of a single London publisher, Jacob
3509 Tonson.<sup>[<a name="id2882693" href="#ftn.id2882693" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson was the most prominent
3510 of a small group of publishers called the Conger<sup>[<a name="id2882720" href="#ftn.id2882720" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup> who controlled bookselling in England during the eighteenth
3511 century. The Conger claimed a perpetual right to control the
3512 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy</span>&#8221;</span> of books that they had acquired from authors. That
3513 perpetual right meant that no one else could publish copies of a book to
3514 which they held the copyright.  Prices of the classics were thus kept high;
3515 competition to produce better or cheaper editions was eliminated.
3516 </p><p>
3517 Now, there's something puzzling about the year 1774 to anyone who knows a
3518 little about copyright law. The better-known year in the history of
3519 copyright is 1710, the year that the British Parliament adopted the first
3520 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> act. Known as the Statute of Anne, the act stated
3521 that all published works would get a copyright term of fourteen years,
3522 renewable once if the author was alive, and that all works already published
3523 by 1710 would get a single term of twenty-one additional years.<sup>[<a name="id2882756" href="#ftn.id2882756" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> Under this law, <em class="citetitle">Romeo and
3524 Juliet</em> should have been free in 1731. So why was there any issue
3525 about it still being under Tonson's control in 1774?
3526 </p><p>
3527 The reason is that the English hadn't yet agreed on what a
3528 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> was&#8212;indeed, no one had. At the time the
3529 English passed the Statute of Anne, there was no other legislation governing
3530 copyrights.  The last law regulating publishers, the Licensing Act of 1662,
3531 had expired in 1695. That law gave publishers a monopoly over publishing, as
3532 a way to make it easier for the Crown to control what was published.  But
3533 after it expired, there was no positive law that said that the publishers,
3534 or <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Stationers,</span>&#8221;</span> had an exclusive right to print books.
3535 <a class="indexterm" name="id2882801"></a>
3536 </p><p>
3537 There was no <span class="emphasis"><em>positive</em></span> law, but that didn't mean that
3538 there was no law. The Anglo-American legal tradition looks to both the words
3539 of legislatures and the words of judges to know the rules that are to govern
3540 how people are to behave. We call the words from legislatures
3541 <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
3542 law.</span>&#8221;</span> The common law sets the background against which legislatures
3543 legislate; the legislature, ordinarily, can trump that background only if it
3544 passes a law to displace it. And so the real question after the licensing
3545 statutes had expired was whether the common law protected a copyright,
3546 independent of any positive law.
3547 </p><p>
3548
3549 This question was important to the publishers, or
3550 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">booksellers,</span>&#8221;</span> as they were called, because there was growing
3551 competition from foreign publishers. The Scottish, in particular, were
3552 increasingly publishing and exporting books to England. That competition
3553 reduced the profits of the Conger, which reacted by demanding that
3554 Parliament pass a law to again give them exclusive control over
3555 publishing. That demand ultimately resulted in the Statute of Anne.
3556 </p><p>
3557 The Statute of Anne granted the author or <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">proprietor</span>&#8221;</span> of a
3558 book an exclusive right to print that book. In an important limitation,
3559 however, and to the horror of the booksellers, the law gave the bookseller
3560 that right for a limited term. At the end of that term, the copyright
3561 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">expired,</span>&#8221;</span> and the work would then be free and could be
3562 published by anyone. Or so the legislature is thought to have believed.
3563 </p><p>
3564 Men nå det mest interessante med dette: Hvorfor ville parlamentet begrense
3565 trykkeretten? Sprøsmålet er ikke hvorfor de bestemte seg for denne perioden,
3566 men hvorfor ville de begrense retten <span class="emphasis"><em>i det hele tatt?</em></span>
3567 </p><p>
3568 For the booksellers, and the authors whom they represented, had a very
3569 strong claim. Take <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em> as an example:
3570 That play was written by Shakespeare. It was his genius that brought it into
3571 the world. He didn't take anybody's property when he created this play
3572 (that's a controversial claim, but never mind), and by his creating this
3573 play, he didn't make it any harder for others to craft a play. So why is it
3574 that the law would ever allow someone else to come along and take
3575 Shakespeare's play without his, or his estate's, permission? What reason is
3576 there to allow someone else to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">steal</span>&#8221;</span> Shakespeare's work?
3577 </p><p>
3578 The answer comes in two parts. We first need to see something special about
3579 the notion of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> that existed at the time of the
3580 Statute of Anne. Second, we have to see something important about
3581 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">booksellers.</span>&#8221;</span>
3582 </p><p>
3583
3584 First, about copyright. In the last three hundred years, we have come to
3585 apply the concept of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> ever more broadly. But in
3586 1710, it wasn't so much a concept as it was a very particular right. The
3587 copyright was born as a very specific set of restrictions: It forbade others
3588 from reprinting a book. In 1710, the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy-right</span>&#8221;</span> was a right
3589 to use a particular machine to replicate a particular work. It did not go
3590 beyond that very narrow right. It did not control any more generally how a
3591 work could be <span class="emphasis"><em>used</em></span>. Today the right includes a large
3592 collection of restrictions on the freedom of others: It grants the author
3593 the exclusive right to copy, the exclusive right to distribute, the
3594 exclusive right to perform, and so on.
3595 </p><p>
3596 So, for example, even if the copyright to Shakespeare's works were
3597 perpetual, all that would have meant under the original meaning of the term
3598 was that no one could reprint Shakespeare's work without the permission of
3599 the Shakespeare estate. It would not have controlled anything, for example,
3600 about how the work could be performed, whether the work could be translated,
3601 or whether Kenneth Branagh would be allowed to make his films. The
3602 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy-right</span>&#8221;</span> was only an exclusive right to print&#8212;no
3603 less, of course, but also no more.
3604 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2882959"></a><p>
3605 Even that limited right was viewed with skepticism by the British.  They had
3606 had a long and ugly experience with <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">exclusive rights,</span>&#8221;</span>
3607 especially <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">exclusive rights</span>&#8221;</span> granted by the Crown. The English
3608 had fought a civil war in part about the Crown's practice of handing out
3609 monopolies&#8212;especially monopolies for works that already existed. King
3610 Henry VIII granted a patent to print the Bible and a monopoly to Darcy to
3611 print playing cards. The English Parliament began to fight back against this
3612 power of the Crown. In 1656, it passed the Statute of Monopolies, limiting
3613 monopolies to patents for new inventions. And by 1710, Parliament was eager
3614 to deal with the growing monopoly in publishing.
3615 </p><p>
3616 Thus the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy-right,</span>&#8221;</span> when viewed as a monopoly right, was
3617 naturally viewed as a right that should be limited. (However convincing the
3618 claim that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">it's my property, and I should have it forever,</span>&#8221;</span>
3619 try sounding convincing when uttering, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">It's my monopoly, and I should
3620 have it forever.</span>&#8221;</span>) The state would protect the exclusive right, but
3621 only so long as it benefited society. The British saw the harms from
3622 specialinterest favors; they passed a law to stop them.
3623 </p><p>
3624 Second, about booksellers. It wasn't just that the copyright was a
3625 monopoly. It was also that it was a monopoly held by the booksellers.
3626 Booksellers sound quaint and harmless to us. They were not viewed as
3627 harmless in seventeenth-century England. Members of the Conger were
3628 increasingly seen as monopolists of the worst kind&#8212;tools of the
3629 Crown's repression, selling the liberty of England to guarantee themselves a
3630 monopoly profit. The attacks against these monopolists were harsh: Milton
3631 described them as <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">old patentees and monopolizers in the trade of
3632 book-selling</span>&#8221;</span>; they were <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">men who do not therefore labour in an
3633 honest profession to which learning is indetted.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2883026" href="#ftn.id2883026" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
3634 </p><p>
3635 Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap,
3636 var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste
3637 Opplysningen viktigheten av utdannelse og kunnskap for alle. idéen om at
3638 kunnskap burde være gratis er et kjennetegn for tiden, og disse kraftige
3639 kommersielle interesser forstyrret denne idéen.
3640 </p><p>
3641 For å balansere denne makten, besluttet Parlamentet å øke konkurransen blant
3642 bokhandlerne, og den enkleste måten å gjøre det på, var å spre mengden av
3643 verdifulle bøker. Parlamentet begrenset derfor begrepet om opphavsrett, og
3644 garantert slik at verdifulle bøker ville bli frie for alle utgiver å
3645 publisere etter en begrenset periode. Slik ble det å gi eksisterende verk en
3646 periode på tjueen år et kompromiss for å bekjempe bokhandlernes
3647 makt. Begrensninger med dato var en indirekte måte å skape konkurranse
3648 mellom utgivere, og slik en skapelse og spredning av kultur.
3649 </p><p>
3650 Når 1731 (1710+21) kom, ble bokhandlerne engstelige. De så konsekvensene av
3651 mer konkurranse, og som alle konkurrenter, likte de det ikke. Først
3652 ignorerte bokhandlere ganske enkelt "Statute of Anne", og fortsatte å kreve
3653 en evigvarende rett til å kontrollere publiseringen. Men i 1735 og 1737 de
3654 prøvde å tvinge Parlamentet til å utvide periodene. Tjueen år var ikke nok,
3655 sa de; de trengte mer tid.
3656 </p><p>
3657 Parlamentet avslo kravene, Som en pamflett sa, i en vending som levere ennå
3658 idag,
3659 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3660 Jeg ser ingen grunn til å gi en utvidet perioden nå som ikke ville kunne gi
3661 utvidelser om igjen og om igjen, så fort de gamle utgår; så dersom dette
3662 lovforslaget blir vedtatt, vil effekten være: at et evig monopol blir skapt,
3663 et stort nederlag for handelen, et angrep mot kunnskapen, ingen fordel for
3664 forfatterne, men en stor avgift for folket; og alt dette kun for å øke
3665 bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<sup>[<a name="id2883103" href="#ftn.id2883103" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
3666 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3667 Having failed in Parliament, the publishers turned to the courts in a series
3668 of cases. Their argument was simple and direct: The Statute of Anne gave
3669 authors certain protections through positive law, but those protections were
3670 not intended as replacements for the common law.  Instead, they were
3671 intended simply to supplement the common law.  Under common law, it was
3672 already wrong to take another person's creative <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> and
3673 use it without his permission. The Statute of Anne, the booksellers argued,
3674 didn't change that. Therefore, just because the protections of the Statute
3675 of Anne expired, that didn't mean the protections of the common law expired:
3676 Under the common law they had the right to ban the publication of a book,
3677 even if its Statute of Anne copyright had expired. This, they argued, was
3678 the only way to protect authors.
3679 </p><p>
3680 This was a clever argument, and one that had the support of some of the
3681 leading jurists of the day. It also displayed extraordinary chutzpah.  Until
3682 then, as law professor Raymond Patterson has put it, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The publishers
3683 &#8230; had as much concern for authors as a cattle rancher has for
3684 cattle.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2881439" href="#ftn.id2881439" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> The bookseller didn't
3685 care squat for the rights of the author.  His concern was the monopoly
3686 profit that the author's work gave.
3687 </p><p>
3688 Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne
3689 kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id2883188" href="#ftn.id2883188" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
3690 </p><p>
3691 Donaldson was an outsider to the London Conger. He began his career in
3692 Edinburgh in 1750. The focus of his business was inexpensive reprints
3693 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">of standard works whose copyright term had expired,</span>&#8221;</span> at least
3694 under the Statute of Anne.<sup>[<a name="id2883210" href="#ftn.id2883210" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldson's
3695 publishing house prospered and became <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">something of a center for
3696 literary Scotsmen.</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">[A]mong them,</span>&#8221;</span> Professor Mark Rose
3697 writes, was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the young James Boswell who, together with his friend
3698 Andrew Erskine, published an anthology of contemporary Scottish poems with
3699 Donaldson.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2883240" href="#ftn.id2883240" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2883248"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2883255"></a>
3700 </p><p>
3701 When the London booksellers tried to shut down Donaldson's shop in Scotland,
3702 he responded by moving his shop to London, where he sold inexpensive
3703 editions <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">of the most popular English books, in defiance of the
3704 supposed common law right of Literary Property.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2883271" href="#ftn.id2883271" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> His books undercut the Conger prices by 30 to 50
3705 percent, and he rested his right to compete upon the ground that, under the
3706 Statute of Anne, the works he was selling had passed out of protection.
3707 </p><p>
3708 The London booksellers quickly brought suit to block <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span>
3709 like Donaldson's. A number of actions were successful against the
3710 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirates,</span>&#8221;</span> the most important early victory being
3711 <em class="citetitle">Millar</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Taylor</em>.
3712 </p><p>
3713 Millar was a bookseller who in 1729 had purchased the rights to James
3714 Thomson's poem <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Seasons.</span>&#8221;</span> Millar complied with the
3715 requirements of the Statute of Anne, and therefore received the full
3716 protection of the statute. After the term of copyright ended, Robert Taylor
3717 began printing a competing volume. Millar sued, claiming a perpetual common
3718 law right, the Statute of Anne notwithstanding.<sup>[<a name="id2883322" href="#ftn.id2883322" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
3719 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield2"></a><p>
3720 Astonishingly to modern lawyers, one of the greatest judges in English
3721 history, Lord Mansfield, agreed with the booksellers. Whatever protection
3722 the Statute of Anne gave booksellers, it did not, he held, extinguish any
3723 common law right. The question was whether the common law would protect the
3724 author against subsequent <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirates.</span>&#8221;</span> Mansfield's answer was
3725 yes: The common law would bar Taylor from reprinting Thomson's poem without
3726 Millar's permission. That common law rule thus effectively gave the
3727 booksellers a perpetual right to control the publication of any book
3728 assigned to them.
3729 </p><p>
3730
3731 Ser man på det som et spørsmål innen abstrakt jus - dersom man resonnere som
3732 om rettferdighet bare var logisk deduksjon fra de første bud - kunne
3733 Mansfields konklusjon gitt mening. Men den overså det Parlamentet hadde
3734 kjempet for i 1710: Hvordan man på best mulig vis kunne innskrenke
3735 utgivernes monopolmakt. Parlamentets strategi hadde vært å kjøpe fred
3736 gjennom å tilby en beskyttelsesperiode også for eksisterende verk, men
3737 perioden måtte være så kort at kulturen ble utsatt for konkurranse innen
3738 rimelig tid. Storbritannia skulle vokse fra den kontrollerte kulturen under
3739 kronen, inn i en fri og åpen kultur.
3740 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2883393"></a><p>
3741 Kampen for å forsvare "Statute of Anne"s begrensninger sluttet uansett ikke
3742 der, for nå kommer Donaldson.
3743 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2883408"></a><p>
3744 Millar døde kort tid etter sin seier. Boet hans solgte rettighetene over
3745 Thomsons dikt til et syndikat av utgivere, deriblant Thomas
3746 Beckett.<sup>[<a name="id2883422" href="#ftn.id2883422" class="footnote">109</a>]</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
3747 uautorisert utgave av Thomsons verk. Etter avgjørelsen i
3748 <em class="citetitle">Millar</em>-saken, gikk Beckett til sak mot
3749 Donaldson. Donaldson tok saken inn for Overhuset, som da fungerte som en
3750 slags høyesterett. I februar 1774 hadde dette organet muligheten til å tolke
3751 Parlamentets mening med utøpsdatoen fra seksti år før.
3752 </p><p>
3753 Rettssaken <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot
3754 <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> fikk en enorm oppmerksomhet i hele
3755 Storbritannia. Donaldsons advokater mente at selv om det før fantes en del
3756 rettigheter i sedvaneretten, så var disse fortrengt av "Statute of
3757 Anne". Etter at "Statute of Anne" var blitt vedtatt, skulle den eneste
3758 lovlige beskyttelse for trykkerett kom derfra. Og derfor, mente de, i tråd
3759 med vilkårene i "Statute of Anne", falle i det fri så fort
3760 beskyttelsesperioden var over.
3761 </p><p>
3762 The House of Lords was an odd institution. Legal questions were presented to
3763 the House and voted upon first by the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">law lords,</span>&#8221;</span> members of
3764 special legal distinction who functioned much like the Justices in our
3765 Supreme Court. Then, after the law lords voted, the House of Lords generally
3766 voted.
3767 </p><p>
3768
3769 Rapportene om juslordene stemmer er uenige. På enkelte punkter ser det ut
3770 som om evigvarende beskyttelse fikk flertall. Men det er ingen tvil om
3771 hvordan resten av Overhuset stemte. Med en majoritet på to mot en (22 mot
3772 11) stemte de ned forslaget om en evig beskyttelse. Uansett hvordan man
3773 hadde tolket sedvaneretten, var nå kopiretten begrenset til en periode, og
3774 etter denne ville verket falle i det fri.
3775 </p><p>
3776 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The public domain.</span>&#8221;</span> Before the case of
3777 <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em>, there
3778 was no clear idea of a public domain in England. Before 1774, there was a
3779 strong argument that common law copyrights were perpetual.  After 1774, the
3780 public domain was born. For the first time in Anglo-American history, the
3781 legal control over creative works expired, and the greatest works in English
3782 history&#8212;including those of Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Johnson, and
3783 Bunyan&#8212;were free of legal restraint.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2883512"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2883521"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2883527"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2883533"></a>
3784 <a class="indexterm" name="id2883539"></a>
3785 </p><p>
3786 It is hard for us to imagine, but this decision by the House of Lords fueled
3787 an extraordinarily popular and political reaction. In Scotland, where most
3788 of the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirate publishers</span>&#8221;</span> did their work, people celebrated
3789 the decision in the streets. As the <em class="citetitle">Edinburgh
3790 Advertiser</em> reported, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No private cause has so much
3791 engrossed the attention of the public, and none has been tried before the
3792 House of Lords in the decision of which so many individuals were
3793 interested.</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Great rejoicing in Edinburgh upon victory over
3794 literary property: bonfires and illuminations.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2883569" href="#ftn.id2883569" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
3795 </p><p>
3796 I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i
3797 motsatt retning. <em class="citetitle">Morning Chronicle</em> skrev:
3798 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3799 Gjennom denne avgjørelsen &#8230; er verdier til nesten 200 000 pund, som
3800 er blitt ærlig kjøpt gjennom allment salg, og som i går var eiendom, er nå
3801 redusert til ingenting. Bokselgerne i London og Westminster, mange av dem
3802 har solgt hus og eiendom for å kjøpe kopirettigheter, er med ett ruinerte,
3803 og mange som gjennom mange år har opparbeidet kompetanse for å brødfø
3804 familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="id2883156" href="#ftn.id2883156" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
3805 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3806
3807
3808 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Ruined</span>&#8221;</span> is a bit of an exaggeration. But it is not an
3809 exaggeration to say that the change was profound. The decision of the House
3810 of Lords meant that the booksellers could no longer control how culture in
3811 England would grow and develop. Culture in England was thereafter
3812 <span class="emphasis"><em>free</em></span>.  Not in the sense that copyrights would not be
3813 respected, for of course, for a limited time after a work was published, the
3814 bookseller had an exclusive right to control the publication of that
3815 book. And not in the sense that books could be stolen, for even after a
3816 copyright expired, you still had to buy the book from someone. But
3817 <span class="emphasis"><em>free</em></span> in the sense that the culture and its growth would
3818 no longer be controlled by a small group of publishers. As every free market
3819 does, this free market of free culture would grow as the consumers and
3820 producers chose. English culture would develop as the many English readers
3821 chose to let it develop&#8212; chose in the books they bought and wrote;
3822 chose in the memes they repeated and endorsed. Chose in a
3823 <span class="emphasis"><em>competitive context</em></span>, not a context in which the choices
3824 about what culture is available to people and how they get access to it are
3825 made by the few despite the wishes of the many.
3826 </p><p>
3827 Til sist, dette var en verden hvor Parlamentet var antimonopolistisk, og
3828 holdt stand mot utgivernes krav. I en verden hvor parlamentet er lett å
3829 påvirke, vil den frie kultur være mindre beskyttet.
3830 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882693" href="#id2882693" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
3831
3832
3833 Jacob Tonson is typically remembered for his associations with prominent
3834 eighteenth-century literary figures, especially John Dryden, and for his
3835 handsome <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">definitive editions</span>&#8221;</span> of classic works. In addition to
3836 <em class="citetitle">Romeo and Juliet</em>, he published an astonishing array
3837 of works that still remain at the heart of the English canon, including
3838 collected works of Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, John Milton, and John
3839 Dryden. See Keith Walker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Jacob Tonson, Bookseller,</span>&#8221;</span>
3840 <em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992): 424&#8211;31.
3841 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882720" href="#id2882720" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
3842
3843
3844 Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3845 Perspective</em> (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968),
3846 151&#8211;52.
3847 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882756" href="#id2882756" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
3848
3849 As Siva Vaidhyanathan nicely argues, it is erroneous to call this a
3850 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright law.</span>&#8221;</span> See Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
3851 Copywrongs</em>, 40.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2882767"></a>
3852 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883026" href="#id2883026" class="para">101</a>] </sup>
3853
3854
3855
3856 Philip Wittenberg, <em class="citetitle">The Protection and Marketing of Literary
3857 Property</em> (New York: J. Messner, Inc., 1937), 31.
3858 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883103" href="#id2883103" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
3859
3860
3861 A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending in the
3862 House of Commons, for making more effectual an Act in the Eighth Year of the
3863 Reign of Queen Anne, entitled, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by
3864 Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such
3865 Copies, during the Times therein mentioned (London, 1735), in Brief Amici
3866 Curiae of Tyler T. Ochoa et al., 8, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
3867 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618).
3868 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881439" href="#id2881439" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
3869
3870 Lyman Ray Patterson, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use,</span>&#8221;</span>
3871 <em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt Law Review</em> 40 (1987): 28. For a
3872 wonderfully compelling account, see Vaidhyanathan, 37&#8211;48.
3873 <a class="indexterm" name="id2882731"></a>
3874 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883188" href="#id2883188" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
3875
3876
3877 For a compelling account, see David Saunders, <em class="citetitle">Authorship and
3878 Copyright</em> (London: Routledge, 1992), 62&#8211;69.
3879 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883210" href="#id2883210" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
3880
3881 Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
3882 University Press, 1993), 92.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2883218"></a>
3883 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883240" href="#id2883240" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
3884
3885
3886 Ibid., 93.
3887 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883271" href="#id2883271" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
3888
3889
3890 Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3891 Perspective</em>, 167 (quoting Borwell).
3892 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883322" href="#id2883322" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
3893
3894
3895 Howard B. Abrams, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
3896 Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law
3897 Review</em> 29 (1983): 1152.
3898 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883422" href="#id2883422" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
3899
3900
3901 Ibid., 1156.
3902 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883569" href="#id2883569" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
3903
3904
3905 Rose, 97.
3906 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883156" href="#id2883156" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
3907
3908
3909 ibid.
3910 </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>
3911 Jon Else er en filmskaper. Han er mest kjent for sine dokumentarer og har på
3912 ypperlig vis klart å spre sin kunst. Han er også en lærer, som meg selv, og
3913 jeg misunner den lojaliteten og beundringen hans studenter har for ham. (Ved
3914 et uhell møtte jeg to av hans studenter i et middagsselskap og han var deres
3915 Gud.)
3916 </p><p>
3917 Else arbeidet med en dokumentarfilm hvor også jeg var involvert. I en pause
3918 så fortalte han meg om hvordan det kunne være å skape film i dagens Amerika.
3919 </p><p>
3920 I 1990 arbeidet Else med en dokumentar om Wagners Ring Cycle. Fokuset var på
3921 *stagehands* på San Francisco Opera. Stagehands er spesielt morsomt og
3922 fargerikt innslag i en opera. I løpet av forestillingen oppholder de seg
3923 blant publikum og på lysloftet. De er en perfekt kontrast til kunsten på
3924 scenen.<a class="indexterm" name="id2883707"></a>
3925 </p><p>
3926
3927 Under en forestilling, filmet Else noen stagehands som spilte *checkers*. I
3928 et hjørne av rommet stod det et fjernsynsapparat. På fjernsynet, mens
3929 forestillingen pågikk og operakompaniet spilte Wagner, gikk <em class="citetitle">The
3930 Simpsons</em>. Slik Else så det, så hjalp dette tegnefilm-innslaget
3931 med å fange det spesielle med scenen.
3932 </p><p>
3933 Years later, when he finally got funding to complete the film, Else
3934 attempted to clear the rights for those few seconds of <em class="citetitle">The
3935 Simpsons</em>.  For of course, those few seconds are copyrighted; and
3936 of course, to use copyrighted material you need the permission of the
3937 copyright owner, unless <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span> or some other privilege
3938 applies.
3939 </p><p>
3940 Else kontaktet <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-skaper Matt Groenings kontor
3941 for å få tillatelse. Og Groening gav ham det. Det var tross alt kun snakk om
3942 fire og et halvt sekund på et lite fjernsyn, bakerst i et hjørne av
3943 rommet. Hvordan kunne det skade? Groening var glad for å få ha det med i
3944 filmen, men han ba Else om å kontakte Gracie Films, firmaet som produserer
3945 programmet.<a class="indexterm" name="id2883765"></a>
3946 </p><p>
3947 Gracie Films sa også at det var greit, men de, slik som Groening, ønsket å
3948 være forsiktige, og ba Else om å kontakte Fox, konsernet som eide Gracie. Og
3949 Else kontaktet Fox og forklarte situasjonen; at det var snakk om et klipp i
3950 hjørnet i bakgrunnen i ett rom i filmen. Matt Groening hadde allerede gitt
3951 sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox.<a class="indexterm" name="id2883785"></a>
3952 </p><p>
3953 Then, as Else told me, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">two things happened. First we discovered
3954 &#8230; that Matt Groening doesn't own his own creation&#8212;or at least
3955 that someone [at Fox] believes he doesn't own his own creation.</span>&#8221;</span> And
3956 second, Fox <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">wanted ten thousand dollars as a licensing fee for us to
3957 use this four-point-five seconds of &#8230; entirely unsolicited
3958 <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> which was in the corner of the shot.</span>&#8221;</span>
3959 </p><p>
3960 Else was certain there was a mistake. He worked his way up to someone he
3961 thought was a vice president for licensing, Rebecca Herrera.  He explained
3962 to her, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">There must be some mistake here. &#8230; We're asking for
3963 your educational rate on this.</span>&#8221;</span> That was the educational rate,
3964 Herrera told Else. A day or so later, Else called again to confirm what he
3965 had been told.
3966 </p><p>
3967
3968 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I wanted to make sure I had my facts straight,</span>&#8221;</span> he told
3969 me. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Yes, you have your facts straight,</span>&#8221;</span> she said. It would
3970 cost $10,000 to use the clip of <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em> in the
3971 corner of a shot in a documentary film about Wagner's Ring Cycle. And then,
3972 astonishingly, Herrera told Else, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">And if you quote me, I'll turn you
3973 over to our attorneys.</span>&#8221;</span> As an assistant to Herrera told Else later
3974 on, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">They don't give a shit. They just want the money.</span>&#8221;</span>
3975 </p><p>
3976 Men Else hadde ikke penger til å kjøpe lisens for klippet. Så å gjenskape
3977 denne delen av virkeligheten, lå langt utenfor hans budsjett. Like før
3978 dokumentaren skulle slippes, redigerte Else inn et annet klipp på
3979 fjernsynet, et klipp fra en av hans andre filmer <em class="citetitle">The Day After
3980 Trinity</em> fra ti år tidligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id2883869"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2883875"></a>
3981 </p><p>
3982 Det er ingen tvil om at noen, enten det er er Matt Groening eller Fox, eier
3983 rettighetene til <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Rettighetene er deres
3984 eiendom. For å bruke beskyttet mteriale, kreves det ofte at men får
3985 tillatelse fra eieren eller eierne. Dersom Else ønsket å bruke
3986 <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em> til noe hvor loven gir verket
3987 beskyttelse, så må han innhente tillatelse fra eieren før han kan bruke
3988 det. Og i et fritt markes er det eieren som bestemmer hvor mye han/hun vil
3989 ta for hvilken som helst bruk (hvor loven krever tillatelse fra eier).
3990 </p><p>
3991 For example, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">public performance</span>&#8221;</span> is a use of <em class="citetitle">The
3992 Simpsons</em> that the copyright owner gets to control. If you take a
3993 selection of favorite episodes, rent a movie theater, and charge for tickets
3994 to come see <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">My Favorite <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>,</span>&#8221;</span> then
3995 you need to get permission from the copyright owner. And the copyright owner
3996 (rightly, in my view) can charge whatever she wants&#8212;$10 or
3997 $1,000,000. That's her right, as set by the law.
3998 </p><p>
3999 But when lawyers hear this story about Jon Else and Fox, their first thought
4000 is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2883935" href="#ftn.id2883935" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Else's use
4001 of just 4.5 seconds of an indirect shot of a <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>
4002 episode is clearly a fair use of <em class="citetitle">The
4003 Simpsons</em>&#8212;and fair use does not require the permission of
4004 anyone.
4005 </p><p>
4006
4007
4008 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
4009 his reply:
4010 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4011 The <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em> fiasco was for me a great lesson in the
4012 gulf between what lawyers find irrelevant in some abstract sense, and what
4013 is crushingly relevant in practice to those of us actually trying to make
4014 and broadcast documentaries. I never had any doubt that it was
4015 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">clearly fair use</span>&#8221;</span> in an absolute legal sense. But I couldn't
4016 rely on the concept in any concrete way. Here's why:
4017 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
4018
4019
4020 Before our films can be broadcast, the network requires that we buy Errors
4021 and Omissions insurance. The carriers require a detailed <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">visual cue
4022 sheet</span>&#8221;</span> listing the source and licensing status of each shot in the
4023 film. They take a dim view of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use,</span>&#8221;</span> and a claim of
4024 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span> can grind the application process to a halt.
4025 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4026
4027 Jeg skulle nok aldri ha bedt om Matt Groenings tillatelse. Men jeg visste
4028 (ihvertfall fra rykter) at Fox tidligere hadde brukt å jakte på og stoppe
4029 ulisensiert bruk av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>, på samme måte som
4030 George Lucas var veldig ivrig på å forfølge bruken av <em class="citetitle">Star
4031 Wars</em>. Så jeg bestemte meg for å følge boka, og trodde at vi
4032 kulle få til en gratis, i alle fall rimelig, avtale for fire sekunders bruk
4033 av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Som en dokumentarskaper, arbeidende
4034 på randen av utryddelse, var det siste jeg ønsket en juridisk strid, selv
4035 for å forsvare et prinsipp.
4036 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4037
4038
4039
4040 I did, in fact, speak with one of your colleagues at Stanford Law School
4041 &#8230; who confirmed that it was fair use. He also confirmed that Fox
4042 would <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">depose and litigate you to within an inch of your life,</span>&#8221;</span>
4043 regardless of the merits of my claim. He made clear that it would boil down
4044 to who had the bigger legal department and the deeper pockets, me or them.
4045
4046 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4047
4048
4049 Spørsmålet om "fair use" dukker om regel opp helt mot slutten av prosjektet,
4050 når vi nærmer oss siste frist og er tomme for penger.
4051 </p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><p>
4052 I teorien betyr "fair use" at du ikke trenger tillatelse. Teorien støtter
4053 derfor den frie kultur og arbeider mot tillatelseskulturen. Men i praksis
4054 fungerer "fair use" helt annerledes. Men de uklare linjene i lovverket, samt
4055 de fryktelige konsekvensene dersom man tar feil, gjør at mange kunstnere
4056 ikke stoler på "fair use". Loven har en svært god hensikt, men praksisen har
4057 ikke fulgt opp.
4058 </p><p>
4059 Dette eksempelet viser hvor langt denne loven har kommet fra sine
4060 syttenhundretalls røtter. Loven som skulle beskytte utgiverne mot
4061 urettferdig piratkonkurranse, hadde utviklet seg til et sverd som slo ned på
4062 _all_ bruk, transformativ* eller ikke.
4063 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883935" href="#id2883935" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
4064
4065
4066 For an excellent argument that such use is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use,</span>&#8221;</span> but that
4067 lawyers don't permit recognition that it is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use,</span>&#8221;</span> see
4068 Richard A. Posner with William F. Patry, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Fair Use and Statutory
4069 Reform in the Wake of <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em></span>&#8221;</span> (draft on file
4070 with author), University of Chicago Law School, 5 August 2003.
4071 </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="id2884130"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2884136"></a><p>
4072 In 1993, Alex Alben was a lawyer working at Starwave, Inc.  Starwave was an
4073 innovative company founded by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen to develop
4074 digital entertainment. Long before the Internet became popular, Starwave
4075 began investing in new technology for delivering entertainment in
4076 anticipation of the power of networks.
4077 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2884151"></a><p>
4078 Alben had a special interest in new technology. He was intrigued by the
4079 emerging market for CD-ROM technology&#8212;not to distribute film, but to
4080 do things with film that otherwise would be very difficult.  In 1993, he
4081 launched an initiative to develop a product to build retrospectives on the
4082 work of particular actors. The first actor chosen was Clint Eastwood. The
4083 idea was to showcase all of the work of Eastwood, with clips from his films
4084 and interviews with figures important to his career.
4085 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2884160"></a><p>
4086 At that time, Eastwood had made more than fifty films, as an actor and as a
4087 director. Alben began with a series of interviews with Eastwood, asking him
4088 about his career. Because Starwave produced those interviews, it was free to
4089 include them on the CD.
4090 </p><p>
4091
4092
4093 That alone would not have made a very interesting product, so Starwave
4094 wanted to add content from the movies in Eastwood's career: posters,
4095 scripts, and other material relating to the films Eastwood made. Most of his
4096 career was spent at Warner Brothers, and so it was relatively easy to get
4097 permission for that content.
4098 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2884194"></a><p>
4099 Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Our
4100 goal was that we were going to have a clip from every one of Eastwood's
4101 films,</span>&#8221;</span> Alben told me. It was here that the problem arose. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No
4102 one had ever really done this before,</span>&#8221;</span> Alben explained. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No one
4103 had ever tried to do this in the context of an artistic look at an actor's
4104 career.</span>&#8221;</span>
4105 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2884219"></a><p>
4106 Alben brought the idea to Michael Slade, the CEO of Starwave.  Slade asked,
4107 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Well, what will it take?</span>&#8221;</span>
4108 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2884233"></a><p>
4109 Alben replied, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Well, we're going to have to clear rights from
4110 everyone who appears in these films, and the music and everything else that
4111 we want to use in these film clips.</span>&#8221;</span> Slade said, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Great! Go for
4112 it.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2884250" href="#ftn.id2884250" class="footnote">113</a>]</sup>
4113 </p><p>
4114 The problem was that neither Alben nor Slade had any idea what clearing
4115 those rights would mean. Every actor in each of the films could have a claim
4116 to royalties for the reuse of that film. But CD- ROMs had not been specified
4117 in the contracts for the actors, so there was no clear way to know just what
4118 Starwave was to do.
4119 </p><p>
4120 I asked Alben how he dealt with the problem. With an obvious pride in his
4121 resourcefulness that obscured the obvious bizarreness of his tale, Alben
4122 recounted just what they did:
4123 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4124 So we very mechanically went about looking up the film clips.  We made some
4125 artistic decisions about what film clips to include&#8212;of course we were
4126 going to use the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Make my day</span>&#8221;</span> clip from <em class="citetitle">Dirty
4127 Harry</em>. But you then need to get the guy on the ground who's
4128 wiggling under the gun and you need to get his permission.  And then you
4129 have to decide what you are going to pay him.
4130 </p><p>
4131
4132
4133 We decided that it would be fair if we offered them the dayplayer rate for
4134 the right to reuse that performance. We're talking about a clip of less than
4135 a minute, but to reuse that performance in the CD-ROM the rate at the time
4136 was about $600.  So we had to identify the people&#8212;some of them were
4137 hard to identify because in Eastwood movies you can't tell who's the guy
4138 crashing through the glass&#8212;is it the actor or is it the stuntman? And
4139 then we just, we put together a team, my assistant and some others, and we
4140 just started calling people.
4141 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2884317"></a><p>
4142 Some actors were glad to help&#8212;Donald Sutherland, for example, followed
4143 up himself to be sure that the rights had been cleared.  Others were
4144 dumbfounded at their good fortune. Alben would ask, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hey, can I pay
4145 you $600 or maybe if you were in two films, you know, $1,200?</span>&#8221;</span> And
4146 they would say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Are you for real? Hey, I'd love to get
4147 $1,200.</span>&#8221;</span> And some of course were a bit difficult (estranged ex-wives,
4148 in particular). But eventually, Alben and his team had cleared the rights to
4149 this retrospective CD-ROM on Clint Eastwood's career.
4150 </p><p>
4151 It was one <span class="emphasis"><em>year</em></span> later&#8212;<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">and even then we
4152 weren't sure whether we were totally in the clear.</span>&#8221;</span>
4153 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2884363"></a><p>
4154 Alben is proud of his work. The project was the first of its kind and the
4155 only time he knew of that a team had undertaken such a massive project for
4156 the purpose of releasing a retrospective.
4157 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4158 Everyone thought it would be too hard. Everyone just threw up their hands
4159 and said, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Oh, my gosh, a film, it's so many copyrights, there's the
4160 music, there's the screenplay, there's the director, there's the
4161 actors.</span>&#8221;</span> But we just broke it down. We just put it into its
4162 constituent parts and said, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Okay, there's this many actors, this many
4163 directors, &#8230; this many musicians,</span>&#8221;</span> and we just went at it very
4164 systematically and cleared the rights.
4165 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4166
4167
4168
4169 And no doubt, the product itself was exceptionally good. Eastwood loved it,
4170 and it sold very well.
4171 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2884404"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2884410"></a><p>
4172 But I pressed Alben about how weird it seems that it would have to take a
4173 year's work simply to clear rights. No doubt Alben had done this
4174 efficiently, but as Peter Drucker has famously quipped, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">There is
4175 nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at
4176 all.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2884426" href="#ftn.id2884426" class="footnote">114</a>]</sup> Did it make sense, I asked
4177 Alben, that this is the way a new work has to be made?
4178 </p><p>
4179 For, as he acknowledged, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">very few &#8230; have the time and
4180 resources, and the will to do this,</span>&#8221;</span> and thus, very few such works
4181 would ever be made. Does it make sense, I asked him, from the standpoint of
4182 what anybody really thought they were ever giving rights for originally,
4183 that you would have to go clear rights for these kinds of clips?
4184 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4185 I don't think so. When an actor renders a performance in a movie, he or she
4186 gets paid very well. &#8230; And then when 30 seconds of that performance
4187 is used in a new product that is a retrospective of somebody's career, I
4188 don't think that that person &#8230; should be compensated for that.
4189 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4190 Or at least, is this <span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> the artist should be
4191 compensated? Would it make sense, I asked, for there to be some kind of
4192 statutory license that someone could pay and be free to make derivative use
4193 of clips like this? Did it really make sense that a follow-on creator would
4194 have to track down every artist, actor, director, musician, and get explicit
4195 permission from each? Wouldn't a lot more be created if the legal part of
4196 the creative process could be made to be more clean?
4197 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4198
4199 Absolutely. I think that if there were some fair-licensing
4200 mechanism&#8212;where you weren't subject to hold-ups and you weren't
4201 subject to estranged former spouses&#8212;you'd see a lot more of this work,
4202 because it wouldn't be so daunting to try to put together a retrospective of
4203 someone's career and meaningfully illustrate it with lots of media from that
4204 person's career. You'd build in a cost as the producer of one of these
4205 things. You'd build in a cost of paying X dollars to the talent that
4206 performed. But it would be a known cost. That's the thing that trips
4207 everybody up and makes this kind of product hard to get off the ground. If
4208 you knew I have a hundred minutes of film in this product and it's going to
4209 cost me X, then you build your budget around it, and you can get investments
4210 and everything else that you need to produce it. But if you say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Oh,
4211 I want a hundred minutes of something and I have no idea what it's going to
4212 cost me, and a certain number of people are going to hold me up for
4213 money,</span>&#8221;</span> then it becomes difficult to put one of these things
4214 together.
4215 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2884514"></a><p>
4216 Alben worked for a big company. His company was backed by some of the
4217 richest investors in the world. He therefore had authority and access that
4218 the average Web designer would not have. So if it took him a year, how long
4219 would it take someone else? And how much creativity is never made just
4220 because the costs of clearing the rights are so high? These costs are the
4221 burdens of a kind of regulation. Put on a Republican hat for a moment, and
4222 get angry for a bit. The government defines the scope of these rights, and
4223 the scope defined determines how much it's going to cost to negotiate
4224 them. (Remember the idea that land runs to the heavens, and imagine the
4225 pilot purchasing flythrough rights as he negotiates to fly from Los Angeles
4226 to San Francisco.)  These rights might well have once made sense; but as
4227 circumstances change, they make no sense at all. Or at least, a
4228 well-trained, regulationminimizing Republican should look at the rights and
4229 ask, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Does this still make sense?</span>&#8221;</span>
4230 </p><p>
4231
4232 I've seen the flash of recognition when people get this point, but only a
4233 few times. The first was at a conference of federal judges in California.
4234 The judges were gathered to discuss the emerging topic of cyber-law. I was
4235 asked to be on the panel. Harvey Saferstein, a well-respected lawyer from an
4236 L.A. firm, introduced the panel with a video that he and a friend, Robert
4237 Fairbank, had produced.
4238 </p><p>
4239 Videoen var en glimrende sammenstilling av filmer fra hver periode i det
4240 tjuende århundret, rammet inn rundt idéen om en episode i TV-serien
4241 <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em>. Utførelsen var perfekt, ned til seksti
4242 minutter stoppeklokken. Dommerne elsket enhver minutt av den.
4243 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2884576"></a><p>
4244 When the lights came up, I looked over to my copanelist, David Nimmer,
4245 perhaps the leading copyright scholar and practitioner in the nation. He had
4246 an astonished look on his face, as he peered across the room of over 250
4247 well-entertained judges. Taking an ominous tone, he began his talk with a
4248 question: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Do you know how many federal laws were just violated in
4249 this room?</span>&#8221;</span>
4250 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2884595"></a><p>
4251 For of course, the two brilliantly talented creators who made this film
4252 hadn't done what Alben did. They hadn't spent a year clearing the rights to
4253 these clips; technically, what they had done violated the law.  Of course,
4254 it wasn't as if they or anyone were going to be prosecuted for this
4255 violation (the presence of 250 judges and a gaggle of federal marshals
4256 notwithstanding). But Nimmer was making an important point: A year before
4257 anyone would have heard of the word Napster, and two years before another
4258 member of our panel, David Boies, would defend Napster before the Ninth
4259 Circuit Court of Appeals, Nimmer was trying to get the judges to see that
4260 the law would not be friendly to the capacities that this technology would
4261 enable. Technology means you can now do amazing things easily; but you
4262 couldn't easily do them legally.
4263 </p><p>
4264 We live in a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>&#8221;</span> culture enabled by
4265 technology. Anyone building a presentation knows the extraordinary freedom
4266 that the cut and paste architecture of the Internet created&#8212;in a
4267 second you can find just about any image you want; in another second, you
4268 can have it planted in your presentation.
4269 </p><p>
4270 But presentations are just a tiny beginning. Using the Internet and its
4271 archives, musicians are able to string together mixes of sound never before
4272 imagined; filmmakers are able to build movies out of clips on computers
4273 around the world. An extraordinary site in Sweden takes images of
4274 politicians and blends them with music to create biting political
4275 commentary. A site called Camp Chaos has produced some of the most biting
4276 criticism of the record industry that there is through the mixing of Flash!
4277 and music.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2884641"></a>
4278 </p><p>
4279 All of these creations are technically illegal. Even if the creators wanted
4280 to be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">legal,</span>&#8221;</span> the cost of complying with the law is impossibly
4281 high. Therefore, for the law-abiding sorts, a wealth of creativity is never
4282 made. And for that part that is made, if it doesn't follow the clearance
4283 rules, it doesn't get released.
4284 </p><p>
4285 To some, these stories suggest a solution: Let's alter the mix of rights so
4286 that people are free to build upon our culture. Free to add or mix as they
4287 see fit. We could even make this change without necessarily requiring that
4288 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,
4289 the system could simply make it easy for follow-on creators to compensate
4290 artists without requiring an army of lawyers to come along: a rule, for
4291 example, that says <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the royalty owed the copyright owner of an
4292 unregistered work for the derivative reuse of his work will be a flat 1
4293 percent of net revenues, to be held in escrow for the copyright
4294 owner.</span>&#8221;</span> Under this rule, the copyright owner could benefit from some
4295 royalty, but he would not have the benefit of a full property right (meaning
4296 the right to name his own price) unless he registers the work.
4297 </p><p>
4298 Who could possibly object to this? And what reason would there be for
4299 objecting? We're talking about work that is not now being made; which if
4300 made, under this plan, would produce new income for artists.  What reason
4301 would anyone have to oppose it?
4302 </p><p>
4303
4304 In February 2003, DreamWorks studios announced an agreement with Mike Myers,
4305 the comic genius of <em class="citetitle">Saturday Night Live</em> and Austin
4306 Powers. According to the announcement, Myers and Dream-Works would work
4307 together to form a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">unique filmmaking pact.</span>&#8221;</span> Under the
4308 agreement, DreamWorks <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">will acquire the rights to existing motion
4309 picture hits and classics, write new storylines and&#8212;with the use of
4310 stateof-the-art digital technology&#8212;insert Myers and other actors into
4311 the film, thereby creating an entirely new piece of entertainment.</span>&#8221;</span>
4312 </p><p>
4313 The announcement called this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">film sampling.</span>&#8221;</span> As Myers
4314 explained, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Film Sampling is an exciting way to put an original spin
4315 on existing films and allow audiences to see old movies in a new light. Rap
4316 artists have been doing this for years with music and now we are able to
4317 take that same concept and apply it to film.</span>&#8221;</span> Steven Spielberg is
4318 quoted as saying, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">If anyone can create a way to bring old films to
4319 new audiences, it is Mike.</span>&#8221;</span>
4320 </p><p>
4321 Spielberg is right. Film sampling by Myers will be brilliant. But if you
4322 don't think about it, you might miss the truly astonishing point about this
4323 announcement. As the vast majority of our film heritage remains under
4324 copyright, the real meaning of the DreamWorks announcement is just this: It
4325 is Mike Myers and only Mike Myers who is free to sample. Any general freedom
4326 to build upon the film archive of our culture, a freedom in other contexts
4327 presumed for us all, is now a privilege reserved for the funny and
4328 famous&#8212;and presumably rich.
4329 </p><p>
4330 This privilege becomes reserved for two sorts of reasons. The first
4331 continues the story of the last chapter: the vagueness of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair
4332 use.</span>&#8221;</span> Much of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sampling</span>&#8221;</span> should be considered
4333 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use.</span>&#8221;</span> But few would rely upon so weak a doctrine to
4334 create. That leads to the second reason that the privilege is reserved for
4335 the few: The costs of negotiating the legal rights for the creative reuse of
4336 content are astronomically high.  These costs mirror the costs with fair
4337 use: You either pay a lawyer to defend your fair use rights or pay a lawyer
4338 to track down permissions so you don't have to rely upon fair use
4339 rights. Either way, the creative process is a process of paying
4340 lawyers&#8212;again a privilege, or perhaps a curse, reserved for the few.
4341 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2884250" href="#id2884250" class="para">113</a>] </sup>
4342
4343 Technically, the rights that Alben had to clear were mainly those of
4344 publicity&#8212;rights an artist has to control the commercial exploitation
4345 of his image.  But these rights, too, burden <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Rip, Mix, Burn</span>&#8221;</span>
4346 creativity, as this chapter evinces.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2884262"></a>
4347 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2884426" href="#id2884426" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
4348
4349
4350 U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management,
4351 <em class="citetitle">Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services
4352 Acquisition</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #22</a>.
4353 </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>
4354 In April 1996, millions of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">bots</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;computer codes designed
4355 to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">spider,</span>&#8221;</span> or automatically search the Internet and copy
4356 content&#8212;began running across the Net. Page by page, these bots copied
4357 Internet-based information onto a small set of computers located in a
4358 basement in San Francisco's Presidio. Once the bots finished the whole of
4359 the Internet, they started again. Over and over again, once every two
4360 months, these bits of code took copies of the Internet and stored them.
4361 </p><p>
4362 By October 2001, the bots had collected more than five years of copies. And
4363 at a small announcement in Berkeley, California, the archive that these
4364 copies created, the Internet Archive, was opened to the world. Using a
4365 technology called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the Way Back Machine,</span>&#8221;</span> you could enter a Web
4366 page, and see all of its copies going back to 1996, as well as when those
4367 pages changed.
4368 </p><p>
4369 This is the thing about the Internet that Orwell would have appreciated.  In
4370 the dystopia described in <em class="citetitle">1984</em>, old newspapers were
4371 constantly updated to assure that the current view of the world, approved of
4372 by the government, was not contradicted by previous news reports.
4373 </p><p>
4374
4375
4376 Thousands of workers constantly reedited the past, meaning there was no way
4377 ever to know whether the story you were reading today was the story that was
4378 printed on the date published on the paper.
4379 </p><p>
4380 It's the same with the Internet. If you go to a Web page today, there's no
4381 way for you to know whether the content you are reading is the same as the
4382 content you read before. The page may seem the same, but the content could
4383 easily be different. The Internet is Orwell's library&#8212;constantly
4384 updated, without any reliable memory.
4385 </p><p>
4386 Until the Way Back Machine, at least. With the Way Back Machine, and the
4387 Internet Archive underlying it, you can see what the Internet was. You have
4388 the power to see what you remember. More importantly, perhaps, you also have
4389 the power to find what you don't remember and what others might prefer you
4390 forget.<sup>[<a name="id2884845" href="#ftn.id2884845" class="footnote">115</a>]</sup>
4391 </p><p>
4392 We take it for granted that we can go back to see what we remember
4393 reading. Think about newspapers. If you wanted to study the reaction of your
4394 hometown newspaper to the race riots in Watts in 1965, or to Bull Connor's
4395 water cannon in 1963, you could go to your public library and look at the
4396 newspapers. Those papers probably exist on microfiche. If you're lucky, they
4397 exist in paper, too. Either way, you are free, using a library, to go back
4398 and remember&#8212;not just what it is convenient to remember, but remember
4399 something close to the truth.
4400 </p><p>
4401 It is said that those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat
4402 it. That's not quite correct. We <span class="emphasis"><em>all</em></span> forget
4403 history. The key is whether we have a way to go back to rediscover what we
4404 forget. More directly, the key is whether an objective past can keep us
4405 honest. Libraries help do that, by collecting content and keeping it, for
4406 schoolchildren, for researchers, for grandma. A free society presumes this
4407 knowedge.
4408 </p><p>
4409
4410 The Internet was an exception to this presumption. Until the Internet
4411 Archive, there was no way to go back. The Internet was the quintessentially
4412 transitory medium. And yet, as it becomes more important in forming and
4413 reforming society, it becomes more and more important to maintain in some
4414 historical form. It's just bizarre to think that we have scads of archives
4415 of newspapers from tiny towns around the world, yet there is but one copy of
4416 the Internet&#8212;the one kept by the Internet Archive.
4417 </p><p>
4418 Brewster Kahle is the founder of the Internet Archive. He was a very
4419 successful Internet entrepreneur after he was a successful computer
4420 researcher.  In the 1990s, Kahle decided he had had enough business
4421 success.  It was time to become a different kind of success. So he launched
4422 a series of projects designed to archive human knowledge. The Internet
4423 Archive was just the first of the projects of this Andrew Carnegie of the
4424 Internet. By December of 2002, the archive had over 10 billion pages, and it
4425 was growing at about a billion pages a month.
4426 </p><p>
4427 The Way Back Machine is the largest archive of human knowledge in human
4428 history. At the end of 2002, it held <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">two hundred and thirty terabytes
4429 of material</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;and was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ten times larger than the Library
4430 of Congress.</span>&#8221;</span> And this was just the first of the archives that Kahle
4431 set out to build. In addition to the Internet Archive, Kahle has been
4432 constructing the Television Archive. Television, it turns out, is even more
4433 ephemeral than the Internet. While much of twentieth-century culture was
4434 constructed through television, only a tiny proportion of that culture is
4435 available for anyone to see today. Three hours of news are recorded each
4436 evening by Vanderbilt University&#8212;thanks to a specific exemption in the
4437 copyright law. That content is indexed, and is available to scholars for a
4438 very low fee. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But other than that, [television] is almost
4439 unavailable,</span>&#8221;</span> Kahle told me. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">If you were Barbara Walters you
4440 could get access to [the archives], but if you are just a graduate
4441 student?</span>&#8221;</span> As Kahle put it,
4442 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2884966"></a><p>
4443
4444 Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown? Remember
4445 that back and forth surreal experience of a politician interacting with a
4446 fictional television character? If you were a graduate student wanting to
4447 study that, and you wanted to get those original back and forth exchanges
4448 between the two, the <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em> episode that came out
4449 after it &#8230; it would be almost impossible. &#8230; Those materials
4450 are almost unfindable. &#8230;
4451 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4452 Why is that? Why is it that the part of our culture that is recorded in
4453 newspapers remains perpetually accessible, while the part that is recorded
4454 on videotape is not? How is it that we've created a world where researchers
4455 trying to understand the effect of media on nineteenthcentury America will
4456 have an easier time than researchers trying to understand the effect of
4457 media on twentieth-century America?
4458 </p><p>
4459 In part, this is because of the law. Early in American copyright law,
4460 copyright owners were required to deposit copies of their work in
4461 libraries.  These copies were intended both to facilitate the spread of
4462 knowledge and to assure that a copy of the work would be around once the
4463 copyright expired, so that others might access and copy the work.
4464 </p><p>
4465 These rules applied to film as well. But in 1915, the Library of Congress
4466 made an exception for film. Film could be copyrighted so long as such
4467 deposits were made. But the filmmaker was then allowed to borrow back the
4468 deposits&#8212;for an unlimited time at no cost. In 1915 alone, there were
4469 more than 5,475 films deposited and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">borrowed back.</span>&#8221;</span> Thus, when
4470 the copyrights to films expire, there is no copy held by any library. The
4471 copy exists&#8212;if it exists at all&#8212;in the library archive of the
4472 film company.<sup>[<a name="id2885014" href="#ftn.id2885014" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
4473 </p><p>
4474 The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts were
4475 originally not copyrighted&#8212;there was no way to capture the broadcasts,
4476 so there was no fear of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">theft.</span>&#8221;</span> But as technology enabled
4477 capturing, broadcasters relied increasingly upon the law. The law required
4478 they make a copy of each broadcast for the work to be
4479 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyrighted.</span>&#8221;</span> But those copies were simply kept by the
4480 broadcasters. No library had any right to them; the government didn't demand
4481 them.  The content of this part of American culture is practically invisible
4482 to anyone who would look.
4483 </p><p>
4484
4485 Kahle was eager to correct this. Before September 11, 2001, he and his
4486 allies had started capturing television. They selected twenty stations from
4487 around the world and hit the Record button. After September 11, Kahle,
4488 working with dozens of others, selected twenty stations from around the
4489 world and, beginning October 11, 2001, made their coverage during the week
4490 of September 11 available free on-line.  Anyone could see how news reports
4491 from around the world covered the events of that day.
4492 </p><p>
4493 Kahle had the same idea with film. Working with Rick Prelinger, whose
4494 archive of film includes close to 45,000 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ephemeral films</span>&#8221;</span>
4495 (meaning films other than Hollywood movies, films that were never
4496 copyrighted), Kahle established the Movie Archive. Prelinger let Kahle
4497 digitize 1,300 films in this archive and post those films on the Internet to
4498 be downloaded for free. Prelinger's is a for-profit company. It sells copies
4499 of these films as stock footage. What he has discovered is that after he
4500 made a significant chunk available for free, his stock footage sales went up
4501 dramatically. People could easily find the material they wanted to use. Some
4502 downloaded that material and made films on their own. Others purchased
4503 copies to enable other films to be made.  Either way, the archive enabled
4504 access to this important part of our culture.  Want to see a copy of the
4505 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Duck and Cover</span>&#8221;</span> film that instructed children how to save
4506 themselves in the middle of nuclear attack? Go to archive.org, and you can
4507 download the film in a few minutes&#8212;for free.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2885050"></a>
4508 </p><p>
4509 Here again, Kahle is providing access to a part of our culture that we
4510 otherwise could not get easily, if at all. It is yet another part of what
4511 defines the twentieth century that we have lost to history. The law doesn't
4512 require these copies to be kept by anyone, or to be deposited in an archive
4513 by anyone. Therefore, there is no simple way to find them.
4514 </p><p>
4515 The key here is access, not price. Kahle wants to enable free access to this
4516 content, but he also wants to enable others to sell access to it. His aim is
4517 to ensure competition in access to this important part of our culture.  Not
4518 during the commercial life of a bit of creative property, but during a
4519 second life that all creative property has&#8212;a noncommercial life.
4520 </p><p>
4521
4522 For here is an idea that we should more clearly recognize. Every bit of
4523 creative property goes through different <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lives.</span>&#8221;</span> In its first
4524 life, if the creator is lucky, the content is sold. In such cases the
4525 commercial market is successful for the creator. The vast majority of
4526 creative property doesn't enjoy such success, but some clearly does. For
4527 that content, commercial life is extremely important. Without this
4528 commercial market, there would be, many argue, much less creativity.
4529 </p><p>
4530 After the commercial life of creative property has ended, our tradition has
4531 always supported a second life as well. A newspaper delivers the news every
4532 day to the doorsteps of America. The very next day, it is used to wrap fish
4533 or to fill boxes with fragile gifts or to build an archive of knowledge
4534 about our history. In this second life, the content can continue to inform
4535 even if that information is no longer sold.
4536 </p><p>
4537 The same has always been true about books. A book goes out of print very
4538 quickly (the average today is after about a year<sup>[<a name="id2885165" href="#ftn.id2885165" class="footnote">117</a>]</sup>). After it is out of print, it can be sold in used book stores
4539 without the copyright owner getting anything and stored in libraries, where
4540 many get to read the book, also for free. Used book stores and libraries are
4541 thus the second life of a book. That second life is extremely important to
4542 the spread and stability of culture.
4543 </p><p>
4544 Yet increasingly, any assumption about a stable second life for creative
4545 property does not hold true with the most important components of popular
4546 culture in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. For
4547 these&#8212;television, movies, music, radio, the Internet&#8212;there is no
4548 guarantee of a second life. For these sorts of culture, it is as if we've
4549 replaced libraries with Barnes &amp; Noble superstores. With this culture,
4550 what's accessible is nothing but what a certain limited market demands.
4551 Beyond that, culture disappears.
4552 </p><p>
4553
4554 For most of the twentieth century, it was economics that made this so. It
4555 would have been insanely expensive to collect and make accessible all
4556 television and film and music: The cost of analog copies is extraordinarily
4557 high. So even though the law in principle would have restricted the ability
4558 of a Brewster Kahle to copy culture generally, the real restriction was
4559 economics. The market made it impossibly difficult to do anything about this
4560 ephemeral culture; the law had little practical effect.
4561 </p><p>
4562 Perhaps the single most important feature of the digital revolution is that
4563 for the first time since the Library of Alexandria, it is feasible to
4564 imagine constructing archives that hold all culture produced or distributed
4565 publicly. Technology makes it possible to imagine an archive of all books
4566 published, and increasingly makes it possible to imagine an archive of all
4567 moving images and sound.
4568 </p><p>
4569 The scale of this potential archive is something we've never imagined
4570 before. The Brewster Kahles of our history have dreamed about it; but we are
4571 for the first time at a point where that dream is possible. As Kahle
4572 describes,
4573 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4574 It looks like there's about two to three million recordings of music.
4575 Ever. There are about a hundred thousand theatrical releases of movies,
4576 &#8230; and about one to two million movies [distributed] during the
4577 twentieth century. There are about twenty-six million different titles of
4578 books. All of these would fit on computers that would fit in this room and
4579 be able to be afforded by a small company.  So we're at a turning point in
4580 our history. Universal access is the goal. And the opportunity of leading a
4581 different life, based on this, is &#8230; thrilling. It could be one of the
4582 things humankind would be most proud of. Up there with the Library of
4583 Alexandria, putting a man on the moon, and the invention of the printing
4584 press.
4585 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4586
4587 Kahle is not the only librarian. The Internet Archive is not the only
4588 archive. But Kahle and the Internet Archive suggest what the future of
4589 libraries or archives could be. <span class="emphasis"><em>When</em></span> the commercial
4590 life of creative property ends, I don't know. But it does. And whenever it
4591 does, Kahle and his archive hint at a world where this knowledge, and
4592 culture, remains perpetually available. Some will draw upon it to understand
4593 it; some to criticize it. Some will use it, as Walt Disney did, to re-create
4594 the past for the future. These technologies promise something that had
4595 become unimaginable for much of our past&#8212;a future
4596 <span class="emphasis"><em>for</em></span> our past. The technology of digital arts could make
4597 the dream of the Library of Alexandria real again.
4598 </p><p>
4599 Technologists have thus removed the economic costs of building such an
4600 archive. But lawyers' costs remain. For as much as we might like to call
4601 these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">archives,</span>&#8221;</span> as warm as the idea of a
4602 <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
4603 collected in these digital spaces is also someone's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property.</span>&#8221;</span>
4604 And the law of property restricts the freedoms that Kahle and others would
4605 exercise.
4606 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2884845" href="#id2884845" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
4607
4608
4609 The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the White House
4610 changes its own press releases without notice. A May 13, 2003, press release
4611 stated, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.</span>&#8221;</span> That was later
4612 changed, without notice, to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have
4613 Ended.</span>&#8221;</span> E-mail from Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
4614 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885014" href="#id2885014" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
4615
4616
4617 Doug Herrick, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
4618 the Library of Congress,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Film Library
4619 Quarterly</em> 13 nos. 2&#8211;3 (1980): 5; Anthony Slide,
4620 <em class="citetitle">Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film Preservation in the United
4621 States</em> ( Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland &amp; Co., 1992), 36.
4622 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885165" href="#id2885165" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
4623
4624
4625 Dave Barns, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord,
4626 Bar Owner Starts a New Chapter by Adopting Business,</span>&#8221;</span>
4627 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 5 September 1997, at Metro Lake
4628 1L. Of books published between 1927 and 1946, only 2.2 percent were in print
4629 in 2002. R. Anthony Reese, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of
4630 Digital Networks,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston College Law Review</em>
4631 44 (2003): 593 n. 51.
4632 </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>
4633 Jack Valenti has been the president of the Motion Picture Association of
4634 America since 1966. He first came to Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's
4635 administration&#8212;literally. The famous picture of Johnson's swearing-in
4636 on Air Force One after the assassination of President Kennedy has Valenti in
4637 the background. In his almost forty years of running the MPAA, Valenti has
4638 established himself as perhaps the most prominent and effective lobbyist in
4639 Washington.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2885280"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2885340"></a>
4640 </p><p>
4641 The MPAA is the American branch of the international Motion Picture
4642 Association. It was formed in 1922 as a trade association whose goal was to
4643 defend American movies against increasing domestic criticism.  The
4644 organization now represents not only filmmakers but producers and
4645 distributors of entertainment for television, video, and cable. Its board is
4646 made up of the chairmen and presidents of the seven major producers and
4647 distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States:
4648 Walt Disney, Sony Pictures Entertainment, MGM, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth
4649 Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2885359"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2885366"></a>
4650 <a class="indexterm" name="id2885372"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2885378"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2885384"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2885391"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2885397"></a>
4651 </p><p>
4652
4653
4654 Valenti is only the third president of the MPAA. No president before him has
4655 had as much influence over that organization, or over Washington. As a
4656 Texan, Valenti has mastered the single most important political skill of a
4657 Southerner&#8212;the ability to appear simple and slow while hiding a
4658 lightning-fast intellect. To this day, Valenti plays the simple, humble
4659 man. But this Harvard MBA, and author of four books, who finished high
4660 school at the age of fifteen and flew more than fifty combat missions in
4661 World War II, is no Mr. Smith. When Valenti went to Washington, he mastered
4662 the city in a quintessentially Washingtonian way.
4663 </p><p>
4664 In defending artistic liberty and the freedom of speech that our culture
4665 depends upon, the MPAA has done important good. In crafting the MPAA rating
4666 system, it has probably avoided a great deal of speech-regulating harm. But
4667 there is an aspect to the organization's mission that is both the most
4668 radical and the most important. This is the organization's effort,
4669 epitomized in Valenti's every act, to redefine the meaning of
4670 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property.</span>&#8221;</span>
4671 </p><p>
4672 In 1982, Valenti's testimony to Congress captured the strategy perfectly:
4673 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4674 No matter the lengthy arguments made, no matter the charges and the
4675 counter-charges, no matter the tumult and the shouting, reasonable men and
4676 women will keep returning to the fundamental issue, the central theme which
4677 animates this entire debate: <span class="emphasis"><em>Creative property owners must be
4678 accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other property
4679 owners in the nation</em></span>. That is the issue.  That is the
4680 question. And that is the rostrum on which this entire hearing and the
4681 debates to follow must rest.<sup>[<a name="id2885456" href="#ftn.id2885456" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
4682 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4683
4684 The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's
4685 rhetoric, is brilliant and simple and brilliant because simple. The
4686 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">central theme</span>&#8221;</span> to which <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">reasonable men and
4687 women</span>&#8221;</span> will return is this: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Creative property owners must be
4688 accorded the same rights and protections resident in all other property
4689 owners in the nation.</span>&#8221;</span> There are no second-class citizens, Valenti
4690 might have continued. There should be no second-class property owners.
4691 </p><p>
4692 This claim has an obvious and powerful intuitive pull. It is stated with
4693 such clarity as to make the idea as obvious as the notion that we use
4694 elections to pick presidents. But in fact, there is no more extreme a claim
4695 made by <span class="emphasis"><em>anyone</em></span> who is serious in this debate than this
4696 claim of Valenti's. Jack Valenti, however sweet and however brilliant, is
4697 perhaps the nation's foremost extremist when it comes to the nature and
4698 scope of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property.</span>&#8221;</span> His views have
4699 <span class="emphasis"><em>no</em></span> reasonable connection to our actual legal tradition,
4700 even if the subtle pull of his Texan charm has slowly redefined that
4701 tradition, at least in Washington.
4702 </p><p>
4703 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>
4704 in a nerdy and precise sense that lawyers are trained to
4705 understand,<sup>[<a name="id2885524" href="#ftn.id2885524" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case,
4706 nor should it be, that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property owners</span>&#8221;</span> have been
4707 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other
4708 property owners.</span>&#8221;</span> Indeed, if creative property owners were given the
4709 same rights as all other property owners, that would effect a radical, and
4710 radically undesirable, change in our tradition.
4711 </p><p>
4712 Valenti knows this. But he speaks for an industry that cares squat for our
4713 tradition and the values it represents. He speaks for an industry that is
4714 instead fighting to restore the tradition that the British overturned in
4715 1710. In the world that Valenti's changes would create, a powerful few would
4716 exercise powerful control over how our creative culture would develop.
4717 </p><p>
4718
4719 I have two purposes in this chapter. The first is to convince you that,
4720 historically, Valenti's claim is absolutely wrong. The second is to convince
4721 you that it would be terribly wrong for us to reject our history.  We have
4722 always treated rights in creative property differently from the rights
4723 resident in all other property owners. They have never been the same. And
4724 they should never be the same, because, however counterintuitive this may
4725 seem, to make them the same would be to fundamentally weaken the opportunity
4726 for new creators to create.  Creativity depends upon the owners of
4727 creativity having less than perfect control.
4728 </p><p>
4729 Organizations such as the MPAA, whose board includes the most powerful of
4730 the old guard, have little interest, their rhetoric notwithstanding, in
4731 assuring that the new can displace them. No organization does. No person
4732 does. (Ask me about tenure, for example.)  But what's good for the MPAA is
4733 not necessarily good for America. A society that defends the ideals of free
4734 culture must preserve precisely the opportunity for new creativity to
4735 threaten the old.  To get just a hint that there is something fundamentally
4736 wrong in Valenti's argument, we need look no further than the United States
4737 Constitution itself.
4738 </p><p>
4739 The framers of our Constitution loved <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property.</span>&#8221;</span> Indeed, so
4740 strongly did they love property that they built into the Constitution an
4741 important requirement. If the government takes your property&#8212;if it
4742 condemns your house, or acquires a slice of land from your farm&#8212;it is
4743 required, under the Fifth Amendment's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Takings Clause,</span>&#8221;</span> to pay
4744 you <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">just compensation</span>&#8221;</span> for that taking. The Constitution thus
4745 guarantees that property is, in a certain sense, sacred. It cannot
4746 <span class="emphasis"><em>ever</em></span> be taken from the property owner unless the
4747 government pays for the privilege.
4748 </p><p>
4749
4750 Yet the very same Constitution speaks very differently about what Valenti
4751 calls <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property.</span>&#8221;</span> In the clause granting Congress the
4752 power to create <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property,</span>&#8221;</span> the Constitution
4753 <span class="emphasis"><em>requires</em></span> that after a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited time,</span>&#8221;</span>
4754 Congress take back the rights that it has granted and set the
4755 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> free to the public domain. Yet when
4756 Congress does this, when the expiration of a copyright term
4757 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">takes</span>&#8221;</span> your copyright and turns it over to the public domain,
4758 Congress does not have any obligation to pay <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">just
4759 compensation</span>&#8221;</span> for this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taking.</span>&#8221;</span> Instead, the same
4760 Constitution that requires compensation for your land requires that you lose
4761 your <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> right without any compensation at all.
4762 </p><p>
4763 The Constitution thus on its face states that these two forms of property
4764 are not to be accorded the same rights. They are plainly to be treated
4765 differently. Valenti is therefore not just asking for a change in our
4766 tradition when he argues that creative-property owners should be accorded
4767 the same rights as every other property-right owner. He is effectively
4768 arguing for a change in our Constitution itself.
4769 </p><p>
4770 Arguing for a change in our Constitution is not necessarily wrong.  There
4771 was much in our original Constitution that was plainly wrong.  The
4772 Constitution of 1789 entrenched slavery; it left senators to be appointed
4773 rather than elected; it made it possible for the electoral college to
4774 produce a tie between the president and his own vice president (as it did in
4775 1800). The framers were no doubt extraordinary, but I would be the first to
4776 admit that they made big mistakes. We have since rejected some of those
4777 mistakes; no doubt there could be others that we should reject as well. So
4778 my argument is not simply that because Jefferson did it, we should, too.
4779 </p><p>
4780 Instead, my argument is that because Jefferson did it, we should at least
4781 try to understand <span class="emphasis"><em>why</em></span>. Why did the framers, fanatical
4782 property types that they were, reject the claim that creative property be
4783 given the same rights as all other property? Why did they require that for
4784 creative property there must be a public domain?
4785 </p><p>
4786 To answer this question, we need to get some perspective on the history of
4787 these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> rights, and the control that they
4788 enabled.  Once we see clearly how differently these rights have been
4789 defined, we will be in a better position to ask the question that should be
4790 at the core of this war: Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> creative property
4791 should be protected, but how. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> we will
4792 enforce the rights the law gives to creative-property owners, but what the
4793 particular mix of rights ought to be. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span>
4794 artists should be paid, but whether institutions designed to assure that
4795 artists get paid need also control how culture develops.
4796 </p><p>
4797
4798
4799
4800 To answer these questions, we need a more general way to talk about how
4801 property is protected. More precisely, we need a more general way than the
4802 narrow language of the law allows. In <em class="citetitle">Code and Other Laws of
4803 Cyberspace</em>, I used a simple model to capture this more general
4804 perspective. For any particular right or regulation, this model asks how
4805 four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the
4806 right or regulation. I represented it with this diagram:
4807 </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
4808 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>
4809 At the center of this picture is a regulated dot: the individual or group
4810 that is the target of regulation, or the holder of a right. (In each case
4811 throughout, we can describe this either as regulation or as a right.  For
4812 simplicity's sake, I will speak only of regulations.)  The ovals represent
4813 four ways in which the individual or group might be regulated&#8212; either
4814 constrained or, alternatively, enabled. Law is the most obvious constraint
4815 (to lawyers, at least). It constrains by threatening punishments after the
4816 fact if the rules set in advance are violated. So if, for example, you
4817 willfully infringe Madonna's copyright by copying a song from her latest CD
4818 and posting it on the Web, you can be punished with a $150,000 fine. The
4819 fine is an ex post punishment for violating an ex ante rule. It is imposed
4820 by the state.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2885412"></a>
4821 </p><p>
4822 Norms are a different kind of constraint. They, too, punish an individual
4823 for violating a rule. But the punishment of a norm is imposed by a
4824 community, not (or not only) by the state. There may be no law against
4825 spitting, but that doesn't mean you won't be punished if you spit on the
4826 ground while standing in line at a movie. The punishment might not be harsh,
4827 though depending upon the community, it could easily be more harsh than many
4828 of the punishments imposed by the state. The mark of the difference is not
4829 the severity of the rule, but the source of the enforcement.
4830 </p><p>
4831 The market is a third type of constraint. Its constraint is effected through
4832 conditions: You can do X if you pay Y; you'll be paid M if you do N. These
4833 constraints are obviously not independent of law or norms&#8212;it is
4834 property law that defines what must be bought if it is to be taken legally;
4835 it is norms that say what is appropriately sold. But given a set of norms,
4836 and a background of property and contract law, the market imposes a
4837 simultaneous constraint upon how an individual or group might behave.
4838 </p><p>
4839 Finally, and for the moment, perhaps, most mysteriously,
4840 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">architecture</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;the physical world as one finds
4841 it&#8212;is a constraint on behavior.  A fallen bridge might constrain your
4842 ability to get across a river. Railroad tracks might constrain the ability
4843 of a community to integrate its social life. As with the market,
4844 architecture does not effect its constraint through ex post
4845 punishments. Instead, also as with the market, architecture effects its
4846 constraint through simultaneous conditions. These conditions are imposed not
4847 by courts enforcing contracts, or by police punishing theft, but by nature,
4848 by <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">architecture.</span>&#8221;</span> If a 500-pound boulder blocks your way, it
4849 is the law of gravity that enforces this constraint. If a $500 airplane
4850 ticket stands between you and a flight to New York, it is the market that
4851 enforces this constraint.
4852 </p><p>
4853
4854
4855
4856 So the first point about these four modalities of regulation is obvious:
4857 They interact. Restrictions imposed by one might be reinforced by
4858 another. Or restrictions imposed by one might be undermined by another.
4859 </p><p>
4860 The second point follows directly: If we want to understand the effective
4861 freedom that anyone has at a given moment to do any particular thing, we
4862 have to consider how these four modalities interact.  Whether or not there
4863 are other constraints (there may well be; my claim is not about
4864 comprehensiveness), these four are among the most significant, and any
4865 regulator (whether controlling or freeing)  must consider how these four in
4866 particular interact.
4867 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivespeed"></a><p>
4868 So, for example, consider the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">freedom</span>&#8221;</span> to drive a car at a
4869 high speed. That freedom is in part restricted by laws: speed limits that
4870 say how fast you can drive in particular places at particular times. It is
4871 in part restricted by architecture: speed bumps, for example, slow most
4872 rational drivers; governors in buses, as another example, set the maximum
4873 rate at which the driver can drive. The freedom is in part restricted by the
4874 market: Fuel efficiency drops as speed increases, thus the price of gasoline
4875 indirectly constrains speed. And finally, the norms of a community may or
4876 may not constrain the freedom to speed. Drive at 50 mph by a school in your
4877 own neighborhood and you're likely to be punished by the neighbors. The same
4878 norm wouldn't be as effective in a different town, or at night.
4879 </p><p>
4880
4881 The final point about this simple model should also be fairly clear: While
4882 these four modalities are analytically independent, law has a special role
4883 in affecting the three.<sup>[<a name="id2885904" href="#ftn.id2885904" class="footnote">120</a>]</sup> The law, in
4884 other words, sometimes operates to increase or decrease the constraint of a
4885 particular modality.  Thus, the law might be used to increase taxes on
4886 gasoline, so as to increase the incentives to drive more slowly. The law
4887 might be used to mandate more speed bumps, so as to increase the difficulty
4888 of driving rapidly. The law might be used to fund ads that stigmatize
4889 reckless driving. Or the law might be used to require that other laws be
4890 more strict&#8212;a federal requirement that states decrease the speed
4891 limit, for example&#8212;so as to decrease the attractiveness of fast
4892 driving.
4893 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2885927"></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>
4894 These constraints can thus change, and they can be changed. To understand
4895 the effective protection of liberty or protection of property at any
4896 particular moment, we must track these changes over time. A restriction
4897 imposed by one modality might be erased by another. A freedom enabled by one
4898 modality might be displaced by another.<sup>[<a name="id2885971" href="#ftn.id2885971" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
4899 </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>
4900 The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just how,
4901 Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress and the
4902 courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that rallying makes
4903 sense.
4904 </p><p>
4905 Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the Internet:
4906 </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>
4907
4908
4909 There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
4910 limits the ability to copy and share content, by imposing penalties on those
4911 who copy and share content. Those penalties are reinforced by technologies
4912 that make it hard to copy and share content (architecture) and expensive to
4913 copy and share content (market). Finally, those penalties are mitigated by
4914 norms we all recognize&#8212;kids, for example, taping other kids'
4915 records. These uses of copyrighted material may well be infringement, but
4916 the norms of our society (before the Internet, at least) had no problem with
4917 this form of infringement.
4918 </p><p>
4919 Enter the Internet, or, more precisely, technologies such as MP3s and p2p
4920 sharing. Now the constraint of architecture changes dramatically, as does
4921 the constraint of the market. And as both the market and architecture relax
4922 the regulation of copyright, norms pile on. The happy balance (for the
4923 warriors, at least) of life before the Internet becomes an effective state
4924 of anarchy after the Internet.
4925 </p><p>
4926
4927 Thus the sense of, and justification for, the warriors' response.
4928 Technology has changed, the warriors say, and the effect of this change,
4929 when ramified through the market and norms, is that a balance of protection
4930 for the copyright owners' rights has been lost. This is Iraq after the fall
4931 of Saddam, but this time no government is justifying the looting that
4932 results.
4933 </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>
4934 Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the
4935 warriors. Indeed, in a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">White Paper</span>&#8221;</span> prepared by the Commerce
4936 Department (one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in 1995, this
4937 mix of regulatory modalities had already been identified and the strategy to
4938 respond already mapped. In response to the changes the Internet had
4939 effected, the White Paper argued (1) Congress should strengthen intellectual
4940 property law, (2) businesses should adopt innovative marketing techniques,
4941 (3) technologists should push to develop code to protect copyrighted
4942 material, and (4) educators should educate kids to better protect copyright.
4943 </p><p>
4944
4945 This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed&#8212;if it was to
4946 preserve the particular balance that existed before the change induced by
4947 the Internet. And it's just what we should expect the content industry to
4948 push for. It is as American as apple pie to consider the happy life you have
4949 as an entitlement, and to look to the law to protect it if something comes
4950 along to change that happy life. Homeowners living in a flood plain have no
4951 hesitation appealing to the government to rebuild (and rebuild again) when a
4952 flood (architecture) wipes away their property (law). Farmers have no
4953 hesitation appealing to the government to bail them out when a virus
4954 (architecture) devastates their crop. Unions have no hesitation appealing to
4955 the government to bail them out when imports (market) wipe out the
4956 U.S. steel industry.
4957 </p><p>
4958 Thus, there's nothing wrong or surprising in the content industry's campaign
4959 to protect itself from the harmful consequences of a technological
4960 innovation. And I would be the last person to argue that the changing
4961 technology of the Internet has not had a profound effect on the content
4962 industry's way of doing business, or as John Seely Brown describes it, its
4963 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">architecture of revenue.</span>&#8221;</span>
4964 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2886192"></a><p>
4965 But just because a particular interest asks for government support, it
4966 doesn't follow that support should be granted. And just because technology
4967 has weakened a particular way of doing business, it doesn't follow that the
4968 government should intervene to support that old way of doing
4969 business. Kodak, for example, has lost perhaps as much as 20 percent of
4970 their traditional film market to the emerging technologies of digital
4971 cameras.<sup>[<a name="id2886207" href="#ftn.id2886207" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
4972 government should ban digital cameras just to support Kodak? Highways have
4973 weakened the freight business for railroads. Does anyone think we should ban
4974 trucks from roads <span class="emphasis"><em>for the purpose of</em></span> protecting the
4975 railroads? Closer to the subject of this book, remote channel changers have
4976 weakened the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stickiness</span>&#8221;</span> of television advertising (if a
4977 boring commercial comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf ), and
4978 it may well be that this change has weakened the television advertising
4979 market. But does anyone believe we should regulate remotes to reinforce
4980 commercial television? (Maybe by limiting them to function only once a
4981 second, or to switch to only ten channels within an hour?)
4982 </p><p>
4983 The obvious answer to these obviously rhetorical questions is no.  In a free
4984 society, with a free market, supported by free enterprise and free trade,
4985 the government's role is not to support one way of doing business against
4986 others. Its role is not to pick winners and protect them against loss. If
4987 the government did this generally, then we would never have any progress. As
4988 Microsoft chairman Bill Gates wrote in 1991, in a memo criticizing software
4989 patents, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">established companies have an interest in excluding future
4990 competitors.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2886269" href="#ftn.id2886269" class="footnote">123</a>]</sup> And relative to a
4991 startup, established companies also have the means. (Think RCA and FM
4992 radio.) A world in which competitors with new ideas must fight not only the
4993 market but also the government is a world in which competitors with new
4994 ideas will not succeed. It is a world of stasis and increasingly
4995 concentrated stagnation. It is the Soviet Union under Brezhnev.
4996 <a class="indexterm" name="id2886288"></a>
4997 </p><p>
4998 Thus, while it is understandable for industries threatened with new
4999 technologies that change the way they do business to look to the government
5000 for protection, it is the special duty of policy makers to guarantee that
5001 that protection not become a deterrent to progress. It is the duty of policy
5002 makers, in other words, to assure that the changes they create, in response
5003 to the request of those hurt by changing technology, are changes that
5004 preserve the incentives and opportunities for innovation and change.
5005 </p><p>
5006 In the context of laws regulating speech&#8212;which include, obviously,
5007 copyright law&#8212;that duty is even stronger. When the industry
5008 complaining about changing technologies is asking Congress to respond in a
5009 way that burdens speech and creativity, policy makers should be especially
5010 wary of the request. It is always a bad deal for the government to get into
5011 the business of regulating speech markets. The risks and dangers of that
5012 game are precisely why our framers created the First Amendment to our
5013 Constitution: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Congress shall make no law &#8230; abridging the
5014 freedom of speech.</span>&#8221;</span> So when Congress is being asked to pass laws that
5015 would <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">abridge</span>&#8221;</span> the freedom of speech, it should ask&#8212;
5016 carefully&#8212;whether such regulation is justified.
5017 </p><p>
5018
5019 My argument just now, however, has nothing to do with whether the changes
5020 that are being pushed by the copyright warriors are
5021 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">justified.</span>&#8221;</span> My argument is about their effect. For before we
5022 get to the question of justification, a hard question that depends a great
5023 deal upon your values, we should first ask whether we understand the effect
5024 of the changes the content industry wants.
5025 </p><p>
5026 Her kommer metaforen som vil forklare argumentet.
5027 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxddt"></a><p>
5028 In 1873, the chemical DDT was first synthesized. In 1948, Swiss chemist Paul
5029 Hermann Müller won the Nobel Prize for his work demonstrating the
5030 insecticidal properties of DDT. By the 1950s, the insecticide was widely
5031 used around the world to kill disease-carrying pests. It was also used to
5032 increase farm production.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2886384"></a>
5033 </p><p>
5034 No one doubts that killing disease-carrying pests or increasing crop
5035 production is a good thing. No one doubts that the work of Müller was
5036 important and valuable and probably saved lives, possibly millions.
5037 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2886401"></a><p>
5038 But in 1962, Rachel Carson published <em class="citetitle">Silent Spring</em>,
5039 which argued that DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having
5040 unintended environmental consequences. Birds were losing the ability to
5041 reproduce.  Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2886417"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2886423"></a>
5042 </p><p>
5043 No one set out to destroy the environment. Paul Müller certainly did not aim
5044 to harm any birds. But the effort to solve one set of problems produced
5045 another set which, in the view of some, was far worse than the problems that
5046 were originally attacked. Or more accurately, the problems DDT caused were
5047 worse than the problems it solved, at least when considering the other, more
5048 environmentally friendly ways to solve the problems that DDT was meant to
5049 solve.
5050 </p><p>
5051
5052 It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James Boyle
5053 appeals when he argues that we need an <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">environmentalism</span>&#8221;</span> for
5054 culture.<sup>[<a name="id2886455" href="#ftn.id2886455" class="footnote">124</a>]</sup> His point, and the point I
5055 want to develop in the balance of this chapter, is not that the aims of
5056 copyright are flawed. Or that authors should not be paid for their work. Or
5057 that music should be given away <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">for free.</span>&#8221;</span> The point is that
5058 some of the ways in which we might protect authors will have unintended
5059 consequences for the cultural environment, much like DDT had for the natural
5060 environment. And just as criticism of DDT is not an endorsement of malaria
5061 or an attack on farmers, so, too, is criticism of one particular set of
5062 regulations protecting copyright not an endorsement of anarchy or an attack
5063 on authors.  It is an environment of creativity that we seek, and we should
5064 be aware of our actions' effects on the environment.
5065 </p><p>
5066 My argument, in the balance of this chapter, tries to map exactly this
5067 effect. No doubt the technology of the Internet has had a dramatic effect on
5068 the ability of copyright owners to protect their content. But there should
5069 also be little doubt that when you add together the changes in copyright law
5070 over time, plus the change in technology that the Internet is undergoing
5071 just now, the net effect of these changes will not be only that copyrighted
5072 work is effectively protected. Also, and generally missed, the net effect of
5073 this massive increase in protection will be devastating to the environment
5074 for creativity.
5075 </p><p>
5076 In a line: To kill a gnat, we are spraying DDT with consequences for free
5077 culture that will be far more devastating than that this gnat will be lost.
5078 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2886506"></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>
5079 America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
5080 English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative
5081 property</span>&#8221;</span> rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English
5082 aim to avoid overly powerful publishers.
5083 </p><p>
5084 The power to establish <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span> rights is granted to
5085 Congress in a way that, for our Constitution, at least, is very odd. Article
5086 I, section 8, clause 8 of our Constitution states that:
5087 </p><p>
5088
5089 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
5090 by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
5091 to their respective Writings and Discoveries.  We can call this the
5092 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Progress Clause,</span>&#8221;</span> for notice what this clause does not say. It
5093 does not say Congress has the power to grant <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property
5094 rights.</span>&#8221;</span> It says that Congress has the power <span class="emphasis"><em>to promote
5095 progress</em></span>. The grant of power is its purpose, and its purpose is a
5096 public one, not the purpose of enriching publishers, nor even primarily the
5097 purpose of rewarding authors.
5098 </p><p>
5099 The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw in
5100 chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Kapittel 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">6</a>, the
5101 English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a few would not
5102 exercise disproportionate control over culture by exercising
5103 disproportionate control over publishing. We can assume the framers followed
5104 the English for a similar purpose. Indeed, unlike the English, the framers
5105 reinforced that objective, by requiring that copyrights extend <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">to
5106 Authors</span>&#8221;</span> only.
5107 </p><p>
5108 The design of the Progress Clause reflects something about the
5109 Constitution's design in general. To avoid a problem, the framers built
5110 structure. To prevent the concentrated power of publishers, they built a
5111 structure that kept copyrights away from publishers and kept them short. To
5112 prevent the concentrated power of a church, they banned the federal
5113 government from establishing a church. To prevent concentrating power in the
5114 federal government, they built structures to reinforce the power of the
5115 states&#8212;including the Senate, whose members were at the time selected
5116 by the states, and an electoral college, also selected by the states, to
5117 select the president. In each case, a <span class="emphasis"><em>structure</em></span> built
5118 checks and balances into the constitutional frame, structured to prevent
5119 otherwise inevitable concentrations of power.
5120 </p><p>
5121 I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call
5122 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond
5123 anything they ever considered. To begin to understand what they did, we need
5124 to put our <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> in context: We need to see how it has
5125 changed in the 210 years since they first struck its design.
5126 </p><p>
5127
5128 Some of these changes come from the law: some in light of changes in
5129 technology, and some in light of changes in technology given a particular
5130 concentration of market power. In terms of our model, we started here:
5131 </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>
5132 Vi kommer til å ende opp her:
5133 </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>
5134
5135 La meg forklare hvordan.
5136
5137 </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>
5138 When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it faced
5139 the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that the English
5140 had confronted in 1774. Many states had passed laws protecting creative
5141 property, and some believed that these laws simply supplemented common law
5142 rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="id2886686" href="#ftn.id2886686" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
5143 domain in the United States in 1790. If copyrights were protected by the
5144 common law, then there was no simple way to know whether a work published in
5145 the United States was controlled or free. Just as in England, this lingering
5146 uncertainty would make it hard for publishers to rely upon a public domain
5147 to reprint and distribute works.
5148 </p><p>
5149 That uncertainty ended after Congress passed legislation granting
5150 copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law, federal
5151 protections for copyrighted works displaced any state law protections.  Just
5152 as in England the Statute of Anne eventually meant that the copyrights for
5153 all English works expired, a federal statute meant that any state copyrights
5154 expired as well.
5155 </p><p>
5156 In 1790, Congress enacted the first copyright law. It created a federal
5157 copyright and secured that copyright for fourteen years. If the author was
5158 alive at the end of that fourteen years, then he could opt to renew the
5159 copyright for another fourteen years. If he did not renew the copyright, his
5160 work passed into the public domain.
5161 </p><p>
5162 Selv om det ble skapt mange verker i USA i de første 10 årene til
5163 republikken, så ble kun 5 prosent av verkene registrert under det føderale
5164 opphavsrettsregimet.  Av alle verker skapt i USA både før 1790 og fra 1790
5165 fram til 1800, så ble 95 prosent øyeblikkelig allemannseie (public
5166 domain). Resten ble allemannseie etter maksimalt 20 år, og som oftest etter
5167 14 år.<sup>[<a name="id2886754" href="#ftn.id2886754" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
5168 </p><p>
5169
5170 Dette fornyelsessystemet var en avgjørende del av det amerikanske systemet
5171 for opphavsrett.  Det sikret at maksimal vernetid i opphavsretten bare ble
5172 gitt til verker der det var ønsket. Etter den første perioden på fjorten år,
5173 hvis forfatteren ikke så verdien av å fornye sin opphavsrett, var det heller
5174 ikke verdt det for samfunnet å håndheve opphavsretten.
5175 </p><p>
5176 Fourteen years may not seem long to us, but for the vast majority of
5177 copyright owners at that time, it was long enough: Only a small minority of
5178 them renewed their copyright after fourteen years; the balance allowed their
5179 work to pass into the public domain.<sup>[<a name="id2886822" href="#ftn.id2886822" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
5180 </p><p>
5181 Even today, this structure would make sense. Most creative work has an
5182 actual commercial life of just a couple of years. Most books fall out of
5183 print after one year.<sup>[<a name="id2886857" href="#ftn.id2886857" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
5184 happens, the used books are traded free of copyright regulation. Thus the
5185 books are no longer <span class="emphasis"><em>effectively</em></span> controlled by
5186 copyright. The only practical commercial use of the books at that time is to
5187 sell the books as used books; that use&#8212;because it does not involve
5188 publication&#8212;is effectively free.
5189 </p><p>
5190 In the first hundred years of the Republic, the term of copyright was
5191 changed once. In 1831, the term was increased from a maximum of 28 years to
5192 a maximum of 42 by increasing the initial term of copyright from 14 years to
5193 28 years. In the next fifty years of the Republic, the term increased once
5194 again. In 1909, Congress extended the renewal term of 14 years to 28 years,
5195 setting a maximum term of 56 years.
5196 </p><p>
5197 Then, beginning in 1962, Congress started a practice that has defined
5198 copyright law since. Eleven times in the last forty years, Congress has
5199 extended the terms of existing copyrights; twice in those forty years,
5200 Congress extended the term of future copyrights. Initially, the extensions
5201 of existing copyrights were short, a mere one to two years.  In 1976,
5202 Congress extended all existing copyrights by nineteen years.  And in 1998,
5203 in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Congress extended the term
5204 of existing and future copyrights by twenty years.
5205 </p><p>
5206
5207 The effect of these extensions is simply to toll, or delay, the passing of
5208 works into the public domain. This latest extension means that the public
5209 domain will have been tolled for thirty-nine out of fifty-five years, or 70
5210 percent of the time since 1962. Thus, in the twenty years after the Sonny
5211 Bono Act, while one million patents will pass into the public domain, zero
5212 copyrights will pass into the public domain by virtue of the expiration of a
5213 copyright term.
5214 </p><p>
5215 The effect of these extensions has been exacerbated by another,
5216 little-noticed change in the copyright law. Remember I said that the framers
5217 established a two-part copyright regime, requiring a copyright owner to
5218 renew his copyright after an initial term. The requirement of renewal meant
5219 that works that no longer needed copyright protection would pass more
5220 quickly into the public domain. The works remaining under protection would
5221 be those that had some continuing commercial value.
5222 </p><p>
5223 The United States abandoned this sensible system in 1976. For all works
5224 created after 1978, there was only one copyright term&#8212;the maximum
5225 term. For <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">natural</span>&#8221;</span> authors, that term was life plus fifty
5226 years. For corporations, the term was seventy-five years. Then, in 1992,
5227 Congress abandoned the renewal requirement for all works created before
5228 1978. All works still under copyright would be accorded the maximum term
5229 then available. After the Sonny Bono Act, that term was ninety-five years.
5230 </p><p>
5231 This change meant that American law no longer had an automatic way to assure
5232 that works that were no longer exploited passed into the public domain. And
5233 indeed, after these changes, it is unclear whether it is even possible to
5234 put works into the public domain. The public domain is orphaned by these
5235 changes in copyright law. Despite the requirement that terms be
5236 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited,</span>&#8221;</span> we have no evidence that anything will limit them.
5237 </p><p>
5238 The effect of these changes on the average duration of copyright is
5239 dramatic. In 1973, more than 85 percent of copyright owners failed to renew
5240 their copyright. That meant that the average term of copyright in 1973 was
5241 just 32.2 years. Because of the elimination of the renewal requirement, the
5242 average term of copyright is now the maximum term.  In thirty years, then,
5243 the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.<sup>[<a name="id2886959" href="#ftn.id2886959" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
5244 </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>
5245 The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">scope</span>&#8221;</span> of a copyright is the range of rights granted by
5246 the law.  The scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those
5247 changes are not necessarily bad. But we should understand the extent of the
5248 changes if we're to keep this debate in context.
5249 </p><p>
5250 In 1790, that scope was very narrow. Copyright covered only <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">maps,
5251 charts, and books.</span>&#8221;</span> That means it didn't cover, for example, music or
5252 architecture. More significantly, the right granted by a copyright gave the
5253 author the exclusive right to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">publish</span>&#8221;</span> copyrighted works. That
5254 means someone else violated the copyright only if he republished the work
5255 without the copyright owner's permission. Finally, the right granted by a
5256 copyright was an exclusive right to that particular book. The right did not
5257 extend to what lawyers call <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">derivative works.</span>&#8221;</span> It would not,
5258 therefore, interfere with the right of someone other than the author to
5259 translate a copyrighted book, or to adapt the story to a different form
5260 (such as a drama based on a published book).
5261 </p><p>
5262 This, too, has changed dramatically. While the contours of copyright today
5263 are extremely hard to describe simply, in general terms, the right covers
5264 practically any creative work that is reduced to a tangible form. It covers
5265 music as well as architecture, drama as well as computer programs. It gives
5266 the copyright owner of that creative work not only the exclusive right to
5267 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">publish</span>&#8221;</span> the work, but also the exclusive right of control
5268 over any <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copies</span>&#8221;</span> of that work. And most significant for our
5269 purposes here, the right gives the copyright owner control over not only his
5270 or her particular work, but also any <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">derivative work</span>&#8221;</span> that
5271 might grow out of the original work. In this way, the right covers more
5272 creative work, protects the creative work more broadly, and protects works
5273 that are based in a significant way on the initial creative work.
5274 </p><p>
5275
5276 At the same time that the scope of copyright has expanded, procedural
5277 limitations on the right have been relaxed. I've already described the
5278 complete removal of the renewal requirement in 1992. In addition to the
5279 renewal requirement, for most of the history of American copyright law,
5280 there was a requirement that a work be registered before it could receive
5281 the protection of a copyright. There was also a requirement that any
5282 copyrighted work be marked either with that famous © or the word
5283 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>. And for most of the history of American
5284 copyright law, there was a requirement that works be deposited with the
5285 government before a copyright could be secured.
5286 </p><p>
5287 The reason for the registration requirement was the sensible understanding
5288 that for most works, no copyright was required. Again, in the first ten
5289 years of the Republic, 95 percent of works eligible for copyright were never
5290 copyrighted. Thus, the rule reflected the norm: Most works apparently didn't
5291 need copyright, so registration narrowed the regulation of the law to the
5292 few that did. The same reasoning justified the requirement that a work be
5293 marked as copyrighted&#8212;that way it was easy to know whether a copyright
5294 was being claimed. The requirement that works be deposited was to assure
5295 that after the copyright expired, there would be a copy of the work
5296 somewhere so that it could be copied by others without locating the original
5297 author.
5298 </p><p>
5299 All of these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">formalities</span>&#8221;</span> were abolished in the American
5300 system when we decided to follow European copyright law. There is no
5301 requirement that you register a work to get a copyright; the copyright now
5302 is automatic; the copyright exists whether or not you mark your work with a
5303 ©; and the copyright exists whether or not you actually make a copy
5304 available for others to copy.
5305 </p><p>
5306 Vurder et praktisk eksempel for å forstå omfanget av disse forskjellene.
5307 </p><p>
5308 If, in 1790, you wrote a book and you were one of the 5 percent who actually
5309 copyrighted that book, then the copyright law protected you against another
5310 publisher's taking your book and republishing it without your
5311 permission. The aim of the act was to regulate publishers so as to prevent
5312 that kind of unfair competition. In 1790, there were 174 publishers in the
5313 United States.<sup>[<a name="id2887111" href="#ftn.id2887111" class="footnote">130</a>]</sup> The Copyright Act was
5314 thus a tiny regulation of a tiny proportion of a tiny part of the creative
5315 market in the United States&#8212;publishers.
5316 </p><p>
5317
5318
5319 The act left other creators totally unregulated. If I copied your poem by
5320 hand, over and over again, as a way to learn it by heart, my act was totally
5321 unregulated by the 1790 act. If I took your novel and made a play based upon
5322 it, or if I translated it or abridged it, none of those activities were
5323 regulated by the original copyright act. These creative activities remained
5324 free, while the activities of publishers were restrained.
5325 </p><p>
5326 Today the story is very different: If you write a book, your book is
5327 automatically protected. Indeed, not just your book. Every e-mail, every
5328 note to your spouse, every doodle, <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> creative act
5329 that's reduced to a tangible form&#8212;all of this is automatically
5330 copyrighted.  There is no need to register or mark your work. The protection
5331 follows the creation, not the steps you take to protect it.
5332 </p><p>
5333 That protection gives you the right (subject to a narrow range of fair use
5334 exceptions) to control how others copy the work, whether they copy it to
5335 republish it or to share an excerpt.
5336 </p><p>
5337 That much is the obvious part. Any system of copyright would control
5338 competing publishing. But there's a second part to the copyright of today
5339 that is not at all obvious. This is the protection of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">derivative
5340 rights.</span>&#8221;</span> If you write a book, no one can make a movie out of your
5341 book without permission. No one can translate it without permission.
5342 CliffsNotes can't make an abridgment unless permission is granted. All of
5343 these derivative uses of your original work are controlled by the copyright
5344 holder. The copyright, in other words, is now not just an exclusive right to
5345 your writings, but an exclusive right to your writings and a large
5346 proportion of the writings inspired by them.
5347 </p><p>
5348 It is this derivative right that would seem most bizarre to our framers,
5349 though it has become second nature to us. Initially, this expansion was
5350 created to deal with obvious evasions of a narrower copyright.  If I write a
5351 book, can you change one word and then claim a copyright in a new and
5352 different book? Obviously that would make a joke of the copyright, so the
5353 law was properly expanded to include those slight modifications as well as
5354 the verbatim original work.
5355 </p><p>
5356
5357 In preventing that joke, the law created an astonishing power within a free
5358 culture&#8212;at least, it's astonishing when you understand that the law
5359 applies not just to the commercial publisher but to anyone with a
5360 computer. I understand the wrong in duplicating and selling someone else's
5361 work. But whatever <span class="emphasis"><em>that</em></span> wrong is, transforming someone
5362 else's work is a different wrong. Some view transformation as no wrong at
5363 all&#8212;they believe that our law, as the framers penned it, should not
5364 protect derivative rights at all.<sup>[<a name="id2887198" href="#ftn.id2887198" class="footnote">131</a>]</sup>
5365 Whether or not you go that far, it seems plain that whatever wrong is
5366 involved is fundamentally different from the wrong of direct piracy.
5367 </p><p>
5368 Yet copyright law treats these two different wrongs in the same way. I can
5369 go to court and get an injunction against your pirating my book. I can go to
5370 court and get an injunction against your transformative use of my
5371 book.<sup>[<a name="id2887247" href="#ftn.id2887247" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
5372 creative work are treated the same.
5373 </p><p>
5374 This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should you be
5375 able to write a movie that takes my story and makes money from it without
5376 paying me or crediting me? Or if Disney creates a creature called
5377 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Mickey Mouse,</span>&#8221;</span> why should you be able to make Mickey Mouse
5378 toys and be the one to trade on the value that Disney originally created?
5379 </p><p>
5380 These are good arguments, and, in general, my point is not that the
5381 derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower: simply to
5382 make clear that this expansion is a significant change from the rights
5383 originally granted.
5384 </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>
5385 Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
5386 copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users, and
5387 authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making copies,
5388 and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id2887313" href="#ftn.id2887313" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
5389 </p><p>
5390
5391
5392 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copies.</span>&#8221;</span> That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for
5393 <span class="emphasis"><em>copy</em></span>right law to regulate. But as with Jack Valenti's
5394 argument at the start of this chapter, that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property</span>&#8221;</span>
5395 deserves the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">same rights</span>&#8221;</span> as all other property, it is the
5396 <span class="emphasis"><em>obvious</em></span> that we need to be most careful about. For
5397 while it may be obvious that in the world before the Internet, copies were
5398 the obvious trigger for copyright law, upon reflection, it should be obvious
5399 that in the world with the Internet, copies should <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span>
5400 be the trigger for copyright law. More precisely, they should not
5401 <span class="emphasis"><em>always</em></span> be the trigger for copyright law.
5402 </p><p>
5403 This is perhaps the central claim of this book, so let me take this very
5404 slowly so that the point is not easily missed. My claim is that the Internet
5405 should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which the law of
5406 copyright automatically applies,<sup>[<a name="id2887391" href="#ftn.id2887391" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
5407 because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never
5408 contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright
5409 law.
5410 </p><p>
5411 We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely empty
5412 circle.
5413 </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>
5414
5415
5416 Think about a book in real space, and imagine this circle to represent all
5417 its potential <span class="emphasis"><em>uses</em></span>. Most of these uses are unregulated
5418 by copyright law, because the uses don't create a copy. If you read a book,
5419 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you give someone the book,
5420 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you resell a book, that act
5421 is not regulated (copyright law expressly states that after the first sale
5422 of a book, the copyright owner can impose no further conditions on the
5423 disposition of the book). If you sleep on the book or use it to hold up a
5424 lamp or let your puppy chew it up, those acts are not regulated by copyright
5425 law, because those acts do not make a copy.
5426 </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>
5427 Obviously, however, some uses of a copyrighted book are regulated by
5428 copyright law. Republishing the book, for example, makes a copy. It is
5429 therefore regulated by copyright law. Indeed, this particular use stands at
5430 the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work. It is the
5431 paradigmatic use properly regulated by copyright regulation (see first
5432 diagram on next page).
5433 </p><p>
5434 Finally, there is a tiny sliver of otherwise regulated copying uses that
5435 remain unregulated because the law considers these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair uses.</span>&#8221;</span>
5436 </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
5437 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>
5438 These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law treats as
5439 unregulated because public policy demands that they remain unregulated.  You
5440 are free to quote from this book, even in a review that is quite negative,
5441 without my permission, even though that quoting makes a copy. That copy
5442 would ordinarily give the copyright owner the exclusive right to say whether
5443 the copy is allowed or not, but the law denies the owner any exclusive right
5444 over such <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair uses</span>&#8221;</span> for public policy (and possibly First
5445 Amendment) reasons.
5446 </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
5447 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>
5448
5449
5450 In real space, then, the possible uses of a book are divided into three
5451 sorts: (1) unregulated uses, (2) regulated uses, and (3) regulated uses that
5452 are nonetheless deemed <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair</span>&#8221;</span> regardless of the copyright
5453 owner's views.
5454 </p><p>
5455 Enter the Internet&#8212;a distributed, digital network where every use of a
5456 copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id2887322" href="#ftn.id2887322" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
5457 because of this single, arbitrary feature of the design of a digital
5458 network, the scope of category 1 changes dramatically. Uses that before were
5459 presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated. No longer is
5460 there a set of presumptively unregulated uses that define a freedom
5461 associated with a copyrighted work. Instead, each use is now subject to the
5462 copyright, because each use also makes a copy&#8212;category 1 gets sucked
5463 into category 2. And those who would defend the unregulated uses of
5464 copyrighted work must look exclusively to category 3, fair uses, to bear the
5465 burden of this shift.
5466 </p><p>
5467
5468 So let's be very specific to make this general point clear. Before the
5469 Internet, if you purchased a book and read it ten times, there would be no
5470 plausible <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>-related argument that the copyright
5471 owner could make to control that use of her book. Copyright law would have
5472 nothing to say about whether you read the book once, ten times, or every
5473 night before you went to bed. None of those instances of
5474 use&#8212;reading&#8212; could be regulated by copyright law because none of
5475 those uses produced a copy.
5476 </p><p>
5477 But the same book as an e-book is effectively governed by a different set of
5478 rules. Now if the copyright owner says you may read the book only once or
5479 only once a month, then <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright law</em></span> would aid the
5480 copyright owner in exercising this degree of control, because of the
5481 accidental feature of copyright law that triggers its application upon there
5482 being a copy. Now if you read the book ten times and the license says you
5483 may read it only five times, then whenever you read the book (or any portion
5484 of it) beyond the fifth time, you are making a copy of the book contrary to
5485 the copyright owner's wish.
5486 </p><p>
5487 There are some people who think this makes perfect sense. My aim just now is
5488 not to argue about whether it makes sense or not. My aim is only to make
5489 clear the change. Once you see this point, a few other points also become
5490 clear:
5491 </p><p>
5492 First, making category 1 disappear is not anything any policy maker ever
5493 intended. Congress did not think through the collapse of the presumptively
5494 unregulated uses of copyrighted works. There is no evidence at all that
5495 policy makers had this idea in mind when they allowed our policy here to
5496 shift. Unregulated uses were an important part of free culture before the
5497 Internet.
5498 </p><p>
5499 Second, this shift is especially troubling in the context of transformative
5500 uses of creative content. Again, we can all understand the wrong in
5501 commercial piracy. But the law now purports to regulate
5502 <span class="emphasis"><em>any</em></span> transformation you make of creative work using a
5503 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>
5504 become crimes. Tinkering with a story and releasing it to others exposes the
5505 tinkerer to at least a requirement of justification.  However troubling the
5506 expansion with respect to copying a particular work, it is extraordinarily
5507 troubling with respect to transformative uses of creative work.
5508 </p><p>
5509
5510 Third, this shift from category 1 to category 2 puts an extraordinary burden
5511 on category 3 (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span>) that fair use never before had to
5512 bear.  If a copyright owner now tried to control how many times I could read
5513 a book on-line, the natural response would be to argue that this is a
5514 violation of my fair use rights. But there has never been any litigation
5515 about whether I have a fair use right to read, because before the Internet,
5516 reading did not trigger the application of copyright law and hence the need
5517 for a fair use defense. The right to read was effectively protected before
5518 because reading was not regulated.
5519 </p><p>
5520 This point about fair use is totally ignored, even by advocates for free
5521 culture. We have been cornered into arguing that our rights depend upon fair
5522 use&#8212;never even addressing the earlier question about the expansion in
5523 effective regulation. A thin protection grounded in fair use makes sense
5524 when the vast majority of uses are <span class="emphasis"><em>unregulated</em></span>. But
5525 when everything becomes presumptively regulated, then the protections of
5526 fair use are not enough.
5527 </p><p>
5528 The case of Video Pipeline is a good example. Video Pipeline was in the
5529 business of making <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">trailer</span>&#8221;</span> advertisements for movies
5530 available to video stores. The video stores displayed the trailers as a way
5531 to sell videos. Video Pipeline got the trailers from the film distributors,
5532 put the trailers on tape, and sold the tapes to the retail stores.
5533 </p><p>
5534 The company did this for about fifteen years. Then, in 1997, it began to
5535 think about the Internet as another way to distribute these previews.  The
5536 idea was to expand their <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">selling by sampling</span>&#8221;</span> technique by
5537 giving on-line stores the same ability to enable <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">browsing.</span>&#8221;</span>
5538 Just as in a bookstore you can read a few pages of a book before you buy the
5539 book, so, too, you would be able to sample a bit from the movie on-line
5540 before you bought it.
5541 </p><p>
5542
5543 In 1998, Video Pipeline informed Disney and other film distributors that it
5544 intended to distribute the trailers through the Internet (rather than
5545 sending the tapes) to distributors of their videos. Two years later, Disney
5546 told Video Pipeline to stop. The owner of Video Pipeline asked Disney to
5547 talk about the matter&#8212;he had built a business on distributing this
5548 content as a way to help sell Disney films; he had customers who depended
5549 upon his delivering this content. Disney would agree to talk only if Video
5550 Pipeline stopped the distribution immediately.  Video Pipeline thought it
5551 was within their <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span> rights to distribute the clips as
5552 they had. So they filed a lawsuit to ask the court to declare that these
5553 rights were in fact their rights.
5554 </p><p>
5555 Disney countersued&#8212;for $100 million in damages. Those damages were
5556 predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">willfully
5557 infringed</span>&#8221;</span> on Disney's copyright. When a court makes a finding of
5558 willful infringement, it can award damages not on the basis of the actual
5559 harm to the copyright owner, but on the basis of an amount set in the
5560 statute. Because Video Pipeline had distributed seven hundred clips of
5561 Disney movies to enable video stores to sell copies of those movies, Disney
5562 was now suing Video Pipeline for $100 million.
5563 </p><p>
5564 Disney has the right to control its property, of course. But the video
5565 stores that were selling Disney's films also had some sort of right to be
5566 able to sell the films that they had bought from Disney. Disney's claim in
5567 court was that the stores were allowed to sell the films and they were
5568 permitted to list the titles of the films they were selling, but they were
5569 not allowed to show clips of the films as a way of selling them without
5570 Disney's permission.
5571 </p><p>
5572 Now, you might think this is a close case, and I think the courts would
5573 consider it a close case. My point here is to map the change that gives
5574 Disney this power. Before the Internet, Disney couldn't really control how
5575 people got access to their content. Once a video was in the marketplace, the
5576 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">first-sale doctrine</span>&#8221;</span> would free the seller to use the video as
5577 he wished, including showing portions of it in order to engender sales of
5578 the entire movie video. But with the Internet, it becomes possible for
5579 Disney to centralize control over access to this content. Because each use
5580 of the Internet produces a copy, use on the Internet becomes subject to the
5581 copyright owner's control. The technology expands the scope of effective
5582 control, because the technology builds a copy into every transaction.
5583 </p><p>
5584
5585
5586 No doubt, a potential is not yet an abuse, and so the potential for control
5587 is not yet the abuse of control. Barnes &amp; Noble has the right to say you
5588 can't touch a book in their store; property law gives them that right.  But
5589 the market effectively protects against that abuse. If Barnes &amp; Noble
5590 banned browsing, then consumers would choose other bookstores.  Competition
5591 protects against the extremes. And it may well be (my argument so far does
5592 not even question this) that competition would prevent any similar danger
5593 when it comes to copyright. Sure, publishers exercising the rights that
5594 authors have assigned to them might try to regulate how many times you read
5595 a book, or try to stop you from sharing the book with anyone. But in a
5596 competitive market such as the book market, the dangers of this happening
5597 are quite slight.
5598 </p><p>
5599 Again, my aim so far is simply to map the changes that this changed
5600 architecture enables. Enabling technology to enforce the control of
5601 copyright means that the control of copyright is no longer defined by
5602 balanced policy. The control of copyright is simply what private owners
5603 choose. In some contexts, at least, that fact is harmless. But in some
5604 contexts it is a recipe for disaster.
5605 </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>
5606 The disappearance of unregulated uses would be change enough, but a second
5607 important change brought about by the Internet magnifies its
5608 significance. This second change does not affect the reach of copyright
5609 regulation; it affects how such regulation is enforced.
5610 </p><p>
5611 In the world before digital technology, it was generally the law that
5612 controlled whether and how someone was regulated by copyright law.  The law,
5613 meaning a court, meaning a judge: In the end, it was a human, trained in the
5614 tradition of the law and cognizant of the balances that tradition embraced,
5615 who said whether and how the law would restrict your freedom.
5616 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2887878"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
5617 Det er en berømt historie om en kamp mellom Marx-brødrene (the Marx
5618 Brothers) og Warner Brothers.  Marx-brødrene planla å lage en parodi av
5619 <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>. Warner Brothers protesterte.  De skrev et
5620 ufint brev til Marx-brødrene og advarte dem om at det ville få seriøse
5621 juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.<sup>[<a name="id2887926" href="#ftn.id2887926" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
5622 </p><p>
5623 This led the Marx Brothers to respond in kind. They warned Warner Brothers
5624 that the Marx Brothers <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">were brothers long before you
5625 were.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2887949" href="#ftn.id2887949" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> The Marx Brothers
5626 therefore owned the word <em class="citetitle">brothers</em>, and if Warner
5627 Brothers insisted on trying to control <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>,
5628 then the Marx Brothers would insist on control over
5629 <em class="citetitle">brothers</em>.
5630 </p><p>
5631 Det var en absurd og hul trussel, selvfølgelig, fordi Warner Brothers, på
5632 samme måte som Marx-brødrene, visste at ingen domstol noensinne ville
5633 håndheve et slikt dumt krav. Denne ekstremismen var irrelevant for de ekte
5634 friheter som alle (inkludert Warner Brothers) nøt godt av.
5635 </p><p>
5636 On the Internet, however, there is no check on silly rules, because on the
5637 Internet, increasingly, rules are enforced not by a human but by a machine:
5638 Increasingly, the rules of copyright law, as interpreted by the copyright
5639 owner, get built into the technology that delivers copyrighted content. It
5640 is code, rather than law, that rules. And the problem with code regulations
5641 is that, unlike law, code has no shame. Code would not get the humor of the
5642 Marx Brothers. The consequence of that is not at all funny.
5643 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2888004"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2888012"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
5644 La oss se på livet til min Adobe eBook Reader.
5645 </p><p>
5646 En ebok er en bok levert i elektronisk form.  En Adobe eBook er ikke en bok
5647 som Adobe har publisert.  Adobe produserer kun programvaren som utgivere
5648 bruker å levere e-bøker.  Den bidrar med teknologien, og utgiveren leverer
5649 innholdet ved hjelp av teknologien.
5650 </p><p>
5651 On the next page is a picture of an old version of my Adobe eBook Reader.
5652 </p><p>
5653
5654 As you can see, I have a small collection of e-books within this e-book
5655 library. Some of these books reproduce content that is in the public domain:
5656 <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, for example, is in the public domain.
5657 Some of them reproduce content that is not in the public domain: My own book
5658 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> is not yet within the public
5659 domain.  Consider <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> first. If you click on
5660 my e-book copy of <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, you'll see a fancy
5661 cover, and then a button at the bottom called Permissions.
5662 </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>
5663 If you click on the Permissions button, you'll see a list of the permissions
5664 that the publisher purports to grant with this book.
5665 </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>
5666
5667
5668 According to my eBook Reader, I have the permission to copy to the clipboard
5669 of the computer ten text selections every ten days. (So far, I've copied no
5670 text to the clipboard.)  I also have the permission to print ten pages from
5671 the book every ten days. Lastly, I have the permission to use the Read Aloud
5672 button to hear <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> read aloud through the
5673 computer.
5674 </p><p>
5675 Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen):
5676 Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em>  <a class="indexterm" name="id2888137"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2888143"></a>
5677 </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>
5678 According to its permissions, no printing or copying is permitted at
5679 all. But fortunately, you can use the Read Aloud button to hear the book.
5680 </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>
5681 Finally (and most embarrassingly), here are the permissions for the original
5682 e-book version of my last book, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>:
5683 </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>
5684 Ingen kopiering, ingen utskrift, og våg ikke å prøve å lytte til denne
5685 boken!
5686 </p><p>
5687 Now, the Adobe eBook Reader calls these controls
5688 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">permissions</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212; as if the publisher has the power to
5689 control how you use these works.  For works under copyright, the copyright
5690 owner certainly does have the power&#8212;up to the limits of the copyright
5691 law. But for work not under copyright, there is no such copyright
5692 power.<sup>[<a name="id2888231" href="#ftn.id2888231" class="footnote">138</a>]</sup> When my e-book of
5693 <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> says I have the permission to copy only
5694 ten text selections into the memory every ten days, what that really means
5695 is that the eBook Reader has enabled the publisher to control how I use the
5696 book on my computer, far beyond the control that the law would enable.
5697 </p><p>
5698 The control comes instead from the code&#8212;from the technology within
5699 which the e-book <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lives.</span>&#8221;</span> Though the e-book says that these are
5700 permissions, they are not the sort of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">permissions</span>&#8221;</span> that most
5701 of us deal with. When a teenager gets <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">permission</span>&#8221;</span> to stay out
5702 till midnight, she knows (unless she's Cinderella) that she can stay out
5703 till 2 A.M., but will suffer a punishment if she's caught. But when the
5704 Adobe eBook Reader says I have the permission to make ten copies of the text
5705 into the computer's memory, that means that after I've made ten copies, the
5706 computer will not make any more. The same with the printing restrictions:
5707 After ten pages, the eBook Reader will not print any more pages.  It's the
5708 same with the silly restriction that says that you can't use the Read Aloud
5709 button to read my book aloud&#8212;it's not that the company will sue you if
5710 you do; instead, if you push the Read Aloud button with my book, the machine
5711 simply won't read aloud.
5712 </p><p>
5713
5714 These are <span class="emphasis"><em>controls</em></span>, not permissions. Imagine a world
5715 where the Marx Brothers sold word processing software that, when you tried
5716 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
5717 the sentence.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2888304"></a>
5718 </p><p>
5719 This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright
5720 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> as copyright <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span>. The
5721 controls over access to content will not be controls that are ratified by
5722 courts; the controls over access to content will be controls that are coded
5723 by programmers. And whereas the controls that are built into the law are
5724 always to be checked by a judge, the controls that are built into the
5725 technology have no similar built-in check.
5726 </p><p>
5727 How significant is this? Isn't it always possible to get around the controls
5728 built into the technology? Software used to be sold with technologies that
5729 limited the ability of users to copy the software, but those were trivial
5730 protections to defeat. Why won't it be trivial to defeat these protections
5731 as well?
5732 </p><p>
5733 We've only scratched the surface of this story. Return to the Adobe eBook
5734 Reader.
5735 </p><p>
5736 Early in the life of the Adobe eBook Reader, Adobe suffered a public
5737 relations nightmare. Among the books that you could download for free on the
5738 Adobe site was a copy of <em class="citetitle">Alice's Adventures in
5739 Wonderland</em>.  This wonderful book is in the public domain. Yet
5740 when you clicked on Permissions for that book, you got the following report:
5741 <a class="indexterm" name="id2888354"></a>
5742 </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>
5743 Here was a public domain children's book that you were not allowed to copy,
5744 not allowed to lend, not allowed to give, and, as the
5745 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">permissions</span>&#8221;</span> indicated, not allowed to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">read
5746 aloud</span>&#8221;</span>!
5747 </p><p>
5748 The public relations nightmare attached to that final permission.  For the
5749 text did not say that you were not permitted to use the Read Aloud button;
5750 it said you did not have the permission to read the book aloud. That led
5751 some people to think that Adobe was restricting the right of parents, for
5752 example, to read the book to their children, which seemed, to say the least,
5753 absurd.
5754 </p><p>
5755 Adobe responded quickly that it was absurd to think that it was trying to
5756 restrict the right to read a book aloud. Obviously it was only restricting
5757 the ability to use the Read Aloud button to have the book read aloud. But
5758 the question Adobe never did answer is this: Would Adobe thus agree that a
5759 consumer was free to use software to hack around the restrictions built into
5760 the eBook Reader? If some company (call it Elcomsoft) developed a program to
5761 disable the technological protection built into an Adobe eBook so that a
5762 blind person, say, could use a computer to read the book aloud, would Adobe
5763 agree that such a use of an eBook Reader was fair? Adobe didn't answer
5764 because the answer, however absurd it might seem, is no.
5765 </p><p>
5766 The point is not to blame Adobe. Indeed, Adobe is among the most innovative
5767 companies developing strategies to balance open access to content with
5768 incentives for companies to innovate. But Adobe's technology enables
5769 control, and Adobe has an incentive to defend this control.  That incentive
5770 is understandable, yet what it creates is often crazy.
5771 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2888430"></a><p>
5772 To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite story
5773 of mine that makes the same point.
5774 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo1"></a><p>
5775 Consider the robotic dog made by Sony named <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Aibo.</span>&#8221;</span> The Aibo
5776 learns tricks, cuddles, and follows you around. It eats only electricity and
5777 that doesn't leave that much of a mess (at least in your house).
5778 </p><p>
5779 The Aibo is expensive and popular. Fans from around the world have set up
5780 clubs to trade stories. One fan in particular set up a Web site to enable
5781 information about the Aibo dog to be shared. This fan set
5782
5783 up aibopet.com (and aibohack.com, but that resolves to the same site), and
5784 on that site he provided information about how to teach an Aibo to do tricks
5785 in addition to the ones Sony had taught it.
5786 </p><p>
5787 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Teach</span>&#8221;</span> here has a special meaning. Aibos are just cute
5788 computers.  You teach a computer how to do something by programming it
5789 differently.  So to say that aibopet.com was giving information about how to
5790 teach the dog to do new tricks is just to say that aibopet.com was giving
5791 information to users of the Aibo pet about how to hack their computer
5792 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">dog</span>&#8221;</span> to make it do new tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
5793 </p><p>
5794 If you're not a programmer or don't know many programmers, the word
5795 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> has a particularly unfriendly
5796 connotation. Nonprogrammers hack bushes or weeds. Nonprogrammers in horror
5797 movies do even worse. But to programmers, or coders, as I call them,
5798 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> is a much more positive
5799 term. <em class="citetitle">Hack</em> just means code that enables the program
5800 to do something it wasn't originally intended or enabled to do. If you buy a
5801 new printer for an old computer, you might find the old computer doesn't
5802 run, or <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">drive,</span>&#8221;</span> the printer. If you discovered that, you'd
5803 later be happy to discover a hack on the Net by someone who has written a
5804 driver to enable the computer to drive the printer you just bought.
5805 </p><p>
5806 Some hacks are easy. Some are unbelievably hard. Hackers as a community like
5807 to challenge themselves and others with increasingly difficult
5808 tasks. There's a certain respect that goes with the talent to hack
5809 well. There's a well-deserved respect that goes with the talent to hack
5810 ethically.
5811 </p><p>
5812 The Aibo fan was displaying a bit of both when he hacked the program and
5813 offered to the world a bit of code that would enable the Aibo to dance
5814 jazz. The dog wasn't programmed to dance jazz. It was a clever bit of
5815 tinkering that turned the dog into a more talented creature than Sony had
5816 built.
5817 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2888568"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2888576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2888585"></a><p>
5818
5819 I've told this story in many contexts, both inside and outside the United
5820 States. Once I was asked by a puzzled member of the audience, is it
5821 permissible for a dog to dance jazz in the United States? We forget that
5822 stories about the backcountry still flow across much of the world. So let's
5823 just be clear before we continue: It's not a crime anywhere (anymore) to
5824 dance jazz. Nor is it a crime to teach your dog to dance jazz. Nor should it
5825 be a crime (though we don't have a lot to go on here) to teach your robot
5826 dog to dance jazz. Dancing jazz is a completely legal activity. One imagines
5827 that the owner of aibopet.com thought, <span class="emphasis"><em>What possible problem could
5828 there be with teaching a robot dog to dance?</em></span>
5829 </p><p>
5830 Let's put the dog to sleep for a minute, and turn to a pony show&#8212; not
5831 literally a pony show, but rather a paper that a Princeton academic named Ed
5832 Felten prepared for a conference. This Princeton academic is well known and
5833 respected. He was hired by the government in the Microsoft case to test
5834 Microsoft's claims about what could and could not be done with its own
5835 code. In that trial, he demonstrated both his brilliance and his
5836 coolness. Under heavy badgering by Microsoft lawyers, Ed Felten stood his
5837 ground. He was not about to be bullied into being silent about something he
5838 knew very well.
5839 </p><p>
5840 But Felten's bravery was really tested in April 2001.<sup>[<a name="id2888630" href="#ftn.id2888630" class="footnote">139</a>]</sup> He and a group of colleagues were working on a
5841 paper to be submitted at conference.  The paper was intended to describe the
5842 weakness in an encryption system being developed by the Secure Digital Music
5843 Initiative as a technique to control the distribution of music.
5844 </p><p>
5845 The SDMI coalition had as its goal a technology to enable content owners to
5846 exercise much better control over their content than the Internet, as it
5847 originally stood, granted them. Using encryption, SDMI hoped to develop a
5848 standard that would allow the content owner to say <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">this music cannot
5849 be copied,</span>&#8221;</span> and have a computer respect that command.  The technology
5850 was to be part of a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">trusted system</span>&#8221;</span> of control that would get
5851 content owners to trust the system of the Internet much more.
5852 </p><p>
5853 When SDMI thought it was close to a standard, it set up a competition.  In
5854 exchange for providing contestants with the code to an SDMI-encrypted bit of
5855 content, contestants were to try to crack it and, if they did, report the
5856 problems to the consortium.
5857 </p><p>
5858
5859
5860 Felten and his team figured out the encryption system quickly. He and the
5861 team saw the weakness of this system as a type: Many encryption systems
5862 would suffer the same weakness, and Felten and his team thought it
5863 worthwhile to point this out to those who study encryption.
5864 </p><p>
5865 Let's review just what Felten was doing. Again, this is the United
5866 States. We have a principle of free speech. We have this principle not just
5867 because it is the law, but also because it is a really great idea. A
5868 strongly protected tradition of free speech is likely to encourage a wide
5869 range of criticism. That criticism is likely, in turn, to improve the
5870 systems or people or ideas criticized.
5871 </p><p>
5872 What Felten and his colleagues were doing was publishing a paper describing
5873 the weakness in a technology. They were not spreading free music, or
5874 building and deploying this technology. The paper was an academic essay,
5875 unintelligible to most people. But it clearly showed the weakness in the
5876 SDMI system, and why SDMI would not, as presently constituted, succeed.
5877 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo2"></a><p>
5878 What links these two, aibopet.com and Felten, is the letters they then
5879 received. Aibopet.com received a letter from Sony about the aibopet.com
5880 hack. Though a jazz-dancing dog is perfectly legal, Sony wrote:
5881 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5882 Your site contains information providing the means to circumvent AIBO-ware's
5883 copy protection protocol constituting a violation of the anti-circumvention
5884 provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
5885 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2888814"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2888822"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2888830"></a><p>
5886 And though an academic paper describing the weakness in a system of
5887 encryption should also be perfectly legal, Felten received a letter from an
5888 RIAA lawyer that read:
5889 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5890
5891 Any disclosure of information gained from participating in the Public
5892 Challenge would be outside the scope of activities permitted by the
5893 Agreement and could subject you and your research team to actions under the
5894 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">DMCA</span>&#8221;</span>).
5895 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5896 In both cases, this weirdly Orwellian law was invoked to control the spread
5897 of information. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act made spreading such
5898 information an offense.
5899 </p><p>
5900 The DMCA was enacted as a response to copyright owners' first fear about
5901 cyberspace. The fear was that copyright control was effectively dead; the
5902 response was to find technologies that might compensate.  These new
5903 technologies would be copyright protection technologies&#8212; technologies
5904 to control the replication and distribution of copyrighted material. They
5905 were designed as <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> to modify the original
5906 <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> of the Internet, to reestablish some protection
5907 for copyright owners.
5908 </p><p>
5909 The DMCA was a bit of law intended to back up the protection of this code
5910 designed to protect copyrighted material. It was, we could say,
5911 <span class="emphasis"><em>legal code</em></span> intended to buttress <span class="emphasis"><em>software
5912 code</em></span> which itself was intended to support the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal
5913 code of copyright</em></span>.
5914 </p><p>
5915 But the DMCA was not designed merely to protect copyrighted works to the
5916 extent copyright law protected them. Its protection, that is, did not end at
5917 the line that copyright law drew. The DMCA regulated devices that were
5918 designed to circumvent copyright protection measures. It was designed to ban
5919 those devices, whether or not the use of the copyrighted material made
5920 possible by that circumvention would have been a copyright violation.
5921 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2888911"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2888917"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2888923"></a><p>
5922
5923 Aibopet.com and Felten make the point. The Aibo hack circumvented a
5924 copyright protection system for the purpose of enabling the dog to dance
5925 jazz. That enablement no doubt involved the use of copyrighted material. But
5926 as aibopet.com's site was noncommercial, and the use did not enable
5927 subsequent copyright infringements, there's no doubt that aibopet.com's hack
5928 was fair use of Sony's copyrighted material. Yet fair use is not a defense
5929 to the DMCA. The question is not whether the use of the copyrighted material
5930 was a copyright violation. The question is whether a copyright protection
5931 system was circumvented.
5932 </p><p>
5933 The threat against Felten was more attenuated, but it followed the same line
5934 of reasoning. By publishing a paper describing how a copyright protection
5935 system could be circumvented, the RIAA lawyer suggested, Felten himself was
5936 distributing a circumvention technology.  Thus, even though he was not
5937 himself infringing anyone's copyright, his academic paper was enabling
5938 others to infringe others' copyright.
5939 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2888961"></a><p>
5940 The bizarreness of these arguments is captured in a cartoon drawn in 1981 by
5941 Paul Conrad. At that time, a court in California had held that the VCR could
5942 be banned because it was a copyright-infringing technology: It enabled
5943 consumers to copy films without the permission of the copyright owner. No
5944 doubt there were uses of the technology that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka
5945 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote"><em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>,</span>&#8221;</span> for example, had testified
5946 in that case that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers'
5947 Neighborhood.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2888983"></a>
5948 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5949 Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
5950 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>&#8221;</span> at hours when some children cannot use it. I
5951 think that it's a real service to families to be able to record such
5952 programs and show them at appropriate times. I have always felt that with
5953 the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the
5954 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>&#8221;</span> off-the-air, and I'm speaking for the
5955 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>&#8221;</span> because that's what I produce, that they then
5956 become much more active in the programming of their family's television
5957 life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My
5958 whole approach in broadcasting has always been <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">You are an important
5959 person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.</span>&#8221;</span> Maybe
5960 I'm going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to
5961 be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is
5962 important.<sup>[<a name="id2889022" href="#ftn.id2889022" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
5963 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5964
5965
5966 Even though there were uses that were legal, because there were some uses
5967 that were illegal, the court held the companies producing the VCR
5968 responsible.
5969 </p><p>
5970 This led Conrad to draw the cartoon below, which we can adopt to the DMCA.
5971 <a class="indexterm" name="id2889063"></a>
5972 </p><p>
5973 No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
5974 </p><p>
5975 The anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA target copyright circumvention
5976 technologies. Circumvention technologies can be used for different
5977 ends. They can be used, for example, to enable massive pirating of
5978 copyrighted material&#8212;a bad end. Or they can be used to enable the use
5979 of particular copyrighted materials in ways that would be considered fair
5980 use&#8212;a good end.
5981 </p><p>
5982
5983 A handgun can be used to shoot a police officer or a child. Most would agree
5984 such a use is bad. Or a handgun can be used for target practice or to
5985 protect against an intruder. At least some would say that such a use would
5986 be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good and bad uses.
5987 </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>
5988 The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world where guns
5989 are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and circumvention
5990 technologies) are illegal. Flash: <span class="emphasis"><em>No one ever died from copyright
5991 circumvention</em></span>. Yet the law bans circumvention technologies
5992 absolutely, despite the potential that they might do some good, but permits
5993 guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2889122"></a>
5994 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2889129"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2889135"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2889142"></a><p>
5995 The Aibo and RIAA examples demonstrate how copyright owners are changing the
5996 balance that copyright law grants. Using code, copyright owners restrict
5997 fair use; using the DMCA, they punish those who would attempt to evade the
5998 restrictions on fair use that they impose through code. Technology becomes a
5999 means by which fair use can be erased; the law of the DMCA backs up that
6000 erasing.
6001 </p><p>
6002 This is how <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> becomes <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span>. The
6003 controls built into the technology of copy and access protection become
6004 rules the violation of which is also a violation of the law. In this way,
6005 the code extends the law&#8212;increasing its regulation, even if the
6006 subject it regulates (activities that would otherwise plainly constitute
6007 fair use) is beyond the reach of the law. Code becomes law; code extends the
6008 law; code thus extends the control that copyright owners effect&#8212;at
6009 least for those copyright holders with the lawyers who can write the nasty
6010 letters that Felten and aibopet.com received.
6011 </p><p>
6012 There is one final aspect of the interaction between architecture and law
6013 that contributes to the force of copyright's regulation. This is the ease
6014 with which infringements of the law can be detected. For contrary to the
6015 rhetoric common at the birth of cyberspace that on the Internet, no one
6016 knows you're a dog, increasingly, given changing technologies deployed on
6017 the Internet, it is easy to find the dog who committed a legal wrong. The
6018 technologies of the Internet are open to snoops as well as sharers, and the
6019 snoops are increasingly good at tracking down the identity of those who
6020 violate the rules.
6021 </p><p>
6022
6023
6024 For example, imagine you were part of a <em class="citetitle">Star Trek</em> fan
6025 club. You gathered every month to share trivia, and maybe to enact a kind of
6026 fan fiction about the show. One person would play Spock, another, Captain
6027 Kirk. The characters would begin with a plot from a real story, then simply
6028 continue it.<sup>[<a name="id2889206" href="#ftn.id2889206" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
6029 </p><p>
6030 Before the Internet, this was, in effect, a totally unregulated activity.
6031 No matter what happened inside your club room, you would never be interfered
6032 with by the copyright police. You were free in that space to do as you
6033 wished with this part of our culture. You were allowed to build on it as you
6034 wished without fear of legal control.
6035 </p><p>
6036 But if you moved your club onto the Internet, and made it generally
6037 available for others to join, the story would be very different. Bots
6038 scouring the Net for trademark and copyright infringement would quickly find
6039 your site. Your posting of fan fiction, depending upon the ownership of the
6040 series that you're depicting, could well inspire a lawyer's threat. And
6041 ignoring the lawyer's threat would be extremely costly indeed.  The law of
6042 copyright is extremely efficient. The penalties are severe, and the process
6043 is quick.
6044 </p><p>
6045 This change in the effective force of the law is caused by a change in the
6046 ease with which the law can be enforced. That change too shifts the law's
6047 balance radically. It is as if your car transmitted the speed at which you
6048 traveled at every moment that you drove; that would be just one step before
6049 the state started issuing tickets based upon the data you transmitted. That
6050 is, in effect, what is happening here.
6051 </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>
6052
6053 So copyright's duration has increased dramatically&#8212;tripled in the past
6054 thirty years. And copyright's scope has increased as well&#8212;from
6055 regulating only publishers to now regulating just about everyone. And
6056 copyright's reach has changed, as every action becomes a copy and hence
6057 presumptively regulated. And as technologists find better ways to control
6058 the use of content, and as copyright is increasingly enforced through
6059 technology, copyright's force changes, too. Misuse is easier to find and
6060 easier to control. This regulation of the creative process, which began as a
6061 tiny regulation governing a tiny part of the market for creative work, has
6062 become the single most important regulator of creativity there is. It is a
6063 massive expansion in the scope of the government's control over innovation
6064 and creativity; it would be totally unrecognizable to those who gave birth
6065 to copyright's control.
6066 </p><p>
6067 Still, in my view, all of these changes would not matter much if it weren't
6068 for one more change that we must also consider. This is a change that is in
6069 some sense the most familiar, though its significance and scope are not well
6070 understood. It is the one that creates precisely the reason to be concerned
6071 about all the other changes I have described.
6072 </p><p>
6073 This is the change in the concentration and integration of the media.  In
6074 the past twenty years, the nature of media ownership has undergone a radical
6075 alteration, caused by changes in legal rules governing the media.  Before
6076 this change happened, the different forms of media were owned by separate
6077 media companies. Now, the media is increasingly owned by only a few
6078 companies. Indeed, after the changes that the FCC announced in June 2003,
6079 most expect that within a few years, we will live in a world where just
6080 three companies control more than percent of the media.
6081 </p><p>
6082 Det er her to sorter endringer: omfanget av konsentrasjon, og dens natur.
6083 </p><p>
6084 Changes in scope are the easier ones to describe. As Senator John McCain
6085 summarized the data produced in the FCC's review of media ownership,
6086 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">five companies control 85 percent of our media
6087 sources.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2889320" href="#ftn.id2889320" class="footnote">142</a>]</sup> The five recording
6088 labels of Universal Music Group, BMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music
6089 Group, and EMI control 84.8 percent of the U.S. music market.<sup>[<a name="id2889332" href="#ftn.id2889332" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">five largest cable companies pipe
6090 programming to 74 percent of the cable subscribers
6091 nationwide.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2889350" href="#ftn.id2889350" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2889362"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2889369"></a>
6092 <a class="indexterm" name="id2889375"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2889381"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2889387"></a>
6093 </p><p>
6094
6095 The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation, the
6096 nation's largest radio broadcasting conglomerate owned fewer than
6097 seventy-five stations. Today <span class="emphasis"><em>one</em></span> company owns more than
6098 1,200 stations.  During that period of consolidation, the total number of
6099 radio owners dropped by 34 percent. Today, in most markets, the two largest
6100 broadcasters control 74 percent of that market's revenues. Overall, just
6101 four companies control 90 percent of the nation's radio advertising
6102 revenues.
6103 </p><p>
6104 Newspaper ownership is becoming more concentrated as well.  Today, there are
6105 six hundred fewer daily newspapers in the United States than there were
6106 eighty years ago, and ten companies control half of the nation's
6107 circulation. There are twenty major newspaper publishers in the United
6108 States. The top ten film studios receive 99 percent of all film revenue. The
6109 ten largest cable companies account for 85 percent of all cable
6110 revenue. This is a market far from the free press the framers sought to
6111 protect. Indeed, it is a market that is quite well protected&#8212; by the
6112 market.
6113 </p><p>
6114 Concentration in size alone is one thing. The more invidious change is in
6115 the nature of that concentration. As author James Fallows put it in a recent
6116 article about Rupert Murdoch, <a class="indexterm" name="id2889419"></a>
6117 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6118 Murdoch's companies now constitute a production system unmatched in its
6119 integration. They supply content&#8212;Fox movies &#8230; Fox TV shows
6120 &#8230; Fox-controlled sports broadcasts, plus newspapers and books. They
6121 sell the content to the public and to advertisers&#8212;in newspapers, on
6122 the broadcast network, on the cable channels. And they operate the physical
6123 distribution system through which the content reaches the
6124 customers. Murdoch's satellite systems now distribute News Corp. content in
6125 Europe and Asia; if Murdoch becomes DirecTV's largest single owner, that
6126 system will serve the same function in the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2889444" href="#ftn.id2889444" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
6127 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6128 The pattern with Murdoch is the pattern of modern media. Not just large
6129 companies owning many radio stations, but a few companies owning as many
6130 outlets of media as possible. A picture describes this pattern better than a
6131 thousand words could do:
6132 </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>
6133
6134
6135 Betyr denne konsentrasjonen noe?  Påvirker det hva som blir laget, eller hva
6136 som blir distribuert?  Eller er det bare en mer effektiv måte å produsere og
6137 distribuere innhold?
6138 </p><p>
6139 Mitt syn var at konsentrasjonen ikke betød noe.  Jeg tenkte det ikke var noe
6140 mer enn en mer effektiv finansiell struktur.  Men nå, etter å ha lest og
6141 hørt på en haug av skapere prøve å overbevise meg om det motsatte, har jeg
6142 begynt å endre mening.
6143 </p><p>
6144 Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen
6145 er viktig.
6146 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2889526"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2889532"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2889539"></a><p>
6147 I 1969 laget Norman Lear en polit for <em class="citetitle">All in the
6148 Family</em>.  Han tok piloten til ABC, og nettverket likte det ikke.
6149 Da sa til Lear at det var for på kanten.  Gjør det om igjen. Lear lagde
6150 piloten på nytt, mer på kanten enn den første.  ABC ble fra seg.  Du får
6151 ikke med deg poenget, fortalte de Lear.  Vi vil ha det mindre på kanten,
6152 ikke mer.
6153 </p><p>
6154 I stedet for å føye seg, to Lear ganske enkelt serien sin til noen andre.
6155 CBS var glad for å ha seriene, og ABC kunne ikke stoppe Lear fra å gå til
6156 andre.  Opphavsretten som Lear hadde sikret uavhengighet fra
6157 nettverk-kontroll.<sup>[<a name="id2889571" href="#ftn.id2889571" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
6158 </p><p>
6159
6160
6161
6162 The network did not control those copyrights because the law forbade the
6163 networks from controlling the content they syndicated. The law required a
6164 separation between the networks and the content producers; that separation
6165 would guarantee Lear freedom. And as late as 1992, because of these rules,
6166 the vast majority of prime time television&#8212;75 percent of it&#8212;was
6167 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">independent</span>&#8221;</span> of the networks.
6168 </p><p>
6169 In 1994, the FCC abandoned the rules that required this independence.  After
6170 that change, the networks quickly changed the balance.  In 1985, there were
6171 twenty-five independent television production studios; in 2002, only five
6172 independent television studios remained. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In 1992, only 15 percent of
6173 new series were produced for a network by a company it controlled. Last
6174 year, the percentage of shows produced by controlled companies more than
6175 quintupled to 77 percent.</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In 1992, 16 new series were
6176 produced independently of conglomerate control, last year there was
6177 one.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2889634" href="#ftn.id2889634" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of
6178 prime time television was owned by the networks that ran it. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In the
6179 ten-year period between 1992 and 2002, the number of prime time television
6180 hours per week produced by network studios increased over 200%, whereas the
6181 number of prime time television hours per week produced by independent
6182 studios decreased 63%.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2889661" href="#ftn.id2889661" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
6183 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2889669"></a><p>
6184 Today, another Norman Lear with another <em class="citetitle">All in the
6185 Family</em> would find that he had the choice either to make the show
6186 less edgy or to be fired: The content of any show developed for a network is
6187 increasingly owned by the network.
6188 </p><p>
6189 Mens antall kanaler har økt dramatisk, har eierskapet til disse kanalene
6190 snevret inn fra få til stadig færre.  Som Barry Diller sa til Bill Moyers,
6191 <a class="indexterm" name="id2889693"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2889699"></a>
6192 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6193 Well, if you have companies that produce, that finance, that air on their
6194 channel and then distribute worldwide everything that goes through their
6195 controlled distribution system, then what you get is fewer and fewer actual
6196 voices participating in the process. [We u]sed to have dozens and dozens of
6197 thriving independent production companies producing television programs. Now
6198 you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="id2889717" href="#ftn.id2889717" class="footnote">149</a>]</sup>
6199 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6200 This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of such large
6201 and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous.  Increasingly
6202 safe. Increasingly sterile. The product of news shows from networks like
6203 this is increasingly tailored to the message the network wants to
6204 convey. This is not the communist party, though from the inside, it must
6205 feel a bit like the communist party. No one can question without risk of
6206 consequence&#8212;not necessarily banishment to Siberia, but punishment
6207 nonetheless. Independent, critical, different views are quashed. This is not
6208 the environment for a democracy.
6209 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2889744"></a><p>
6210 Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
6211 affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the
6212 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Innovator's Dilemma</span>&#8221;</span>: the fact that large traditional firms
6213 find it rational to ignore new, breakthrough technologies that compete with
6214 their core business.  The same analysis could help explain why large,
6215 traditional media companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural
6216 trends.<sup>[<a name="id2889775" href="#ftn.id2889775" class="footnote">150</a>]</sup> Lumbering giants not only
6217 don't, but should not, sprint. Yet if the field is only open to the giants,
6218 there will be far too little sprinting.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2889807"></a>
6219 </p><p>
6220 I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media market to say
6221 with certainty what concentration and integration will do. The efficiencies
6222 are important, and the effect on culture is hard to measure.
6223 </p><p>
6224 But there is a quintessentially obvious example that does strongly suggest
6225 the concern.
6226 </p><p>
6227 In addition to the copyright wars, we're in the middle of the drug
6228 wars. Government policy is strongly directed against the drug cartels;
6229 criminal and civil courts are filled with the consequences of this battle.
6230 </p><p>
6231
6232 Let me hereby disqualify myself from any possible appointment to any
6233 position in government by saying I believe this war is a profound mistake. I
6234 am not pro drugs. Indeed, I come from a family once wrecked by
6235 drugs&#8212;though the drugs that wrecked my family were all quite legal. I
6236 believe this war is a profound mistake because the collateral damage from it
6237 is so great as to make waging the war insane.  When you add together the
6238 burdens on the criminal justice system, the desperation of generations of
6239 kids whose only real economic opportunities are as drug warriors, the
6240 queering of constitutional protections because of the constant surveillance
6241 this war requires, and, most profoundly, the total destruction of the legal
6242 systems of many South American nations because of the power of the local
6243 drug cartels, I find it impossible to believe that the marginal benefit in
6244 reduced drug consumption by Americans could possibly outweigh these costs.
6245 </p><p>
6246 You may not be convinced. That's fine. We live in a democracy, and it is
6247 through votes that we are to choose policy. But to do that, we depend
6248 fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about these issues.
6249 </p><p>
6250 Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched a
6251 media campaign as part of the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">war on drugs.</span>&#8221;</span> The campaign
6252 produced scores of short film clips about issues related to illegal
6253 drugs. In one series (the Nick and Norm series) two men are in a bar,
6254 discussing the idea of legalizing drugs as a way to avoid some of the
6255 collateral damage from the war. One advances an argument in favor of drug
6256 legalization. The other responds in a powerful and effective way against the
6257 argument of the first. In the end, the first guy changes his mind (hey, it's
6258 television). The plug at the end is a damning attack on the pro-legalization
6259 campaign.
6260 </p><p>
6261 Fair enough. It's a good ad. Not terribly misleading. It delivers its
6262 message well. It's a fair and reasonable message.
6263 </p><p>
6264 But let's say you think it is a wrong message, and you'd like to run a
6265 countercommercial. Say you want to run a series of ads that try to
6266 demonstrate the extraordinary collateral harm that comes from the drug
6267 war. Can you do it?
6268 </p><p>
6269
6270 Well, obviously, these ads cost lots of money. Assume you raise the
6271 money. Assume a group of concerned citizens donates all the money in the
6272 world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your message will be
6273 heard then?
6274 </p><p>
6275 No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
6276 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">controversial</span>&#8221;</span> ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
6277 uncontroversial; ads disagreeing with the government are controversial.
6278 This selectivity might be thought inconsistent with the First Amendment, but
6279 the Supreme Court has held that stations have the right to choose what they
6280 run. Thus, the major channels of commercial media will refuse one side of a
6281 crucial debate the opportunity to present its case.  And the courts will
6282 defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.<sup>[<a name="id2889924" href="#ftn.id2889924" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
6283 </p><p>
6284 I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well&#8212;if we lived in a
6285 media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the media throws
6286 that condition into doubt. If a handful of companies control access to the
6287 media, and that handful of companies gets to decide which political
6288 positions it will allow to be promoted on its channels, then in an obvious
6289 and important way, concentration matters. You might like the positions the
6290 handful of companies selects. But you should not like a world in which a
6291 mere few get to decide which issues the rest of us get to know about.
6292 </p></div><div class="section" title="10.8. Sammen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="together"></a>10.8. Sammen</h2></div></div></div><p>
6293 There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the copyright
6294 warriors that the government should <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">protect my property.</span>&#8221;</span> In
6295 the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No
6296 sane sort who is not an anarchist could disagree.
6297 </p><p>
6298
6299 But when we see how dramatically this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> has
6300 changed&#8212; when we recognize how it might now interact with both
6301 technology and markets to mean that the effective constraint on the liberty
6302 to cultivate our culture is dramatically different&#8212;the claim begins to
6303 seem less innocent and obvious. Given (1) the power of technology to
6304 supplement the law's control, and (2) the power of concentrated markets to
6305 weaken the opportunity for dissent, if strictly enforcing the massively
6306 expanded <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> rights granted by copyright fundamentally
6307 changes the freedom within this culture to cultivate and build upon our
6308 past, then we have to ask whether this property should be redefined.
6309 </p><p>
6310 Not starkly. Or absolutely. My point is not that we should abolish copyright
6311 or go back to the eighteenth century. That would be a total mistake,
6312 disastrous for the most important creative enterprises within our culture
6313 today.
6314 </p><p>
6315 But there is a space between zero and one, Internet culture
6316 notwithstanding.  And these massive shifts in the effective power of
6317 copyright regulation, tied to increased concentration of the content
6318 industry and resting in the hands of technology that will increasingly
6319 enable control over the use of culture, should drive us to consider whether
6320 another adjustment is called for. Not an adjustment that increases
6321 copyright's power. Not an adjustment that increases its term. Rather, an
6322 adjustment to restore the balance that has traditionally defined copyright's
6323 regulation&#8212;a weakening of that regulation, to strengthen creativity.
6324 </p><p>
6325 Copyright law has not been a rock of Gibraltar. It's not a set of constant
6326 commitments that, for some mysterious reason, teenagers and geeks now
6327 flout. Instead, copyright power has grown dramatically in a short period of
6328 time, as the technologies of distribution and creation have changed and as
6329 lobbyists have pushed for more control by copyright holders. Changes in the
6330 past in response to changes in technology suggest that we may well need
6331 similar changes in the future. And these changes have to be
6332 <span class="emphasis"><em>reductions</em></span> in the scope of copyright, in response to
6333 the extraordinary increase in control that technology and the market enable.
6334 </p><p>
6335
6336 For the single point that is lost in this war on pirates is a point that we
6337 see only after surveying the range of these changes. When you add together
6338 the effect of changing law, concentrated markets, and changing technology,
6339 together they produce an astonishing conclusion: <span class="emphasis"><em>Never in our
6340 history have fewer had a legal right to control more of the development of
6341 our culture than now</em></span>.
6342 </p><p>
6343 Not when copyrights were perpetual, for when copyrights were perpetual, they
6344 affected only that precise creative work. Not when only publishers had the
6345 tools to publish, for the market then was much more diverse. Not when there
6346 were only three television networks, for even then, newspapers, film
6347 studios, radio stations, and publishers were independent of the
6348 networks. <span class="emphasis"><em>Never</em></span> has copyright protected such a wide
6349 range of rights, against as broad a range of actors, for a term that was
6350 remotely as long. This form of regulation&#8212;a tiny regulation of a tiny
6351 part of the creative energy of a nation at the founding&#8212;is now a
6352 massive regulation of the overall creative process. Law plus technology plus
6353 the market now interact to turn this historically benign regulation into the
6354 most significant regulation of culture that our free society has
6355 known.<sup>[<a name="id2890153" href="#ftn.id2890153" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
6356 </p><p>
6357 This has been a long chapter. Its point can now be briefly stated.
6358 </p><p>
6359 At the start of this book, I distinguished between commercial and
6360 noncommercial culture. In the course of this chapter, I have distinguished
6361 between copying a work and transforming it. We can now combine these two
6362 distinctions and draw a clear map of the changes that copyright law has
6363 undergone.  In 1790, the law looked like this:
6364 </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>
6365
6366 The act of publishing a map, chart, and book was regulated by copyright
6367 law. Nothing else was. Transformations were free. And as copyright attached
6368 only with registration, and only those who intended to benefit commercially
6369 would register, copying through publishing of noncommercial work was also
6370 free.
6371 </p><p>
6372 På slutten av det nittende århundre hadde loven blitt endret til dette:
6373 </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>
6374 Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law&#8212;if published,
6375 which again, given the economics of publishing at the time, means if offered
6376 commercially. But noncommercial publishing and transformation were still
6377 essentially free.
6378 </p><p>
6379 In 1909 the law changed to regulate copies, not publishing, and after this
6380 change, the scope of the law was tied to technology. As the technology of
6381 copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law expanded.  Thus by 1975,
6382 as photocopying machines became more common, we could say the law began to
6383 look like this:
6384 </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>
6385 The law was interpreted to reach noncommercial copying through, say, copy
6386 machines, but still much of copying outside of the commercial market
6387 remained free. But the consequence of the emergence of digital technologies,
6388 especially in the context of a digital network, means that the law now looks
6389 like this:
6390 </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>
6391
6392 Every realm is governed by copyright law, whereas before most creativity was
6393 not. The law now regulates the full range of creativity&#8212; commercial or
6394 not, transformative or not&#8212;with the same rules designed to regulate
6395 commercial publishers.
6396 </p><p>
6397 Obviously, copyright law is not the enemy. The enemy is regulation that does
6398 no good. So the question that we should be asking just now is whether
6399 extending the regulations of copyright law into each of these domains
6400 actually does any good.
6401 </p><p>
6402 I have no doubt that it does good in regulating commercial copying.  But I
6403 also have no doubt that it does more harm than good when regulating (as it
6404 regulates just now) noncommercial copying and, especially, noncommercial
6405 transformation. And increasingly, for the reasons sketched especially in
6406 chapters <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a> and
6407 <a class="xref" href="#transformers" title="Kapittel 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformere">8</a>, one might
6408 well wonder whether it does more harm than good for commercial
6409 transformation.  More commercial transformative work would be created if
6410 derivative rights were more sharply restricted.
6411 </p><p>
6412 The issue is therefore not simply whether copyright is property. Of course
6413 copyright is a kind of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property,</span>&#8221;</span> and of course, as with any
6414 property, the state ought to protect it. But first impressions
6415 notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all property
6416 rights<sup>[<a name="id2890508" href="#ftn.id2890508" class="footnote">153</a>]</sup>)  has been crafted to balance
6417 the important need to give authors and artists incentives with the equally
6418 important need to assure access to creative work. This balance has always
6419 been struck in light of new technologies.  And for almost half of our
6420 tradition, the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> did not control <span class="emphasis"><em>at
6421 all</em></span> the freedom of others to build upon or transform a creative
6422 work. American culture was born free, and for almost 180 years our country
6423 consistently protected a vibrant and rich free culture.
6424 </p><p>
6425
6426 We achieved that free culture because our law respected important limits on
6427 the scope of the interests protected by <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property.</span>&#8221;</span> The very
6428 birth of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> as a statutory right recognized those
6429 limits, by granting copyright owners protection for a limited time only (the
6430 story of chapter 6). The tradition of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fair use</span>&#8221;</span> is animated by
6431 a similar concern that is increasingly under strain as the costs of
6432 exercising any fair use right become unavoidably high (the story of chapter
6433 7). Adding statutory rights where markets might stifle innovation is another
6434 familiar limit on the property right that copyright is (chapter 8). And
6435 granting archives and libraries a broad freedom to collect, claims of
6436 property notwithstanding, is a crucial part of guaranteeing the soul of a
6437 culture (chapter 9). Free cultures, like free markets, are built with
6438 property. But the nature of the property that builds a free culture is very
6439 different from the extremist vision that dominates the debate today.
6440 </p><p>
6441 Free culture is increasingly the casualty in this war on piracy. In response
6442 to a real, if not yet quantified, threat that the technologies of the
6443 Internet present to twentieth-century business models for producing and
6444 distributing culture, the law and technology are being transformed in a way
6445 that will undermine our tradition of free culture. The property right that
6446 is copyright is no longer the balanced right that it was, or was intended to
6447 be. The property right that is copyright has become unbalanced, tilted
6448 toward an extreme. The opportunity to create and transform becomes weakened
6449 in a world in which creation requires permission and creativity must check
6450 with a lawyer.
6451 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885456" href="#id2885456" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
6452
6453
6454 Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearings on H.R. 4783, H.R.  4794,
6455 H.R. 4808, H.R. 5250, H.R. 5488, and H.R. 5705 Before the Subcommittee on
6456 Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the Committee
6457 on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, 97th Cong., 2nd
6458 sess. (1982): 65 (testimony of Jack Valenti).
6459 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885524" href="#id2885524" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
6460
6461
6462 Lawyers speak of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> not as an absolute thing, but as a
6463 bundle of rights that are sometimes associated with a particular
6464 object. Thus, my <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property right</span>&#8221;</span> to my car gives me the right
6465 to exclusive use, but not the right to drive at 150 miles an hour. For the
6466 best effort to connect the ordinary meaning of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> to
6467 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lawyer talk,</span>&#8221;</span> see Bruce Ackerman, <em class="citetitle">Private Property
6468 and the Constitution</em> (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977),
6469 26&#8211;27.
6470 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885904" href="#id2885904" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
6471
6472
6473 By describing the way law affects the other three modalities, I don't mean
6474 to suggest that the other three don't affect law. Obviously, they do. Law's
6475 only distinction is that it alone speaks as if it has a right
6476 self-consciously to change the other three. The right of the other three is
6477 more timidly expressed.  See Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other
6478 Laws of Cyberspace</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90&#8211;95;
6479 Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The New Chicago School,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal
6480 of Legal Studies</em>, June 1998.
6481 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885971" href="#id2885971" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
6482
6483 Some people object to this way of talking about <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">liberty.</span>&#8221;</span> They
6484 object because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at
6485 any particular moment are constraints imposed exclusively by the
6486 government. For instance, if a storm destroys a bridge, these people think
6487 it is meaningless to say that one's liberty has been restrained. A bridge
6488 has washed out, and it's harder to get from one place to another. To talk
6489 about this as a loss of freedom, they say, is to confuse the stuff of
6490 politics with the vagaries of ordinary life.  I don't mean to deny the value
6491 in this narrower view, which depends upon the context of the inquiry. I do,
6492 however, mean to argue against any insistence that this narrower view is the
6493 only proper view of liberty. As I argued in <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, we
6494 come from a long tradition of political thought with a broader focus than
6495 the narrow question of what the government did when.  John Stuart Mill
6496 defended freedom of speech, for example, from the tyranny of narrow minds,
6497 not from the fear of government prosecution; John Stuart Mill, <em class="citetitle">On
6498 Liberty</em> (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co., 1978), 19.  John
6499 R. Commons famously defended the economic freedom of labor from constraints
6500 imposed by the market; John R. Commons, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Right to Work,</span>&#8221;</span> in
6501 Malcom Rutherford and Warren J. Samuels, eds., <em class="citetitle">John R. Commons:
6502 Selected Essays</em> (London: Routledge: 1997), 62. The Americans
6503 with Disabilities Act increases the liberty of people with physical
6504 disabilities by changing the architecture of certain public places, thereby
6505 making access to those places easier; 42 <em class="citetitle">United States
6506 Code</em>, section 12101 (2000).  Each of these interventions to
6507 change existing conditions changes the liberty of a particular group. The
6508 effect of those interventions should be accounted for in order to understand
6509 the effective liberty that each of these groups might face.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2886025"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2886034"></a>
6510 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886207" href="#id2886207" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
6511
6512
6513 See Geoffrey Smith, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a
6514 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
6515 analysis of Kodak's place in the market, see Chana R. Schoenberger,
6516 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Can Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?</span>&#8221;</span> Forbes.com, 6 October
6517 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6518 #24</a>.
6519 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886269" href="#id2886269" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
6520
6521
6522 Fred Warshofsky, <em class="citetitle">The Patent Wars</em> (New York: Wiley,
6523 1994), 170&#8211;71.
6524 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886455" href="#id2886455" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
6525
6526
6527 See, for example, James Boyle, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">A Politics of Intellectual Property:
6528 Environmentalism for the Net?</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Duke Law
6529 Journal</em> 47 (1997): 87.
6530 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886686" href="#id2886686" class="para">125</a>] </sup>
6531
6532 William W. Crosskey, <em class="citetitle">Politics and the Constitution in the History
6533 of the United States</em> (London: Cambridge University Press, 1953),
6534 vol. 1, 485&#8211;86: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the
6535 supreme Law of the Land,' <span class="emphasis"><em>the perpetual rights which authors had,
6536 or were supposed by some to have, under the Common Law</em></span></span>&#8221;</span>
6537 (emphasis added).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2886705"></a>
6538 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886754" href="#id2886754" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
6539
6540
6541 Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790 to
6542 1799, only 556 copyright registrations were filed; John Tebbel, <em class="citetitle">A
6543 History of Book Publishing in the United States</em>, vol. 1,
6544 <em class="citetitle">The Creation of an Industry, 1630&#8211;1865</em> (New
6545 York: Bowker, 1972), 141. Of the 21,000 imprints recorded before 1790, only
6546 twelve were copyrighted under the 1790 act; William J. Maher,
6547 <em class="citetitle">Copyright Term, Retrospective Extension and the Copyright Law of
6548 1790 in Historical Context</em>, 7&#8211;10 (2002), available at
6549 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #25</a>.  Thus, the
6550 overwhelming majority of works fell immediately into the public domain. Even
6551 those works that were copyrighted fell into the public domain quickly,
6552 because the term of copyright was short. The initial term of copyright was
6553 fourteen years, with the option of renewal for an additional fourteen
6554 years. Copyright Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886822" href="#id2886822" class="para">127</a>] </sup>
6555
6556
6557 Few copyright holders ever chose to renew their copyrights. For instance, of
6558 the 25,006 copyrights registered in 1883, only 894 were renewed in 1910. For
6559 a year-by-year analysis of copyright renewal rates, see Barbara A. Ringer,
6560 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Studies on
6561 Copyright</em>, vol. 1 (New York: Practicing Law Institute, 1963),
6562 618. For a more recent and comprehensive analysis, see William M. Landes and
6563 Richard A.  Posner, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>&#8221;</span>
6564 <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 471,
6565 498&#8211;501, and accompanying figures.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886857" href="#id2886857" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
6566
6567
6568 Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886959" href="#id2886959" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
6569
6570
6571 These statistics are understated. Between the years 1910 and 1962 (the first
6572 year the renewal term was extended), the average term was never more than
6573 thirty-two years, and averaged thirty years. See Landes and Posner,
6574 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>&#8221;</span> loc. cit.
6575 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887111" href="#id2887111" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
6576
6577
6578 See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Poets, Pirates, and the
6579 Creation of American Literature,</span>&#8221;</span> 29 <em class="citetitle">New York University
6580 Journal of International Law and Politics</em> 255 (1997), and James
6581 Gilraeth, ed., Federal Copyright Records, 1790&#8211;1800 (U.S. G.P.O.,
6582 1987).
6583
6584 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887198" href="#id2887198" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
6585
6586 Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Copyright Cage,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Legal
6587 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="id2887228"></a>
6588 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887247" href="#id2887247" class="para">132</a>] </sup>
6589
6590 Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument about
6591 the difference that copyright law should draw (from the perspective of the
6592 First Amendment) between mere <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copies</span>&#8221;</span> and derivative
6593 works. See Jed Rubenfeld, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's
6594 Constitutionality,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 112
6595 (2002): 1&#8211;60 (see especially pp. 53&#8211;59).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2887265"></a>
6596 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887313" href="#id2887313" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
6597
6598
6599 This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly
6600 regulates more than <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copies</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;a public performance of a
6601 copyrighted song, for example, is regulated even though performance per se
6602 doesn't make a copy; 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section
6603 106(4). And it certainly sometimes doesn't regulate a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copy</span>&#8221;</span>;
6604 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 112(a). But the
6605 presumption under the existing law (which regulates <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copies;</span>&#8221;</span>
6606 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 102) is that if there
6607 is a copy, there is a right.
6608 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887391" href="#id2887391" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
6609
6610
6611 Thus, my argument is not that in each place that copyright law extends, we
6612 should repeal it. It is instead that we should have a good argument for its
6613 extending where it does, and should not determine its reach on the basis of
6614 arbitrary and automatic changes caused by technology.
6615 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887322" href="#id2887322" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
6616
6617
6618 I don't mean <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">nature</span>&#8221;</span> in the sense that it couldn't be
6619 different, but rather that its present instantiation entails a copy. Optical
6620 networks need not make copies of content they transmit, and a digital
6621 network could be designed to delete anything it copies so that the same
6622 number of copies remain.
6623 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887926" href="#id2887926" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
6624
6625
6626 See David Lange, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Recognizing the Public Domain,</span>&#8221;</span>
6627 <em class="citetitle">Law and Contemporary Problems</em> 44 (1981):
6628 172&#8211;73.
6629 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887949" href="#id2887949" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
6630
6631 Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
6632 Copywrongs</em>, 1&#8211;3.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2887940"></a>
6633 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888231" href="#id2888231" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
6634
6635
6636 In principle, a contract might impose a requirement on me. I might, for
6637 example, buy a book from you that includes a contract that says I will read
6638 it only three times, or that I promise to read it three times. But that
6639 obligation (and the limits for creating that obligation) would come from the
6640 contract, not from copyright law, and the obligations of contract would not
6641 necessarily pass to anyone who subsequently acquired the book.
6642 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888630" href="#id2888630" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
6643
6644 See Pamela Samuelson, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to
6645 Science,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan
6646 I. Koerner, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Play Dead: Sony Muzzles the Techies Who Teach a Robot Dog
6647 New Tricks,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">American Prospect</em>, January 2002;
6648 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Court Dismisses Computer Scientists' Challenge to DMCA,</span>&#8221;</span>
6649 <em class="citetitle">Intellectual Property Litigation Reporter</em>, 11
6650 December 2001; Bill Holland, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright Act Raising Free-Speech
6651 Concerns,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Billboard</em>, May 2001; Janelle Brown,
6652 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Is the RIAA Running Scared?</span>&#8221;</span> Salon.com, April 2001; Electronic
6653 Frontier Foundation, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Frequently Asked Questions about
6654 <em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
6655 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="id2888685"></a>
6656 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889022" href="#id2889022" class="para">140</a>] </sup>
6657
6658 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corporation of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal
6659 City Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers
6660 never changed his view about the VCR. See James Lardner, <em class="citetitle">Fast
6661 Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR</em>
6662 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 270&#8211;71.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2887956"></a>
6663 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889206" href="#id2889206" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
6664
6665
6666 For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Legal
6667 Fictions, Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,</span>&#8221;</span>
6668 <em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17
6669 (1997): 651.
6670 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889320" href="#id2889320" class="para">142</a>] </sup>
6671
6672
6673 FCC Oversight: Hearing Before the Senate Commerce, Science and
6674 Transportation Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (22 May 2003)  (statement
6675 of Senator John McCain).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889332" href="#id2889332" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
6676
6677
6678 Lynette Holloway, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to
6679 Slide,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
6680 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889350" href="#id2889350" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
6681
6682
6683 Molly Ivins, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,</span>&#8221;</span>
6684 <em class="citetitle">Charleston Gazette</em>, 31 May 2003.
6685 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889444" href="#id2889444" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
6686
6687 James Fallows, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Age of Murdoch,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Atlantic
6688 Monthly</em> (September 2003): 89.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2889462"></a>
6689 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889571" href="#id2889571" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
6690
6691
6692 Leonard Hill, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Axis of Access,</span>&#8221;</span> remarks before Weidenbaum
6693 Center Forum, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry,</span>&#8221;</span>
6694 St. Louis, Missouri, 3 April 2003 (transcript of prepared remarks available
6695 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #28</a>; for the Lear
6696 story, not included in the prepared remarks, see <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #29</a>).
6697 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889634" href="#id2889634" class="para">147</a>] </sup>
6698
6699
6700 NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media
6701 Ownership Before the Senate Commerce Committee, 108th Cong., 1st
6702 sess. (2003) (testimony of Gene Kimmelman on behalf of Consumers Union and
6703 the Consumer Federation of America), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #30</a>. Kimmelman quotes
6704 Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West, in her Remarks
6705 at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia, 27 February 2003.
6706 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889661" href="#id2889661" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
6707
6708
6709 ibid.
6710 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889717" href="#id2889717" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
6711
6712
6713 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Now with
6714 Bill Moyers</em>, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, edited transcript
6715 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #31</a>.
6716 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889775" href="#id2889775" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
6717
6718
6719 Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
6720 Revolutionary National Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do
6721 Business</em> (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press,
6722 1997). Christensen acknowledges that the idea was first suggested by Dean
6723 Kim Clark. See Kim B. Clark, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Interaction of Design Hierarchies
6724 and Market Concepts in Technological Evolution,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Research
6725 Policy</em> 14 (1985): 235&#8211;51. For a more recent study, see
6726 Richard Foster and Sarah Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">Creative Destruction: Why
6727 Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market&#8212;and How to
6728 Successfully Transform Them</em> (New York: Currency/Doubleday,
6729 2001).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889924" href="#id2889924" class="para">151</a>] </sup>
6730
6731 The Marijuana Policy Project, in February 2003, sought to place ads that
6732 directly responded to the Nick and Norm series on stations within the
6733 Washington, D.C., area. Comcast rejected the ads as <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">against [their]
6734 policy.</span>&#8221;</span> The local NBC affiliate, WRC, rejected the ads without
6735 reviewing them. The local ABC affiliate, WJOA, originally agreed to run the
6736 ads and accepted payment to do so, but later decided not to run the ads and
6737 returned the collected fees. Interview with Neal Levine, 15 October 2003.
6738 These restrictions are, of course, not limited to drug policy. See, for
6739 example, Nat Ives, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">On the Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet
6740 with Rejection from TV Networks,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
6741 Times</em>, 13 March 2003, C4.  Outside of election-related air time
6742 there is very little that the FCC or the courts are willing to do to even
6743 the playing field. For a general overview, see Rhonda Brown, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Ad Hoc
6744 Access: The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
6745 Radio,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law and Policy Review</em> 6 (1988):
6746 449&#8211;79, and for a more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the
6747 courts, see <em class="citetitle">Radio-Television News Directors
6748 Association</em> v. <em class="citetitle">FCC</em>, 184 F. 3d 872
6749 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as the
6750 networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San Francisco transit
6751 authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni diesel buses. Phillip
6752 Matier and Andrew Ross, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni Rejects
6753 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
6754 the criticism was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">too controversial.</span>&#8221;</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2889987"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2889996"></a>
6755 <a class="indexterm" name="id2890002"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2890008"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2890015"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2890021"></a>
6756 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2890153" href="#id2890153" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
6757
6758 Siva Vaidhyanathan captures a similar point in his <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">four
6759 surrenders</span>&#8221;</span> of copyright law in the digital age. See Vaidhyanathan,
6760 159&#8211;60.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2889959"></a>
6761 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2890508" href="#id2890508" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
6762
6763 It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist movement
6764 to demonstrate that all property rights are always crafted to balance public
6765 and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Disintegration of
6766 Property,</span>&#8221;</span> in <em class="citetitle">Nomos XXII: Property</em>, J. Roland
6767 Pennock and John W.  Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press,
6768 1980).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2890524"></a>
6769 </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>
6770 In a well-known short story by H. G. Wells, a mountain climber named Nunez
6771 trips (literally, down an ice slope) into an unknown and isolated valley in
6772 the Peruvian Andes.<sup>[<a name="id2890663" href="#ftn.id2890663" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is
6773 extraordinarily beautiful, with <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sweet water, pasture, an even
6774 climate, slopes of rich brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an
6775 excellent fruit.</span>&#8221;</span> But the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this
6776 as an opportunity. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">In the Country of the Blind,</span>&#8221;</span> he tells
6777 himself, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the One-Eyed Man is King.</span>&#8221;</span> So he resolves to live
6778 with the villagers to explore life as a king.
6779 </p><p>
6780 Things don't go quite as he planned. He tries to explain the idea of sight
6781 to the villagers. They don't understand. He tells them they are
6782 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">blind.</span>&#8221;</span> They don't have the word
6783 <em class="citetitle">blind</em>. They think he's just thick.  Indeed, as they
6784 increasingly notice the things he can't do (hear the sound of grass being
6785 stepped on, for example), they increasingly try to control him. He, in turn,
6786 becomes increasingly frustrated. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">`You don't understand,' he cried, in
6787 a voice that was meant to be great and resolute, and which broke. `You are
6788 blind and I can see. Leave me alone!'</span>&#8221;</span>
6789 </p><p>
6790
6791
6792 The villagers don't leave him alone. Nor do they see (so to speak) the
6793 virtue of his special power. Not even the ultimate target of his affection,
6794 a young woman who to him seems <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the most beautiful thing in the whole
6795 of creation,</span>&#8221;</span> understands the beauty of sight. Nunez's description of
6796 what he sees <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">seemed to her the most poetical of fancies, and she
6797 listened to his description of the stars and the mountains and her own sweet
6798 white-lit beauty as though it was a guilty indulgence.</span>&#8221;</span> <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">She
6799 did not believe,</span>&#8221;</span> Wells tells us, and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">she could only half
6800 understand, but she was mysteriously delighted.</span>&#8221;</span>
6801 </p><p>
6802 When Nunez announces his desire to marry his <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">mysteriously
6803 delighted</span>&#8221;</span> love, the father and the village object. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">You see,
6804 my dear,</span>&#8221;</span> her father instructs, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">he's an idiot. He has
6805 delusions. He can't do anything right.</span>&#8221;</span> They take Nunez to the
6806 village doctor.
6807 </p><p>
6808 After a careful examination, the doctor gives his opinion. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">His brain
6809 is affected,</span>&#8221;</span> he reports.
6810 </p><p>
6811 <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
6812 that are called the eyes &#8230; are diseased &#8230; in such a way as to
6813 affect his brain.</span>&#8221;</span>
6814 </p><p>
6815 The doctor continues: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I think I may say with reasonable certainty
6816 that in order to cure him completely, all that we need to do is a simple and
6817 easy surgical operation&#8212;namely, to remove these irritant bodies [the
6818 eyes].</span>&#8221;</span>
6819 </p><p>
6820
6821 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Thank Heaven for science!</span>&#8221;</span> says the father to the doctor. They
6822 inform Nunez of this condition necessary for him to be allowed his bride.
6823 (You'll have to read the original to learn what happens in the end. I
6824 believe in free culture, but never in giving away the end of a story.)  It
6825 sometimes happens that the eggs of twins fuse in the mother's womb. That
6826 fusion produces a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">chimera.</span>&#8221;</span> A chimera is a single creature
6827 with two sets of DNA. The DNA in the blood, for example, might be different
6828 from the DNA of the skin. This possibility is an underused plot for murder
6829 mysteries. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But the DNA shows with 100 percent certainty that she was
6830 not the person whose blood was at the scene. &#8230;</span>&#8221;</span>
6831 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2890818"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2890826"></a><p>
6832 Before I had read about chimeras, I would have said they were impossible.  A
6833 single person can't have two sets of DNA. The very idea of DNA is that it is
6834 the code of an individual. Yet in fact, not only can two individuals have
6835 the same set of DNA (identical twins), but one person can have two different
6836 sets of DNA (a chimera). Our understanding of a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">person</span>&#8221;</span> should
6837 reflect this reality.
6838 </p><p>
6839 The more I work to understand the current struggle over copyright and
6840 culture, which I've sometimes called unfairly, and sometimes not unfairly
6841 enough, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the copyright wars,</span>&#8221;</span> the more I think we're dealing
6842 with a chimera. For example, in the battle over the question <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">What is
6843 p2p file sharing?</span>&#8221;</span> both sides have it right, and both sides have it
6844 wrong.  One side says, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">File sharing is just like two kids taping each
6845 others' records&#8212;the sort of thing we've been doing for the last thirty
6846 years without any question at all.</span>&#8221;</span> That's true, at least in
6847 part. When I tell my best friend to try out a new CD that I've bought, but
6848 rather than just send the CD, I point him to my p2p server, that is, in all
6849 relevant respects, just like what every executive in every recording company
6850 no doubt did as a kid: sharing music.
6851 </p><p>
6852 But the description is also false in part. For when my p2p server is on a
6853 p2p network through which anyone can get access to my music, then sure, my
6854 friends can get access, but it stretches the meaning of
6855 <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
6856 friends</span>&#8221;</span> can get access. Whether or not sharing my music with my best
6857 friend is what <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">we have always been allowed to do,</span>&#8221;</span> we have not
6858 always been allowed to share music with <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">our ten thousand best
6859 friends.</span>&#8221;</span>
6860 </p><p>
6861 Likewise, when the other side says, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">File sharing is just like walking
6862 into a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out with
6863 it,</span>&#8221;</span> that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett (finally)
6864 releases a new album, rather than buying it, I go to Kazaa and find a free
6865 copy to take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower.
6866 <a class="indexterm" name="id2890909"></a>
6867 </p><p>
6868
6869
6870
6871 But it is not quite stealing from Tower. After all, when I take a CD from
6872 Tower Records, Tower has one less CD to sell. And when I take a CD from
6873 Tower Records, I get a bit of plastic and a cover, and something to show on
6874 my shelves. (And, while we're at it, we could also note that when I take a
6875 CD from Tower Records, the maximum fine that might be imposed on me, under
6876 California law, at least, is $1,000.  According to the RIAA, by contrast, if
6877 I download a ten-song CD, I'm liable for $1,500,000 in damages.)
6878 </p><p>
6879 The point is not that it is as neither side describes. The point is that it
6880 is both&#8212;both as the RIAA describes it and as Kazaa describes it. It is
6881 a chimera. And rather than simply denying what the other side asserts, we
6882 need to begin to think about how we should respond to this chimera. What
6883 rules should govern it?
6884 </p><p>
6885 We could respond by simply pretending that it is not a chimera. We could,
6886 with the RIAA, decide that every act of file sharing should be a felony. We
6887 could prosecute families for millions of dollars in damages just because
6888 file sharing occurred on a family computer. And we can get universities to
6889 monitor all computer traffic to make sure that no computer is used to commit
6890 this crime. These responses might be extreme, but each of them has either
6891 been proposed or actually implemented.<sup>[<a name="id2890950" href="#ftn.id2890950" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
6892
6893 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2891048"></a><p>
6894 Alternatively, we could respond to file sharing the way many kids act as
6895 though we've responded. We could totally legalize it. Let there be no
6896 copyright liability, either civil or criminal, for making copyrighted
6897 content available on the Net. Make file sharing like gossip: regulated, if
6898 at all, by social norms but not by law.
6899 </p><p>
6900 Either response is possible. I think either would be a mistake.  Rather than
6901 embrace one of these two extremes, we should embrace something that
6902 recognizes the truth in both. And while I end this book with a sketch of a
6903 system that does just that, my aim in the next chapter is to show just how
6904 awful it would be for us to adopt the zero-tolerance extreme. I believe
6905 <span class="emphasis"><em>either</em></span> extreme would be worse than a reasonable
6906 alternative.  But I believe the zero-tolerance solution would be the worse
6907 of the two extremes.
6908 </p><p>
6909
6910
6911
6912 Yet zero tolerance is increasingly our government's policy. In the middle of
6913 the chaos that the Internet has created, an extraordinary land grab is
6914 occurring. The law and technology are being shifted to give content holders
6915 a kind of control over our culture that they have never had before. And in
6916 this extremism, many an opportunity for new innovation and new creativity
6917 will be lost.
6918 </p><p>
6919 I'm not talking about the opportunities for kids to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">steal</span>&#8221;</span>
6920 music. My focus instead is the commercial and cultural innovation that this
6921 war will also kill. We have never seen the power to innovate spread so
6922 broadly among our citizens, and we have just begun to see the innovation
6923 that this power will unleash. Yet the Internet has already seen the passing
6924 of one cycle of innovation around technologies to distribute content. The
6925 law is responsible for this passing. As the vice president for global public
6926 policy at one of these new innovators, eMusic.com, put it when criticizing
6927 the DMCA's added protection for copyrighted material,
6928 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6929 eMusic opposes music piracy. We are a distributor of copyrighted material,
6930 and we want to protect those rights.
6931 </p><p>
6932 But building a technology fortress that locks in the clout of the major
6933 labels is by no means the only way to protect copyright interests, nor is it
6934 necessarily the best. It is simply too early to answer that question. Market
6935 forces operating naturally may very well produce a totally different
6936 industry model.
6937 </p><p>
6938 This is a critical point. The choices that industry sectors make with
6939 respect to these systems will in many ways directly shape the market for
6940 digital media and the manner in which digital media are distributed. This in
6941 turn will directly influence the options that are available to consumers,
6942 both in terms of the ease with which they will be able to access digital
6943 media and the equipment that they will require to do so. Poor choices made
6944 this early in the game will retard the growth of this market, hurting
6945 everyone's interests.<sup>[<a name="id2891136" href="#ftn.id2891136" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
6946 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6947 In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of
6948 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the major labels.</span>&#8221;</span> Its position on these matters has now
6949 changed.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2891162"></a>
6950 </p><p>
6951 Reversing our tradition of tolerance now will not merely quash piracy. It
6952 will sacrifice values that are important to this culture, and will kill
6953 opportunities that could be extraordinarily valuable.
6954 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2890663" href="#id2890663" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
6955
6956
6957 H. G. Wells, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Country of the Blind</span>&#8221;</span> (1904, 1911). See
6958 H. G. Wells, <em class="citetitle">The Country of the Blind and Other
6959 Stories</em>, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New York: Oxford University
6960 Press, 1996).
6961 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2890950" href="#id2890950" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
6962
6963 For an excellent summary, see the report prepared by GartnerG2 and the
6964 Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School,
6965 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>&#8221;</span> 27 June
6966 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6967 #33</a>. Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman
6968 (D-Calif.) have introduced a bill that would treat unauthorized on-line
6969 copying as a felony offense with punishments ranging as high as five years
6970 imprisonment; see Jon Healey, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">House Bill Aims to Up Stakes on
6971 Piracy,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 17 July 2003,
6972 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6973 #34</a>. Civil penalties are currently set at $150,000 per copied
6974 song. For a recent (and unsuccessful) legal challenge to the RIAA's demand
6975 that an ISP reveal the identity of a user accused of sharing more than 600
6976 songs through a family computer, see <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
6977 v. <em class="citetitle">Verizon Internet Services (In re. Verizon Internet
6978 Services)</em>, 240 F.  Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2003). Such a user could
6979 face liability ranging as high as $90 million. Such astronomical figures
6980 furnish the RIAA with a powerful arsenal in its prosecution of file
6981 sharers. Settlements ranging from $12,000 to $17,500 for four students
6982 accused of heavy file sharing on university networks must have seemed a mere
6983 pittance next to the $98 billion the RIAA could seek should the matter
6984 proceed to court. See Elizabeth Young, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Downloading Could Lead to
6985 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
6986 RIAA's targeting of student file sharing, and of the subpoenas issued to
6987 universities to reveal student file-sharer identities, see James Collins,
6988 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to Name Students,</span>&#8221;</span>
6989 <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="id2891031"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2891040"></a>
6990 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891136" href="#id2891136" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
6991
6992
6993 WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
6994 Entertainment on the Internet and Other Media: Hearing Before the
6995 Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, House
6996 Committee on Commerce, 106th Cong. 29 (1999) (statement of Peter Harter,
6997 vice president, Global Public Policy and Standards, EMusic.com), available
6998 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>
6999 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
7000 content industry has launched a war. Lobbying and lots of campaign
7001 contributions have now brought the government into this war. As with any
7002 war, this one will have both direct and collateral damage. As with any war
7003 of prohibition, these damages will be suffered most by our own people.
7004 </p><p>
7005 My aim so far has been to describe the consequences of this war, in
7006 particular, the consequences for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free culture.</span>&#8221;</span> But my aim now
7007 is to extend this description of consequences into an argument. Is this war
7008 justified?
7009 </p><p>
7010 In my view, it is not. There is no good reason why this time, for the first
7011 time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the power of
7012 the property called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>&#8221;</span> is at its greatest
7013 in our history.
7014 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2891224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2891230"></a><p>
7015 Yet <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">common sense</span>&#8221;</span> does not see it this way. Common sense is
7016 still on the side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme
7017 claims of control in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical
7018 rejection of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> still has play.
7019 </p><p>
7020
7021
7022 There will be many consequences of continuing this war. I want to describe
7023 just three. All three might be said to be unintended. I am quite confident
7024 the third is unintended. I'm less sure about the first two. The first two
7025 protect modern RCAs, but there is no Howard Armstrong in the wings to fight
7026 today's monopolists of culture.
7027 </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>
7028 In the next ten years we will see an explosion of digital technologies.
7029 These technologies will enable almost anyone to capture and share
7030 content. Capturing and sharing content, of course, is what humans have done
7031 since the dawn of man. It is how we learn and communicate. But capturing and
7032 sharing through digital technology is different. The fidelity and power are
7033 different. You could send an e-mail telling someone about a joke you saw on
7034 Comedy Central, or you could send the clip. You could write an essay about
7035 the inconsistencies in the arguments of the politician you most love to
7036 hate, or you could make a short film that puts statement against
7037 statement. You could write a poem to express your love, or you could weave
7038 together a string&#8212;a mash-up&#8212; of songs from your favorite artists
7039 in a collage and make it available on the Net.
7040 </p><p>
7041 This digital <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>&#8221;</span> is in part an extension of
7042 the capturing and sharing that has always been integral to our culture, and
7043 in part it is something new. It is continuous with the Kodak, but it
7044 explodes the boundaries of Kodak-like technologies. The technology of
7045 digital <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>&#8221;</span> promises a world of
7046 extraordinarily diverse creativity that can be easily and broadly
7047 shared. And as that creativity is applied to democracy, it will enable a
7048 broad range of citizens to use technology to express and criticize and
7049 contribute to the culture all around.
7050 </p><p>
7051
7052 Teknologien har dermed gitt oss en mulighet til å gjøre noe med kultur som
7053 bare har vært mulig for enkeltpersoner i små grupper, isolert fra andre
7054 grupper. Forestill deg en gammel mann som forteller en historie til en
7055 samling med naboer i en liten landsby.  Forestill deg så den samme
7056 historiefortellingen utvidet til å nå over hele verden.
7057 </p><p>
7058 Yet all this is possible only if the activity is presumptively legal. In the
7059 current regime of legal regulation, it is not. Forget file sharing for a
7060 moment. Think about your favorite amazing sites on the Net. Web sites that
7061 offer plot summaries from forgotten television shows; sites that catalog
7062 cartoons from the 1960s; sites that mix images and sound to criticize
7063 politicians or businesses; sites that gather newspaper articles on remote
7064 topics of science or culture. There is a vast amount of creative work spread
7065 across the Internet. But as the law is currently crafted, this work is
7066 presumptively illegal.
7067 </p><p>
7068 That presumption will increasingly chill creativity, as the examples of
7069 extreme penalties for vague infringements continue to proliferate. It is
7070 impossible to get a clear sense of what's allowed and what's not, and at the
7071 same time, the penalties for crossing the line are astonishingly harsh.  The
7072 four students who were threatened by the RIAA ( Jesse Jordan of chapter 3
7073 was just one) were threatened with a $98 billion lawsuit for building search
7074 engines that permitted songs to be copied. Yet World-Com&#8212;which
7075 defrauded investors of $11 billion, resulting in a loss to investors in
7076 market capitalization of over $200 billion&#8212;received a fine of a mere
7077 $750 million.<sup>[<a name="id2891346" href="#ftn.id2891346" class="footnote">157</a>]</sup> And under legislation
7078 being pushed in Congress right now, a doctor who negligently removes the
7079 wrong leg in an operation would be liable for no more than $250,000 in
7080 damages for pain and suffering.<sup>[<a name="id2891384" href="#ftn.id2891384" class="footnote">158</a>]</sup> Can
7081 common sense recognize the absurdity in a world where the maximum fine for
7082 downloading two songs off the Internet is more than the fine for a doctor's
7083 negligently butchering a patient? <a class="indexterm" name="id2891428"></a>
7084 </p><p>
7085 The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high
7086 penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never
7087 be exercised, or never be exercised in the open. We drive this creative
7088 process underground by branding the modern-day Walt Disneys
7089 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">pirates.</span>&#8221;</span> We make it impossible for businesses to rely upon a
7090 public domain, because the boundaries of the public domain are designed to
7091 be unclear. It never pays to do anything except pay for the right to create,
7092 and hence only those who can pay are allowed to create. As was the case in
7093 the Soviet Union, though for very different reasons, we will begin to see a
7094 world of underground art&#8212;not because the message is necessarily
7095 political, or because the subject is controversial, but because the very act
7096 of creating the art is legally fraught. Already, exhibits of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">illegal
7097 art</span>&#8221;</span> tour the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2891447" href="#ftn.id2891447" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In
7098 what does their <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">illegality</span>&#8221;</span> consist? In the act of mixing the
7099 culture around us with an expression that is critical or reflective.
7100 </p><p>
7101 Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the changing
7102 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
7103 the increasing ease with which infractions can be tracked. As users of
7104 file-sharing systems discovered in 2002, it is a trivial matter for
7105 copyright owners to get courts to order Internet service providers to reveal
7106 who has what content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a
7107 list of the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that
7108 anyone could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
7109 </p><p>
7110 Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether his painting
7111 infringed on someone else's work; but the modern-day painter, using the
7112 tools of Photoshop, sharing content on the Web, must worry all the
7113 time. Images are all around, but the only safe images to use in the act of
7114 creation are those purchased from Corbis or another image farm. And in
7115 purchasing, censoring happens. There is a free market in pencils; we needn't
7116 worry about its effect on creativity. But there is a highly regulated,
7117 monopolized market in cultural icons; the right to cultivate and transform
7118 them is not similarly free.
7119 </p><p>
7120 Lawyers rarely see this because lawyers are rarely empirical. As I described
7121 in chapter <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, in
7122 response to the story about documentary filmmaker Jon Else, I have been
7123 lectured again and again by lawyers who insist Else's use was fair use, and
7124 hence I am wrong to say that the law regulates such a use.
7125 </p><p>
7126
7127
7128
7129 But fair use in America simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend
7130 your right to create. And as lawyers love to forget, our system for
7131 defending rights such as fair use is astonishingly bad&#8212;in practically
7132 every context, but especially here. It costs too much, it delivers too
7133 slowly, and what it delivers often has little connection to the justice
7134 underlying the claim. The legal system may be tolerable for the very rich.
7135 For everyone else, it is an embarrassment to a tradition that prides itself
7136 on the rule of law.
7137 </p><p>
7138 Judges and lawyers can tell themselves that fair use provides adequate
7139 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">breathing room</span>&#8221;</span> between regulation by the law and the access
7140 the law should allow. But it is a measure of how out of touch our legal
7141 system has become that anyone actually believes this. The rules that
7142 publishers impose upon writers, the rules that film distributors impose upon
7143 filmmakers, the rules that newspapers impose upon journalists&#8212; these
7144 are the real laws governing creativity. And these rules have little
7145 relationship to the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">law</span>&#8221;</span> with which judges comfort themselves.
7146 </p><p>
7147 For in a world that threatens $150,000 for a single willful infringement of
7148 a copyright, and which demands tens of thousands of dollars to even defend
7149 against a copyright infringement claim, and which would never return to the
7150 wrongfully accused defendant anything of the costs she suffered to defend
7151 her right to speak&#8212;in that world, the astonishingly broad regulations
7152 that pass under the name <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span> silence speech and
7153 creativity. And in that world, it takes a studied blindness for people to
7154 continue to believe they live in a culture that is free.
7155 </p><p>
7156 As Jed Horovitz, the businessman behind Video Pipeline, said to me,
7157 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7158
7159 We're losing [creative] opportunities right and left. Creative people are
7160 being forced not to express themselves. Thoughts are not being
7161 expressed. And while a lot of stuff may [still] be created, it still won't
7162 get distributed. Even if the stuff gets made &#8230; you're not going to
7163 get it distributed in the mainstream media unless you've got a little note
7164 from a lawyer saying, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">This has been cleared.</span>&#8221;</span> You're not even
7165 going to get it on PBS without that kind of permission. That's the point at
7166 which they control it.
7167 </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>
7168 The story of the last section was a crunchy-lefty story&#8212;creativity
7169 quashed, artists who can't speak, yada yada yada. Maybe that doesn't get you
7170 going. Maybe you think there's enough weird art out there, and enough
7171 expression that is critical of what seems to be just about everything.  And
7172 if you think that, you might think there's little in this story to worry
7173 you.
7174 </p><p>
7175 But there's an aspect of this story that is not lefty in any sense.  Indeed,
7176 it is an aspect that could be written by the most extreme promarket
7177 ideologue. And if you're one of these sorts (and a special one at that, 188
7178 pages into a book like this), then you can see this other aspect by
7179 substituting <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free market</span>&#8221;</span> every place I've spoken of
7180 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free culture.</span>&#8221;</span> The point is the same, even if the interests
7181 affecting culture are more fundamental.
7182 </p><p>
7183 The charge I've been making about the regulation of culture is the same
7184 charge free marketers make about regulating markets. Everyone, of course,
7185 concedes that some regulation of markets is necessary&#8212;at a minimum, we
7186 need rules of property and contract, and courts to enforce both. Likewise,
7187 in this culture debate, everyone concedes that at least some framework of
7188 copyright is also required. But both perspectives vehemently insist that
7189 just because some regulation is good, it doesn't follow that more regulation
7190 is better. And both perspectives are constantly attuned to the ways in which
7191 regulation simply enables the powerful industries of today to protect
7192 themselves against the competitors of tomorrow.
7193 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2891653"></a><p>
7194
7195 This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy
7196 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
7197 tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is that innovators who want to
7198 innovate in this space can safely innovate only if they have the sign-off
7199 from last generation's dominant industries.  That lesson has been taught
7200 through a series of cases that were designed and executed to teach venture
7201 capitalists a lesson. That lesson&#8212;what former Napster CEO Hank Barry
7202 calls a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">nuclear pall</span>&#8221;</span> that has fallen over the
7203 Valley&#8212;has been learned.
7204 </p><p>
7205 Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in
7206 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> and which has progressed in a way
7207 that even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
7208 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2891709"></a><p>
7209 In 1997, Michael Roberts launched a company called MP3.com.  MP3.com was
7210 keen to remake the music business. Their goal was not just to facilitate new
7211 ways to get access to content. Their goal was also to facilitate new ways to
7212 create content. Unlike the major labels, MP3.com offered creators a venue to
7213 distribute their creativity, without demanding an exclusive engagement from
7214 the creators.
7215 </p><p>
7216 To make this system work, however, MP3.com needed a reliable way to
7217 recommend music to its users. The idea behind this alternative was to
7218 leverage the revealed preferences of music listeners to recommend new
7219 artists. If you like Lyle Lovett, you're likely to enjoy Bonnie Raitt. And
7220 so on.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2891732"></a>
7221 </p><p>
7222 This idea required a simple way to gather data about user preferences.
7223 MP3.com came up with an extraordinarily clever way to gather this preference
7224 data. In January 2000, the company launched a service called
7225 my.mp3.com. Using software provided by MP3.com, a user would sign into an
7226 account and then insert into her computer a CD. The software would identify
7227 the CD, and then give the user access to that content.  So, for example, if
7228 you inserted a CD by Jill Sobule, then wherever you were&#8212;at work or at
7229 home&#8212;you could get access to that music once you signed into your
7230 account. The system was therefore a kind of music-lockbox.
7231 </p><p>
7232
7233 No doubt some could use this system to illegally copy content. But that
7234 opportunity existed with or without MP3.com. The aim of the my.mp3.com
7235 service was to give users access to their own content, and as a by-product,
7236 by seeing the content they already owned, to discover the kind of content
7237 the users liked.
7238 </p><p>
7239 To make this system function, however, MP3.com needed to copy 50,000 CDs to
7240 a server. (In principle, it could have been the user who uploaded the music,
7241 but that would have taken a great deal of time, and would have produced a
7242 product of questionable quality.) It therefore purchased 50,000 CDs from a
7243 store, and started the process of making copies of those CDs. Again, it
7244 would not serve the content from those copies to anyone except those who
7245 authenticated that they had a copy of the CD they wanted to access. So while
7246 this was 50,000 copies, it was 50,000 copies directed at giving customers
7247 something they had already bought.
7248 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxvivendiuniversal"></a><p>
7249 Nine days after MP3.com launched its service, the five major labels, headed
7250 by the RIAA, brought a lawsuit against MP3.com. MP3.com settled with four of
7251 the five. Nine months later, a federal judge found MP3.com to have been
7252 guilty of willful infringement with respect to the fifth. Applying the law
7253 as it is, the judge imposed a fine against MP3.com of $118 million. MP3.com
7254 then settled with the remaining plaintiff, Vivendi Universal, paying over
7255 $54 million. Vivendi purchased MP3.com just about a year later.
7256 </p><p>
7257 Den delen av historien har jeg fortalt før.  Nå kommer konklusjonen.
7258 </p><p>
7259 After Vivendi purchased MP3.com, Vivendi turned around and filed a
7260 malpractice lawsuit against the lawyers who had advised it that they had a
7261 good faith claim that the service they wanted to offer would be considered
7262 legal under copyright law. This lawsuit alleged that it should have been
7263 obvious that the courts would find this behavior illegal; therefore, this
7264 lawsuit sought to punish any lawyer who had dared to suggest that the law
7265 was less restrictive than the labels demanded.
7266 </p><p>
7267
7268 Den åpenbare hensikten med dette søksmålet (som ble avsluttet med et forlik
7269 for et uspesifisert beløp like etter at saken ikke lenger fikk
7270 pressedekning), var å sende en melding som ikke kan misforstås til advokater
7271 som gir råd til klienter på dette området: Det er ikke bare dine klienter
7272 som får lide hvis innholdsindustrien retter sine våpen mot dem.  Det får
7273 også du.  Så de av dere som tror loven burde være mindre restriktiv bør
7274 innse at et slikt syn på loven vil koste deg og ditt firma dyrt.
7275 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2891836"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2891844"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2891850"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2891856"></a><p>
7276 This strategy is not just limited to the lawyers. In April 2003, Universal
7277 and EMI brought a lawsuit against Hummer Winblad, the venture capital firm
7278 (VC) that had funded Napster at a certain stage of its development, its
7279 cofounder ( John Hummer), and general partner (Hank Barry).<sup>[<a name="id2891870" href="#ftn.id2891870" class="footnote">160</a>]</sup> The claim here, as well, was that the VC should
7280 have recognized the right of the content industry to control how the
7281 industry should develop. They should be held personally liable for funding a
7282 company whose business turned out to be beyond the law. Here again, the aim
7283 of the lawsuit is transparent: Any VC now recognizes that if you fund a
7284 company whose business is not approved of by the dinosaurs, you are at risk
7285 not just in the marketplace, but in the courtroom as well.  Your investment
7286 buys you not only a company, it also buys you a lawsuit.  So extreme has the
7287 environment become that even car manufacturers are afraid of technologies
7288 that touch content. In an article in <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>,
7289 Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW: <a class="indexterm" name="id2891917"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2891924"></a>
7290 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2891933"></a><p>
7291 I asked why, with all the storage capacity and computer power in the car,
7292 there was no way to play MP3 files. I was told that BMW engineers in Germany
7293 had rigged a new vehicle to play MP3s via the car's built-in sound system,
7294 but that the company's marketing and legal departments weren't comfortable
7295 with pushing this forward for release stateside. Even today, no new cars are
7296 sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. &#8230; <sup>[<a name="id2891607" href="#ftn.id2891607" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
7297 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7298 This is the world of the mafia&#8212;filled with <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">your money or your
7299 life</span>&#8221;</span> offers, governed in the end not by courts but by the threats
7300 that the law empowers copyright holders to exercise. It is a system that
7301 will obviously and necessarily stifle new innovation. It is hard enough to
7302 start a company. It is impossibly hard if that company is constantly
7303 threatened by litigation.
7304 </p><p>
7305
7306
7307
7308 The point is not that businesses should have a right to start illegal
7309 enterprises. The point is the definition of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">illegal.</span>&#8221;</span> The law
7310 is a mess of uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply to
7311 new technologies. Yet by reversing our tradition of judicial deference, and
7312 by embracing the astonishingly high penalties that copyright law imposes,
7313 that uncertainty now yields a reality which is far more conservative than is
7314 right. If the law imposed the death penalty for parking tickets, we'd not
7315 only have fewer parking tickets, we'd also have much less driving. The same
7316 principle applies to innovation. If innovation is constantly checked by this
7317 uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation
7318 and much less creativity.
7319 </p><p>
7320 The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
7321 use. Whatever the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">real</span>&#8221;</span> law is, realism about the effect of
7322 law in both contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation
7323 will systematically stifle creativity and innovation. It will protect some
7324 industries and some creators, but it will harm industry and creativity
7325 generally. Free market and free culture depend upon vibrant competition.
7326 Yet the effect of the law today is to stifle just this kind of competition.
7327 The effect is to produce an overregulated culture, just as the effect of too
7328 much control in the market is to produce an overregulatedregulated market.
7329 </p><p>
7330
7331 The building of a permission culture, rather than a free culture, is the
7332 first important way in which the changes I have described will burden
7333 innovation. A permission culture means a lawyer's culture&#8212;a culture in
7334 which the ability to create requires a call to your lawyer. Again, I am not
7335 antilawyer, at least when they're kept in their proper place. I am certainly
7336 not antilaw. But our profession has lost the sense of its limits. And
7337 leaders in our profession have lost an appreciation of the high costs that
7338 our profession imposes upon others. The inefficiency of the law is an
7339 embarrassment to our tradition. And while I believe our profession should
7340 therefore do everything it can to make the law more efficient, it should at
7341 least do everything it can to limit the reach of the law where the law is
7342 not doing any good. The transaction costs buried within a permission culture
7343 are enough to bury a wide range of creativity.  Someone needs to do a lot of
7344 justifying to justify that result.  The uncertainty of the law is one burden
7345 on innovation. There is a second burden that operates more directly. This is
7346 the effort by many in the content industry to use the law to directly
7347 regulate the technology of the Internet so that it better protects their
7348 content.
7349 </p><p>
7350 The motivation for this response is obvious. The Internet enables the
7351 efficient spread of content. That efficiency is a feature of the Internet's
7352 design. But from the perspective of the content industry, this feature is a
7353 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">bug.</span>&#8221;</span> The efficient spread of content means that content
7354 distributors have a harder time controlling the distribution of content.
7355 One obvious response to this efficiency is thus to make the Internet less
7356 efficient. If the Internet enables <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy,</span>&#8221;</span> then, this
7357 response says, we should break the kneecaps of the Internet.
7358 </p><p>
7359 The examples of this form of legislation are many. At the urging of the
7360 content industry, some in Congress have threatened legislation that would
7361 require computers to determine whether the content they access is protected
7362 or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<sup>[<a name="id2892095" href="#ftn.id2892095" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
7363 explore a mandatory <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>&#8221;</span> that would be required on
7364 any device capable of transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and
7365 that would disable the copying of any content that is marked with a
7366 broadcast flag. Other members of Congress have proposed immunizing content
7367 providers from liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt
7368 down copyright violators and disable their machines.<sup>[<a name="id2892124" href="#ftn.id2892124" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
7369 </p><p>
7370
7371 In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the code, why
7372 not regulate the code to remove the problem. But any regulation of technical
7373 infrastructure will always be tuned to the particular technology of the
7374 day. It will impose significant burdens and costs on the technology, but
7375 will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly those requirements.
7376 </p><p>
7377 In March 2002, a broad coalition of technology companies, led by Intel,
7378 tried to get Congress to see the harm that such legislation would
7379 impose.<sup>[<a name="id2892148" href="#ftn.id2892148" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
7380 not that copyright should not be protected. Instead, they argued, any
7381 protection should not do more harm than good.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2892161"></a>
7382 </p><p>
7383 There is one more obvious way in which this war has harmed
7384 innovation&#8212;again, a story that will be quite familiar to the free
7385 market crowd.
7386 </p><p>
7387 Copyright may be property, but like all property, it is also a form of
7388 regulation. It is a regulation that benefits some and harms others.  When
7389 done right, it benefits creators and harms leeches. When done wrong, it is
7390 regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
7391 </p><p>
7392 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
7393 subject to important qualifications outlined by Jessica Litman in her book
7394 <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em>,<sup>[<a name="id2892196" href="#ftn.id2892196" class="footnote">165</a>]</sup> overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10
7395 details, when new technologies have come along, Congress has struck a
7396 balance to assure that the new is protected from the old. Compulsory, or
7397 statutory, licenses have been one part of that strategy. Free use (as in the
7398 case of the VCR) has been another.
7399 </p><p>
7400 But that pattern of deference to new technologies has now changed with the
7401 rise of the Internet. Rather than striking a balance between the claims of a
7402 new technology and the legitimate rights of content creators, both the
7403 courts and Congress have imposed legal restrictions that will have the
7404 effect of smothering the new to benefit the old.
7405 </p><p>
7406 The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<sup>[<a name="id2892232" href="#ftn.id2892232" class="footnote">166</a>]</sup> It has been mirrored in the responses threatened
7407 and actually implemented by Congress. I won't catalog all of those responses
7408 here.<sup>[<a name="id2892267" href="#ftn.id2892267" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
7409 captures the flavor of them all. This is the story of the demise of Internet
7410 radio.
7411 </p><p>
7412
7413
7414 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
7415 doesn't get paid for that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">radio performance</span>&#8221;</span> unless he or she
7416 is also the composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had recorded a
7417 version of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;to memorialize her famous
7418 performance before President Kennedy at Madison Square Garden&#8212; then
7419 whenever that recording was played on the radio, the current copyright
7420 owners of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>&#8221;</span> would get some money, whereas
7421 Marilyn Monroe would not.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2892342"></a>
7422 </p><p>
7423 The reasoning behind this balance struck by Congress makes some sense. The
7424 justification was that radio was a kind of advertising. The recording artist
7425 thus benefited because by playing her music, the radio station was making it
7426 more likely that her records would be purchased.  Thus, the recording artist
7427 got something, even if only indirectly.  Probably this reasoning had less to
7428 do with the result than with the power of radio stations: Their lobbyists
7429 were quite good at stopping any efforts to get Congress to require
7430 compensation to the recording artists.
7431 </p><p>
7432 Enter Internet radio. Like regular radio, Internet radio is a technology to
7433 stream content from a broadcaster to a listener. The broadcast travels
7434 across the Internet, not across the ether of radio spectrum.  Thus, I can
7435 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">tune in</span>&#8221;</span> to an Internet radio station in Berlin while sitting
7436 in San Francisco, even though there's no way for me to tune in to a regular
7437 radio station much beyond the San Francisco metropolitan area.
7438 </p><p>
7439 This feature of the architecture of Internet radio means that there are
7440 potentially an unlimited number of radio stations that a user could tune in
7441 to using her computer, whereas under the existing architecture for broadcast
7442 radio, there is an obvious limit to the number of broadcasters and clear
7443 broadcast frequencies. Internet radio could therefore be more competitive
7444 than regular radio; it could provide a wider range of selections. And
7445 because the potential audience for Internet radio is the whole world, niche
7446 stations could easily develop and market their content to a relatively large
7447 number of users worldwide. According to some estimates, more than eighty
7448 million users worldwide have tuned in to this new form of radio.
7449 </p><p>
7450
7451
7452
7453 Internet radio is thus to radio what FM was to AM. It is an improvement
7454 potentially vastly more significant than the FM improvement over AM, since
7455 not only is the technology better, so, too, is the competition. Indeed,
7456 there is a direct parallel between the fight to establish FM radio and the
7457 fight to protect Internet radio. As one author describes Howard Armstrong's
7458 struggle to enable FM radio,
7459 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7460 An almost unlimited number of FM stations was possible in the shortwaves,
7461 thus ending the unnatural restrictions imposed on radio in the crowded
7462 longwaves. If FM were freely developed, the number of stations would be
7463 limited only by economics and competition rather than by technical
7464 restrictions. &#8230; Armstrong likened the situation that had grown up in
7465 radio to that following the invention of the printing press, when
7466 governments and ruling interests attempted to control this new instrument of
7467 mass communications by imposing restrictive licenses on it. This tyranny was
7468 broken only when it became possible for men freely to acquire printing
7469 presses and freely to run them. FM in this sense was as great an invention
7470 as the printing presses, for it gave radio the opportunity to strike off its
7471 shackles.<sup>[<a name="id2891949" href="#ftn.id2891949" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
7472 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7473 This potential for FM radio was never realized&#8212;not because Armstrong
7474 was wrong about the technology, but because he underestimated the power of
7475 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">vested interests, habits, customs and legislation</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2892441" href="#ftn.id2892441" class="footnote">169</a>]</sup> to retard the growth of this competing technology.
7476 </p><p>
7477 Now the very same claim could be made about Internet radio. For again, there
7478 is no technical limitation that could restrict the number of Internet radio
7479 stations. The only restrictions on Internet radio are those imposed by the
7480 law. Copyright law is one such law. So the first question we should ask is,
7481 what copyright rules would govern Internet radio?
7482 </p><p>
7483
7484 But here the power of the lobbyists is reversed. Internet radio is a new
7485 industry. The recording artists, on the other hand, have a very powerful
7486 lobby, the RIAA. Thus when Congress considered the phenomenon of Internet
7487 radio in 1995, the lobbyists had primed Congress to adopt a different rule
7488 for Internet radio than the rule that applies to terrestrial radio. While
7489 terrestrial radio does not have to pay our hypothetical Marilyn Monroe when
7490 it plays her hypothetical recording of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>&#8221;</span> on the
7491 air, <span class="emphasis"><em>Internet radio does</em></span>. Not only is the law not
7492 neutral toward Internet radio&#8212;the law actually burdens Internet radio
7493 more than it burdens terrestrial radio.
7494 </p><p>
7495 This financial burden is not slight. As Harvard law professor William Fisher
7496 estimates, if an Internet radio station distributed adfree popular music to
7497 (on average) ten thousand listeners, twenty-four hours a day, the total
7498 artist fees that radio station would owe would be over $1 million a
7499 year.<sup>[<a name="id2892488" href="#ftn.id2892488" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
7500 broadcasting the same content would pay no equivalent fee.
7501 </p><p>
7502 The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were
7503 proposed, an Internet radio station (but not a terrestrial radio station)
7504 would have to collect the following data from <span class="emphasis"><em>every listening
7505 transaction</em></span>:
7506 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
7507 navn på tjenesten,
7508 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7509 kanalen til programmet (AM/FM-stasjoner bruker stasjons-ID);
7510 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7511 type program (fra arkivet/i løkke/direkte);
7512 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7513 dato for sending;
7514 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7515 tidspunkt for sending;
7516 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7517 tidssone til opprinnelsen for sending;
7518 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7519 numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program;
7520 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7521 varigheten av sending (til nærmeste sekund):
7522 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7523 lydinnspilling-tittel;
7524 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7525 ISRC-kode for opptaket;
7526 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7527 release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of
7528 compilation albums, the release year of the album and copy- right date of
7529 the track;
7530 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7531 spillende plateartist;
7532 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7533 tittel på album i butikker;
7534 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7535 plateselskap;
7536 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7537 UPC-koden for albumet i butikker;
7538 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7539 katalognummer;
7540 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7541 informasjon om opphavsrettsinnehaver;
7542 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7543 musikksjanger for kanal eller programmet (stasjonsformat);
7544 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7545 navn på tjenesten eller selskap;
7546 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7547 kanal eller program;
7548 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7549 date and time that the user logged in (in the user's time zone);
7550 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7551 date and time that the user logged out (in the user's time zone);
7552 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7553 time zone where the signal was received (user);
7554 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7555 unik bruker-identifikator;
7556 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7557 landet til brukeren som mottok sendingene.
7558 </p></li></ol></div><p>
7559 The Librarian of Congress eventually suspended these reporting requirements,
7560 pending further study. And he also changed the original rates set by the
7561 arbitration panel charged with setting rates. But the basic difference
7562 between Internet radio and terrestrial radio remains: Internet radio has to
7563 pay a <span class="emphasis"><em>type of copyright fee</em></span> that terrestrial radio does
7564 not.
7565 </p><p>
7566 Why? What justifies this difference? Was there any study of the economic
7567 consequences from Internet radio that would justify these differences? Was
7568 the motive to protect artists against piracy?
7569 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2892711"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2892717"></a><p>
7570 In a rare bit of candor, one RIAA expert admitted what seemed obvious to
7571 everyone at the time. As Alex Alben, vice president for Public Policy at
7572 Real Networks, told me,
7573 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7574
7575 The RIAA, which was representing the record labels, presented some testimony
7576 about what they thought a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, and
7577 it was much higher. It was ten times higher than what radio stations pay to
7578 perform the same songs for the same period of time. And so the attorneys
7579 representing the webcasters asked the RIAA, &#8230; <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">How do you come
7580 up with a rate that's so much higher? Why is it worth more than radio?
7581 Because here we have hundreds of thousands of webcasters who want to pay,
7582 and that should establish the market rate, and if you set the rate so high,
7583 you're going to drive the small webcasters out of business. &#8230;</span>&#8221;</span>
7584 </p><p>
7585 And the RIAA experts said, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Well, we don't really model this as an
7586 industry with thousands of webcasters, <span class="emphasis"><em>we think it should be an
7587 industry with, you know, five or seven big players who can pay a high rate
7588 and it's a stable, predictable market</em></span>.</span>&#8221;</span> (Emphasis added.)
7589 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7590 Translation: The aim is to use the law to eliminate competition, so that
7591 this platform of potentially immense competition, which would cause the
7592 diversity and range of content available to explode, would not cause pain to
7593 the dinosaurs of old. There is no one, on either the right or the left, who
7594 should endorse this use of the law. And yet there is practically no one, on
7595 either the right or the left, who is doing anything effective to prevent it.
7596 </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>
7597 Overregulation stifles creativity. It smothers innovation. It gives
7598 dinosaurs a veto over the future. It wastes the extraordinary opportunity
7599 for a democratic creativity that digital technology enables.
7600 </p><p>
7601 In addition to these important harms, there is one more that was important
7602 to our forebears, but seems forgotten today. Overregulation corrupts
7603 citizens and weakens the rule of law.
7604 </p><p>
7605
7606 The war that is being waged today is a war of prohibition. As with every war
7607 of prohibition, it is targeted against the behavior of a very large number
7608 of citizens. According to <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, 43
7609 million Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<sup>[<a name="id2892811" href="#ftn.id2892811" class="footnote">171</a>]</sup> According to the RIAA, the behavior of those 43 million Americans
7610 is a felony. We thus have a set of rules that transform 20 percent of
7611 America into criminals. As the RIAA launches lawsuits against not only the
7612 Napsters and Kazaas of the world, but against students building search
7613 engines, and increasingly against ordinary users downloading content, the
7614 technologies for sharing will advance to further protect and hide illegal
7615 use. It is an arms race or a civil war, with the extremes of one side
7616 inviting a more extreme response by the other.
7617 </p><p>
7618 The content industry's tactics exploit the failings of the American legal
7619 system. When the RIAA brought suit against Jesse Jordan, it knew that in
7620 Jordan it had found a scapegoat, not a defendant. The threat of having to
7621 pay either all the money in the world in damages ($15,000,000) or almost all
7622 the money in the world to defend against paying all the money in the world
7623 in damages ($250,000 in legal fees)  led Jordan to choose to pay all the
7624 money he had in the world ($12,000) to make the suit go away. The same
7625 strategy animates the RIAA's suits against individual users. In September
7626 2003, the RIAA sued 261 individuals&#8212;including a twelve-year-old girl
7627 living in public housing and a seventy-year-old man who had no idea what
7628 file sharing was.<sup>[<a name="id2892478" href="#ftn.id2892478" class="footnote">172</a>]</sup> As these scapegoats
7629 discovered, it will always cost more to defend against these suits than it
7630 would cost to simply settle. (The twelve year old, for example, like Jesse
7631 Jordan, paid her life savings of $2,000 to settle the case.) Our law is an
7632 awful system for defending rights. It is an embarrassment to our
7633 tradition. And the consequence of our law as it is, is that those with the
7634 power can use the law to quash any rights they oppose.
7635 </p><p>
7636 Wars of prohibition are nothing new in America. This one is just something
7637 more extreme than anything we've seen before. We experimented with alcohol
7638 prohibition, at a time when the per capita consumption of alcohol was 1.5
7639 gallons per capita per year. The war against drinking initially reduced that
7640 consumption to just 30 percent of its preprohibition levels, but by the end
7641 of prohibition, consumption was up to 70 percent of the preprohibition
7642 level. Americans were drinking just about as much, but now, a vast number
7643 were criminals.<sup>[<a name="id2892901" href="#ftn.id2892901" class="footnote">173</a>]</sup> We have launched a war
7644 on drugs aimed at reducing the consumption of regulated narcotics that 7
7645 percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.<sup>[<a name="id2892918" href="#ftn.id2892918" class="footnote">174</a>]</sup> That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in 1979 of 14 percent of
7646 the population. We regulate automobiles to the point where the vast majority
7647 of Americans violate the law every day. We run such a complex tax system
7648 that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.<sup>[<a name="id2892935" href="#ftn.id2892935" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free
7649 society,</span>&#8221;</span> but an endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated
7650 within our society. And as a result, a huge proportion of Americans
7651 regularly violate at least some law.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2892956"></a>
7652 </p><p>
7653 This state of affairs is not without consequence. It is a particularly
7654 salient issue for teachers like me, whose job it is to teach law students
7655 about the importance of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">ethics.</span>&#8221;</span> As my colleague Charlie
7656 Nesson told a class at Stanford, each year law schools admit thousands of
7657 students who have illegally downloaded music, illegally consumed alcohol and
7658 sometimes drugs, illegally worked without paying taxes, illegally driven
7659 cars. These are kids for whom behaving illegally is increasingly the
7660 norm. And then we, as law professors, are supposed to teach them how to
7661 behave ethically&#8212;how to say no to bribes, or keep client funds
7662 separate, or honor a demand to disclose a document that will mean that your
7663 case is over. Generations of Americans&#8212;more significantly in some
7664 parts of America than in others, but still, everywhere in America
7665 today&#8212;can't live their lives both normally and legally, since
7666 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">normally</span>&#8221;</span> entails a certain degree of illegality.
7667 <a class="indexterm" name="id2892975"></a>
7668 </p><p>
7669 The response to this general illegality is either to enforce the law more
7670 severely or to change the law. We, as a society, have to learn how to make
7671 that choice more rationally. Whether a law makes sense depends, in part, at
7672 least, upon whether the costs of the law, both intended and collateral,
7673 outweigh the benefits. If the costs, intended and collateral, do outweigh
7674 the benefits, then the law ought to be changed.  Alternatively, if the costs
7675 of the existing system are much greater than the costs of an alternative,
7676 then we have a good reason to consider the alternative.
7677 </p><p>
7678
7679
7680
7681 My point is not the idiotic one: Just because people violate a law, we
7682 should therefore repeal it. Obviously, we could reduce murder statistics
7683 dramatically by legalizing murder on Wednesdays and Fridays. But that
7684 wouldn't make any sense, since murder is wrong every day of the week. A
7685 society is right to ban murder always and everywhere.
7686 </p><p>
7687 My point is instead one that democracies understood for generations, but
7688 that we recently have learned to forget. The rule of law depends upon people
7689 obeying the law. The more often, and more repeatedly, we as citizens
7690 experience violating the law, the less we respect the law. Obviously, in
7691 most cases, the important issue is the law, not respect for the law. I don't
7692 care whether the rapist respects the law or not; I want to catch and
7693 incarcerate the rapist. But I do care whether my students respect the
7694 law. And I do care if the rules of law sow increasing disrespect because of
7695 the extreme of regulation they impose.  Twenty million Americans have come
7696 of age since the Internet introduced this different idea of
7697 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sharing.</span>&#8221;</span> We need to be able to call these twenty million
7698 Americans <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">citizens,</span>&#8221;</span> not <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">felons.</span>&#8221;</span>
7699 </p><p>
7700 When at least forty-three million citizens download content from the
7701 Internet, and when they use tools to combine that content in ways
7702 unauthorized by copyright holders, the first question we should be asking is
7703 not how best to involve the FBI. The first question should be whether this
7704 particular prohibition is really necessary in order to achieve the proper
7705 ends that copyright law serves. Is there another way to assure that artists
7706 get paid without transforming forty-three million Americans into felons?
7707 Does it make sense if there are other ways to assure that artists get paid
7708 without transforming America into a nation of felons?
7709 </p><p>
7710 This abstract point can be made more clear with a particular example.
7711 </p><p>
7712
7713 We all own CDs. Many of us still own phonograph records. These pieces of
7714 plastic encode music that in a certain sense we have bought.  The law
7715 protects our right to buy and sell that plastic: It is not a copyright
7716 infringement for me to sell all my classical records at a used record store
7717 and buy jazz records to replace them. That <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">use</span>&#8221;</span> of the
7718 recordings is free.
7719 </p><p>
7720 But as the MP3 craze has demonstrated, there is another use of phonograph
7721 records that is effectively free. Because these recordings were made without
7722 copy-protection technologies, I am <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free</span>&#8221;</span> to copy, or
7723 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rip,</span>&#8221;</span> music from my records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed,
7724 Apple Corporation went so far as to suggest that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">freedom</span>&#8221;</span> was
7725 a right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Rip, Mix,
7726 Burn</span>&#8221;</span> capacities of digital technologies.
7727 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2893114"></a><p>
7728 This <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">use</span>&#8221;</span> of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a
7729 large process at home of ripping all of my and my wife's CDs, and storing
7730 them in one archive. Then, using Apple's iTunes, or a wonderful program
7731 called Andromeda, we can build different play lists of our music: Bach,
7732 Baroque, Love Songs, Love Songs of Significant Others&#8212;the potential is
7733 endless. And by reducing the costs of mixing play lists, these technologies
7734 help build a creativity with play lists that is itself independently
7735 valuable. Compilations of songs are creative and meaningful in their own
7736 right.
7737 </p><p>
7738 This use is enabled by unprotected media&#8212;either CDs or records.  But
7739 unprotected media also enable file sharing. File sharing threatens (or so
7740 the content industry believes) the ability of creators to earn a fair return
7741 from their creativity. And thus, many are beginning to experiment with
7742 technologies to eliminate unprotected media. These technologies, for
7743 example, would enable CDs that could not be ripped. Or they might enable spy
7744 programs to identify ripped content on people's machines.
7745 </p><p>
7746
7747 If these technologies took off, then the building of large archives of your
7748 own music would become quite difficult. You might hang in hacker circles,
7749 and get technology to disable the technologies that protect the
7750 content. Trading in those technologies is illegal, but maybe that doesn't
7751 bother you much. In any case, for the vast majority of people, these
7752 protection technologies would effectively destroy the archiving use of
7753 CDs. The technology, in other words, would force us all back to the world
7754 where we either listened to music by manipulating pieces of plastic or were
7755 part of a massively complex <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">digital rights management</span>&#8221;</span> system.
7756 </p><p>
7757 If the only way to assure that artists get paid were the elimination of the
7758 ability to freely move content, then these technologies to interfere with
7759 the freedom to move content would be justifiable. But what if there were
7760 another way to assure that artists are paid, without locking down any
7761 content? What if, in other words, a different system could assure
7762 compensation to artists while also preserving the freedom to move content
7763 easily?
7764 </p><p>
7765 My point just now is not to prove that there is such a system. I offer a
7766 version of such a system in the last chapter of this book. For now, the only
7767 point is the relatively uncontroversial one: If a different system achieved
7768 the same legitimate objectives that the existing copyright system achieved,
7769 but left consumers and creators much more free, then we'd have a very good
7770 reason to pursue this alternative&#8212;namely, freedom.  The choice, in
7771 other words, would not be between property and piracy; the choice would be
7772 between different property systems and the freedoms each allowed.
7773 </p><p>
7774 I believe there is a way to assure that artists are paid without turning
7775 forty-three million Americans into felons. But the salient feature of this
7776 alternative is that it would lead to a very different market for producing
7777 and distributing creativity. The dominant few, who today control the vast
7778 majority of the distribution of content in the world, would no longer
7779 exercise this extreme of control. Rather, they would go the way of the
7780 horse-drawn buggy.
7781 </p><p>
7782 Except that this generation's buggy manufacturers have already saddled
7783 Congress, and are riding the law to protect themselves against this new form
7784 of competition. For them the choice is between fortythree million Americans
7785 as criminals and their own survival.
7786 </p><p>
7787 It is understandable why they choose as they do. It is not understandable
7788 why we as a democracy continue to choose as we do. Jack Valenti is charming;
7789 but not so charming as to justify giving up a tradition as deep and
7790 important as our tradition of free culture.  There's one more aspect to this
7791 corruption that is particularly important to civil liberties, and follows
7792 directly from any war of prohibition.  As Electronic Frontier Foundation
7793 attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">collateral
7794 damage</span>&#8221;</span> that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">arises whenever you turn a very large percentage
7795 of the population into criminals.</span>&#8221;</span> This is the collateral damage to
7796 civil liberties generally.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2893231"></a>
7797 </p><p>
7798 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">If you can treat someone as a putative lawbreaker,</span>&#8221;</span> von
7799 Lohmann explains, <a class="indexterm" name="id2893247"></a>
7800 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7801 then all of a sudden a lot of basic civil liberty protections evaporate to
7802 one degree or another. &#8230; If you're a copyright infringer, how can you
7803 hope to have any privacy rights? If you're a copyright infringer, how can
7804 you hope to be secure against seizures of your computer? How can you hope to
7805 continue to receive Internet access? &#8230; Our sensibilities change as
7806 soon as we think, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Oh, well, but that person's a criminal, a
7807 lawbreaker.</span>&#8221;</span> Well, what this campaign against file sharing has done
7808 is turn a remarkable percentage of the American Internet-using population
7809 into <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">lawbreakers.</span>&#8221;</span>
7810 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7811 And the consequence of this transformation of the American public into
7812 criminals is that it becomes trivial, as a matter of due process, to
7813 effectively erase much of the privacy most would presume.
7814 </p><p>
7815 Users of the Internet began to see this generally in 2003 as the RIAA
7816 launched its campaign to force Internet service providers to turn over the
7817 names of customers who the RIAA believed were violating copyright
7818 law. Verizon fought that demand and lost. With a simple request to a judge,
7819 and without any notice to the customer at all, the identity of an Internet
7820 user is revealed.
7821 </p><p>
7822
7823 The RIAA then expanded this campaign, by announcing a general strategy to
7824 sue individual users of the Internet who are alleged to have downloaded
7825 copyrighted music from file-sharing systems. But as we've seen, the
7826 potential damages from these suits are astronomical: If a family's computer
7827 is used to download a single CD's worth of music, the family could be liable
7828 for $2 million in damages. That didn't stop the RIAA from suing a number of
7829 these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.<sup>[<a name="id2893311" href="#ftn.id2893311" class="footnote">176</a>]</sup>
7830
7831 </p><p>
7832 Even this understates the espionage that is being waged by the RIAA. A
7833 report from CNN late last summer described a strategy the RIAA had adopted
7834 to track Napster users.<sup>[<a name="id2893366" href="#ftn.id2893366" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> Using a
7835 sophisticated hashing algorithm, the RIAA took what is in effect a
7836 fingerprint of every song in the Napster catalog. Any copy of one of those
7837 MP3s will have the same <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fingerprint.</span>&#8221;</span>
7838 </p><p>
7839 So imagine the following not-implausible scenario: Imagine a friend gives a
7840 CD to your daughter&#8212;a collection of songs just like the cassettes you
7841 used to make as a kid. You don't know, and neither does your daughter, where
7842 these songs came from. But she copies these songs onto her computer. She
7843 then takes her computer to college and connects it to a college network, and
7844 if the college network is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">cooperating</span>&#8221;</span> with the RIAA's
7845 espionage, and she hasn't properly protected her content from the network
7846 (do you know how to do that yourself ?), then the RIAA will be able to
7847 identify your daughter as a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">criminal.</span>&#8221;</span> And under the rules
7848 that universities are beginning to deploy,<sup>[<a name="id2893411" href="#ftn.id2893411" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer
7849 network.  She can, in some cases, be expelled.
7850 </p><p>
7851 Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire a
7852 lawyer for her (at $300 per hour, if you're lucky), and she can plead that
7853 she didn't know anything about the source of the songs or that they came
7854 from Napster. And it may well be that the university believes her. But the
7855 university might not believe her. It might treat this
7856 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">contraband</span>&#8221;</span> as presumptive of guilt. And as any number of
7857 college students have already learned, our presumptions about innocence
7858 disappear in the middle of wars of prohibition. This war is no different.
7859 Says von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id2893499"></a>
7860 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7861 So when we're talking about numbers like forty to sixty million Americans
7862 that are essentially copyright infringers, you create a situation where the
7863 civil liberties of those people are very much in peril in a general
7864 matter. [I don't] think [there is any] analog where you could randomly
7865 choose any person off the street and be confident that they were committing
7866 an unlawful act that could put them on the hook for potential felony
7867 liability or hundreds of millions of dollars of civil liability. Certainly
7868 we all speed, but speeding isn't the kind of an act for which we routinely
7869 forfeit civil liberties. Some people use drugs, and I think that's the
7870 closest analog, [but] many have noted that the war against drugs has eroded
7871 all of our civil liberties because it's treated so many Americans as
7872 criminals. Well, I think it's fair to say that file sharing is an order of
7873 magnitude larger number of Americans than drug use. &#8230; If forty to
7874 sixty million Americans have become lawbreakers, then we're really on a
7875 slippery slope to lose a lot of civil liberties for all forty to sixty
7876 million of them.
7877 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7878 When forty to sixty million Americans are considered
7879 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">criminals</span>&#8221;</span> under the law, and when the law could achieve the
7880 same objective&#8212; securing rights to authors&#8212;without these
7881 millions being considered <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">criminals,</span>&#8221;</span> who is the villain?
7882 Americans or the law? Which is American, a constant war on our own people or
7883 a concerted effort through our democracy to change our law?
7884 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891346" href="#id2891346" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
7885
7886 See Lynne W. Jeter, <em class="citetitle">Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at
7887 WorldCom</em> (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley &amp; Sons, 2003), 176, 204;
7888 for details of the settlement, see MCI press release, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">MCI Wins
7889 U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement</span>&#8221;</span> (7 July 2003),
7890 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #37</a>.
7891 <a class="indexterm" name="id2891372"></a>
7892 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891384" href="#id2891384" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
7893  The bill, modeled after California's tort reform model, was passed in the
7894 House of Representatives but defeated in a Senate vote in July 2003. For an
7895 overview, see Tanya Albert, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be
7896 Back,' Say Tort Reformers,</span>&#8221;</span> amednews.com, 28 July 2003, available at
7897 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #38</a>, and
7898 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Senate Turns Back Malpractice Caps,</span>&#8221;</span> CBSNews.com, 9 July 2003,
7899 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7900 #39</a>. President Bush has continued to urge tort reform in recent
7901 months.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2891415"></a>
7902 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891447" href="#id2891447" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
7903
7904
7905
7906 See Danit Lidor, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Artists Just Wanna Be Free,</span>&#8221;</span>
7907 <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
7908 exhibition, see <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #41</a>.
7909 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891870" href="#id2891870" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
7910
7911
7912 See Joseph Menn, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,</span>&#8221;</span>
7913 <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 23 April 2003. For a parallel
7914 argument about the effects on innovation in the distribution of music, see
7915 Janelle Brown, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Music Revolution Will Not Be Digitized,</span>&#8221;</span>
7916 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,
7917 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Online Music Services Besieged,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
7918 Times</em>, 28 May 2001.
7919 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891607" href="#id2891607" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
7920
7921 Rafe Needleman, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Driving in Cars with MP3s,</span>&#8221;</span>
7922 <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
7923 Dr. Mohammad Al-Ubaydli for this example.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2891968"></a>
7924 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892095" href="#id2892095" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
7925
7926 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>&#8221;</span>
7927 GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law
7928 School (2003), 33&#8211;35, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.
7929 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892124" href="#id2892124" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
7930
7931
7932 GartnerG2, 26&#8211;27.
7933 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892148" href="#id2892148" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
7934
7935
7936 See David McGuire, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy,</span>&#8221;</span>
7937 Newsbytes, February 2002 (Entertainment).
7938 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892196" href="#id2892196" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
7939
7940 Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
7941 Prometheus Books, 2001).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2892203"></a>
7942 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892232" href="#id2892232" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
7943
7944
7945 The only circuit court exception is found in <em class="citetitle">Recording Industry
7946 Association of America (RIAA)</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Diamond Multimedia
7947 Systems</em>, 180 F. 3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999). There the court of
7948 appeals for the Ninth Circuit reasoned that makers of a portable MP3 player
7949 were not liable for contributory copyright infringement for a device that is
7950 unable to record or redistribute music (a device whose only copying function
7951 is to render portable a music file already stored on a user's hard drive).
7952 At the district court level, the only exception is found in
7953 <em class="citetitle">Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,
7954 Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Grokster, Ltd</em>., 259 F. Supp. 2d
7955 1029 (C.D.  Cal., 2003), where the court found the link between the
7956 distributor and any given user's conduct too attenuated to make the
7957 distributor liable for contributory or vicarious infringement liability.
7958 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892267" href="#id2892267" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
7959
7960 For example, in July 2002, Representative Howard Berman introduced the
7961 Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize
7962 copyright holders from liability for damage done to computers when the
7963 copyright holders use technology to stop copyright infringement. In August
7964 2002, Representative Billy Tauzin introduced a bill to mandate that
7965 technologies capable of rebroadcasting digital copies of films broadcast on
7966 TV (i.e., computers) respect a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>&#8221;</span> that would
7967 disable copying of that content. And in March of the same year, Senator
7968 Fritz Hollings introduced the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television
7969 Promotion Act, which mandated copyright protection technology in all digital
7970 media devices. See GartnerG2, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a
7971 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="id2892296"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2892305"></a>
7972 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891949" href="#id2891949" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
7973
7974
7975 Lessing, 239.
7976 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892441" href="#id2892441" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
7977
7978
7979 Ibid., 229.
7980 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892488" href="#id2892488" class="para">170</a>] </sup>
7981
7982 This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright Arbitration
7983 Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an example offered by
7984 Professor William Fisher. Conference Proceedings, iLaw (Stanford), 3 July
7985 2003, on file with author. Professors Fisher and Zittrain submitted
7986 testimony in the CARP proceeding that was ultimately rejected.  See Jonathan
7987 Zittrain, Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral
7988 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
7989 analysis making a similar point, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright as
7990 Entry Policy: The Case of Digital Distribution,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Antitrust
7991 Bulletin</em> (Summer/Fall 2002): 461: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">This was not confusion,
7992 these are just old-fashioned entry barriers. Analog radio stations are
7993 protected from digital entrants, reducing entry in radio and diversity. Yes,
7994 this is done in the name of getting royalties to copyright holders, but,
7995 absent the play of powerful interests, that could have been done in a
7996 media-neutral way.</span>&#8221;</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2892524"></a>
7997 <a class="indexterm" name="id2892534"></a>
7998 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892811" href="#id2892811" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
7999
8000 Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Music Downloading Deluge,</span>&#8221;</span>
8001 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
8002 American Life Project reported that 37 million Americans had downloaded
8003 music files from the Internet by early 2001.
8004 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892478" href="#id2892478" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
8005
8006
8007 Alex Pham, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA
8008 Case,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 10 September 2003,
8009 Business.
8010 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892901" href="#id2892901" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
8011
8012
8013 Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Alcohol Consumption During
8014 Prohibition,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81,
8015 no. 2 (1991): 242.
8016 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892918" href="#id2892918" class="para">174</a>] </sup>
8017
8018
8019 National Drug Control Policy: Hearing Before the House Government Reform
8020 Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (5 March 2003) (statement of John
8021 P. Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy).
8022 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892935" href="#id2892935" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
8023
8024
8025 See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Tax
8026 Compliance,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature</em> 36
8027 (1998): 818 (survey of compliance literature).
8028 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893311" href="#id2893311" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
8029
8030
8031 See Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single
8032 Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>&#8221;</span>
8033 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10 September 2003, E1; Chris Cobbs,
8034 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Worried Parents Pull Plug on File `Stealing'; With the Music Industry
8035 Cracking Down on File Swapping, Parents are Yanking Software from Home PCs
8036 to Avoid Being Sued,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel
8037 Tribune</em>, 30 August 2003, C1; Jefferson Graham, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Recording
8038 Industry Sues Parents,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 15
8039 September 2003, 4D; John Schwartz, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">She Says She's No Music Pirate. No
8040 Snoop Fan, Either,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 25
8041 September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Is Brianna a Criminal?</span>&#8221;</span>
8042 <em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
8043 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893366" href="#id2893366" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
8044
8045
8046 See <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Revealed: How RIAA Tracks Downloaders: Music Industry Discloses
8047 Some Methods Used,</span>&#8221;</span> CNN.com, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #47</a>.
8048 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893411" href="#id2893411" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
8049
8050
8051 See Jeff Adler, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not
8052 Penitent,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 18 May 2003, City
8053 Weekly, 1; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Four Students Sued over Music Sites;
8054 Industry Group Targets File Sharing at Colleges,</span>&#8221;</span>
8055 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 4 April 2003, E1; Elizabeth
8056 Armstrong, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Students `Rip, Mix, Burn' at Their Own Risk,</span>&#8221;</span>
8057 <em class="citetitle">Christian Science Monitor</em>, 2 September 2003, 20;
8058 Robert Becker and Angela Rozas, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Music Pirate Hunt Turns to Loyola;
8059 Two Students Names Are Handed Over; Lawsuit Possible,</span>&#8221;</span>
8060 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 16 July 2003, 1C; Beth Cox,
8061 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">RIAA Trains Antipiracy Guns on Universities,</span>&#8221;</span>
8062 <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,
8063 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Download Warning 101: Freshman Orientation This Fall to Include
8064 Record Industry Warnings Against File Sharing,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">San
8065 Francisco Chronicle</em>, 11 August 2003, E11; <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Raid, Letters
8066 Are Weapons at Universities,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 26
8067 September 2000, 3D.
8068 </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>
8069 Så her er bildet: Du står på siden av veien. Bilen din er på brann. Du er
8070 sint og opprørt fordi du delvis bidro til å starte brannen. Nå vet du ikke
8071 hvordan du slokker den.  Ved siden av deg er en bøtte, fylt med
8072 bensin. Bensin vil åpenbart ikke slukke brannen.
8073 </p><p>
8074 Mens du tenker over situasjonen, kommer noen andre forbi.  I panikk griper
8075 hun bøtta, og før du har hatt sjansen til å be henne stoppe&#8212;eller før
8076 hun forstår hvorfor hun bør stoppe&#8212;er bøtten i svevet.  Bensinen er på
8077 tur mot den brennende bilen.  Og brannen som bensinen kommer til å fyre opp
8078 vil straks sette fyr på alt i omgivelsene.
8079 </p><p>
8080 En krig om opphavsrett pågår over alt&#8212; og vi fokuserer alle på feil
8081 ting.  Det er ingen tvil om at dagens teknologier truer eksisterende
8082 virksomheter.  Uten tvil kan de true artister.  Men teknologier endrer seg.
8083 Industrien og teknologer har en rekke måter å bruke teknologi til å beskytte
8084 dem selv mot dagens trusler på Internet.  Dette er en brann som overlatt til
8085 seg selv vil brenne ut.
8086 </p><p>
8087
8088
8089 Likevel er ikke besluttningstagere villig til å la denne brannen i fred.
8090 Ladet med masse penger fra lobbyister er de lystne på å gå i mellom for å
8091 fjerne problemet slik de oppfatter det.  Men problemet slik de oppfatter det
8092 er ikke den reelle trusselen som denne kulturen står med ansiktet mot.  For
8093 mens vi ser på denne lille brannen i hjørnet er det en massiv endring i
8094 hvordan kultur blir skapt som pågår over alt.
8095 </p><p>
8096 På en eller annen måte må vi klare å snu oppmerksomheten mot dette mer
8097 viktige og fundametale problemet.  Vi må finne en måte å unngå å helle
8098 bensin på denne brannen.
8099 </p><p>
8100 Vi har ikke funne denne måten ennå.  Istedet synes vi å være fanget i en
8101 enklere og sort-hvit tenkning.  Uansett hvor mange folk som presser på for å
8102 gjøre rammen for debatten litt bredere, er det dette enkle sort-hvit-synet
8103 som består.  Vi kjører sakte forbi og stirrer på brannen når vi i stedet
8104 burde holde øynene på veien.
8105 </p><p>
8106 Denne utfordringen har vært livet mitt de siste årene.  Det har også vært
8107 min falitt.  I de to neste kapittlene, beskriver jeg en liten innsats, så
8108 langt uten suksess, på å finne en måte å endre fokus på denne debatten.  Vi
8109 må forstå disse mislyktede forsøkene hvis vi skal forstå hva som kreves for
8110 å lykkes.
8111 </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>
8112 In 1995, a father was frustrated that his daughters didn't seem to like
8113 Hawthorne. No doubt there was more than one such father, but at least one
8114 did something about it. Eric Eldred, a retired computer programmer living in
8115 New Hampshire, decided to put Hawthorne on the Web. An electronic version,
8116 Eldred thought, with links to pictures and explanatory text, would make this
8117 nineteenth-century author's work come alive.
8118 </p><p>
8119 It didn't work&#8212;at least for his daughters. They didn't find Hawthorne
8120 any more interesting than before. But Eldred's experiment gave birth to a
8121 hobby, and his hobby begat a cause: Eldred would build a library of public
8122 domain works by scanning these works and making them available for free.
8123 </p><p>
8124
8125 Eldred's library was not simply a copy of certain public domain works,
8126 though even a copy would have been of great value to people across the world
8127 who can't get access to printed versions of these works. Instead, Eldred was
8128 producing derivative works from these public domain works. Just as Disney
8129 turned Grimm into stories more accessible to the twentieth century, Eldred
8130 transformed Hawthorne, and many others, into a form more
8131 accessible&#8212;technically accessible&#8212;today.
8132 </p><p>
8133 Eldred's freedom to do this with Hawthorne's work grew from the same source
8134 as Disney's. Hawthorne's <em class="citetitle">Scarlet Letter</em> had passed
8135 into the public domain in 1907. It was free for anyone to take without the
8136 permission of the Hawthorne estate or anyone else. Some, such as Dover Press
8137 and Penguin Classics, take works from the public domain and produce printed
8138 editions, which they sell in bookstores across the country. Others, such as
8139 Disney, take these stories and turn them into animated cartoons, sometimes
8140 successfully (<em class="citetitle">Cinderella</em>), sometimes not
8141 (<em class="citetitle">The Hunchback of Notre Dame</em>, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
8142 Planet</em>). These are all commercial publications of public domain
8143 works.
8144 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2893750"></a><p>
8145 The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of public
8146 domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally thousands of
8147 others. Hundreds of thousands from across the world have discovered this
8148 platform of expression and now use it to share works that are, by law, free
8149 for the taking. This has produced what we might call the
8150 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">noncommercial publishing industry,</span>&#8221;</span> which before the Internet
8151 was limited to people with large egos or with political or social
8152 causes. But with the Internet, it includes a wide range of individuals and
8153 groups dedicated to spreading culture generally.<sup>[<a name="id2893772" href="#ftn.id2893772" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
8154 </p><p>
8155 As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In 1998, Robert Frost's collection
8156 of poems <em class="citetitle">New Hampshire</em> was slated to pass into the
8157 public domain. Eldred wanted to post that collection in his free public
8158 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
8159 eleventh time in forty years, Congress extended the terms of existing
8160 copyrights&#8212;this time by twenty years. Eldred would not be free to add
8161 any works more recent than 1923 to his collection until 2019.  Indeed, no
8162 copyrighted work would pass into the public domain until that year (and not
8163 even then, if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, in the same
8164 period, more than 1 million patents will pass into the public domain.
8165 </p><p>
8166
8167
8168 This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), enacted in
8169 memory of the congressman and former musician Sonny Bono, who, his widow,
8170 Mary Bono, says, believed that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyrights should be
8171 forever.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2893829" href="#ftn.id2893829" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
8172
8173 </p><p>
8174 Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
8175 civil disobedience. In a series of interviews, Eldred announced that he
8176 would publish as planned, CTEA notwithstanding. But because of a second law
8177 passed in 1998, the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act, his act of publishing
8178 would make Eldred a felon&#8212;whether or not anyone complained. This was a
8179 dangerous strategy for a disabled programmer to undertake.
8180 </p><p>
8181 It was here that I became involved in Eldred's battle. I was a
8182 constitutional scholar whose first passion was constitutional
8183 interpretation.  And though constitutional law courses never focus upon the
8184 Progress Clause of the Constitution, it had always struck me as importantly
8185 different. As you know, the Constitution says,
8186 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
8187 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science &#8230; by
8188 securing for limited Times to Authors &#8230; exclusive Right to their
8189 &#8230; Writings. &#8230;
8190 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8191 As I've described, this clause is unique within the power-granting clause of
8192 Article I, section 8 of our Constitution. Every other clause granting power
8193 to Congress simply says Congress has the power to do something&#8212;for
8194 example, to regulate <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>&#8221;</span> or
8195 <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
8196 something quite specific&#8212;to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">promote &#8230;
8197 Progress</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;through means that are also specific&#8212; by
8198 <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)
8199 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">for limited Times.</span>&#8221;</span>
8200 </p><p>
8201 In the past forty years, Congress has gotten into the practice of extending
8202 existing terms of copyright protection. What puzzled me about this was, if
8203 Congress has the power to extend existing terms, then the Constitution's
8204 requirement that terms be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited</span>&#8221;</span> will have no practical
8205 effect. If every time a copyright is about to expire, Congress has the power
8206 to extend its term, then Congress can achieve what the Constitution plainly
8207 forbids&#8212;perpetual terms <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">on the installment plan,</span>&#8221;</span> as
8208 Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2893928"></a>
8209 </p><p>
8210 As an academic, my first response was to hit the books. I remember sitting
8211 late at the office, scouring on-line databases for any serious consideration
8212 of the question. No one had ever challenged Congress's practice of extending
8213 existing terms. That failure may in part be why Congress seemed so
8214 untroubled in its habit. That, and the fact that the practice had become so
8215 lucrative for Congress. Congress knows that copyright owners will be willing
8216 to pay a great deal of money to see their copyright terms extended. And so
8217 Congress is quite happy to keep this gravy train going.
8218 </p><p>
8219 For this is the core of the corruption in our present system of
8220 government. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Corruption</span>&#8221;</span> not in the sense that representatives
8221 are bribed.  Rather, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">corruption</span>&#8221;</span> in the sense that the system
8222 induces the beneficiaries of Congress's acts to raise and give money to
8223 Congress to induce it to act. There's only so much time; there's only so
8224 much Congress can do. Why not limit its actions to those things it must
8225 do&#8212;and those things that pay? Extending copyright terms pays.
8226 </p><p>
8227 If that's not obvious to you, consider the following: Say you're one of the
8228 very few lucky copyright owners whose copyright continues to make money one
8229 hundred years after it was created. The Estate of Robert Frost is a good
8230 example. Frost died in 1963. His poetry continues to be extraordinarily
8231 valuable. Thus the Robert Frost estate benefits greatly from any extension
8232 of copyright, since no publisher would pay the estate any money if the poems
8233 Frost wrote could be published by anyone for free.
8234 </p><p>
8235 So imagine the Robert Frost estate is earning $100,000 a year from three of
8236 Frost's poems. And imagine the copyright for those poems is about to
8237 expire. You sit on the board of the Robert Frost estate.  Your financial
8238 adviser comes to your board meeting with a very grim report:
8239 </p><p>
8240
8241 <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
8242 works A, B, and C will expire. That means that after next year, we will no
8243 longer be receiving the annual royalty check of $100,000 from the publishers
8244 of those works.</span>&#8221;</span>
8245 </p><p>
8246 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">There's a proposal in Congress, however,</span>&#8221;</span> she continues,
8247 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">that could change this. A few congressmen are floating a bill to
8248 extend the terms of copyright by twenty years. That bill would be
8249 extraordinarily valuable to us. So we should hope this bill passes.</span>&#8221;</span>
8250 </p><p>
8251 <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
8252 something about it?</span>&#8221;</span>
8253 </p><p>
8254 <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
8255 contribute to the campaigns of a number of representatives to try to assure
8256 that they support the bill.</span>&#8221;</span>
8257 </p><p>
8258 You hate politics. You hate contributing to campaigns. So you want to know
8259 whether this disgusting practice is worth it. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">How much would we get
8260 if this extension were passed?</span>&#8221;</span> you ask the adviser. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">How much
8261 is it worth?</span>&#8221;</span>
8262 </p><p>
8263 <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
8264 will continue to get at least $100,000 a year from these copyrights, and you
8265 use the `discount rate' that we use to evaluate estate investments (6
8266 percent), then this law would be worth $1,146,000 to the estate.</span>&#8221;</span>
8267 </p><p>
8268 You're a bit shocked by the number, but you quickly come to the correct
8269 conclusion:
8270 </p><p>
8271 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">So you're saying it would be worth it for us to pay more than
8272 $1,000,000 in campaign contributions if we were confident those
8273 contributions would assure that the bill was passed?</span>&#8221;</span>
8274 </p><p>
8275 <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
8276 you to contribute up to the `present value' of the income you expect from
8277 these copyrights. Which for us means over $1,000,000.</span>&#8221;</span>
8278 </p><p>
8279
8280 You quickly get the point&#8212;you as the member of the board and, I trust,
8281 you the reader. Each time copyrights are about to expire, every beneficiary
8282 in the position of the Robert Frost estate faces the same choice: If they
8283 can contribute to get a law passed to extend copyrights, they will benefit
8284 greatly from that extension. And so each time copyrights are about to
8285 expire, there is a massive amount of lobbying to get the copyright term
8286 extended.
8287 </p><p>
8288 Thus a congressional perpetual motion machine: So long as legislation can be
8289 bought (albeit indirectly), there will be all the incentive in the world to
8290 buy further extensions of copyright.
8291 </p><p>
8292 In the lobbying that led to the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term
8293 Extension Act, this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">theory</span>&#8221;</span> about incentives was proved
8294 real. Ten of the thirteen original sponsors of the act in the House received
8295 the maximum contribution from Disney's political action committee; in the
8296 Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2894122" href="#ftn.id2894122" class="footnote">181</a>]</sup> The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent
8297 over $1.5 million lobbying in the 1998 election cycle. They paid out more
8298 than $200,000 in campaign contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2894140" href="#ftn.id2894140" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to
8299 reelection campaigns in the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id2894158" href="#ftn.id2894158" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
8300
8301 </p><p>
8302 Constitutional law is not oblivious to the obvious. Or at least, it need not
8303 be. So when I was considering Eldred's complaint, this reality about the
8304 never-ending incentives to increase the copyright term was central to my
8305 thinking. In my view, a pragmatic court committed to interpreting and
8306 applying the Constitution of our framers would see that if Congress has the
8307 power to extend existing terms, then there would be no effective
8308 constitutional requirement that terms be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited.</span>&#8221;</span> If they
8309 could extend it once, they would extend it again and again and again.
8310 </p><p>
8311
8312 It was also my judgment that <span class="emphasis"><em>this</em></span> Supreme Court would
8313 not allow Congress to extend existing terms. As anyone close to the Supreme
8314 Court's work knows, this Court has increasingly restricted the power of
8315 Congress when it has viewed Congress's actions as exceeding the power
8316 granted to it by the Constitution. Among constitutional scholars, the most
8317 famous example of this trend was the Supreme Court's decision in 1995 to
8318 strike down a law that banned the possession of guns near schools.
8319 </p><p>
8320 Since 1937, the Supreme Court had interpreted Congress's granted powers very
8321 broadly; so, while the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate
8322 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
8323 commerce</span>&#8221;</span>), the Supreme Court had interpreted that power to include
8324 the power to regulate any activity that merely affected interstate commerce.
8325 </p><p>
8326 As the economy grew, this standard increasingly meant that there was no
8327 limit to Congress's power to regulate, since just about every activity, when
8328 considered on a national scale, affects interstate commerce.  A Constitution
8329 designed to limit Congress's power was instead interpreted to impose no
8330 limit.
8331 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2894237"></a><p>
8332 The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed that in
8333 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The
8334 government had argued that possessing guns near schools affected interstate
8335 commerce. Guns near schools increase crime, crime lowers property values,
8336 and so on. In the oral argument, the Chief Justice asked the government
8337 whether there was any activity that would not affect interstate commerce
8338 under the reasoning the government advanced. The government said there was
8339 not; if Congress says an activity affects interstate commerce, then that
8340 activity affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court, the government
8341 said, was not in the position to second-guess Congress.
8342 </p><p>
8343 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">We pause to consider the implications of the government's
8344 arguments,</span>&#8221;</span> the Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id2894271" href="#ftn.id2894271" class="footnote">184</a>]</sup> If anything Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be
8345 considered interstate commerce, then there would be no limit to Congress's
8346 power. The decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> was reaffirmed five
8347 years later in <em class="citetitle">United States</em>
8348 v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<sup>[<a name="id2894298" href="#ftn.id2894298" class="footnote">185</a>]</sup>
8349 </p><p>
8350
8351 If a principle were at work here, then it should apply to the Progress
8352 Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<sup>[<a name="id2894318" href="#ftn.id2894318" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
8353 And if it is applied to the Progress Clause, the principle should yield the
8354 conclusion that Congress can't extend an existing term. If Congress could
8355 extend an existing term, then there would be no <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stopping
8356 point</span>&#8221;</span> to Congress's power over terms, though the Constitution
8357 expressly states that there is such a limit. Thus, the same principle
8358 applied to the power to grant copyrights should entail that Congress is not
8359 allowed to extend the term of existing copyrights.
8360 </p><p>
8361 <span class="emphasis"><em>If</em></span>, that is, the principle announced in
8362 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for a principle.  Many believed the
8363 decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for politics&#8212;a
8364 conservative Supreme Court, which believed in states' rights, using its
8365 power over Congress to advance its own personal political preferences. But I
8366 rejected that view of the Supreme Court's decision. Indeed, shortly after
8367 the decision, I wrote an article demonstrating the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">fidelity</span>&#8221;</span>
8368 in such an interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that the Supreme
8369 Court decides cases based upon its politics struck me as extraordinarily
8370 boring.  I was not going to devote my life to teaching constitutional law if
8371 these nine Justices were going to be petty politicians.
8372 </p><p>
8373 Now let's pause for a moment to make sure we understand what the argument in
8374 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was not about. By insisting on the
8375 Constitution's limits to copyright, obviously Eldred was not endorsing
8376 piracy.  Indeed, in an obvious sense, he was fighting a kind of
8377 piracy&#8212;piracy of the public domain. When Robert Frost wrote his work
8378 and when Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse, the maximum copyright term was
8379 just fifty-six years. Because of interim changes, Frost and Disney had
8380 already enjoyed a seventy-five-year monopoly for their work. They had gotten
8381 the benefit of the bargain that the Constitution envisions: In exchange for
8382 a monopoly protected for fifty-six years, they created new work. But now
8383 these entities were using their power&#8212;expressed through the power of
8384 lobbyists' money&#8212;to get another twenty-year dollop of monopoly. That
8385 twenty-year dollop would be taken from the public domain. Eric Eldred was
8386 fighting a piracy that affects us all.
8387 </p><p>
8388 Some people view the public domain with contempt. In their brief before the
8389 Supreme Court, the Nashville Songwriters Association wrote that the public
8390 domain is nothing more than <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2894408" href="#ftn.id2894408" class="footnote">187</a>]</sup> But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in
8391 our constitutional system, our law requires it. Some may not like the
8392 Constitution's requirements, but that doesn't make the Constitution a
8393 pirate's charter.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2894434"></a>
8394 </p><p>
8395 As we've seen, our constitutional system requires limits on copyright as a
8396 way to assure that copyright holders do not too heavily influence the
8397 development and distribution of our culture. Yet, as Eric Eldred discovered,
8398 we have set up a system that assures that copyright terms will be repeatedly
8399 extended, and extended, and extended. We have created the perfect storm for
8400 the public domain. Copyrights have not expired, and will not expire, so long
8401 as Congress is free to be bought to extend them again.
8402 </p><p>
8403 It is valuable copyrights that are responsible for terms being extended.
8404 Mickey Mouse and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Rhapsody in Blue.</span>&#8221;</span> These works are too
8405 valuable for copyright owners to ignore. But the real harm to our society
8406 from copyright extensions is not that Mickey Mouse remains Disney's.  Forget
8407 Mickey Mouse. Forget Robert Frost. Forget all the works from the 1920s and
8408 1930s that have continuing commercial value. The real harm of term extension
8409 comes not from these famous works. The real harm is to the works that are
8410 not famous, not commercially exploited, and no longer available as a result.
8411 </p><p>
8412 If you look at the work created in the first twenty years (1923 to 1942)
8413 affected by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 2 percent of that
8414 work has any continuing commercial value. It was the copyright holders for
8415 that 2 percent who pushed the CTEA through.  But the law and its effect were
8416 not limited to that 2 percent. The law extended the terms of copyright
8417 generally.<sup>[<a name="id2894478" href="#ftn.id2894478" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
8418
8419 </p><p>
8420
8421 Think practically about the consequence of this extension&#8212;practically,
8422 as a businessperson, and not as a lawyer eager for more legal work. In 1930,
8423 10,047 books were published. In 2000, 174 of those books were still in
8424 print. Let's say you were Brewster Kahle, and you wanted to make available
8425 to the world in your iArchive project the remaining 9,873. What would you
8426 have to do?
8427 </p><p>
8428 Well, first, you'd have to determine which of the 9,873 books were still
8429 under copyright. That requires going to a library (these data are not
8430 on-line) and paging through tomes of books, cross-checking the titles and
8431 authors of the 9,873 books with the copyright registration and renewal
8432 records for works published in 1930. That will produce a list of books still
8433 under copyright.
8434 </p><p>
8435 Then for the books still under copyright, you would need to locate the
8436 current copyright owners. How would you do that?
8437 </p><p>
8438 Most people think that there must be a list of these copyright owners
8439 somewhere. Practical people think this way. How could there be thousands and
8440 thousands of government monopolies without there being at least a list?
8441 </p><p>
8442 But there is no list. There may be a name from 1930, and then in 1959, of
8443 the person who registered the copyright. But just think practically about
8444 how impossibly difficult it would be to track down thousands of such
8445 records&#8212;especially since the person who registered is not necessarily
8446 the current owner. And we're just talking about 1930!
8447 </p><p>
8448 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But there isn't a list of who owns property generally,</span>&#8221;</span> the
8449 apologists for the system respond. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Why should there be a list of
8450 copyright owners?</span>&#8221;</span>
8451 </p><p>
8452 Well, actually, if you think about it, there <span class="emphasis"><em>are</em></span> plenty
8453 of lists of who owns what property. Think about deeds on houses, or titles
8454 to cars.  And where there isn't a list, the code of real space is pretty
8455 good at suggesting who the owner of a bit of property is. (A swing set in
8456 your backyard is probably yours.) So formally or informally, we have a
8457 pretty good way to know who owns what tangible property.
8458 </p><p>
8459
8460 So: You walk down a street and see a house. You can know who owns the house
8461 by looking it up in the courthouse registry. If you see a car, there is
8462 ordinarily a license plate that will link the owner to the car. If you see a
8463 bunch of children's toys sitting on the front lawn of a house, it's fairly
8464 easy to determine who owns the toys. And if you happen to see a baseball
8465 lying in a gutter on the side of the road, look around for a second for some
8466 kids playing ball. If you don't see any kids, then okay: Here's a bit of
8467 property whose owner we can't easily determine. It is the exception that
8468 proves the rule: that we ordinarily know quite well who owns what property.
8469 </p><p>
8470 Compare this story to intangible property. You go into a library.  The
8471 library owns the books. But who owns the copyrights? As I've already
8472 described, there's no list of copyright owners. There are authors' names, of
8473 course, but their copyrights could have been assigned, or passed down in an
8474 estate like Grandma's old jewelry. To know who owns what, you would have to
8475 hire a private detective. The bottom line: The owner cannot easily be
8476 located. And in a regime like ours, in which it is a felony to use such
8477 property without the property owner's permission, the property isn't going
8478 to be used.
8479 </p><p>
8480 The consequence with respect to old books is that they won't be digitized,
8481 and hence will simply rot away on shelves. But the consequence for other
8482 creative works is much more dire.
8483 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2894607"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2894613"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2894620"></a><p>
8484 Consider the story of Michael Agee, chairman of Hal Roach Studios, which
8485 owns the copyrights for the Laurel and Hardy films. Agee is a direct
8486 beneficiary of the Bono Act. The Laurel and Hardy films were made between
8487 1921 and 1951. Only one of these films, <em class="citetitle">The Lucky
8488 Dog</em>, is currently out of copyright. But for the CTEA, films made
8489 after 1923 would have begun entering the public domain. Because Agee
8490 controls the exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal
8491 of money. According to one estimate, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Roach has sold about 60,000
8492 videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent
8493 films.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2894644" href="#ftn.id2894644" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2894666"></a>
8494 </p><p>
8495 Yet Agee opposed the CTEA. His reasons demonstrate a rare virtue in this
8496 culture: selflessness. He argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that
8497 the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act will, if left standing, destroy
8498 a whole generation of American film.
8499 </p><p>
8500
8501 His argument is straightforward. A tiny fraction of this work has any
8502 continuing commercial value. The rest&#8212;to the extent it survives at
8503 all&#8212;sits in vaults gathering dust. It may be that some of this work
8504 not now commercially valuable will be deemed to be valuable by the owners of
8505 the vaults. For this to occur, however, the commercial benefit from the work
8506 must exceed the costs of making the work available for distribution.
8507 </p><p>
8508 We can't know the benefits, but we do know a lot about the costs.  For most
8509 of the history of film, the costs of restoring film were very high; digital
8510 technology has lowered these costs substantially. While it cost more than
8511 $10,000 to restore a ninety-minute black-and-white film in 1993, it can now
8512 cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.<sup>[<a name="id2894703" href="#ftn.id2894703" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
8513
8514 </p><p>
8515 Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most important.
8516 Lawyers, too, are a cost, and increasingly, a very important one. In
8517 addition to preserving the film, a distributor needs to secure the rights.
8518 And to secure the rights for a film that is under copyright, you need to
8519 locate the copyright owner.
8520 </p><p>
8521 Or more accurately, <span class="emphasis"><em>owners</em></span>. As we've seen, there isn't
8522 only a single copyright associated with a film; there are many. There isn't
8523 a single person whom you can contact about those copyrights; there are as
8524 many as can hold the rights, which turns out to be an extremely large
8525 number. Thus the costs of clearing the rights to these films is
8526 exceptionally high.
8527 </p><p>
8528 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But can't you just restore the film, distribute it, and then pay the
8529 copyright owner when she shows up?</span>&#8221;</span> Sure, if you want to commit a
8530 felony. And even if you're not worried about committing a felony, when she
8531 does show up, she'll have the right to sue you for all the profits you have
8532 made. So, if you're successful, you can be fairly confident you'll be
8533 getting a call from someone's lawyer. And if you're not successful, you
8534 won't make enough to cover the costs of your own lawyer. Either way, you
8535 have to talk to a lawyer. And as is too often the case, saying you have to
8536 talk to a lawyer is the same as saying you won't make any money.
8537 </p><p>
8538
8539 For some films, the benefit of releasing the film may well exceed these
8540 costs. But for the vast majority of them, there is no way the benefit would
8541 outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old films, Agee
8542 argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until the copyright
8543 expires.
8544 </p><p>
8545 But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will have
8546 expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and nitrate stock
8547 dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal canisters in which
8548 they are now stored will be filled with nothing more than dust.
8549 </p><p>
8550 Of all the creative work produced by humans anywhere, a tiny fraction has
8551 continuing commercial value. For that tiny fraction, the copyright is a
8552 crucially important legal device. For that tiny fraction, the copyright
8553 creates incentives to produce and distribute the creative work. For that
8554 tiny fraction, the copyright acts as an <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">engine of free
8555 expression.</span>&#8221;</span>
8556 </p><p>
8557 But even for that tiny fraction, the actual time during which the creative
8558 work has a commercial life is extremely short. As I've indicated, most books
8559 go out of print within one year. The same is true of music and
8560 film. Commercial culture is sharklike. It must keep moving.  And when a
8561 creative work falls out of favor with the commercial distributors, the
8562 commercial life ends.
8563 </p><p>
8564 Yet that doesn't mean the life of the creative work ends. We don't keep
8565 libraries of books in order to compete with Barnes &amp; Noble, and we don't
8566 have archives of films because we expect people to choose between spending
8567 Friday night watching new movies and spending Friday night watching a 1930
8568 news documentary. The noncommercial life of culture is important and
8569 valuable&#8212;for entertainment but also, and more importantly, for
8570 knowledge. To understand who we are, and where we came from, and how we have
8571 made the mistakes that we have, we need to have access to this history.
8572 </p><p>
8573
8574 Copyrights in this context do not drive an engine of free expression.  In
8575 this context, there is no need for an exclusive right. Copyrights in this
8576 context do no good.
8577 </p><p>
8578 Yet, for most of our history, they also did little harm. For most of our
8579 history, when a work ended its commercial life, there was no
8580 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright-related use</em></span> that would be inhibited by an
8581 exclusive right.  When a book went out of print, you could not buy it from a
8582 publisher.  But you could still buy it from a used book store, and when a
8583 used book store sells it, in America, at least, there is no need to pay the
8584 copyright owner anything. Thus, the ordinary use of a book after its
8585 commercial life ended was a use that was independent of copyright law.
8586 </p><p>
8587 The same was effectively true of film. Because the costs of restoring a
8588 film&#8212;the real economic costs, not the lawyer costs&#8212;were so high,
8589 it was never at all feasible to preserve or restore film. Like the remains
8590 of a great dinner, when it's over, it's over. Once a film passed out of its
8591 commercial life, it may have been archived for a bit, but that was the end
8592 of its life so long as the market didn't have more to offer.
8593 </p><p>
8594 In other words, though copyright has been relatively short for most of our
8595 history, long copyrights wouldn't have mattered for the works that lost
8596 their commercial value. Long copyrights for these works would not have
8597 interfered with anything.
8598 </p><p>
8599 But this situation has now changed.
8600 </p><p>
8601 One crucially important consequence of the emergence of digital technologies
8602 is to enable the archive that Brewster Kahle dreams of.  Digital
8603 technologies now make it possible to preserve and give access to all sorts
8604 of knowledge. Once a book goes out of print, we can now imagine digitizing
8605 it and making it available to everyone, forever. Once a film goes out of
8606 distribution, we could digitize it and make it available to everyone,
8607 forever. Digital technologies give new life to copyrighted material after it
8608 passes out of its commercial life. It is now possible to preserve and assure
8609 universal access to this knowledge and culture, whereas before it was not.
8610 </p><p>
8611
8612
8613 And now copyright law does get in the way. Every step of producing this
8614 digital archive of our culture infringes on the exclusive right of
8615 copyright. To digitize a book is to copy it. To do that requires permission
8616 of the copyright owner. The same with music, film, or any other aspect of
8617 our culture protected by copyright. The effort to make these things
8618 available to history, or to researchers, or to those who just want to
8619 explore, is now inhibited by a set of rules that were written for a
8620 radically different context.
8621 </p><p>
8622 Here is the core of the harm that comes from extending terms: Now that
8623 technology enables us to rebuild the library of Alexandria, the law gets in
8624 the way. And it doesn't get in the way for any useful
8625 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span> purpose, for the purpose of copyright is to
8626 enable the commercial market that spreads culture. No, we are talking about
8627 culture after it has lived its commercial life. In this context, copyright
8628 is serving no purpose <span class="emphasis"><em>at all</em></span> related to the spread of
8629 knowledge. In this context, copyright is not an engine of free
8630 expression. Copyright is a brake.
8631 </p><p>
8632 You may well ask, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">But if digital technologies lower the costs for
8633 Brewster Kahle, then they will lower the costs for Random House, too.  So
8634 won't Random House do as well as Brewster Kahle in spreading culture
8635 widely?</span>&#8221;</span>
8636 </p><p>
8637 Maybe. Someday. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that
8638 publishers would be as complete as libraries. If Barnes &amp; Noble offered
8639 to lend books from its stores for a low price, would that eliminate the need
8640 for libraries? Only if you think that the only role of a library is to serve
8641 what <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the market</span>&#8221;</span> would demand. But if you think the role of a
8642 library is bigger than this&#8212;if you think its role is to archive
8643 culture, whether there's a demand for any particular bit of that culture or
8644 not&#8212;then we can't count on the commercial market to do our library
8645 work for us.
8646 </p><p>
8647 I would be the first to agree that it should do as much as it can: We should
8648 rely upon the market as much as possible to spread and enable culture. My
8649 message is absolutely not antimarket. But where we see the market is not
8650 doing the job, then we should allow nonmarket forces the freedom to fill the
8651 gaps. As one researcher calculated for American culture, 94 percent of the
8652 films, books, and music produced between and 1946 is not commercially
8653 available. However much you love the commercial market, if access is a
8654 value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.<sup>[<a name="id2894977" href="#ftn.id2894977" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
8655
8656 </p><p>
8657 In January 1999, we filed a lawsuit on Eric Eldred's behalf in federal
8658 district court in Washington, D.C., asking the court to declare the Sonny
8659 Bono Copyright Term Extension Act unconstitutional. The two central claims
8660 that we made were (1) that extending existing terms violated the
8661 Constitution's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited Times</span>&#8221;</span> requirement, and (2) that
8662 extending terms by another twenty years violated the First Amendment.
8663 </p><p>
8664 The district court dismissed our claims without even hearing an argument.  A
8665 panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also dismissed our
8666 claims, though after hearing an extensive argument. But that decision at
8667 least had a dissent, by one of the most conservative judges on that
8668 court. That dissent gave our claims life.
8669 </p><p>
8670 Judge David Sentelle said the CTEA violated the requirement that copyrights
8671 be for <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited Times</span>&#8221;</span> only. His argument was as elegant as it
8672 was simple: If Congress can extend existing terms, then there is no
8673 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stopping point</span>&#8221;</span> to Congress's power under the Copyright
8674 Clause. The power to extend existing terms means Congress is not required to
8675 grant terms that are <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited.</span>&#8221;</span> Thus, Judge Sentelle argued,
8676 the court had to interpret the term <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited Times</span>&#8221;</span> to give it
8677 meaning. And the best interpretation, Judge Sentelle argued, would be to
8678 deny Congress the power to extend existing terms.
8679 </p><p>
8680 We asked the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as a whole to hear the
8681 case. Cases are ordinarily heard in panels of three, except for important
8682 cases or cases that raise issues specific to the circuit as a whole, where
8683 the court will sit <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">en banc</span>&#8221;</span> to hear the case.
8684 </p><p>
8685
8686 The Court of Appeals rejected our request to hear the case en banc.  This
8687 time, Judge Sentelle was joined by the most liberal member of the
8688 D.C. Circuit, Judge David Tatel. Both the most conservative and the most
8689 liberal judges in the D.C. Circuit believed Congress had overstepped its
8690 bounds.
8691 </p><p>
8692 It was here that most expected Eldred v. Ashcroft would die, for the Supreme
8693 Court rarely reviews any decision by a court of appeals. (It hears about one
8694 hundred cases a year, out of more than five thousand appeals.) And it
8695 practically never reviews a decision that upholds a statute when no other
8696 court has yet reviewed the statute.
8697 </p><p>
8698 But in February 2002, the Supreme Court surprised the world by granting our
8699 petition to review the D.C. Circuit opinion. Argument was set for October of
8700 2002. The summer would be spent writing briefs and preparing for argument.
8701 </p><p>
8702 It is over a year later as I write these words. It is still astonishingly
8703 hard. If you know anything at all about this story, you know that we lost
8704 the appeal. And if you know something more than just the minimum, you
8705 probably think there was no way this case could have been won. After our
8706 defeat, I received literally thousands of missives by well-wishers and
8707 supporters, thanking me for my work on behalf of this noble but doomed
8708 cause. And none from this pile was more significant to me than the e-mail
8709 from my client, Eric Eldred.
8710 </p><p>
8711 Men min klient og disse vennene tok feil. Denne saken kunne vært vunnet. Det
8712 burde ha vært vunnet.  Og uansett hvor hardt jeg prøver å fortelle den
8713 historien til meg selv, kan jeg aldri unnslippe troen på at det er min feil
8714 at vi ikke vant.
8715 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2895106"></a><p>
8716
8717 Feil ble gjort tidlig, skjønt den ble først åpenbart på slutten. Vår sak
8718 hadde støtte hos en ekstraordinær advokat, Geoffrey Stewart, helt fra
8719 starten, og hos advokatfirmaet hadde han flyttet til, Jones, Day, Reavis og
8720 Pogue. Jones Day mottok mye press fra sine opphavsrettsbeskyttende klienter
8721 på grunn av sin støtte til oss.  De ignorert dette presset (noe veldig få
8722 advokatfirmaer noen sinne ville gjøre), og ga alt de hadde gjennom hele
8723 saken.
8724 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2895128"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895134"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895141"></a><p>
8725 There were three key lawyers on the case from Jones Day. Geoff Stewart was
8726 the first, but then Dan Bromberg and Don Ayer became quite
8727 involved. Bromberg and Ayer in particular had a common view about how this
8728 case would be won: We would only win, they repeatedly told me, if we could
8729 make the issue seem <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">important</span>&#8221;</span> to the Supreme Court. It had to
8730 seem as if dramatic harm were being done to free speech and free culture;
8731 otherwise, they would never vote against <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the most powerful media
8732 companies in the world.</span>&#8221;</span>
8733 </p><p>
8734 I hate this view of the law. Of course I thought the Sonny Bono Act was a
8735 dramatic harm to free speech and free culture. Of course I still think it
8736 is. But the idea that the Supreme Court decides the law based on how
8737 important they believe the issues are is just wrong. It might be
8738 <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
8739 <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
8740 I believed that any faithful interpretation of what the framers of our
8741 Constitution did would yield the conclusion that the CTEA was
8742 unconstitutional, and as I believed that any faithful interpretation of what
8743 the First Amendment means would yield the conclusion that the power to
8744 extend existing copyright terms is unconstitutional, I was not persuaded
8745 that we had to sell our case like soap.  Just as a law that bans the
8746 swastika is unconstitutional not because the Court likes Nazis but because
8747 such a law would violate the Constitution, so too, in my view, would the
8748 Court decide whether Congress's law was constitutional based on the
8749 Constitution, not based on whether they liked the values that the framers
8750 put in the Constitution.
8751 </p><p>
8752 In any case, I thought, the Court must already see the danger and the harm
8753 caused by this sort of law. Why else would they grant review? There was no
8754 reason to hear the case in the Supreme Court if they weren't convinced that
8755 this regulation was harmful. So in my view, we didn't need to persuade them
8756 that this law was bad, we needed to show why it was unconstitutional.
8757 </p><p>
8758
8759 There was one way, however, in which I felt politics would matter and in
8760 which I thought a response was appropriate. I was convinced that the Court
8761 would not hear our arguments if it thought these were just the arguments of
8762 a group of lefty loons. This Supreme Court was not about to launch into a
8763 new field of judicial review if it seemed that this field of review was
8764 simply the preference of a small political minority.  Although my focus in
8765 the case was not to demonstrate how bad the Sonny Bono Act was but to
8766 demonstrate that it was unconstitutional, my hope was to make this argument
8767 against a background of briefs that covered the full range of political
8768 views. To show that this claim against the CTEA was grounded in
8769 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> and not politics, then, we tried to gather the
8770 widest range of credible critics&#8212;credible not because they were rich
8771 and famous, but because they, in the aggregate, demonstrated that this law
8772 was unconstitutional regardless of one's politics.
8773 </p><p>
8774 The first step happened all by itself. Phyllis Schlafly's organization,
8775 Eagle Forum, had been an opponent of the CTEA from the very beginning.
8776 Mrs. Schlafly viewed the CTEA as a sellout by Congress. In November 1998,
8777 she wrote a stinging editorial attacking the Republican Congress for
8778 allowing the law to pass. As she wrote, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Do you sometimes wonder why
8779 bills that create a financial windfall to narrow special interests slide
8780 easily through the intricate legislative process, while bills that benefit
8781 the general public seem to get bogged down?</span>&#8221;</span> The answer, as the
8782 editorial documented, was the power of money.  Schlafly enumerated Disney's
8783 contributions to the key players on the committees. It was money, not
8784 justice, that gave Mickey Mouse twenty more years in Disney's control,
8785 Schlafly argued.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2895254"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2895260"></a>
8786 </p><p>
8787 In the Court of Appeals, Eagle Forum was eager to file a brief supporting
8788 our position. Their brief made the argument that became the core claim in
8789 the Supreme Court: If Congress can extend the term of existing copyrights,
8790 there is no limit to Congress's power to set terms.  That strong
8791 conservative argument persuaded a strong conservative judge, Judge Sentelle.
8792 </p><p>
8793 In the Supreme Court, the briefs on our side were about as diverse as it
8794 gets. They included an extraordinary historical brief by the Free Software
8795 Foundation (home of the GNU project that made GNU/ Linux possible). They
8796 included a powerful brief about the costs of uncertainty by Intel. There
8797 were two law professors' briefs, one by copyright scholars and one by First
8798 Amendment scholars. There was an exhaustive and uncontroverted brief by the
8799 world's experts in the history of the Progress Clause. And of course, there
8800 was a new brief by Eagle Forum, repeating and strengthening its arguments.
8801 <a class="indexterm" name="id2895289"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2895297"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2895304"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2895310"></a>
8802 </p><p>
8803 Those briefs framed a legal argument. Then to support the legal argument,
8804 there were a number of powerful briefs by libraries and archives, including
8805 the Internet Archive, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the
8806 National Writers Union.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2895324"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2895331"></a>
8807 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2895338"></a><p>
8808 But two briefs captured the policy argument best. One made the argument I've
8809 already described: A brief by Hal Roach Studios argued that unless the law
8810 was struck, a whole generation of American film would disappear. The other
8811 made the economic argument absolutely clear.
8812 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2895352"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895358"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895365"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895371"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895377"></a><p>
8813 This economists' brief was signed by seventeen economists, including five
8814 Nobel Prize winners, including Ronald Coase, James Buchanan, Milton
8815 Friedman, Kenneth Arrow, and George Akerlof. The economists, as the list of
8816 Nobel winners demonstrates, spanned the political spectrum. Their
8817 conclusions were powerful: There was no plausible claim that extending the
8818 terms of existing copyrights would do anything to increase incentives to
8819 create. Such extensions were nothing more than
8820 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">rent-seeking</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;the fancy term economists use to describe
8821 special-interest legislation gone wild.
8822 </p><p>
8823 The same effort at balance was reflected in the legal team we gathered to
8824 write our briefs in the case. The Jones Day lawyers had been with us from
8825 the start. But when the case got to the Supreme Court, we added three
8826 lawyers to help us frame this argument to this Court: Alan Morrison, a
8827 lawyer from Public Citizen, a Washington group that had made constitutional
8828 history with a series of seminal victories in the Supreme Court defending
8829 individual rights; my colleague and dean, Kathleen Sullivan, who had argued
8830 many cases in the Court, and who had advised us early on about a First
8831 Amendment strategy; and finally, former solicitor general Charles Fried.
8832 <a class="indexterm" name="id2895413"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2895421"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2895428"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2895434"></a>
8833 </p><p>
8834 Fried was a special victory for our side. Every other former solicitor
8835 general was hired by the other side to defend Congress's power to give media
8836 companies the special favor of extended copyright terms. Fried was the only
8837 one who turned down that lucrative assignment to stand up for something he
8838 believed in. He had been Ronald Reagan's chief lawyer in the Supreme
8839 Court. He had helped craft the line of cases that limited Congress's power
8840 in the context of the Commerce Clause. And while he had argued many
8841 positions in the Supreme Court that I personally disagreed with, his joining
8842 the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2895454"></a>
8843 </p><p>
8844 The government, in defending the statute, had its collection of friends, as
8845 well. Significantly, however, none of these <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">friends</span>&#8221;</span> included
8846 historians or economists. The briefs on the other side of the case were
8847 written exclusively by major media companies, congressmen, and copyright
8848 holders.
8849 </p><p>
8850 The media companies were not surprising. They had the most to gain from the
8851 law. The congressmen were not surprising either&#8212;they were defending
8852 their power and, indirectly, the gravy train of contributions such power
8853 induced. And of course it was not surprising that the copyright holders
8854 would defend the idea that they should continue to have the right to control
8855 who did what with content they wanted to control.
8856 </p><p>
8857 Dr. Seuss's representatives, for example, argued that it was better for the
8858 Dr. Seuss estate to control what happened to Dr. Seuss's work&#8212; better
8859 than allowing it to fall into the public domain&#8212;because if this
8860 creativity were in the public domain, then people could use it to
8861 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">glorify drugs or to create pornography.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2895494" href="#ftn.id2895494" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate,
8862 which defended its <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">protection</span>&#8221;</span> of the work of George
8863 Gershwin. They refuse, for example, to license <em class="citetitle">Porgy and
8864 Bess</em> to anyone who refuses to use African Americans in the
8865 cast.<sup>[<a name="id2895518" href="#ftn.id2895518" class="footnote">193</a>]</sup> That's their view of how this
8866 part of American culture should be controlled, and they wanted this law to
8867 help them effect that control.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2895535"></a>
8868 </p><p>
8869 This argument made clear a theme that is rarely noticed in this debate.
8870 When Congress decides to extend the term of existing copyrights, Congress is
8871 making a choice about which speakers it will favor.  Famous and beloved
8872 copyright owners, such as the Gershwin estate and Dr. Seuss, come to
8873 Congress and say, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Give us twenty years to control the speech about
8874 these icons of American culture. We'll do better with them than anyone
8875 else.</span>&#8221;</span> Congress of course likes to reward the popular and famous by
8876 giving them what they want. But when Congress gives people an exclusive
8877 right to speak in a certain way, that's just what the First Amendment is
8878 traditionally meant to block.
8879 </p><p>
8880 We argued as much in a final brief. Not only would upholding the CTEA mean
8881 that there was no limit to the power of Congress to extend
8882 copyrights&#8212;extensions that would further concentrate the market; it
8883 would also mean that there was no limit to Congress's power to play
8884 favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak.  Between
8885 February and October, there was little I did beyond preparing for this
8886 case. Early on, as I said, I set the strategy.
8887 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2895565"></a><p>
8888 The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we called
8889 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the Conservatives.</span>&#8221;</span> The other we called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the
8890 Rest.</span>&#8221;</span> The Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice
8891 O'Connor, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas. These five
8892 had been the most consistent in limiting Congress's power. They were the
8893 five who had supported the <em class="citetitle">Lopez/Morrison</em> line of
8894 cases that said that an enumerated power had to be interpreted to assure
8895 that Congress's powers had limits.
8896 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2895601"></a><p>
8897
8898 The Rest were the four Justices who had strongly opposed limits on
8899 Congress's power. These four&#8212;Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice
8900 Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer&#8212;had repeatedly argued that the
8901 Constitution gives Congress broad discretion to decide how best to implement
8902 its powers. In case after case, these justices had argued that the Court's
8903 role should be one of deference. Though the votes of these four justices
8904 were the votes that I personally had most consistently agreed with, they
8905 were also the votes that we were least likely to get.
8906 </p><p>
8907 In particular, the least likely was Justice Ginsburg's. In addition to her
8908 general view about deference to Congress (except where issues of gender are
8909 involved), she had been particularly deferential in the context of
8910 intellectual property protections. She and her daughter (an excellent and
8911 well-known intellectual property scholar) were cut from the same
8912 intellectual property cloth. We expected she would agree with the writings
8913 of her daughter: that Congress had the power in this context to do as it
8914 wished, even if what Congress wished made little sense.
8915 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2895635"></a><p>
8916 Close behind Justice Ginsburg were two justices whom we also viewed as
8917 unlikely allies, though possible surprises. Justice Souter strongly favored
8918 deference to Congress, as did Justice Breyer. But both were also very
8919 sensitive to free speech concerns. And as we strongly believed, there was a
8920 very important free speech argument against these retrospective extensions.
8921 </p><p>
8922 The only vote we could be confident about was that of Justice
8923 Stevens. History will record Justice Stevens as one of the greatest judges
8924 on this Court. His votes are consistently eclectic, which just means that no
8925 simple ideology explains where he will stand. But he had consistently argued
8926 for limits in the context of intellectual property generally. We were fairly
8927 confident he would recognize limits here.
8928 </p><p>
8929 This analysis of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the Rest</span>&#8221;</span> showed most clearly where our focus
8930 had to be: on the Conservatives. To win this case, we had to crack open
8931 these five and get at least a majority to go our way. Thus, the single
8932 overriding argument that animated our claim rested on the Conservatives'
8933 most important jurisprudential innovation&#8212;the argument that Judge
8934 Sentelle had relied upon in the Court of Appeals, that Congress's power must
8935 be interpreted so that its enumerated powers have limits.
8936 </p><p>
8937
8938 This then was the core of our strategy&#8212;a strategy for which I am
8939 responsible. We would get the Court to see that just as with the
8940 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, under the government's argument here,
8941 Congress would always have unlimited power to extend existing terms. If
8942 anything was plain about Congress's power under the Progress Clause, it was
8943 that this power was supposed to be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited.</span>&#8221;</span> Our aim would be
8944 to get the Court to reconcile <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> with
8945 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>: If Congress's power to regulate commerce was
8946 limited, then so, too, must Congress's power to regulate copyright be
8947 limited.
8948 </p><p>
8949 The argument on the government's side came down to this: Congress has done
8950 it before. It should be allowed to do it again. The government claimed that
8951 from the very beginning, Congress has been extending the term of existing
8952 copyrights. So, the government argued, the Court should not now say that
8953 practice is unconstitutional.
8954 </p><p>
8955 There was some truth to the government's claim, but not much. We certainly
8956 agreed that Congress had extended existing terms in 1831 and in 1909. And of
8957 course, in 1962, Congress began extending existing terms
8958 regularly&#8212;eleven times in forty years.
8959 </p><p>
8960
8961 But this <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">consistency</span>&#8221;</span> should be kept in perspective. Congress
8962 extended existing terms once in the first hundred years of the Republic.  It
8963 then extended existing terms once again in the next fifty. Those rare
8964 extensions are in contrast to the now regular practice of extending existing
8965 terms. Whatever restraint Congress had had in the past, that restraint was
8966 now gone. Congress was now in a cycle of extensions; there was no reason to
8967 expect that cycle would end. This Court had not hesitated to intervene where
8968 Congress was in a similar cycle of extension.  There was no reason it
8969 couldn't intervene here.  Oral argument was scheduled for the first week in
8970 October. I arrived in D.C. two weeks before the argument. During those two
8971 weeks, I was repeatedly <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">mooted</span>&#8221;</span> by lawyers who had volunteered
8972 to help in the case. Such <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">moots</span>&#8221;</span> are basically practice
8973 rounds, where wannabe justices fire questions at wannabe winners.
8974 </p><p>
8975 I was convinced that to win, I had to keep the Court focused on a single
8976 point: that if this extension is permitted, then there is no limit to the
8977 power to set terms. Going with the government would mean that terms would be
8978 effectively unlimited; going with us would give Congress a clear line to
8979 follow: Don't extend existing terms. The moots were an effective practice; I
8980 found ways to take every question back to this central idea.
8981 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2895762"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895768"></a><p>
8982 One moot was before the lawyers at Jones Day. Don Ayer was the skeptic. He
8983 had served in the Reagan Justice Department with Solicitor General Charles
8984 Fried. He had argued many cases before the Supreme Court. And in his review
8985 of the moot, he let his concern speak: <a class="indexterm" name="id2895781"></a>
8986 </p><p>
8987 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">I'm just afraid that unless they really see the harm, they won't be
8988 willing to upset this practice that the government says has been a
8989 consistent practice for two hundred years. You have to make them see the
8990 harm&#8212;passionately get them to see the harm. For if they don't see
8991 that, then we haven't any chance of winning.</span>&#8221;</span>
8992 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2895794"></a><p>
8993
8994 He may have argued many cases before this Court, I thought, but he didn't
8995 understand its soul. As a clerk, I had seen the Justices do the right
8996 thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it was right. As a law
8997 professor, I had spent my life teaching my students that this Court does the
8998 right thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it is right. As I
8999 listened to Ayer's plea for passion in pressing politics, I understood his
9000 point, and I rejected it. Our argument was right. That was enough.  Let the
9001 politicians learn to see that it was also good.  The night before the
9002 argument, a line of people began to form in front of the Supreme Court. The
9003 case had become a focus of the press and of the movement to free
9004 culture. Hundreds stood in line for the chance to see the
9005 proceedings. Scores spent the night on the Supreme Court steps so that they
9006 would be assured a seat.
9007 </p><p>
9008 Not everyone has to wait in line. People who know the Justices can ask for
9009 seats they control. (I asked Justice Scalia's chambers for seats for my
9010 parents, for example.) Members of the Supreme Court bar can get a seat in a
9011 special section reserved for them. And senators and congressmen have a
9012 special place where they get to sit, too. And finally, of course, the press
9013 has a gallery, as do clerks working for the Justices on the Court. As we
9014 entered that morning, there was no place that was not taken. This was an
9015 argument about intellectual property law, yet the halls were filled. As I
9016 walked in to take my seat at the front of the Court, I saw my parents
9017 sitting on the left. As I sat down at the table, I saw Jack Valenti sitting
9018 in the special section ordinarily reserved for family of the Justices.
9019 </p><p>
9020 When the Chief Justice called me to begin my argument, I began where I
9021 intended to stay: on the question of the limits on Congress's power. This
9022 was a case about enumerated powers, I said, and whether those enumerated
9023 powers had any limit.
9024 </p><p>
9025 Justice O'Connor stopped me within one minute of my opening.  The history
9026 was bothering her.
9027 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9028 justice o'connor: Congress has extended the term so often through the years,
9029 and if you are right, don't we run the risk of upsetting previous extensions
9030 of time? I mean, this seems to be a practice that began with the very first
9031 act.
9032 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9033 She was quite willing to concede <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">that this flies directly in the face
9034 of what the framers had in mind.</span>&#8221;</span> But my response again and again was
9035 to emphasize limits on Congress's power.
9036 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9037
9038 mr. lessig: Well, if it flies in the face of what the framers had in mind,
9039 then the question is, is there a way of interpreting their words that gives
9040 effect to what they had in mind, and the answer is yes.
9041 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9042 There were two points in this argument when I should have seen where the
9043 Court was going. The first was a question by Justice Kennedy, who observed,
9044 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9045 justice kennedy: Well, I suppose implicit in the argument that the '76 act,
9046 too, should have been declared void, and that we might leave it alone
9047 because of the disruption, is that for all these years the act has impeded
9048 progress in science and the useful arts.  I just don't see any empirical
9049 evidence for that.
9050 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9051 Here follows my clear mistake. Like a professor correcting a student, I
9052 answered,
9053 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9054 mr. lessig: Justice, we are not making an empirical claim at all.  Nothing
9055 in our Copyright Clause claim hangs upon the empirical assertion about
9056 impeding progress. Our only argument is this is a structural limit necessary
9057 to assure that what would be an effectively perpetual term not be permitted
9058 under the copyright laws.
9059 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2895923"></a><p>
9060 That was a correct answer, but it wasn't the right answer. The right answer
9061 was instead that there was an obvious and profound harm. Any number of
9062 briefs had been written about it. He wanted to hear it. And here was the
9063 place Don Ayer's advice should have mattered. This was a softball; my answer
9064 was a swing and a miss.
9065 </p><p>
9066 The second came from the Chief, for whom the whole case had been
9067 crafted. For the Chief Justice had crafted the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
9068 ruling, and we hoped that he would see this case as its second cousin.
9069 </p><p>
9070
9071 It was clear a second into his question that he wasn't at all sympathetic.
9072 To him, we were a bunch of anarchists. As he asked:
9073
9074
9075 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9076 chief justice: Well, but you want more than that. You want the right to copy
9077 verbatim other people's books, don't you?
9078 </p><p>
9079 mr. lessig: We want the right to copy verbatim works that should be in the
9080 public domain and would be in the public domain but for a statute that
9081 cannot be justified under ordinary First Amendment analysis or under a
9082 proper reading of the limits built into the Copyright Clause.
9083 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9084 Things went better for us when the government gave its argument; for now the
9085 Court picked up on the core of our claim. As Justice Scalia asked Solicitor
9086 General Olson,
9087 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9088 justice scalia: You say that the functional equivalent of an unlimited time
9089 would be a violation [of the Constitution], but that's precisely the
9090 argument that's being made by petitioners here, that a limited time which is
9091 extendable is the functional equivalent of an unlimited time.
9092 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9093 When Olson was finished, it was my turn to give a closing rebuttal.  Olson's
9094 flailing had revived my anger. But my anger still was directed to the
9095 academic, not the practical. The government was arguing as if this were the
9096 first case ever to consider limits on Congress's Copyright and Patent Clause
9097 power. Ever the professor and not the advocate, I closed by pointing out the
9098 long history of the Court imposing limits on Congress's power in the name of
9099 the Copyright and Patent Clause&#8212; indeed, the very first case striking
9100 a law of Congress as exceeding a specific enumerated power was based upon
9101 the Copyright and Patent Clause. All true. But it wasn't going to move the
9102 Court to my side.
9103 </p><p>
9104
9105 As I left the court that day, I knew there were a hundred points I wished I
9106 could remake. There were a hundred questions I wished I had answered
9107 differently. But one way of thinking about this case left me optimistic.
9108 </p><p>
9109 The government had been asked over and over again, what is the limit? Over
9110 and over again, it had answered there is no limit. This was precisely the
9111 answer I wanted the Court to hear. For I could not imagine how the Court
9112 could understand that the government believed Congress's power was unlimited
9113 under the terms of the Copyright Clause, and sustain the government's
9114 argument. The solicitor general had made my argument for me. No matter how
9115 often I tried, I could not understand how the Court could find that
9116 Congress's power under the Commerce Clause was limited, but under the
9117 Copyright Clause, unlimited. In those rare moments when I let myself believe
9118 that we may have prevailed, it was because I felt this Court&#8212;in
9119 particular, the Conservatives&#8212;would feel itself constrained by the
9120 rule of law that it had established elsewhere.
9121 </p><p>
9122 The morning of January 15, 2003, I was five minutes late to the office and
9123 missed the 7:00 A.M. call from the Supreme Court clerk. Listening to the
9124 message, I could tell in an instant that she had bad news to report.The
9125 Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Seven
9126 justices had voted in the majority. There were two dissents.
9127 </p><p>
9128 A few seconds later, the opinions arrived by e-mail. I took the phone off
9129 the hook, posted an announcement to our blog, and sat down to see where I
9130 had been wrong in my reasoning.
9131 </p><p>
9132 My <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. Here was a case that pitted all the money
9133 in the world against <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. And here was the last
9134 naïve law professor, scouring the pages, looking for reasoning.
9135 </p><p>
9136 I first scoured the opinion, looking for how the Court would distinguish the
9137 principle in this case from the principle in
9138 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The argument was nowhere to be found. The case
9139 was not even cited. The argument that was the core argument of our case did
9140 not even appear in the Court's opinion.
9141 </p><p>
9142
9143
9144
9145 Justice Ginsburg simply ignored the enumerated powers argument.  Consistent
9146 with her view that Congress's power was not limited generally, she had found
9147 Congress's power not limited here.
9148 </p><p>
9149 Her opinion was perfectly reasonable&#8212;for her, and for Justice
9150 Souter. Neither believes in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. It would be too
9151 much to expect them to write an opinion that recognized, much less
9152 explained, the doctrine they had worked so hard to defeat.
9153 </p><p>
9154 But as I realized what had happened, I couldn't quite believe what I was
9155 reading. I had said there was no way this Court could reconcile limited
9156 powers with the Commerce Clause and unlimited powers with the Progress
9157 Clause. It had never even occurred to me that they could reconcile the two
9158 simply <span class="emphasis"><em>by not addressing the argument</em></span>. There was no
9159 inconsistency because they would not talk about the two together.  There was
9160 therefore no principle that followed from the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
9161 case: In that context, Congress's power would be limited, but in this
9162 context it would not.
9163 </p><p>
9164 Yet by what right did they get to choose which of the framers' values they
9165 would respect? By what right did they&#8212;the silent five&#8212;get to
9166 select the part of the Constitution they would enforce based on the values
9167 they thought important? We were right back to the argument that I said I
9168 hated at the start: I had failed to convince them that the issue here was
9169 important, and I had failed to recognize that however much I might hate a
9170 system in which the Court gets to pick the constitutional values that it
9171 will respect, that is the system we have.
9172 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2896114"></a><p>
9173 Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote very strong dissents. Stevens's opinion
9174 was crafted internal to the law: He argued that the tradition of
9175 intellectual property law should not support this unjustified extension of
9176 terms. He based his argument on a parallel analysis that had governed in the
9177 context of patents (so had we). But the rest of the Court discounted the
9178 parallel&#8212;without explaining how the very same words in the Progress
9179 Clause could come to mean totally different things depending upon whether
9180 the words were about patents or copyrights.  The Court let Justice Stevens's
9181 charge go unanswered.
9182 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2896133"></a><p>
9183
9184
9185 Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever written, was
9186 external to the Constitution. He argued that the term of copyrights has
9187 become so long as to be effectively unlimited. We had said that under the
9188 current term, a copyright gave an author 99.8 percent of the value of a
9189 perpetual term. Breyer said we were wrong, that the actual number was
9190 99.9997 percent of a perpetual term. Either way, the point was clear: If the
9191 Constitution said a term had to be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited,</span>&#8221;</span> and the existing
9192 term was so long as to be effectively unlimited, then it was
9193 unconstitutional.
9194 </p><p>
9195 These two justices understood all the arguments we had made. But because
9196 neither believed in the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, neither was
9197 willing to push it as a reason to reject this extension. The case was
9198 decided without anyone having addressed the argument that we had carried
9199 from Judge Sentelle. It was <em class="citetitle">Hamlet</em> without the
9200 Prince.
9201 </p><p>
9202 Defeat brings depression. They say it is a sign of health when depression
9203 gives way to anger. My anger came quickly, but it didn't cure the
9204 depression. This anger was of two sorts.
9205 </p><p>
9206 It was first anger with the five <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Conservatives.</span>&#8221;</span> It would have
9207 been one thing for them to have explained why the principle of
9208 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> didn't apply in this case. That wouldn't have
9209 been a very convincing argument, I don't believe, having read it made by
9210 others, and having tried to make it myself. But it at least would have been
9211 an act of integrity.  These justices in particular have repeatedly said that
9212 the proper mode of interpreting the Constitution is
9213 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">originalism</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;to first understand the framers' text,
9214 interpreted in their context, in light of the structure of the
9215 Constitution. That method had produced <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> and many
9216 other <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">originalist</span>&#8221;</span> rulings. Where was their
9217 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">originalism</span>&#8221;</span> now?
9218 </p><p>
9219
9220 Here, they had joined an opinion that never once tried to explain what the
9221 framers had meant by crafting the Progress Clause as they did; they joined
9222 an opinion that never once tried to explain how the structure of that clause
9223 would affect the interpretation of Congress's power. And they joined an
9224 opinion that didn't even try to explain why this grant of power could be
9225 unlimited, whereas the Commerce Clause would be limited. In short, they had
9226 joined an opinion that did not apply to, and was inconsistent with, their
9227 own method for interpreting the Constitution. This opinion may well have
9228 yielded a result that they liked. It did not produce a reason that was
9229 consistent with their own principles.
9230 </p><p>
9231 My anger with the Conservatives quickly yielded to anger with myself.  For I
9232 had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with a view of the law as
9233 it is.
9234 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2896246"></a><p>
9235 Most lawyers, and most law professors, have little patience for idealism
9236 about courts in general and this Supreme Court in particular.  Most have a
9237 much more pragmatic view. When Don Ayer said that this case would be won
9238 based on whether I could convince the Justices that the framers' values were
9239 important, I fought the idea, because I didn't want to believe that that is
9240 how this Court decides. I insisted on arguing this case as if it were a
9241 simple application of a set of principles.  I had an argument that followed
9242 in logic. I didn't need to waste my time showing it should also follow in
9243 popularity.
9244 </p><p>
9245
9246 As I read back over the transcript from that argument in October, I can see
9247 a hundred places where the answers could have taken the conversation in
9248 different directions, where the truth about the harm that this unchecked
9249 power will cause could have been made clear to this Court. Justice Kennedy
9250 in good faith wanted to be shown. I, idiotically, corrected his
9251 question. Justice Souter in good faith wanted to be shown the First
9252 Amendment harms. I, like a math teacher, reframed the question to make the
9253 logical point. I had shown them how they could strike this law of Congress
9254 if they wanted to. There were a hundred places where I could have helped
9255 them want to, yet my stubbornness, my refusal to give in, stopped me. I have
9256 stood before hundreds of audiences trying to persuade; I have used passion
9257 in that effort to persuade; but I refused to stand before this audience and
9258 try to persuade with the passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis
9259 on which a court should decide the issue.
9260 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2896288"></a><p>
9261 Would it have been different if I had argued it differently? Would it have
9262 been different if Don Ayer had argued it? Or Charles Fried? Or Kathleen
9263 Sullivan? <a class="indexterm" name="id2896300"></a>
9264 </p><p>
9265 My friends huddled around me to insist it would not. The Court was not
9266 ready, my friends insisted. This was a loss that was destined. It would take
9267 a great deal more to show our society why our framers were right. And when
9268 we do that, we will be able to show that Court.
9269 </p><p>
9270 Maybe, but I doubt it. These Justices have no financial interest in doing
9271 anything except the right thing. They are not lobbied. They have little
9272 reason to resist doing right. I can't help but think that if I had stepped
9273 down from this pretty picture of dispassionate justice, I could have
9274 persuaded.
9275 </p><p>
9276 And even if I couldn't, then that doesn't excuse what happened in
9277 January. For at the start of this case, one of America's leading
9278 intellectual property professors stated publicly that my bringing this case
9279 was a mistake. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Court is not ready,</span>&#8221;</span> Peter Jaszi said; this
9280 issue should not be raised until it is.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2896334"></a>
9281 </p><p>
9282
9283 After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly,
9284 that he was wrong. But if indeed that Court could not have been persuaded,
9285 then that is all the evidence that's needed to know that here again Peter
9286 was right. Either I was not ready to argue this case in a way that would do
9287 some good or they were not ready to hear this case in a way that would do
9288 some good. Either way, the decision to bring this case&#8212;a decision I
9289 had made four years before&#8212;was wrong.  While the reaction to the Sonny
9290 Bono Act itself was almost unanimously negative, the reaction to the Court's
9291 decision was mixed.  No one, at least in the press, tried to say that
9292 extending the term of copyright was a good idea. We had won that battle over
9293 ideas. Where the decision was praised, it was praised by papers that had
9294 been skeptical of the Court's activism in other cases. Deference was a good
9295 thing, even if it left standing a silly law. But where the decision was
9296 attacked, it was attacked because it left standing a silly and harmful
9297 law. <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> wrote in its editorial,
9298 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9299 In effect, the Supreme Court's decision makes it likely that we are seeing
9300 the beginning of the end of public domain and the birth of copyright
9301 perpetuity. The public domain has been a grand experiment, one that should
9302 not be allowed to die. The ability to draw freely on the entire creative
9303 output of humanity is one of the reasons we live in a time of such fruitful
9304 creative ferment.
9305 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9306 The best responses were in the cartoons. There was a gaggle of hilarious
9307 images&#8212;of Mickey in jail and the like. The best, from my view of the
9308 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
9309 unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2896413"></a>
9310 </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="id2896434"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
9311 The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the quote from
9312 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>. That <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">grand
9313 experiment</span>&#8221;</span> we call the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">public domain</span>&#8221;</span> is over? When I
9314 can make light of it, I think, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Honey, I shrunk the
9315 Constitution.</span>&#8221;</span> But I can rarely make light of it. We had in our
9316 Constitution a commitment to free culture. In the case that I fathered, the
9317 Supreme Court effectively renounced that commitment. A better lawyer would
9318 have made them see differently.
9319 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893772" href="#id2893772" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
9320
9321
9322 There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to describe, but
9323 it's a strong one. One phenomenon that the Internet created was a world of
9324 noncommercial pornographers&#8212;people who were distributing porn but were
9325 not making money directly or indirectly from that distribution.  Such a
9326 class didn't exist before the Internet came into being because the costs of
9327 distributing porn were so high. Yet this new class of distributors got
9328 special attention in the Supreme Court, when the Court struck down the
9329 Communications Decency Act of 1996. It was partly because of the burden on
9330 noncommercial speakers that the statute was found to exceed Congress's
9331 power. The same point could have been made about noncommercial publishers
9332 after the advent of the Internet. The Eric Eldreds of the world before the
9333 Internet were extremely few. Yet one would think it at least as important to
9334 protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893829" href="#id2893829" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
9335
9336
9337 The full text is: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
9338 protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would
9339 violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen
9340 our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is
9341 also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last forever less one
9342 day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress,</span>&#8221;</span> 144
9343 Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
9344 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894122" href="#id2894122" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
9345
9346 Associated Press, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey
9347 Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years,</span>&#8221;</span>
9348 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17 October 1998, 22.
9349 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894140" href="#id2894140" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
9350
9351 See Nick Brown, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
9352 Age,</span>&#8221;</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
9353 #49</a>.
9354 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894158" href="#id2894158" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
9355
9356
9357 Alan K. Ota, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars,</span>&#8221;</span>
9358 <em class="citetitle">Congressional Quarterly This Week</em>, 8 August 1990,
9359 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #50</a>.
9360 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894271" href="#id2894271" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
9361
9362 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>, 514
9363 U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
9364 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894298" href="#id2894298" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
9365
9366
9367 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>, 529
9368 U.S. 598 (2000).
9369 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894318" href="#id2894318" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
9370
9371
9372 If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle carries
9373 from one enumerated power to another. The animating point in the context of
9374 the Commerce Clause was that the interpretation offered by the government
9375 would allow the government unending power to regulate commerce&#8212;the
9376 limitation to interstate commerce notwithstanding. The same point is true in
9377 the context of the Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's
9378 interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate
9379 copyrights&#8212;the limitation to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">limited times</span>&#8221;</span>
9380 notwithstanding.
9381 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894408" href="#id2894408" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
9382
9383
9384 Brief of the Nashville Songwriters Association,
9385 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.
9386 186 (2003) (No. 01-618), n.10, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #51</a>.
9387 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894478" href="#id2894478" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
9388
9389 The figure of 2 percent is an extrapolation from the study by the
9390 Congressional Research Service, in light of the estimated renewal
9391 ranges. See Brief of Petitioners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9392 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 7, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #52</a>.
9393 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894644" href="#id2894644" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
9394
9395
9396 See David G. Savage, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright
9397 Law,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 6 October 2002; David
9398 Streitfeld, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court
9399 Hears Arguments Today on Striking Down Copyright Extension,</span>&#8221;</span>
9400 <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 9 October 2002.
9401 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894703" href="#id2894703" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
9402
9403
9404 Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae Supporting the
9405 Petitoners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9406 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01- 618),
9407 12. See also Brief of Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of Petitioners by the
9408 Internet Archive, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9409 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #53</a>.
9410 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894977" href="#id2894977" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
9411
9412
9413 Jason Schultz, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory,</span>&#8221;</span>
9414 20 December 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #54</a>.
9415 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2895494" href="#id2895494" class="para">192</a>] </sup>
9416
9417
9418 Brief of Amici Dr. Seuss Enterprise et al., <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9419 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.  (2003) (No. 01-618), 19.
9420 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2895518" href="#id2895518" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
9421
9422
9423 Dinitia Smith, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse
9424 Joins the Fray,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March
9425 1998, B7.
9426 </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>
9427 The day <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was decided, fate would have it that I
9428 was to travel to Washington, D.C. (The day the rehearing petition in
9429 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was denied&#8212;meaning the case was really
9430 finally over&#8212;fate would have it that I was giving a speech to
9431 technologists at Disney World.)  This was a particularly long flight to my
9432 least favorite city. The drive into the city from Dulles was delayed because
9433 of traffic, so I opened up my computer and wrote an op-ed piece.
9434 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2896485"></a><p>
9435 It was an act of contrition. During the whole of the flight from San
9436 Francisco to Washington, I had heard over and over again in my head the same
9437 advice from Don Ayer: You need to make them see why it is important. And
9438 alternating with that command was the question of Justice Kennedy:
9439 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">For all these years the act has impeded progress in science and the
9440 useful arts. I just don't see any empirical evidence for that.</span>&#8221;</span> And
9441 so, having failed in the argument of constitutional principle, finally, I
9442 turned to an argument of politics.
9443 </p><p>
9444
9445 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> published the piece. In it, I
9446 proposed a simple fix: Fifty years after a work has been published, the
9447 copyright owner would be required to register the work and pay a small
9448 fee. If he paid the fee, he got the benefit of the full term of
9449 copyright. If he did not, the work passed into the public domain.
9450 </p><p>
9451 We called this the Eldred Act, but that was just to give it a name.  Eric
9452 Eldred was kind enough to let his name be used once again, but as he said
9453 early on, it won't get passed unless it has another name.
9454 </p><p>
9455 Or another two names. For depending upon your perspective, this is either
9456 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
9457 Term Deregulation Act.</span>&#8221;</span> Either way, the essence of the idea is clear
9458 and obvious: Remove copyright where it is doing nothing except blocking
9459 access and the spread of knowledge. Leave it for as long as Congress allows
9460 for those works where its worth is at least $1. But for everything else, let
9461 the content go.
9462 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2896550"></a><p>
9463 The reaction to this idea was amazingly strong. Steve Forbes endorsed it in
9464 an editorial. I received an avalanche of e-mail and letters expressing
9465 support. When you focus the issue on lost creativity, people can see the
9466 copyright system makes no sense. As a good Republican might say, here
9467 government regulation is simply getting in the way of innovation and
9468 creativity. And as a good Democrat might say, here the government is
9469 blocking access and the spread of knowledge for no good reason. Indeed,
9470 there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans on this
9471 issue. Anyone can recognize the stupid harm of the present system.
9472 </p><p>
9473 Indeed, many recognized the obvious benefit of the registration
9474 requirement.  For one of the hardest things about the current system for
9475 people who want to license content is that there is no obvious place to look
9476 for the current copyright owners. Since registration is not required, since
9477 marking content is not required, since no formality at all is required, it
9478 is often impossibly hard to locate copyright owners to ask permission to use
9479 or license their work. This system would lower these costs, by establishing
9480 at least one registry where copyright owners could be identified.
9481 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2896584"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2896590"></a><p>
9482
9483 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,
9484 when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal requirement
9485 before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id2896608" href="#ftn.id2896608" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The
9486 Europeans are said to view copyright as a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">natural right.</span>&#8221;</span>
9487 Natural rights don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the
9488 Anglo-American tradition that required copyright owners to follow form if
9489 their rights were to be protected, did not, the Europeans thought, properly
9490 respect the dignity of the author. My right as a creator turns on my
9491 creativity, not upon the special favor of the government.
9492 </p><p>
9493 That's great rhetoric. It sounds wonderfully romantic. But it is absurd
9494 copyright policy. It is absurd especially for authors, because a world
9495 without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Walt
9496 Disney creativity</span>&#8221;</span> is destroyed when there is no simple way to know
9497 what's protected and what's not.
9498 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2896670"></a><p>
9499 The fight against formalities achieved its first real victory in Berlin in
9500 1908. International copyright lawyers amended the Berne Convention in 1908,
9501 to require copyright terms of life plus fifty years, as well as the
9502 abolition of copyright formalities. The formalities were hated because the
9503 stories of inadvertent loss were increasingly common. It was as if a Charles
9504 Dickens character ran all copyright offices, and the failure to dot an
9505 <em class="citetitle">i</em> or cross a <em class="citetitle">t</em> resulted in the
9506 loss of widows' only income.
9507 </p><p>
9508 These complaints were real and sensible. And the strictness of the
9509 formalities, especially in the United States, was absurd. The law should
9510 always have ways of forgiving innocent mistakes. There is no reason
9511 copyright law couldn't, as well. Rather than abandoning formalities totally,
9512 the response in Berlin should have been to embrace a more equitable system
9513 of registration.
9514 </p><p>
9515 Even that would have been resisted, however, because registration in the
9516 nineteenth and twentieth centuries was still expensive. It was also a
9517 hassle. The abolishment of formalities promised not only to save the
9518 starving widows, but also to lighten an unnecessary regulatory burden
9519 imposed upon creators.
9520 </p><p>
9521
9522 In addition to the practical complaint of authors in 1908, there was a moral
9523 claim as well. There was no reason that creative property should be a
9524 second-class form of property. If a carpenter builds a table, his rights
9525 over the table don't depend upon filing a form with the government.  He has
9526 a property right over the table <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">naturally,</span>&#8221;</span> and he can assert
9527 that right against anyone who would steal the table, whether or not he has
9528 informed the government of his ownership of the table.
9529 </p><p>
9530 This argument is correct, but its implications are misleading. For the
9531 argument in favor of formalities does not depend upon creative property
9532 being second-class property. The argument in favor of formalities turns upon
9533 the special problems that creative property presents.  The law of
9534 formalities responds to the special physics of creative property, to assure
9535 that it can be efficiently and fairly spread.
9536 </p><p>
9537 No one thinks, for example, that land is second-class property just because
9538 you have to register a deed with a court if your sale of land is to be
9539 effective. And few would think a car is second-class property just because
9540 you must register the car with the state and tag it with a license.  In both
9541 of those cases, everyone sees that there is an important reason to secure
9542 registration&#8212;both because it makes the markets more efficient and
9543 because it better secures the rights of the owner. Without a registration
9544 system for land, landowners would perpetually have to guard their
9545 property. With registration, they can simply point the police to a
9546 deed. Without a registration system for cars, auto theft would be much
9547 easier. With a registration system, the thief has a high burden to sell a
9548 stolen car. A slight burden is placed on the property owner, but those
9549 burdens produce a much better system of protection for property generally.
9550 </p><p>
9551 It is similarly special physics that makes formalities important in
9552 copyright law. Unlike a carpenter's table, there's nothing in nature that
9553 makes it relatively obvious who might own a particular bit of creative
9554 property. A recording of Lyle Lovett's latest album can exist in a billion
9555 places without anything necessarily linking it back to a particular
9556 owner. And like a car, there's no way to buy and sell creative property with
9557 confidence unless there is some simple way to authenticate who is the author
9558 and what rights he has. Simple transactions are destroyed in a world without
9559 formalities. Complex, expensive, <span class="emphasis"><em>lawyer</em></span> transactions
9560 take their place.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2896775"></a>
9561 </p><p>
9562 This was the understanding of the problem with the Sonny Bono Act that we
9563 tried to demonstrate to the Court. This was the part it didn't
9564 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">get.</span>&#8221;</span> Because we live in a system without formalities, there
9565 is no way easily to build upon or use culture from our past. If copyright
9566 terms were, as Justice Story said they would be, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">short,</span>&#8221;</span> then
9567 this wouldn't matter much. For fourteen years, under the framers' system, a
9568 work would be presumptively controlled. After fourteen years, it would be
9569 presumptively uncontrolled.
9570 </p><p>
9571 But now that copyrights can be just about a century long, the inability to
9572 know what is protected and what is not protected becomes a huge and obvious
9573 burden on the creative process. If the only way a library can offer an
9574 Internet exhibit about the New Deal is to hire a lawyer to clear the rights
9575 to every image and sound, then the copyright system is burdening creativity
9576 in a way that has never been seen before <span class="emphasis"><em>because there are no
9577 formalities</em></span>.
9578 </p><p>
9579 The Eldred Act was designed to respond to exactly this problem. If it is
9580 worth $1 to you, then register your work and you can get the longer
9581 term. Others will know how to contact you and, therefore, how to get your
9582 permission if they want to use your work. And you will get the benefit of an
9583 extended copyright term.
9584 </p><p>
9585 If it isn't worth it to you to register to get the benefit of an extended
9586 term, then it shouldn't be worth it for the government to defend your
9587 monopoly over that work either. The work should pass into the public domain
9588 where anyone can copy it, or build archives with it, or create a movie based
9589 on it. It should become free if it is not worth $1 to you.
9590 </p><p>
9591 Noen bekymrer seg over byrden på forfattere. Gjør ikke byrden med å
9592 registrere verket at beløpet $1 egentlig er misvisende?  Er ikke
9593 ekstraarbeidet verdt mer enn $1? Er ikke dette det virkelige problemet med
9594 registrering?
9595 </p><p>
9596
9597 It is. The hassle is terrible. The system that exists now is awful. I
9598 completely agree that the Copyright Office has done a terrible job (no doubt
9599 because they are terribly funded) in enabling simple and cheap
9600 registrations. Any real solution to the problem of formalities must address
9601 the real problem of <span class="emphasis"><em>governments</em></span> standing at the core of
9602 any system of formalities. In this book, I offer such a solution. That
9603 solution essentially remakes the Copyright Office. For now, assume it was
9604 Amazon that ran the registration system. Assume it was one-click
9605 registration.  The Eldred Act would propose a simple, one-click registration
9606 fifty years after a work was published. Based upon historical data, that
9607 system would move up to 98 percent of commercial work, commercial work that
9608 no longer had a commercial life, into the public domain within fifty
9609 years. What do you think?
9610 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2896869"></a><p>
9611 Da Steve Forbes støttet idéen, begynte enkelte i Washington å følge
9612 med. Mange kontaktet meg med tips til representanter som kan være villig til
9613 å introdusere en Eldred-lov. og jeg hadde noen få som foreslo direkte at de
9614 kan være villige til å ta det første skrittet.
9615 </p><p>
9616 One representative, Zoe Lofgren of California, went so far as to get the
9617 bill drafted. The draft solved any problem with international law. It
9618 imposed the simplest requirement upon copyright owners possible. In May
9619 2003, it looked as if the bill would be introduced. On May 16, I posted on
9620 the Eldred Act blog, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">we are close.</span>&#8221;</span> There was a general
9621 reaction in the blog community that something good might happen here.
9622 <a class="indexterm" name="id2896900"></a>
9623 </p><p>
9624 But at this stage, the lobbyists began to intervene. Jack Valenti and the
9625 MPAA general counsel came to the congresswoman's office to give the view of
9626 the MPAA. Aided by his lawyer, as Valenti told me, Valenti informed the
9627 congresswoman that the MPAA would oppose the Eldred Act. The reasons are
9628 embarrassingly thin. More importantly, their thinness shows something clear
9629 about what this debate is really about.
9630 </p><p>
9631
9632 The MPAA argued first that Congress had <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">firmly rejected the central
9633 concept in the proposed bill</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;that copyrights be renewed. That
9634 was true, but irrelevant, as Congress's <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">firm rejection</span>&#8221;</span> had
9635 occurred long before the Internet made subsequent uses much more likely.
9636 Second, they argued that the proposal would harm poor copyright
9637 owners&#8212;apparently those who could not afford the $1 fee. Third, they
9638 argued that Congress had determined that extending a copyright term would
9639 encourage restoration work. Maybe in the case of the small percentage of
9640 work covered by copyright law that is still commercially valuable, but again
9641 this was irrelevant, as the proposal would not cut off the extended term
9642 unless the $1 fee was not paid. Fourth, the MPAA argued that the bill would
9643 impose <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">enormous</span>&#8221;</span> costs, since a registration system is not
9644 free. True enough, but those costs are certainly less than the costs of
9645 clearing the rights for a copyright whose owner is not known. Fifth, they
9646 worried about the risks if the copyright to a story underlying a film were
9647 to pass into the public domain. But what risk is that? If it is in the
9648 public domain, then the film is a valid derivative use.
9649 </p><p>
9650 Finally, the MPAA argued that existing law enabled copyright owners to do
9651 this if they wanted. But the whole point is that there are thousands of
9652 copyright owners who don't even know they have a copyright to give. Whether
9653 they are free to give away their copyright or not&#8212;a controversial
9654 claim in any case&#8212;unless they know about a copyright, they're not
9655 likely to.
9656 </p><p>
9657 At the beginning of this book, I told two stories about the law reacting to
9658 changes in technology. In the one, common sense prevailed.  In the other,
9659 common sense was delayed. The difference between the two stories was the
9660 power of the opposition&#8212;the power of the side that fought to defend
9661 the status quo. In both cases, a new technology threatened old
9662 interests. But in only one case did those interest's have the power to
9663 protect themselves against this new competitive threat.
9664 </p><p>
9665 Jeg brukte disse to tilfellene som en måte å ramme inn krigen som denne
9666 boken har handlet om.  For her er det også en ny teknologi som tvinger loven
9667 til å reagere.  Og her bør vi også spørre, er loven i tråd med eller i strid
9668 med sunn fornuft.  Hvis sunn fornuft støtter loven, hva forklarer denne
9669 sunne fornuften?
9670 </p><p>
9671
9672
9673
9674 When the issue is piracy, it is right for the law to back the copyright
9675 owners. The commercial piracy that I described is wrong and harmful, and the
9676 law should work to eliminate it. When the issue is p2p sharing, it is easy
9677 to understand why the law backs the owners still: Much of this sharing is
9678 wrong, even if much is harmless. When the issue is copyright terms for the
9679 Mickey Mouses of the world, it is possible still to understand why the law
9680 favors Hollywood: Most people don't recognize the reasons for limiting
9681 copyright terms; it is thus still possible to see good faith within the
9682 resistance.
9683 </p><p>
9684 But when the copyright owners oppose a proposal such as the Eldred Act,
9685 then, finally, there is an example that lays bare the naked selfinterest
9686 driving this war. This act would free an extraordinary range of content that
9687 is otherwise unused. It wouldn't interfere with any copyright owner's desire
9688 to exercise continued control over his content. It would simply liberate
9689 what Kevin Kelly calls the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Dark Content</span>&#8221;</span> that fills archives
9690 around the world. So when the warriors oppose a change like this, we should
9691 ask one simple question: <a class="indexterm" name="id2897018"></a>
9692 </p><p>
9693 Hva ønsker denne industrien egentlig?
9694 </p><p>
9695 With very little effort, the warriors could protect their content. So the
9696 effort to block something like the Eldred Act is not really about protecting
9697 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> content. The effort to block the Eldred Act is an
9698 effort to assure that nothing more passes into the public domain. It is
9699 another step to assure that the public domain will never compete, that there
9700 will be no use of content that is not commercially controlled, and that
9701 there will be no commercial use of content that doesn't require
9702 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> permission first.
9703 </p><p>
9704 The opposition to the Eldred Act reveals how extreme the other side is. The
9705 most powerful and sexy and well loved of lobbies really has as its aim not
9706 the protection of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> but the rejection of a tradition.
9707 Their aim is not simply to protect what is theirs. <span class="emphasis"><em>Their aim is to
9708 assure that all there is is what is theirs</em></span>.
9709 </p><p>
9710
9711 It is not hard to understand why the warriors take this view. It is not hard
9712 to see why it would benefit them if the competition of the public domain
9713 tied to the Internet could somehow be quashed. Just as RCA feared the
9714 competition of FM, they fear the competition of a public domain connected to
9715 a public that now has the means to create with it and to share its own
9716 creation.
9717 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2897075"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2897081"></a><p>
9718 Det som er vanskelig å forstå er hvorfor folket innehar dette synet. Det er
9719 som om loven gjorde at flymaskiner tok seg inn på annen manns eiendom.  MPAA
9720 står side om side med Causbyene og krever at deres fjerne og ubrukelige
9721 eierrettigheter blir respektert, slik at disse fjerne og glemte
9722 opphavsrettsinnehaverne kan blokkere fremgangen til andre.
9723 </p><p>
9724 All this seems to follow easily from this untroubled acceptance of the
9725 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> in intellectual property. Common sense supports it,
9726 and so long as it does, the assaults will rain down upon the technologies of
9727 the Internet. The consequence will be an increasing <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">permission
9728 society.</span>&#8221;</span> The past can be cultivated only if you can identify the
9729 owner and gain permission to build upon his work. The future will be
9730 controlled by this dead (and often unfindable) hand of the past.
9731 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896608" href="#id2896608" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
9732
9733
9734 Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright
9735 legislation sometimes made protection depend upon compliance with
9736 formalities such as registration, deposit, and affixation of notice of the
9737 author's claim of copyright. However, starting with the 1908 act, every text
9738 of the Convention has provided that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the enjoyment and the
9739 exercise</span>&#8221;</span> of rights guaranteed by the Convention <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">shall not be
9740 subject to any formality.</span>&#8221;</span> The prohibition against formalities is
9741 presently embodied in Article 5(2) of the Paris Text of the Berne
9742 Convention. Many countries continue to impose some form of deposit or
9743 registration requirement, albeit not as a condition of copyright. French
9744 law, for example, requires the deposit of copies of works in national
9745 repositories, principally the National Museum.  Copies of books published in
9746 the United Kingdom must be deposited in the British Library. The German
9747 Copyright Act provides for a Registrar of Authors where the author's true
9748 name can be filed in the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works. Paul
9749 Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">International Intellectual Property Law, Cases and
9750 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>
9751 Det er mer enn trettifem millioner mennesker over hele verden med
9752 AIDS-viruset. Tjuefem millioner av dem bor i Afrika sør for Sahara.  Sytten
9753 millioner har allerede dødd.  Sytten millioner afrikanere er prosentvis
9754 proporsjonalt med syv millioner amerikanere.  Viktigere er det at dette er
9755 17 millioner afrikanere.
9756 </p><p>
9757 Det finnes ingen kur for AIDS, men det finnes medisiner som kan hemme
9758 sykdommens utvikling.  Disse antiretrovirale terapiene er fortsatt
9759 eksperimentelle, men de har hatt en dramatisk effekt allerede.  I USA øker
9760 AIDS-pasienter som regelmessig tar en cocktail av disse medisinene sin
9761 levealder med ti til tjue år. For noen gjøre medisinene sykdommen nesten
9762 usynlig.
9763 </p><p>
9764 Disse medisinene er dyre.  Da de ble først introdusert i USA, kostet de
9765 mellom $10 000 og $15 000 pr. person hvert år.  I dag koster noen
9766 av dem $25 000 pr. år.  Med disse prisene har, selvfølgelig, ingen
9767 afrikansk stat  råd til medisinen for det store flertall av sine innbyggere:
9768 $15 000 er tredve ganger brutto nasjonalprodukt pr. innbygger i
9769 Zimbabwe.  Med slike priser er disse medisinene fullstendig
9770 utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id2897205" href="#ftn.id2897205" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
9771 </p><p>
9772
9773
9774 Disse prisene er ikke høye fordi ingrediensene til medisinene er dyre.
9775 Disse prisene er høye fordi medisinene er beskyttet av patenter.
9776 Farmasiselskapene som produserer disse livreddende blandingene nyter minst
9777 tjue års monopol på sine oppfinnelser.  De bruker denne monopolmakten til å
9778 hente ut så mye de kan fra markedet.  Ved hjelp av denne makten holder de
9779 prisene høye.
9780 </p><p>
9781 Det er mange som er skeptiske til patenter, spesielt patenter på
9782 medisiner. Det er ikke jeg. Faktisk av alle forskningsområder som kan være
9783 støttet av patenter, er forskning på medisiner, etter min mening, det
9784 klareste tilfelle der patenter er nødvendig. Patenter gir et farmasøytiske
9785 firma en viss forsikring om at hvis det lykkes i å finne opp et nytt
9786 medikament som kan behandle en sykdom, vil det kunne tjene tilbake
9787 investeringen og mer til. Dette ber sosialt et ekstremt verdifullt
9788 insentiv. Jeg er den siste personen som vil argumentere for at loven skal
9789 avskaffe dette, i det minste uten andre endringer.
9790 </p><p>
9791 Men det er én ting å støtte patenter, selv patenter på medisiner. Det er en
9792 annen ting å avgjøre hvordan en best skal håndtere en krise. Og i det
9793 afrikanske ledere begynte å erkjenne ødeleggelsen AIDS brakte, begynte de å
9794 se etter måter å importere HIV-medisiner til kostnader betydelig under
9795 markedspris.
9796 </p><p>
9797 In 1997, South Africa tried one tack. It passed a law to allow the
9798 importation of patented medicines that had been produced or sold in another
9799 nation's market with the consent of the patent owner. For example, if the
9800 drug was sold in India, it could be imported into Africa from India. This is
9801 called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">parallel importation,</span>&#8221;</span> and it is generally permitted
9802 under international trade law and is specifically permitted within the
9803 European Union.<sup>[<a name="id2897292" href="#ftn.id2897292" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
9804 </p><p>
9805 However, the United States government opposed the bill. Indeed, more than
9806 opposed. As the International Intellectual Property Association
9807 characterized it, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The U.S. government pressured South Africa &#8230;
9808 not to permit compulsory licensing or parallel imports.</span>&#8221;</span><sup>[<a name="id2893898" href="#ftn.id2893898" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup> Through the Office of the United States Trade
9809 Representative, the government asked South Africa to change the
9810 law&#8212;and to add pressure to that request, in 1998, the USTR listed
9811 South Africa for possible trade sanctions.  That same year, more than forty
9812 pharmaceutical companies began proceedings in the South African courts to
9813 challenge the government's actions. The United States was then joined by
9814 other governments from the EU. Their claim, and the claim of the
9815 pharmaceutical companies, was that South Africa was violating its
9816 obligations under international law by discriminating against a particular
9817 kind of patent&#8212; pharmaceutical patents. The demand of these
9818 governments, with the United States in the lead, was that South Africa
9819 respect these patents as it respects any other patent, regardless of any
9820 effect on the treatment of AIDS within South Africa.<sup>[<a name="id2897349" href="#ftn.id2897349" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
9821 </p><p>
9822 Vi bør sette intervensjonen til USA i sammenheng.  Det er ingen tvil om at
9823 patenter ikke er den viktigste årsaken til at Afrikanere ikke har tilgang
9824 til medisiner.  Fattigdom og den totale mangel på effektivt helsevesen betyr
9825 mer. Men uansett om patenter er en viktigste grunnen eller ikke, så har
9826 prisen på medisiner en effekt på etterspørselen, og patenter påvirker
9827 prisen. Så uansett, massiv eller marginal, så var det en effekt av våre
9828 myndigheters intervensjon for å stoppe flyten av medisiner inn til Afrika.
9829 </p><p>
9830 Ved å stoppe flyten av HIV-behandling til Afrika, sikret ikke myndighetene i
9831 USA medisiner til USA borgere. Dette er ikke som hvete (hvis de spise det så
9832 kan ikke vi spise det). Det som USA i effekt intervenerte for å stoppe, var
9833 flyten av kunnskap: Informasjon om hvordan en kan ta kjemikalier som finnes
9834 i Afrika og gjøre disse kjemikaliene om til medisiner som kan redde 15 til
9835 30 millioner liv.
9836 </p><p>
9837 Intervensjonen fra USA ville heller ikke beskytte fortjenesten til
9838 medisinselskapene i USA&#8212; i hvert fall ikke betydelig.  Det var jo ikke
9839 slik at disse landene hadde mulighet til å kjøpe medisinene til de prisene
9840 som medisinselskapene forlangte.  Igjen var afrikanerne for fattige til å ha
9841 råd til disse medisinene til de tilbudte prisene.  Å blokkere for
9842 parallellimport av disse medisinene ville ikke øke salget til de amerikanske
9843 selskapene betydelig.
9844 </p><p>
9845 Instead, the argument in favor of restricting this flow of information,
9846 which was needed to save the lives of millions, was an argument about the
9847 sanctity of property.<sup>[<a name="id2897437" href="#ftn.id2897437" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup> It was because
9848 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>&#8221;</span> would be violated that these drugs
9849 should not flow into Africa. It was a principle about the importance of
9850 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>&#8221;</span> that led these government actors to
9851 intervene against the South African response to AIDS.
9852 </p><p>
9853 Now just step back for a moment. There will be a time thirty years from now
9854 when our children look back at us and ask, how could we have let this
9855 happen? How could we allow a policy to be pursued whose direct cost would be
9856 to speed the death of 15 to 30 million Africans, and whose only real benefit
9857 would be to uphold the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sanctity</span>&#8221;</span> of an idea? What possible
9858 justification could there ever be for a policy that results in so many
9859 deaths? What exactly is the insanity that would allow so many to die for
9860 such an abstraction?
9861 </p><p>
9862 Noen skylder på farmasiselskapene.  Det gjør ikke jeg.  De er selskaper, og
9863 deres ledere er lovpålagt å tjene penger for selskapene.  De presser på for
9864 en bestemt patentpolitikk, ikke på grunn av idealer, men fordi det er dette
9865 som gjør at de tjener mest penger.  Og dette gjør kun at de tjener mest
9866 penger på grunn av en slags korrupsjon i vårt politiske system&#8212; en
9867 korrupsjon som farmasiselskapene helt klart ikke er ansvarlige for.
9868 </p><p>
9869 Denne korrupsjonen er våre egne politikeres manglende integritet.  For
9870 medisinprodusentene ville elske&#8212;sier de selv, og jeg tror dem &#8212;
9871 å selge sine medisiner så billig som de kan til land i Afrika og andre
9872 steder. Det er utfordringer de må løse å sikre at medisinene ikke kommer
9873 tilbake til USA, men dette er bare teknologiske utfordring. De kan bli
9874 overvunnet.
9875 </p><p>
9876
9877 A different problem, however, could not be overcome. This is the fear of the
9878 grandstanding politician who would call the presidents of the drug companies
9879 before a Senate or House hearing, and ask, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">How is it you can sell
9880 this HIV drug in Africa for only $1 a pill, but the same drug would cost an
9881 American $1,500?</span>&#8221;</span> Because there is no <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sound bite</span>&#8221;</span>
9882 answer to that question, its effect would be to induce regulation of prices
9883 in America. The drug companies thus avoid this spiral by avoiding the first
9884 step. They reinforce the idea that property should be sacred. They adopt a
9885 rational strategy in an irrational context, with the unintended consequence
9886 that perhaps millions die. And that rational strategy thus becomes framed in
9887 terms of this ideal&#8212;the sanctity of an idea called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual
9888 property.</span>&#8221;</span>
9889 </p><p>
9890 Så når du konfronteres av ditt barns sunne fornuft, hva vil du si?  Når den
9891 sunne fornuften hos en generasjon endelig gjør opprør mot hva vi har gjort,
9892 hvordan vil vi rettferdiggjøre det?  Hva er argumentet?
9893 </p><p>
9894 En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk støtte til
9895 patentsystemet uten å måtte nå alle overalt på nøyaktig samme måte. På samme
9896 måte som en fornuftig opphavsrettspolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk
9897 støtte til et opphavsretts-system uten å måtte regulere spredningen av
9898 kultur perfekt og for alltid.  En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for
9899 og gi sterk støtte til et patentsystem uten å måtte blokkere spredning av
9900 medisiner til et land som uansett ikke er rikt nok til å ha råd til
9901 markedsprisen.  En fornuftig politikk kan en dermed si kunne være en
9902 balansert politikk.  For det meste av vår historie har både opphavsrett- og
9903 patentpolitikken i denne forstand vært balansert.
9904 </p><p>
9905 Men vi som kultur har mistet denne følelsen for balanse.  Vi har mistet det
9906 kritiske blikket som hjelper oss til å se forskjellen mellom sannhet og
9907 ekstremisme.  En slags eiendomsfundamentalisme, uten grunnlag i vår
9908 tradisjon, hersker nå i vår kultur&#8212;sært, og med konsekvenser mer
9909 alvorlig for spredningen av idéer og kultur enn nesten enhver annen politisk
9910 enkeltavgjørelse vi som demokrati kan fatte.
9911 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2897614"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2897639"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2897647"></a><p>
9912
9913 En enkel idé blender oss, og under dekke av mørket skjer mye som de fleste
9914 av oss ville avvist hvis vi hadde fulgt med.  Så ukritisk aksepterer vi
9915 idéen om eierskap til idéer at vi ikke engang legger merke til hvor uhyrlig
9916 det er å nekte tilgang til idéer for et folk som dør uten dem.  Så ukritisk
9917 aksepterer vi idéen om eiendom til kulturen at vi ikke engang stiller
9918 spørsmål ved når kontrollen over denne eiendommen fjerner vår evne, som
9919 folk, til å utvikle vår kultur demokratisk.  Blindhet blir vår sunne
9920 fornuft, og utfordringen for enhver som vil gjenvinne retten til å dyrke vår
9921 kultur er å finne en måte å få denne sunne fornuften til å åpne sine øyne.
9922 </p><p>
9923 So far, common sense sleeps. There is no revolt. Common sense does not yet
9924 see what there could be to revolt about. The extremism that now dominates
9925 this debate fits with ideas that seem natural, and that fit is reinforced by
9926 the RCAs of our day. They wage a frantic war to fight <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy,</span>&#8221;</span>
9927 and devastate a culture for creativity. They defend the idea of
9928 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">creative property,</span>&#8221;</span> while transforming real creators into
9929 modern-day sharecroppers. They are insulted by the idea that rights should
9930 be balanced, even though each of the major players in this content war was
9931 itself a beneficiary of a more balanced ideal. The hypocrisy reeks. Yet in a
9932 city like Washington, hypocrisy is not even noticed. Powerful lobbies,
9933 complex issues, and MTV attention spans produce the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">perfect
9934 storm</span>&#8221;</span> for free culture.
9935 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2874765"></a><p>
9936 In August 2003, a fight broke out in the United States about a decision by
9937 the World Intellectual Property Organization to cancel a
9938 meeting.<sup>[<a name="id2874777" href="#ftn.id2874777" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> At the request of a wide range
9939 of interests, WIPO had decided to hold a meeting to discuss <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open and
9940 collaborative projects to create public goods.</span>&#8221;</span> These are projects
9941 that have been successful in producing public goods without relying
9942 exclusively upon a proprietary use of intellectual property. Examples
9943 include the Internet and the World Wide Web, both of which were developed on
9944 the basis of protocols in the public domain. It included an emerging trend
9945 to support open academic journals, including the Public Library of Science
9946 project that I describe in the Afterword. It included a project to develop
9947 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which are thought to have great
9948 significance in biomedical research. (That nonprofit project comprised a
9949 consortium of the Wellcome Trust and pharmaceutical and technological
9950 companies, including Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer,
9951 Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola,
9952 Novartis, Pfizer, and Searle.) It included the Global Positioning System,
9953 which Ronald Reagan set free in the early 1980s. And it included <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open
9954 source and free software.</span>&#8221;</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2874855"></a>
9955 <a class="indexterm" name="id2874864"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2874871"></a>
9956 </p><p>
9957 Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles
9958 perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell
9959 ekstremisme. I stedet, hos alle disse, ble immaterielle rettigheter
9960 balansert med avtaler om å holde tilgang åpen, eller for å legge
9961 begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
9962 </p><p>
9963 Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen
9964 ideell.<sup>[<a name="id2874896" href="#ftn.id2874896" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
9965 både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker.  De involverte i hovedsak
9966 vitenskapen, men fra mange perspektiver.  Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for
9967 denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som
9968 drev med immaterielle rettighetsspørsmål.
9969 </p><p>
9970
9971 Indeed, I was once publicly scolded for not recognizing this fact about
9972 WIPO. In February 2003, I delivered a keynote address to a preparatory
9973 conference for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). At a
9974 press conference before the address, I was asked what I would say. I
9975 responded that I would be talking a little about the importance of balance
9976 in intellectual property for the development of an information society. The
9977 moderator for the event then promptly interrupted to inform me and the
9978 assembled reporters that no question about intellectual property would be
9979 discussed by WSIS, since those questions were the exclusive domain of
9980 WIPO. In the talk that I had prepared, I had actually made the issue of
9981 intellectual property relatively minor. But after this astonishing
9982 statement, I made intellectual property the sole focus of my talk. There was
9983 no way to talk about an <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Information Society</span>&#8221;</span> unless one also
9984 talked about the range of information and culture that would be free. My
9985 talk did not make my immoderate moderator very happy. And she was no doubt
9986 correct that the scope of intellectual property protections was ordinarily
9987 the stuff of WIPO. But in my view, there couldn't be too much of a
9988 conversation about how much intellectual property is needed, since in my
9989 view, the very idea of balance in intellectual property had been lost.
9990 </p><p>
9991 So whether or not WSIS can discuss balance in intellectual property, I had
9992 thought it was taken for granted that WIPO could and should. And thus the
9993 meeting about <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open and collaborative projects to create public
9994 goods</span>&#8221;</span> seemed perfectly appropriate within the WIPO agenda.
9995 </p><p>
9996 But there is one project within that list that is highly controversial, at
9997 least among lobbyists. That project is <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open source and free
9998 software.</span>&#8221;</span> Microsoft in particular is wary of discussion of the
9999 subject. From its perspective, a conference to discuss open source and free
10000 software would be like a conference to discuss Apple's operating
10001 system. Both open source and free software compete with Microsoft's
10002 software. And internationally, many governments have begun to explore
10003 requirements that they use open source or free software, rather than
10004 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">proprietary software,</span>&#8221;</span> for their own internal uses.
10005 </p><p>
10006 I don't mean to enter that debate here. It is important only to make clear
10007 that the distinction is not between commercial and noncommercial
10008 software. There are many important companies that depend fundamentally upon
10009 open source and free software, IBM being the most prominent. IBM is
10010 increasingly shifting its focus to the GNU/Linux operating system, the most
10011 famous bit of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free software</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;and IBM is emphatically a
10012 commercial entity. Thus, to support <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open source and free
10013 software</span>&#8221;</span> is not to oppose commercial entities. It is, instead, to
10014 support a mode of software development that is different from
10015 Microsoft's.<sup>[<a name="id2898220" href="#ftn.id2898220" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2898271"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2898277"></a>
10016 <a class="indexterm" name="id2898286"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2898292"></a>
10017 </p><p>
10018
10019 More important for our purposes, to support <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open source and free
10020 software</span>&#8221;</span> is not to oppose copyright. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Open source and free
10021 software</span>&#8221;</span> is not software in the public domain. Instead, like
10022 Microsoft's software, the copyright owners of free and open source software
10023 insist quite strongly that the terms of their software license be respected
10024 by adopters of free and open source software. The terms of that license are
10025 no doubt different from the terms of a proprietary software license.  Free
10026 software licensed under the General Public License (GPL), for example,
10027 requires that the source code for the software be made available by anyone
10028 who modifies and redistributes the software. But that requirement is
10029 effective only if copyright governs software. If copyright did not govern
10030 software, then free software could not impose the same kind of requirements
10031 on its adopters. It thus depends upon copyright law just as Microsoft does.
10032 </p><p>
10033 Det er dermed forståelig at Microsoft, som utviklere av proprietær
10034 programvare, gikk imot et slikt WIPO-møte, og like fullt forståelig at de
10035 bruker sine lobbyister til å få USAs myndigheter til å gå imot møtet.  Og
10036 ganske riktig, det er akkurat dette som i følge rapporter hadde skjedd.  I
10037 følge Jonathan Krim i <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, lyktes
10038 Microsofts lobbyister i å få USAs myndigheter til å legge ned veto mot et
10039 slikt møte.<sup>[<a name="id2898347" href="#ftn.id2898347" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
10040 møtet avlyst.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2898365"></a>
10041 </p><p>
10042 Jeg klandrer ikke Microsoft for å gjøre det de kan for å fremme sine egne
10043 interesser i samsvar med loven. Og lobbyvirksomhet mot myndighetene er
10044 åpenbart i samsvar med loven. Det er ikke noe overraskende her med deres
10045 lobbyvirksomhet, og ikke veldig overraskende at den mektigste
10046 programvareprodusenten i USA har lyktes med sin lobbyvirksomhet.
10047 </p><p>
10048 What was surprising was the United States government's reason for opposing
10049 the meeting. Again, as reported by Krim, Lois Boland, acting director of
10050 international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, explained
10051 that <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which
10052 is to promote intellectual-property rights.</span>&#8221;</span> She is quoted as saying,
10053 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such
10054 rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO.</span>&#8221;</span>
10055 </p><p>
10056 Disse utsagnene er forbløffende på flere nivåer.
10057 </p><p>
10058 First, they are just flat wrong. As I described, most open source and free
10059 software relies fundamentally upon the intellectual property right called
10060 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyright</span>&#8221;</span>.  Without it, restrictions imposed by those
10061 licenses wouldn't work. Thus, to say it <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">runs counter</span>&#8221;</span> to the
10062 mission of promoting intellectual property rights reveals an extraordinary
10063 gap in understanding&#8212;the sort of mistake that is excusable in a
10064 first-year law student, but an embarrassment from a high government official
10065 dealing with intellectual property issues.
10066 </p><p>
10067 Second, who ever said that WIPO's exclusive aim was to
10068 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">promote</span>&#8221;</span> intellectual property maximally? As I had been
10069 scolded at the preparatory conference of WSIS, WIPO is to consider not only
10070 how best to protect intellectual property, but also what the best balance of
10071 intellectual property is. As every economist and lawyer knows, the hard
10072 question in intellectual property law is to find that balance. But that
10073 there should be limits is, I had thought, uncontested. One wants to ask
10074 Ms. Boland, are generic drugs (drugs based on drugs whose patent has
10075 expired) contrary to the WIPO mission? Does the public domain weaken
10076 intellectual property? Would it have been better if the protocols of the
10077 Internet had been patented?
10078 </p><p>
10079 Third, even if one believed that the purpose of WIPO was to maximize
10080 intellectual property rights, in our tradition, intellectual property rights
10081 are held by individuals and corporations. They get to decide what to do with
10082 those rights because, again, they are <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> rights. If
10083 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,
10084 that is, within our tradition, totally appropriate. When Bill Gates gives
10085 away more than $20 billion to do good in the world, that is not inconsistent
10086 with the objectives of the property system. That is, on the contrary, just
10087 what a property system is supposed to be about: giving individuals the right
10088 to decide what to do with <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> property.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2898475"></a>
10089 </p><p>
10090
10091 When Ms. Boland says that there is something wrong with a meeting
10092 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights,</span>&#8221;</span>
10093 she's saying that WIPO has an interest in interfering with the choices of
10094 the individuals who own intellectual property rights. That somehow, WIPO's
10095 objective should be to stop an individual from <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">waiving</span>&#8221;</span> or
10096 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">disclaiming</span>&#8221;</span> an intellectual property right. That the interest
10097 of WIPO is not just that intellectual property rights be maximized, but that
10098 they also should be exercised in the most extreme and restrictive way
10099 possible.
10100 </p><p>
10101 There is a history of just such a property system that is well known in the
10102 Anglo-American tradition. It is called <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">feudalism.</span>&#8221;</span> Under
10103 feudalism, not only was property held by a relatively small number of
10104 individuals and entities. And not only were the rights that ran with that
10105 property powerful and extensive. But the feudal system had a strong interest
10106 in assuring that property holders within that system not weaken feudalism by
10107 liberating people or property within their control to the free
10108 market. Feudalism depended upon maximum control and concentration. It fought
10109 any freedom that might interfere with that control.
10110 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2898523"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2898529"></a><p>
10111 Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
10112 vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2898542" href="#ftn.id2898542" class="footnote">204</a>]</sup>
10113 Vi kommer til å få et informasjonssamfunn.  Så mye er sikkert.  Vårt eneste
10114 valg nå er hvorvidt dette informasjonssamfunnet skal være
10115 <span class="emphasis"><em>fritt</em></span> eller <span class="emphasis"><em>føydalt</em></span>.  Trenden er
10116 mot det føydale.
10117 </p><p>
10118 Da denne bataljen brøt ut, blogget jeg om dette.  En heftig debatt brøt ut i
10119 kommentarfeltet.  Ms. Boland hadde en rekke støttespillere som forsøkte å
10120 vise hvorfor hennes kommentarer ga mening.  Men det var spesielt en
10121 kommentar som gjorde meg trist.  En anonym kommentator skrev,
10122 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
10123
10124 George, you misunderstand Lessig: He's only talking about the world as it
10125 should be (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">the goal of WIPO, and the goal of any government, should
10126 be to promote the right balance of intellectual property rights, not simply
10127 to promote intellectual property rights</span>&#8221;</span>), not as it is. If we were
10128 talking about the world as it is, then of course Boland didn't say anything
10129 wrong. But in the world as Lessig would have it, then of course she
10130 did. Always pay attention to the distinction between Lessig's world and
10131 ours.
10132 </p></blockquote></div><p>
10133 Jeg gikk glipp av ironien først gangen jeg leste den. Jeg lese den raskt og
10134 trodde forfatteren støttet idéen om at det våre myndigheter burde gjøre var
10135 å søke balanse. (Min kritikk av Ms Boland, selvfølgelig, var ikke om
10136 hvorvidt hun søkte balanse eller ikke; min kritikk var at hennes kommentarer
10137 avslørte en feil kun en førsteårs jusstudent burde kunne gjøre. Jeg har noen
10138 illusjon om ekstremismen hos våre myndigheter, uansett om de er
10139 republikanere eller demokrater. Min eneste tilsynelatende illusjon er
10140 hvorvidt våre myndigheter bør snakke sant eller ikke.)
10141 </p><p>
10142 Obviously, however, the poster was not supporting that idea.  Instead, the
10143 poster was ridiculing the very idea that in the real world, the
10144 <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
10145 balance</span>&#8221;</span> of intellectual property. That was obviously silly to
10146 him. And it obviously betrayed, he believed, my own silly
10147 utopianism. <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Typical for an academic,</span>&#8221;</span> the poster might well
10148 have continued.
10149 </p><p>
10150 Jeg forstår kritikken av akademisk utopisme.  Jeg mener også at utopisme er
10151 tåpelig, og jeg vil være blant de første til å gjøre narr av de absurde
10152 urealistiske idealer til akademikere gjennom historien (og ikke bare i vårt
10153 eget lands historie).
10154 </p><p>
10155 But when it has become silly to suppose that the role of our government
10156 should be to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">seek balance,</span>&#8221;</span> then count me with the silly, for
10157 that means that this has become quite serious indeed. If it should be
10158 obvious to everyone that the government does not seek balance, that the
10159 government is simply the tool of the most powerful lobbyists, that the idea
10160 of holding the government to a different standard is absurd, that the idea
10161 of demanding of the government that it speak truth and not lies is just
10162 naïve, then who have we, the most powerful democracy in the world,
10163 become?
10164 </p><p>
10165
10166 Det kan være galskap å forvente at en mektig myndigshetsperson skal si
10167 sannheten. Det kan være galskap å tro at myndighetenes politikk skal gjøre
10168 mer enn å tjene de mektigste interesser. Det kan være galskap å argumentere
10169 for å bevare en tradisjon som har vært en del av vår tradisjon for
10170 mesteparten av vår historie&#8212;fri kultur.
10171 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2898670"></a><p>
10172 Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger.  Snart. Det finnes
10173 øyeblikk av håp i denne kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte
10174 mindre strenge eierskapsregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere
10175 medieeierskap, dannet det seg en en ekstraordinær koalisjon på tvers av
10176 partiene for å bekjempe endringen. For kanskje første gang i historien
10177 organiserte interesser så forskjellige som NRA, ACLU, moveon.org, William
10178 Safire, Ted Turner og Codepink Women for Piece seg for å protestere på denne
10179 endringen i FCC-reglene.  Så mange som 700 000 brev ble sendt til FCC med
10180 krav om flere høringer og et annet resultat.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2898698"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2898705"></a>
10181 </p><p>
10182 Disse protestene stoppet ikke FCC, men like etter stemte en bred koalisjon i
10183 senatet for å reversere avgjørelsen i FCC. De fiendtlige høringene som ledet
10184 til avstemmingen avslørte hvor mektig denne bevegelsen hadde blitt.  Det var
10185 ingen betydningsfull støtte for FCCs avgjørelse, mens det var bred og
10186 vedvarende støtte for å bekjempe ytterligere konsentrasjon i media.
10187 </p><p>
10188 Men selv denne bevegelsen går glipp av en viktig brikke i puslespillet.  Å
10189 være stor er ikke ille i seg selv. Frihet er ikke truet bare på grunn av at
10190 noen blir veldig rik, eller på grunn av at det bare er en håndfull store
10191 aktører.  Den dårlige kvaliteten til Big Macs eller Quartar Punders betyr
10192 ikke at du ikke kan få en god hamburger andre steder.
10193 </p><p>
10194 Faren med mediekonsentrasjon kommer ikke fra selve konsentrasjonen, men
10195 kommer fra føydalismen som denne konsentrasjonen fører til når den kobles
10196 til endringer i opphavsretten. Det er ikke kun at det er noen mektige
10197 selskaper som styrer en stadig voksende andel av mediene. Det er at denne
10198 konsentrasjonen kan påkalle en like oppsvulmet rekke
10199 rettigheter&#8212;eiendomsrettigheter i en historisk ekstrem form&#8212;som
10200 gjør størrelsen ille.
10201 </p><p>
10202 It is therefore significant that so many would rally to demand competition
10203 and increased diversity. Still, if the rally is understood as being about
10204 bigness alone, it is not terribly surprising. We Americans have a long
10205 history of fighting <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">big,</span>&#8221;</span> wisely or not. That we could be
10206 motivated to fight <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">big</span>&#8221;</span> again is not something new.
10207 </p><p>
10208 It would be something new, and something very important, if an equal number
10209 could be rallied to fight the increasing extremism built within the idea of
10210 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">intellectual property.</span>&#8221;</span> Not because balance is alien to our
10211 tradition; indeed, as I've argued, balance is our tradition. But because the
10212 muscle to think critically about the scope of anything called
10213 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">property</span>&#8221;</span> is not well exercised within this tradition anymore.
10214 </p><p>
10215 Hvis vi var Akilles, så ville dette være vår hæl. Dette ville være stedet
10216 for våre tragedie.
10217 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2898803"></a><p>
10218 As I write these final words, the news is filled with stories about the RIAA
10219 lawsuits against almost three hundred individuals.<sup>[<a name="id2898814" href="#ftn.id2898814" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup> Eminem has just been sued for
10220 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sampling</span>&#8221;</span> someone else's music.<sup>[<a name="id2898880" href="#ftn.id2898880" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup> The story about Bob Dylan <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">stealing</span>&#8221;</span> from a Japanese
10221 author has just finished making the rounds.<sup>[<a name="id2898902" href="#ftn.id2898902" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup> An insider from Hollywood&#8212;who insists he must remain
10222 anonymous&#8212;reports <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">an amazing conversation with these studio
10223 guys. They've got extraordinary [old] content that they'd love to use but
10224 can't because they can't begin to clear the rights. They've got scores of
10225 kids who could do amazing things with the content, but it would take scores
10226 of lawyers to clean it first.</span>&#8221;</span> Congressmen are talking about
10227 deputizing computer viruses to bring down computers thought to violate the
10228 law. Universities are threatening expulsion for kids who use a computer to
10229 share content.
10230 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2898936"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2898942"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2898949"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2898955"></a><p>
10231
10232 Yet on the other side of the Atlantic, the BBC has just announced that it
10233 will build a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Creative Archive,</span>&#8221;</span> from which British citizens
10234 can download BBC content, and rip, mix, and burn it.<sup>[<a name="id2898972" href="#ftn.id2898972" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup> And in Brazil, the culture minister, Gilberto Gil,
10235 himself a folk hero of Brazilian music, has joined with Creative Commons to
10236 release content and free licenses in that Latin American
10237 country.<sup>[<a name="id2898992" href="#ftn.id2898992" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup> I've told a dark story. The
10238 truth is more mixed. A technology has given us a new freedom. Slowly, some
10239 begin to understand that this freedom need not mean anarchy. We can carry a
10240 free culture into the twenty-first century, without artists losing and
10241 without the potential of digital technology being destroyed. It will take
10242 some thought, and more importantly, it will take some will to transform the
10243 RCAs of our day into the Causbys.
10244 </p><p>
10245
10246 Sunn fornuft må gjøre opprør. Den må handle for å frigjøre kulturen. Og
10247 snart, hvis dette potensialet skal noen gang bli realisert.
10248
10249
10250
10251 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2897205" href="#id2897205" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
10252
10253 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Final Report: Integrating
10254 Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy</span>&#8221;</span> (London, 2002),
10255 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10256 #55</a>. According to a World Health Organization press release issued 9
10257 July 2002, only 230,000 of the 6 million who need drugs in the developing
10258 world receive them&#8212;and half of them are in Brazil.
10259 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2897292" href="#id2897292" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
10260
10261 Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: <em class="citetitle">Who
10262 Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New Press, 2003),
10263 37.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2897302"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2897310"></a>
10264 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893898" href="#id2893898" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
10265
10266
10267 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10268 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, a
10269 Report Prepared for the World Intellectual Property Organization</em>
10270 (Washington, D.C., 2000), 14, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #56</a>. For a firsthand
10271 account of the struggle over South Africa, see Hearing Before the
10272 Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, House
10273 Committee on Government Reform, H. Rep., 1st sess., Ser. No. 106-126 (22
10274 July 1999), 150&#8211;57 (statement of James Love).
10275 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2897349" href="#id2897349" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
10276
10277
10278 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10279 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, en
10280 rapport forberedt for the World Intellectual Property
10281 Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2897437" href="#id2897437" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
10282
10283
10284
10285 See Sabin Russell, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's
10286 Needs at Odds with Firms' Profit Motive,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
10287 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
10288 licenses and gray markets pose a threat to the entire system of intellectual
10289 property protection</span>&#8221;</span>); Robert Weissman, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">AIDS and Developing
10290 Countries: Democratizing Access to Essential Medicines,</span>&#8221;</span>
10291 <em class="citetitle">Foreign Policy in Focus</em> 4:23 (August 1999), available
10292 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #58</a> (describing
10293 U.S. policy); John A. Harrelson, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents, and
10294 the HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between Intellectual
10295 Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Widener Law
10296 Symposium Journal</em> (Spring 2001): 175.
10297
10298 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874777" href="#id2874777" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
10299
10300 Jonathan Krim, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source,</span>&#8221;</span>
10301 <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,
10302 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Global Group's Shift on `Open Source' Meeting Spurs Stir,</span>&#8221;</span>
10303 <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19 August 2003,
10304 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #60</a>;
10305 William New, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks at
10306 WIPO,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19
10307 August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10308 #61</a>.
10309 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2874896" href="#id2874896" class="para">201</a>] </sup>
10310
10311 Jeg bør nevne at jeg var en av folkene som ba WIPO om dette møtet.
10312 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898220" href="#id2898220" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
10313
10314
10315 Microsoft's position about free and open source software is more
10316 sophisticated.  As it has repeatedly asserted, it has no problem with
10317 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">open source</span>&#8221;</span> software or software in the public
10318 domain. Microsoft's principal opposition is to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free software</span>&#8221;</span>
10319 licensed under a <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">copyleft</span>&#8221;</span> license, meaning a license that
10320 requires the licensee to adopt the same terms on any derivative work. See
10321 Bradford L. Smith, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">The Future of Software: Enabling the Marketplace
10322 to Decide,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Government Policy Toward Open Source
10323 Software</em> (Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for
10324 Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
10325 Research, 2002), 69, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #62</a>. See also Craig Mundie,
10326 Microsoft senior vice president, <em class="citetitle">The Commercial Software
10327 Model</em>, discussion at New York University Stern School of
10328 Business (3 May 2001), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #63</a>.
10329 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898347" href="#id2898347" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
10330
10331
10332 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>.
10333 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898542" href="#id2898542" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
10334
10335 Se Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
10336 210&#8211;20.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2897352"></a>
10337 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898814" href="#id2898814" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
10338
10339
10340 John Borland, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers,</span>&#8221;</span> CNET News.com,
10341 September 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10342 #65</a>; Paul R. La Monica, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Music Industry Sues Swappers,</span>&#8221;</span>
10343 CNN/Money, 8 September 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #66</a>; Soni Sangha and
10344 Phyllis Furman with Robert Gearty, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Sued for a Song, N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old
10345 Among 261 Cited as Sharers,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Daily
10346 News</em>, 9 September 2003, 3; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits
10347 Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in
10348 N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10
10349 September 2003, E1; Katie Dean, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA,</span>&#8221;</span>
10350 <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>.
10351 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898880" href="#id2898880" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
10352
10353
10354 Jon Wiederhorn, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Eminem Gets Sued &#8230; by a Little Old
10355 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>.
10356 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898902" href="#id2898902" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
10357
10358
10359
10360 Kenji Hall, Associated Press, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for
10361 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>.
10362
10363 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898972" href="#id2898972" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
10364
10365 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public,</span>&#8221;</span> BBC press
10366 release, 24 August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #70</a>.
10367 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898992" href="#id2898992" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
10368
10369
10370 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Creative Commons and Brazil,</span>&#8221;</span> Creative Commons Weblog, 6
10371 August 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10372 #71</a>.
10373 </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>
10374
10375
10376
10377 I hvert fall noen av de som har lest helt hit vil være enig med meg om at
10378 noe må gjøres for å endre retningen vi holder.  Balansen i denne boken
10379 kartlegger hva som kan gjøres.
10380 </p><p>
10381 Jeg deler dette kartet i to deler: det som enhver kan gjøre nå, og det som
10382 krever hjelp fra lovgiverne.  Hvis det er en lærdom vi kan trekke fra
10383 historien om å endre på sunn fornuft, så er det at det krever å endre
10384 hvordan mange mennesker tenker på den aktuelle saken.
10385 </p><p>
10386 Det betyr at denne bevegelsen må starte i gatene.  Det må rekrutteres et
10387 signifikant antall foreldre, lærere, bibliotekarer, skapere, forfattere,
10388 musikere, filmskapere, forskere&#8212;som alle må fortelle denne historien
10389 med sine egne ord, og som kan fortelle sine naboer hvorfor denne kampen er
10390 så viktig.
10391 </p><p>
10392 Når denne bevegelsen har hatt sin effekt i gatene, så er det et visst håp om
10393 at det kan ha effekt i Washington.  Vi er fortsatt et demokrati. Hva folk
10394 mener betyr noe.  Ikke så mye som det burde, i hvert fall når en RCA står
10395 imot, men likevel, det betyr noe.  Og dermed vil jeg skissere, i den andre
10396 delen som følger, endringer som kongressen kunne gjøre for å bedre sikre en
10397 fri kultur.
10398 </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>
10399 Common sense is with the copyright warriors because the debate so far has
10400 been framed at the extremes&#8212;as a grand either/or: either property or
10401 anarchy, either total control or artists won't be paid. If that really is
10402 the choice, then the warriors should win.
10403 </p><p>
10404 The mistake here is the error of the excluded middle. There are extremes in
10405 this debate, but the extremes are not all that there is. There are those who
10406 believe in maximal copyright&#8212;<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212;
10407 and those who reject copyright&#8212;<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved.</span>&#8221;</span> The
10408 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>&#8221;</span> sorts believe that you should ask
10409 permission before you <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">use</span>&#8221;</span> a copyrighted work in any way. The
10410 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved</span>&#8221;</span> sorts believe you should be able to do
10411 with content as you wish, regardless of whether you have permission or not.
10412 </p><p>
10413
10414 When the Internet was first born, its initial architecture effectively
10415 tilted in the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>&#8221;</span> direction. Content could be
10416 copied perfectly and cheaply; rights could not easily be controlled. Thus,
10417 regardless of anyone's desire, the effective regime of copyright under the
10418 original design of the Internet was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">no rights reserved.</span>&#8221;</span>
10419 Content was <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">taken</span>&#8221;</span> regardless of the rights. Any rights were
10420 effectively unprotected.
10421 </p><p>
10422 This initial character produced a reaction (opposite, but not quite equal)
10423 by copyright owners. That reaction has been the topic of this book. Through
10424 legislation, litigation, and changes to the network's design, copyright
10425 holders have been able to change the essential character of the environment
10426 of the original Internet. If the original architecture made the effective
10427 default <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">no rights reserved,</span>&#8221;</span> the future architecture will make
10428 the effective default <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">all rights reserved.</span>&#8221;</span> The architecture
10429 and law that surround the Internet's design will increasingly produce an
10430 environment where all use of content requires permission.  The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">cut
10431 and paste</span>&#8221;</span> world that defines the Internet today will become a
10432 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">get permission to cut and paste</span>&#8221;</span> world that is a creator's
10433 nightmare.
10434 </p><p>
10435 What's needed is a way to say something in the middle&#8212;neither
10436 <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
10437 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">some rights reserved</span>&#8221;</span>&#8212; and thus a way to respect
10438 copyrights but enable creators to free content as they see fit. In other
10439 words, we need a way to restore a set of freedoms that we could just take
10440 for granted before.
10441 </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>
10442 If you step back from the battle I've been describing here, you will
10443 recognize this problem from other contexts. Think about privacy. Before the
10444 Internet, most of us didn't have to worry much about data about our lives
10445 that we broadcast to the world. If you walked into a bookstore and browsed
10446 through some of the works of Karl Marx, you didn't need to worry about
10447 explaining your browsing habits to your neighbors or boss. The
10448 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">privacy</span>&#8221;</span> of your browsing habits was assured.
10449 </p><p>
10450 Hva gjorde at det var sikret?
10451 </p><p>
10452 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
10453 assured because of an inefficient architecture for gathering data and hence
10454 a market constraint (cost) on anyone who wanted to gather that data. If you
10455 were a suspected spy for North Korea, working for the CIA, no doubt your
10456 privacy would not be assured.  But that's because the CIA would (we hope)
10457 find it valuable enough to spend the thousands required to track you. But
10458 for most of us (again, we can hope), spying doesn't pay. The highly
10459 inefficient architecture of real space means we all enjoy a fairly robust
10460 amount of privacy. That privacy is guaranteed to us by friction. Not by law
10461 (there is no law protecting <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">privacy</span>&#8221;</span> in public places), and in
10462 many places, not by norms (snooping and gossip are just fun), but instead,
10463 by the costs that friction imposes on anyone who would want to spy.
10464 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2899260"></a><p>
10465 Enter the Internet, where the cost of tracking browsing in particular has
10466 become quite tiny. If you're a customer at Amazon, then as you browse the
10467 pages, Amazon collects the data about what you've looked at. You know this
10468 because at the side of the page, there's a list of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">recently
10469 viewed</span>&#8221;</span> pages. Now, because of the architecture of the Net and the
10470 function of cookies on the Net, it is easier to collect the data than
10471 not. The friction has disappeared, and hence any <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">privacy</span>&#8221;</span>
10472 protected by the friction disappears, too.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2899283"></a>
10473 </p><p>
10474 Amazon, of course, is not the problem. But we might begin to worry about
10475 libraries. If you're one of those crazy lefties who thinks that people
10476 should have the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">right</span>&#8221;</span> to browse in a library without the
10477 government knowing which books you look at (I'm one of those lefties, too),
10478 then this change in the technology of monitoring might concern you. If it
10479 becomes simple to gather and sort who does what in electronic spaces, then
10480 the friction-induced privacy of yesterday disappears.
10481 </p><p>
10482
10483 It is this reality that explains the push of many to define
10484 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">privacy</span>&#8221;</span> on the Internet. It is the recognition that
10485 technology can remove what friction before gave us that leads many to push
10486 for laws to do what friction did.<sup>[<a name="id2899316" href="#ftn.id2899316" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup> And
10487 whether you're in favor of those laws or not, it is the pattern that is
10488 important here. We must take affirmative steps to secure a kind of freedom
10489 that was passively provided before. A change in technology now forces those
10490 who believe in privacy to affirmatively act where, before, privacy was given
10491 by default.
10492 </p><p>
10493 A similar story could be told about the birth of the free software
10494 movement. When computers with software were first made available
10495 commercially, the software&#8212;both the source code and the
10496 binaries&#8212; was free. You couldn't run a program written for a Data
10497 General machine on an IBM machine, so Data General and IBM didn't care much
10498 about controlling their software.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2899358"></a>
10499 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2899369"></a><p>
10500 Dette var verden Richard Stallman ble født inn i, og mens han var forsker
10501 ved MIT, lærte han til å elske samfunnet som utviklet seg når en var fri til
10502 å utforske og fikle med programvaren som kjørte på datamaskiner. Av den
10503 smarte sorten selv, og en talentfull programmerer, begynte Stallman å basere
10504 seg frihet til å legge til eller endre på andre personers arbeid.
10505 </p><p>
10506 In an academic setting, at least, that's not a terribly radical idea. In a
10507 math department, anyone would be free to tinker with a proof that someone
10508 offered. If you thought you had a better way to prove a theorem, you could
10509 take what someone else did and change it. In a classics department, if you
10510 believed a colleague's translation of a recently discovered text was flawed,
10511 you were free to improve it. Thus, to Stallman, it seemed obvious that you
10512 should be free to tinker with and improve the code that ran a machine. This,
10513 too, was knowledge. Why shouldn't it be open for criticism like anything
10514 else?
10515 </p><p>
10516 No one answered that question. Instead, the architecture of revenue for
10517 computing changed. As it became possible to import programs from one system
10518 to another, it became economically attractive (at least in the view of some)
10519 to hide the code of your program. So, too, as companies started selling
10520 peripherals for mainframe systems. If I could just take your printer driver
10521 and copy it, then that would make it easier for me to sell a printer to the
10522 market than it was for you.
10523 </p><p>
10524
10525 Thus, the practice of proprietary code began to spread, and by the early
10526 1980s, Stallman found himself surrounded by proprietary code.  The world of
10527 free software had been erased by a change in the economics of computing. And
10528 as he believed, if he did nothing about it, then the freedom to change and
10529 share software would be fundamentally weakened.
10530 </p><p>
10531 Therefore, in 1984, Stallman began a project to build a free operating
10532 system, so that at least a strain of free software would survive. That was
10533 the birth of the GNU project, into which Linus Torvalds's
10534 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Linux</span>&#8221;</span> kernel was added to produce the GNU/Linux operating
10535 system.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2899437"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2899443"></a>
10536 </p><p>
10537 Stallman's technique was to use copyright law to build a world of software
10538 that must be kept free. Software licensed under the Free Software
10539 Foundation's GPL cannot be modified and distributed unless the source code
10540 for that software is made available as well. Thus, anyone building upon
10541 GPL'd software would have to make their buildings free as well. This would
10542 assure, Stallman believed, that an ecology of code would develop that
10543 remained free for others to build upon. His fundamental goal was freedom;
10544 innovative creative code was a byproduct.
10545 </p><p>
10546 Stallman was thus doing for software what privacy advocates now do for
10547 privacy. He was seeking a way to rebuild a kind of freedom that was taken
10548 for granted before. Through the affirmative use of licenses that bind
10549 copyrighted code, Stallman was affirmatively reclaiming a space where free
10550 software would survive. He was actively protecting what before had been
10551 passively guaranteed.
10552 </p><p>
10553 Finally, consider a very recent example that more directly resonates with
10554 the story of this book. This is the shift in the way academic and scientific
10555 journals are produced.
10556 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxacademocjournals"></a><p>
10557
10558 As digital technologies develop, it is becoming obvious to many that
10559 printing thousands of copies of journals every month and sending them to
10560 libraries is perhaps not the most efficient way to distribute
10561 knowledge. Instead, journals are increasingly becoming electronic, and
10562 libraries and their users are given access to these electronic journals
10563 through password-protected sites. Something similar to this has been
10564 happening in law for almost thirty years: Lexis and Westlaw have had
10565 electronic versions of case reports available to subscribers to their
10566 service.  Although a Supreme Court opinion is not copyrighted, and anyone is
10567 free to go to a library and read it, Lexis and Westlaw are also free to
10568 charge users for the privilege of gaining access to that Supreme Court
10569 opinion through their respective services.
10570 </p><p>
10571 There's nothing wrong in general with this, and indeed, the ability to
10572 charge for access to even public domain materials is a good incentive for
10573 people to develop new and innovative ways to spread knowledge.  The law has
10574 agreed, which is why Lexis and Westlaw have been allowed to flourish. And if
10575 there's nothing wrong with selling the public domain, then there could be
10576 nothing wrong, in principle, with selling access to material that is not in
10577 the public domain.
10578 </p><p>
10579 But what if the only way to get access to social and scientific data was
10580 through proprietary services? What if no one had the ability to browse this
10581 data except by paying for a subscription?
10582 </p><p>
10583 As many are beginning to notice, this is increasingly the reality with
10584 scientific journals. When these journals were distributed in paper form,
10585 libraries could make the journals available to anyone who had access to the
10586 library. Thus, patients with cancer could become cancer experts because the
10587 library gave them access. Or patients trying to understand the risks of a
10588 certain treatment could research those risks by reading all available
10589 articles about that treatment. This freedom was therefore a function of the
10590 institution of libraries (norms) and the technology of paper journals
10591 (architecture)&#8212;namely, that it was very hard to control access to a
10592 paper journal.
10593 </p><p>
10594 As journals become electronic, however, the publishers are demanding that
10595 libraries not give the general public access to the journals. This means
10596 that the freedoms provided by print journals in public libraries begin to
10597 disappear. Thus, as with privacy and with software, a changing technology
10598 and market shrink a freedom taken for granted before.
10599 </p><p>
10600 This shrinking freedom has led many to take affirmative steps to restore the
10601 freedom that has been lost. The Public Library of Science (PLoS), for
10602 example, is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making scientific research
10603 available to anyone with a Web connection. Authors of scientific work submit
10604 that work to the Public Library of Science.  That work is then subject to
10605 peer review. If accepted, the work is then deposited in a public, electronic
10606 archive and made permanently available for free. PLoS also sells a print
10607 version of its work, but the copyright for the print journal does not
10608 inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2899566"></a>
10609 </p><p>
10610 This is one of many such efforts to restore a freedom taken for granted
10611 before, but now threatened by changing technology and markets.  There's no
10612 doubt that this alternative competes with the traditional publishers and
10613 their efforts to make money from the exclusive distribution of content. But
10614 competition in our tradition is presumptively a good&#8212;especially when
10615 it helps spread knowledge and science.
10616 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2899577"></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>
10617 Den samme strategien kan brukes på kultur, som et svar på den økende
10618 kontrollen som gjennomføres gjennom lov og teknologi.
10619 </p><p>
10620 Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation
10621 established in Massachusetts, but with its home at Stanford University. Its
10622 aim is to build a layer of <span class="emphasis"><em>reasonable</em></span> copyright on top
10623 of the extremes that now reign. It does this by making it easy for people to
10624 build upon other people's work, by making it simple for creators to express
10625 the freedom for others to take and build upon their work. Simple tags, tied
10626 to human-readable descriptions, tied to bulletproof licenses, make this
10627 possible.
10628 </p><p>
10629
10630 <span class="emphasis"><em>Simple</em></span>&#8212;which means without a middleman, or
10631 without a lawyer.  By developing a free set of licenses that people can
10632 attach to their content, Creative Commons aims to mark a range of content
10633 that can easily, and reliably, be built upon. These tags are then linked to
10634 machine-readable versions of the license that enable computers automatically
10635 to identify content that can easily be shared. These three expressions
10636 together&#8212;a legal license, a human-readable description, and
10637 machine-readable tags&#8212;constitute a Creative Commons license. A
10638 Creative Commons license constitutes a grant of freedom to anyone who
10639 accesses the license, and more importantly, an expression of the ideal that
10640 the person associated with the license believes in something different than
10641 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
10642 the CC mark, which does not mean that copyright is waived, but that certain
10643 freedoms are given.
10644 </p><p>
10645 These freedoms are beyond the freedoms promised by fair use. Their precise
10646 contours depend upon the choices the creator makes. The creator can choose a
10647 license that permits any use, so long as attribution is given. She can
10648 choose a license that permits only noncommercial use.  She can choose a
10649 license that permits any use so long as the same freedoms are given to other
10650 uses (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">share and share alike</span>&#8221;</span>). Or any use so long as no
10651 derivative use is made. Or any use at all within developing nations. Or any
10652 sampling use, so long as full copies are not made. Or lastly, any
10653 educational use.
10654 </p><p>
10655 These choices thus establish a range of freedoms beyond the default of
10656 copyright law. They also enable freedoms that go beyond traditional fair
10657 use. And most importantly, they express these freedoms in a way that
10658 subsequent users can use and rely upon without the need to hire a
10659 lawyer. Creative Commons thus aims to build a layer of content, governed by
10660 a layer of reasonable copyright law, that others can build upon. Voluntary
10661 choice of individuals and creators will make this content available. And
10662 that content will in turn enable us to rebuild a public domain.
10663 </p><p>
10664 This is just one project among many within the Creative Commons.  And of
10665 course, Creative Commons is not the only organization pursuing such
10666 freedoms. But the point that distinguishes the Creative Commons from many is
10667 that we are not interested only in talking about a public domain or in
10668 getting legislators to help build a public domain. Our aim is to build a
10669 movement of consumers and producers of content (<span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">content
10670 conducers,</span>&#8221;</span> as attorney Mia Garlick calls them)  who help build the
10671 public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the importance of the public
10672 domain to other creativity.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2899715"></a>
10673 </p><p>
10674 The aim is not to fight the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>&#8221;</span> sorts. The
10675 aim is to complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a
10676 culture are produced by insane and unintended consequences of laws written
10677 centuries ago, applied to a technology that only Jefferson could have
10678 imagined. The rules may well have made sense against a background of
10679 technologies from centuries ago, but they do not make sense against the
10680 background of digital technologies. New rules&#8212;with different freedoms,
10681 expressed in ways so that humans without lawyers can use them&#8212;are
10682 needed. Creative Commons gives people a way effectively to begin to build
10683 those rules.
10684 </p><p>
10685 Why would creators participate in giving up total control? Some participate
10686 to better spread their content. Cory Doctorow, for example, is a science
10687 fiction author. His first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
10688 Kingdom</em>, was released on-line and for free, under a Creative
10689 Commons license, on the same day that it went on sale in bookstores.
10690 </p><p>
10691 Why would a publisher ever agree to this? I suspect his publisher reasoned
10692 like this: There are two groups of people out there: (1)  those who will buy
10693 Cory's book whether or not it's on the Internet, and (2) those who may never
10694 hear of Cory's book, if it isn't made available for free on the
10695 Internet. Some part of (1) will download Cory's book instead of buying
10696 it. Call them bad-(1)s. Some part of (2)  will download Cory's book, like
10697 it, and then decide to buy it. Call them (2)-goods.  If there are more
10698 (2)-goods than bad-(1)s, the strategy of releasing Cory's book free on-line
10699 will probably <span class="emphasis"><em>increase</em></span> sales of Cory's book.
10700 </p><p>
10701 Indeed, the experience of his publisher clearly supports that conclusion.
10702 The book's first printing was exhausted months before the publisher had
10703 expected. This first novel of a science fiction author was a total success.
10704 </p><p>
10705 The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content was
10706 confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner, who wrote a
10707 book about the free software movement titled <em class="citetitle">Free for
10708 All</em>, made an electronic version of his book free on-line under a
10709 Creative Commons license after the book went out of print. He then monitored
10710 used book store prices for the book. As predicted, as the number of
10711 downloads increased, the used book price for his book increased, as well.
10712 <a class="indexterm" name="id2899790"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2899799"></a>
10713 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2899806"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2899812"></a><p>
10714 These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary
10715 content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the Commons. There
10716 are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other reasons. Many who use
10717 the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sampling license</span>&#8221;</span> do so because anything else would be
10718 hypocritical. The sampling license says that others are free, for commercial
10719 or noncommercial purposes, to sample content from the licensed work; they
10720 are just not free to make full copies of the licensed work available to
10721 others. This is consistent with their own art&#8212;they, too, sample from
10722 others. Because the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal</em></span> costs of sampling are so high
10723 (Walter Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born
10724 sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not
10725 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">allow</span>&#8221;</span> Public Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs
10726 are so high<sup>[<a name="id2899844" href="#ftn.id2899844" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), these artists release
10727 into the creative environment content that others can build upon, so that
10728 their form of creativity might grow.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2899866"></a>
10729 </p><p>
10730 Finally, there are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons
10731 license just because they want to express to others the importance of
10732 balance in this debate. If you just go along with the system as it is, you
10733 are effectively saying you believe in the <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>&#8221;</span>
10734 model. Good for you, but many do not. Many believe that however appropriate
10735 that rule is for Hollywood and freaks, it is not an appropriate description
10736 of how most creators view the rights associated with their content. The
10737 Creative Commons license expresses this notion of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Some Rights
10738 Reserved,</span>&#8221;</span> and gives many the chance to say it to others.
10739 </p><p>
10740
10741 In the first six months of the Creative Commons experiment, over 1 million
10742 objects were licensed with these free-culture licenses. The next step is
10743 partnerships with middleware content providers to help them build into their
10744 technologies simple ways for users to mark their content with Creative
10745 Commons freedoms. Then the next step is to watch and celebrate creators who
10746 build content based upon content set free.
10747 </p><p>
10748 These are first steps to rebuilding a public domain. They are not mere
10749 arguments; they are action. Building a public domain is the first step to
10750 showing people how important that domain is to creativity and
10751 innovation. Creative Commons relies upon voluntary steps to achieve this
10752 rebuilding. They will lead to a world in which more than voluntary steps are
10753 possible.
10754 </p><p>
10755 Creative Commons is just one example of voluntary efforts by individuals and
10756 creators to change the mix of rights that now govern the creative field. The
10757 project does not compete with copyright; it complements it. Its aim is not
10758 to defeat the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and
10759 creators to exercise their rights more flexibly and cheaply. That
10760 difference, we believe, will enable creativity to spread more easily.
10761 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2899925"></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>
10762 We will not reclaim a free culture by individual action alone. It will also
10763 take important reforms of laws. We have a long way to go before the
10764 politicians will listen to these ideas and implement these reforms.  But
10765 that also means that we have time to build awareness around the changes that
10766 we need.
10767 </p><p>
10768 In this chapter, I outline five kinds of changes: four that are general, and
10769 one that's specific to the most heated battle of the day, music. Each is a
10770 step, not an end. But any of these steps would carry us a long way to our
10771 end.
10772 </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>
10773 If you buy a house, you have to record the sale in a deed. If you buy land
10774 upon which to build a house, you have to record the purchase in a deed.  If
10775 you buy a car, you get a bill of sale and register the car. If you buy an
10776 airplane ticket, it has your name on it.
10777 </p><p>
10778
10779
10780 These are all formalities associated with property. They are requirements
10781 that we all must bear if we want our property to be protected.
10782 </p><p>
10783 In contrast, under current copyright law, you automatically get a copyright,
10784 regardless of whether you comply with any formality. You don't have to
10785 register. You don't even have to mark your content. The default is control,
10786 and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">formalities</span>&#8221;</span> are banished.
10787 </p><p>
10788 Why?
10789 </p><p>
10790 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
10791 one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities imposed a burden
10792 on copyright holders without much benefit. Thus, it was progress when the
10793 law relaxed the formal requirements that a copyright owner must bear to
10794 protect and secure his work. Those formalities were getting in the way.
10795 </p><p>
10796 But the Internet changes all this. Formalities today need not be a
10797 burden. Rather, the world without formalities is the world that burdens
10798 creativity. Today, there is no simple way to know who owns what, or with
10799 whom one must deal in order to use or build upon the creative work of
10800 others. There are no records, there is no system to trace&#8212; there is no
10801 simple way to know how to get permission. Yet given the massive increase in
10802 the scope of copyright's rule, getting permission is a necessary step for
10803 any work that builds upon our past. And thus, the <span class="emphasis"><em>lack</em></span>
10804 of formalities forces many into silence where they otherwise could speak.
10805 </p><p>
10806 The law should therefore change this requirement<sup>[<a name="id2900033" href="#ftn.id2900033" class="footnote">212</a>]</sup>&#8212;but it should not change it by going back to the old, broken
10807 system. We should require formalities, but we should establish a system that
10808 will create the incentives to minimize the burden of these formalities.
10809 </p><p>
10810 The important formalities are three: marking copyrighted work, registering
10811 copyrights, and renewing the claim to copyright. Traditionally, the first of
10812 these three was something the copyright owner did; the second two were
10813 something the government did. But a revised system of formalities would
10814 banish the government from the process, except for the sole purpose of
10815 approving standards developed by others.
10816 </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>
10817 Under the old system, a copyright owner had to file a registration with the
10818 Copyright Office to register or renew a copyright. When filing that
10819 registration, the copyright owner paid a fee. As with most government
10820 agencies, the Copyright Office had little incentive to minimize the burden
10821 of registration; it also had little incentive to minimize the fee.  And as
10822 the Copyright Office is not a main target of government policymaking, the
10823 office has historically been terribly underfunded. Thus, when people who
10824 know something about the process hear this idea about formalities, their
10825 first reaction is panic&#8212;nothing could be worse than forcing people to
10826 deal with the mess that is the Copyright Office.
10827 </p><p>
10828 Yet it is always astonishing to me that we, who come from a tradition of
10829 extraordinary innovation in governmental design, can no longer think
10830 innovatively about how governmental functions can be designed.  Just because
10831 there is a public purpose to a government role, it doesn't follow that the
10832 government must actually administer the role. Instead, we should be creating
10833 incentives for private parties to serve the public, subject to standards
10834 that the government sets.
10835 </p><p>
10836 In the context of registration, one obvious model is the Internet.  There
10837 are at least 32 million Web sites registered around the world.  Domain name
10838 owners for these Web sites have to pay a fee to keep their registration
10839 alive. In the main top-level domains (.com, .org, .net), there is a central
10840 registry. The actual registrations are, however, performed by many competing
10841 registrars. That competition drives the cost of registering down, and more
10842 importantly, it drives the ease with which registration occurs up.
10843 </p><p>
10844
10845 We should adopt a similar model for the registration and renewal of
10846 copyrights. The Copyright Office may well serve as the central registry, but
10847 it should not be in the registrar business. Instead, it should establish a
10848 database, and a set of standards for registrars. It should approve
10849 registrars that meet its standards. Those registrars would then compete with
10850 one another to deliver the cheapest and simplest systems for registering and
10851 renewing copyrights. That competition would substantially lower the burden
10852 of this formality&#8212;while producing a database of registrations that
10853 would facilitate the licensing of content.
10854 </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>
10855 It used to be that the failure to include a copyright notice on a creative
10856 work meant that the copyright was forfeited. That was a harsh punishment for
10857 failing to comply with a regulatory rule&#8212;akin to imposing the death
10858 penalty for a parking ticket in the world of creative rights.  Here again,
10859 there is no reason that a marking requirement needs to be enforced in this
10860 way. And more importantly, there is no reason a marking requirement needs to
10861 be enforced uniformly across all media.
10862 </p><p>
10863 The aim of marking is to signal to the public that this work is copyrighted
10864 and that the author wants to enforce his rights. The mark also makes it easy
10865 to locate a copyright owner to secure permission to use the work.
10866 </p><p>
10867 One of the problems the copyright system confronted early on was that
10868 different copyrighted works had to be differently marked. It wasn't clear
10869 how or where a statue was to be marked, or a record, or a film. A new
10870 marking requirement could solve these problems by recognizing the
10871 differences in media, and by allowing the system of marking to evolve as
10872 technologies enable it to. The system could enable a special signal from the
10873 failure to mark&#8212;not the loss of the copyright, but the loss of the
10874 right to punish someone for failing to get permission first.
10875 </p><p>
10876
10877 Let's start with the last point. If a copyright owner allows his work to be
10878 published without a copyright notice, the consequence of that failure need
10879 not be that the copyright is lost. The consequence could instead be that
10880 anyone has the right to use this work, until the copyright owner complains
10881 and demonstrates that it is his work and he doesn't give
10882 permission.<sup>[<a name="id2900156" href="#ftn.id2900156" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
10883 work would therefore be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">use unless someone complains.</span>&#8221;</span> If
10884 someone does complain, then the obligation would be to stop using the work
10885 in any new work from then on though no penalty would attach for existing
10886 uses.  This would create a strong incentive for copyright owners to mark
10887 their work.
10888 </p><p>
10889 That in turn raises the question about how work should best be marked. Here
10890 again, the system needs to adjust as the technologies evolve. The best way
10891 to ensure that the system evolves is to limit the Copyright Office's role to
10892 that of approving standards for marking content that have been crafted
10893 elsewhere.
10894 </p><p>
10895 For example, if a recording industry association devises a method for
10896 marking CDs, it would propose that to the Copyright Office. The Copyright
10897 Office would hold a hearing, at which other proposals could be made. The
10898 Copyright Office would then select the proposal that it judged preferable,
10899 and it would base that choice <span class="emphasis"><em>solely</em></span> upon the
10900 consideration of which method could best be integrated into the registration
10901 and renewal system. We would not count on the government to innovate; but we
10902 would count on the government to keep the product of innovation in line with
10903 its other important functions.
10904 </p><p>
10905 Finally, marking content clearly would simplify registration requirements.
10906 If photographs were marked by author and year, there would be little reason
10907 not to allow a photographer to reregister, for example, all photographs
10908 taken in a particular year in one quick step. The aim of the formality is
10909 not to burden the creator; the system itself should be kept as simple as
10910 possible.
10911 </p><p>
10912 The objective of formalities is to make things clear. The existing system
10913 does nothing to make things clear. Indeed, it seems designed to make things
10914 unclear.
10915 </p><p>
10916 If formalities such as registration were reinstated, one of the most
10917 difficult aspects of relying upon the public domain would be removed.  It
10918 would be simple to identify what content is presumptively free; it would be
10919 simple to identify who controls the rights for a particular kind of content;
10920 it would be simple to assert those rights, and to renew that assertion at
10921 the appropriate time.
10922 </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>
10923 Vernetiden i opphavsretten har gått fra fjorten år til nittifem år der
10924 selskap har forfatterskapet , og livstiden til forfatteren pluss sytti år
10925 for individuelle forfattere.
10926 </p><p>
10927 In <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>, I proposed a
10928 seventy-five-year term, granted in five-year increments with a requirement
10929 of renewal every five years.  That seemed radical enough at the time. But
10930 after we lost <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
10931 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, the proposals became even more
10932 radical. <em class="citetitle">The Economist</em> endorsed a proposal for a
10933 fourteen-year copyright term.<sup>[<a name="id2900285" href="#ftn.id2900285" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup> Others
10934 have proposed tying the term to the term for patents.
10935 </p><p>
10936 I agree with those who believe that we need a radical change in copyright's
10937 term. But whether fourteen years or seventy-five, there are four principles
10938 that are important to keep in mind about copyright terms.
10939 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
10940
10941
10942 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it short:</em></span> The term should be as long as necessary
10943 to give incentives to create, but no longer. If it were tied to very strong
10944 protections for authors (so authors were able to reclaim rights from
10945 publishers), rights to the same work (not derivative works) might be
10946 extended further. The key is not to tie the work up with legal regulations
10947 when it no longer benefits an author.
10948 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10949
10950
10951
10952 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it simple:</em></span> The line between the public domain and
10953 protected content must be kept clear. Lawyers like the fuzziness of
10954 <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>
10955 and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">expression.</span>&#8221;</span> That kind of law gives them lots of work. But
10956 our framers had a simpler idea in mind: protected versus unprotected.  The
10957 value of short terms is that there is little need to build exceptions into
10958 copyright when the term itself is kept short. A clear and active
10959 <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
10960 use</span>&#8221;</span> and <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">idea/expression</span>&#8221;</span> less necessary to navigate.
10961
10962 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10963
10964 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it alive:</em></span> Copyright should have to be renewed.
10965 Especially if the maximum term is long, the copyright owner should be
10966 required to signal periodically that he wants the protection continued. This
10967 need not be an onerous burden, but there is no reason this monopoly
10968 protection has to be granted for free. On average, it takes ninety minutes
10969 for a veteran to apply for a pension.<sup>[<a name="id2900389" href="#ftn.id2900389" class="footnote">215</a>]</sup>
10970 If we make veterans suffer that burden, I don't see why we couldn't require
10971 authors to spend ten minutes every fifty years to file a single form.
10972 <a class="indexterm" name="id2900408"></a>
10973 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10974
10975
10976 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it prospective:</em></span> Whatever the term of copyright
10977 should be, the clearest lesson that economists teach is that a term once
10978 given should not be extended. It might have been a mistake in 1923 for the
10979 law to offer authors only a fifty-six-year term. I don't think so, but it's
10980 possible. If it was a mistake, then the consequence was that we got fewer
10981 authors to create in 1923 than we otherwise would have. But we can't correct
10982 that mistake today by increasing the term. No matter what we do today, we
10983 will not increase the number of authors who wrote in 1923. Of course, we can
10984 increase the reward that those who write now get (or alternatively, increase
10985 the copyright burden that smothers many works that are today invisible). But
10986 increasing their reward will not increase their creativity in 1923.  What's
10987 not done is not done, and there's nothing we can do about that now.  </p></li></ol></div><p>
10988 Disse endringene vil sammen gi en <span class="emphasis"><em>gjennomsnittlig</em></span>
10989 opphavsrettslig vernetid som er mye kortere enn den gjeldende vernetiden.
10990 Frem til 1976 var gjennomsnittlig vernetid kun 32.2 år.  Vårt mål bør være
10991 det samme.
10992 </p><p>
10993 No doubt the extremists will call these ideas <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">radical.</span>&#8221;</span> (After
10994 all, I call them <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">extremists.</span>&#8221;</span>) But again, the term I
10995 recommended was longer than the term under Richard Nixon. How
10996 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">radical</span>&#8221;</span> can it be to ask for a more generous copyright law
10997 than Richard Nixon presided over?
10998 </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>
10999 As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally granted
11000 property owners the right to control their property from the ground to the
11001 heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property rights quickly
11002 changed. There was no fuss, no constitutional challenge.  It made no sense
11003 anymore to grant that much control, given the emergence of that new
11004 technology.
11005 </p><p>
11006 Our Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">exclusive
11007 right</span>&#8221;</span> to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">their writings.</span>&#8221;</span> Congress has given authors
11008 an exclusive right to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">their writings</span>&#8221;</span> plus any derivative
11009 writings (made by others) that are sufficiently close to the author's
11010 original work. Thus, if I write a book, and you base a movie on that book, I
11011 have the power to deny you the right to release that movie, even though that
11012 movie is not <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">my writing.</span>&#8221;</span>
11013 </p><p>
11014 Congress granted the beginnings of this right in 1870, when it expanded the
11015 exclusive right of copyright to include a right to control translations and
11016 dramatizations of a work.<sup>[<a name="id2900519" href="#ftn.id2900519" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> The courts
11017 have expanded it slowly through judicial interpretation ever since. This
11018 expansion has been commented upon by one of the law's greatest judges, Judge
11019 Benjamin Kaplan.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2900533"></a>
11020 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
11021 So inured have we become to the extension of the monopoly to a large range
11022 of so-called derivative works, that we no longer sense the oddity of
11023 accepting such an enlargement of copyright while yet intoning the
11024 abracadabra of idea and expression.<sup>[<a name="id2900549" href="#ftn.id2900549" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
11025 </p></blockquote></div><p>
11026 I think it's time to recognize that there are airplanes in this field and
11027 the expansiveness of these rights of derivative use no longer make
11028 sense. More precisely, they don't make sense for the period of time that a
11029 copyright runs. And they don't make sense as an amorphous grant.  Consider
11030 each limitation in turn.
11031 </p><p>
11032 <span class="emphasis"><em>Term:</em></span> If Congress wants to grant a derivative right,
11033 then that right should be for a much shorter term. It makes sense to protect
11034 John Grisham's right to sell the movie rights to his latest novel (or at
11035 least I'm willing to assume it does); but it does not make sense for that
11036 right to run for the same term as the underlying copyright. The derivative
11037 right could be important in inducing creativity; it is not important long
11038 after the creative work is done.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2900579"></a>
11039 </p><p>
11040 <span class="emphasis"><em>Scope:</em></span> Likewise should the scope of derivative rights
11041 be narrowed.  Again, there are some cases in which derivative rights are
11042 important.  Those should be specified. But the law should draw clear lines
11043 around regulated and unregulated uses of copyrighted material. When all
11044 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">reuse</span>&#8221;</span> of creative material was within the control of
11045 businesses, perhaps it made sense to require lawyers to negotiate the
11046 lines. It no longer makes sense for lawyers to negotiate the lines. Think
11047 about all the creative possibilities that digital technologies enable; now
11048 imagine pouring molasses into the machines. That's what this general
11049 requirement of permission does to the creative process. Smothers it.
11050 </p><p>
11051 This was the point that Alben made when describing the making of the Clint
11052 Eastwood CD. While it makes sense to require negotiation for foreseeable
11053 derivative rights&#8212;turning a book into a movie, or a poem into a
11054 musical score&#8212;it doesn't make sense to require negotiation for the
11055 unforeseeable. Here, a statutory right would make much more sense.
11056 </p><p>
11057 In each of these cases, the law should mark the uses that are protected, and
11058 the presumption should be that other uses are not protected.  This is the
11059 reverse of the recommendation of my colleague Paul Goldstein.<sup>[<a name="id2900626" href="#ftn.id2900626" class="footnote">218</a>]</sup> His view is that the law should be written so that
11060 expanded protections follow expanded uses.
11061 </p><p>
11062 Goldstein's analysis would make perfect sense if the cost of the legal
11063 system were small. But as we are currently seeing in the context of the
11064 Internet, the uncertainty about the scope of protection, and the incentives
11065 to protect existing architectures of revenue, combined with a strong
11066 copyright, weaken the process of innovation.
11067 </p><p>
11068
11069 The law could remedy this problem either by removing protection beyond the
11070 part explicitly drawn or by granting reuse rights upon certain statutory
11071 conditions. Either way, the effect would be to free a great deal of culture
11072 to others to cultivate. And under a statutory rights regime, that reuse
11073 would earn artists more income.
11074 </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>
11075 The battle that got this whole war going was about music, so it wouldn't be
11076 fair to end this book without addressing the issue that is, to most people,
11077 most pressing&#8212;music. There is no other policy issue that better
11078 teaches the lessons of this book than the battles around the sharing of
11079 music.
11080 </p><p>
11081 The appeal of file-sharing music was the crack cocaine of the Internet's
11082 growth. It drove demand for access to the Internet more powerfully than any
11083 other single application. It was the Internet's killer app&#8212;possibly in
11084 two senses of that word. It no doubt was the application that drove demand
11085 for bandwidth. It may well be the application that drives demand for
11086 regulations that in the end kill innovation on the network.
11087 </p><p>
11088 The aim of copyright, with respect to content in general and music in
11089 particular, is to create the incentives for music to be composed, performed,
11090 and, most importantly, spread. The law does this by giving an exclusive
11091 right to a composer to control public performances of his work, and to a
11092 performing artist to control copies of her performance.
11093 </p><p>
11094 File-sharing networks complicate this model by enabling the spread of
11095 content for which the performer has not been paid. But of course, that's not
11096 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
11097 different kinds of sharing:
11098 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
11099
11100
11101 Det er noen som bruker delingsnettverk som erstatninger for å kjøpe CDer.
11102 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11103
11104
11105 There are also some who are using sharing networks to sample, on the way to
11106 purchasing CDs.
11107 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11108
11109
11110
11111
11112 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk til å få tilgang til innhold som
11113 ikke lenger er i salg, men fortsatt er vernet av opphavsrett eller som ville
11114 ha vært altfor vanskelig å få kjøpt via nettet.
11115 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11116
11117
11118 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk for å få tilgang til innhold som
11119 ikke er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, eller for å få tilgang som
11120 opphavsrettsinnehaveren åpenbart går god for.
11121 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11122 Any reform of the law needs to keep these different uses in focus. It must
11123 avoid burdening type D even if it aims to eliminate type A. The eagerness
11124 with which the law aims to eliminate type A, moreover, should depend upon
11125 the magnitude of type B. As with VCRs, if the net effect of sharing is
11126 actually not very harmful, the need for regulation is significantly
11127 weakened.
11128 </p><p>
11129 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
11130 the purposes of this chapter, however, I assume the harm is real. I assume,
11131 in other words, that type A sharing is significantly greater than type B,
11132 and is the dominant use of sharing networks.
11133 </p><p>
11134 Uansett, det er et avgjørende faktum om den gjeldende teknologiske
11135 omgivelsen som vi må huske på hvis vi skal forstå hvordan loven bør reagere.
11136 </p><p>
11137 Today, file sharing is addictive. In ten years, it won't be. It is addictive
11138 today because it is the easiest way to gain access to a broad range of
11139 content.  It won't be the easiest way to get access to a broad range of
11140 content in ten years. Today, access to the Internet is cumbersome and
11141 slow&#8212;we in the United States are lucky to have broadband service at
11142 1.5 MBs, and very rarely do we get service at that speed both up and
11143 down. Although wireless access is growing, most of us still get access
11144 across wires. Most only gain access through a machine with a keyboard. The
11145 idea of the always on, always connected Internet is mainly just an idea.
11146 </p><p>
11147
11148 But it will become a reality, and that means the way we get access to the
11149 Internet today is a technology in transition. Policy makers should not make
11150 policy on the basis of technology in transition. They should make policy on
11151 the basis of where the technology is going. The question should not be, how
11152 should the law regulate sharing in this world? The question should be, what
11153 law will we require when the network becomes the network it is clearly
11154 becoming? That network is one in which every machine with electricity is
11155 essentially on the Net; where everywhere you are&#8212;except maybe the
11156 desert or the Rockies&#8212;you can instantaneously be connected to the
11157 Internet. Imagine the Internet as ubiquitous as the best cell-phone service,
11158 where with the flip of a device, you are connected.
11159 </p><p>
11160 In that world, it will be extremely easy to connect to services that give
11161 you access to content on the fly&#8212;such as Internet radio, content that
11162 is streamed to the user when the user demands. Here, then, is the critical
11163 point: When it is <span class="emphasis"><em>extremely</em></span> easy to connect to services
11164 that give access to content, it will be <span class="emphasis"><em>easier</em></span> to
11165 connect to services that give you access to content than it will be to
11166 download and store content <span class="emphasis"><em>on the many devices you will have for
11167 playing content</em></span>. It will be easier, in other words, to subscribe
11168 than it will be to be a database manager, as everyone in the
11169 download-sharing world of Napster-like technologies essentially is. Content
11170 services will compete with content sharing, even if the services charge
11171 money for the content they give access to. Already cell-phone services in
11172 Japan offer music (for a fee) streamed over cell phones (enhanced with plugs
11173 for headphones). The Japanese are paying for this content even though
11174 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free</span>&#8221;</span> content is available in the form of MP3s across the
11175 Web.<sup>[<a name="id2900874" href="#ftn.id2900874" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
11176
11177 </p><p>
11178
11179 This point about the future is meant to suggest a perspective on the
11180 present: It is emphatically temporary. The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">problem</span>&#8221;</span> with file
11181 sharing&#8212;to the extent there is a real problem&#8212;is a problem that
11182 will increasingly disappear as it becomes easier to connect to the
11183 Internet.  And thus it is an extraordinary mistake for policy makers today
11184 to be <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">solving</span>&#8221;</span> this problem in light of a technology that will
11185 be gone tomorrow.  The question should not be how to regulate the Internet
11186 to eliminate file sharing (the Net will evolve that problem away). The
11187 question instead should be how to assure that artists get paid, during this
11188 transition between twentieth-century models for doing business and
11189 twenty-first-century technologies.
11190 </p><p>
11191 The answer begins with recognizing that there are different
11192 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">problems</span>&#8221;</span> here to solve. Let's start with type D
11193 content&#8212;uncopyrighted content or copyrighted content that the artist
11194 wants shared. The <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">problem</span>&#8221;</span> with this content is to make sure
11195 that the technology that would enable this kind of sharing is not rendered
11196 illegal. You can think of it this way: Pay phones are used to deliver ransom
11197 demands, no doubt.  But there are many who need to use pay phones who have
11198 nothing to do with ransoms. It would be wrong to ban pay phones in order to
11199 eliminate kidnapping.
11200 </p><p>
11201 Type C content raises a different <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">problem.</span>&#8221;</span> This is content
11202 that was, at one time, published and is no longer available. It may be
11203 unavailable because the artist is no longer valuable enough for the record
11204 label he signed with to carry his work. Or it may be unavailable because the
11205 work is forgotten. Either way, the aim of the law should be to facilitate
11206 the access to this content, ideally in a way that returns something to the
11207 artist.
11208 </p><p>
11209 Again, the model here is the used book store. Once a book goes out of print,
11210 it may still be available in libraries and used book stores. But libraries
11211 and used book stores don't pay the copyright owner when someone reads or
11212 buys an out-of-print book. That makes total sense, of course, since any
11213 other system would be so burdensome as to eliminate the possibility of used
11214 book stores' existing. But from the author's perspective, this
11215 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">sharing</span>&#8221;</span> of his content without his being compensated is less
11216 than ideal.
11217 </p><p>
11218 The model of used book stores suggests that the law could simply deem
11219 out-of-print music fair game. If the publisher does not make copies of the
11220 music available for sale, then commercial and noncommercial providers would
11221 be free, under this rule, to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">share</span>&#8221;</span> that content, even though
11222 the sharing involved making a copy. The copy here would be incidental to the
11223 trade; in a context where commercial publishing has ended, trading music
11224 should be as free as trading books.
11225 </p><p>
11226
11227
11228
11229 Alternatively, the law could create a statutory license that would ensure
11230 that artists get something from the trade of their work. For example, if the
11231 law set a low statutory rate for the commercial sharing of content that was
11232 not offered for sale by a commercial publisher, and if that rate were
11233 automatically transferred to a trust for the benefit of the artist, then
11234 businesses could develop around the idea of trading this content, and
11235 artists would benefit from this trade.
11236 </p><p>
11237 This system would also create an incentive for publishers to keep works
11238 available commercially. Works that are available commercially would not be
11239 subject to this license. Thus, publishers could protect the right to charge
11240 whatever they want for content if they kept the work commercially
11241 available. But if they don't keep it available, and instead, the computer
11242 hard disks of fans around the world keep it alive, then any royalty owed for
11243 such copying should be much less than the amount owed a commercial
11244 publisher.
11245 </p><p>
11246 The hard case is content of types A and B, and again, this case is hard only
11247 because the extent of the problem will change over time, as the technologies
11248 for gaining access to content change. The law's solution should be as
11249 flexible as the problem is, understanding that we are in the middle of a
11250 radical transformation in the technology for delivering and accessing
11251 content.
11252 </p><p>
11253 Så her er en løsning som i første omgang kan virke veldig undelig for begge
11254 sider i denne krigen, men som jeg tror vil gi mer mening når en får tenkt
11255 seg om.
11256 </p><p>
11257 Stripped of the rhetoric about the sanctity of property, the basic claim of
11258 the content industry is this: A new technology (the Internet)  has harmed a
11259 set of rights that secure copyright. If those rights are to be protected,
11260 then the content industry should be compensated for that harm. Just as the
11261 technology of tobacco harmed the health of millions of Americans, or the
11262 technology of asbestos caused grave illness to thousands of miners, so, too,
11263 has the technology of digital networks harmed the interests of the content
11264 industry.
11265 </p><p>
11266
11267
11268 Jeg elsker internett, så jeg liker ikke å sammenligne det med tobakk eller
11269 asbest.  Men analogien er rimelig når en ser det fra lovens perspektiv. Og
11270 det foreslår en rimelig respons: I stedet for å forsøke å ødelegge internett
11271 eller p2p-teknologien som i dag skader innholdsleverandører på internett, så
11272 bør vi finne en relativt enkel måte å kompensere de som blir skadelidende.
11273 </p><p>
11274 The idea would be a modification of a proposal that has been floated by
11275 Harvard law professor William Fisher.<sup>[<a name="id2901054" href="#ftn.id2901054" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
11276 Fisher suggests a very clever way around the current impasse of the
11277 Internet. Under his plan, all content capable of digital transmission would
11278 (1) be marked with a digital watermark (don't worry about how easy it is to
11279 evade these marks; as you'll see, there's no incentive to evade them). Once
11280 the content is marked, then entrepreneurs would develop (2) systems to
11281 monitor how many items of each content were distributed. On the basis of
11282 those numbers, then (3) artists would be compensated. The compensation would
11283 be paid for by (4) an appropriate tax.
11284 </p><p>
11285 Fisher's proposal is careful and comprehensive. It raises a million
11286 questions, most of which he answers well in his upcoming book,
11287 <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep</em>. The modification that I would make
11288 is relatively simple: Fisher imagines his proposal replacing the existing
11289 copyright system.  I imagine it complementing the existing system. The aim
11290 of the proposal would be to facilitate compensation to the extent that harm
11291 could be shown. This compensation would be temporary, aimed at facilitating
11292 a transition between regimes. And it would require renewal after a period of
11293 years. If it continues to make sense to facilitate free exchange of content,
11294 supported through a taxation system, then it can be continued. If this form
11295 of protection is no longer necessary, then the system could lapse into the
11296 old system of controlling access.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2901220"></a>
11297 </p><p>
11298
11299 Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim is
11300 not just to ensure that artists are paid, but also to ensure that the system
11301 supports the widest range of <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">semiotic democracy</span>&#8221;</span> possible. But
11302 the aims of semiotic democracy would be satisfied if the other changes I
11303 described were accomplished&#8212;in particular, the limits on derivative
11304 uses. A system that simply charges for access would not greatly burden
11305 semiotic democracy if there were few limitations on what one was allowed to
11306 do with the content itself.
11307 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2901238"></a><p>
11308 No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of
11309 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">harm</span>&#8221;</span> to an industry. But the difficulty of making that
11310 calculation would be outweighed by the benefit of facilitating
11311 innovation. This background system to compensate would also not need to
11312 interfere with innovative proposals such as Apple's MusicStore. As experts
11313 predicted when Apple launched the MusicStore, it could beat
11314 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free</span>&#8221;</span> by being easier than free is. This has proven correct:
11315 Apple has sold millions of songs at even the very high price of 99 cents a
11316 song. (At 99 cents, the cost is the equivalent of a per-song CD price,
11317 though the labels have none of the costs of a CD to pay.) Apple's move was
11318 countered by Real Networks, offering music at just 79 cents a song. And no
11319 doubt there will be a great deal of competition to offer and sell music
11320 on-line.
11321 </p><p>
11322 This competition has already occurred against the background of
11323 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free</span>&#8221;</span> music from p2p systems. As the sellers of cable
11324 television have known for thirty years, and the sellers of bottled water for
11325 much more than that, there is nothing impossible at all about
11326 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">competing with free.</span>&#8221;</span> Indeed, if anything, the competition
11327 spurs the competitors to offer new and better products. This is precisely
11328 what the competitive market was to be about. Thus in Singapore, though
11329 piracy is rampant, movie theaters are often luxurious&#8212;with
11330 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">first class</span>&#8221;</span> seats, and meals served while you watch a
11331 movie&#8212;as they struggle and succeed in finding ways to compete with
11332 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">free.</span>&#8221;</span>
11333 </p><p>
11334 Dette konkurranseregimet, med en sikringsmekanisme for å sikre at kunstnere
11335 ikke taper, ville bidra mye til nyskapning innen levering av
11336 innhold. Konkurransen ville fortsette å redusere type-A-deling.  Det ville
11337 inspirere en ekstraordinær rekke av nye innovatører&#8212;som ville ha
11338 retten til a bruke innhold, og ikke lenger frykte usikre og barbarisk
11339 strenge straffer fra loven.
11340 </p><p>
11341 Oppsummert, så er dette mitt forslag:
11342 </p><p>
11343
11344
11345
11346 Internett er i endring. Vi bør ikke regulere en teknologi i endring. Vi bør
11347 i stedet regulere for å minimere skaden påført interesser som er berørt av
11348 denne teknologiske endringen, samtidig vi muliggjør, og oppmuntrer, den mest
11349 effektive teknologien vi kan lage.
11350 </p><p>
11351 Vi kan minimere skaden og samtidig maksimere fordelen med innovasjon ved å
11352 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
11353
11354
11355 garantere retten til å engasjere seg i type-D-deling;
11356 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11357
11358
11359 tillate ikke-kommersiell type-C-deling uten erstatningsansvar, og
11360 kommersiell type-C-deling med en lav og fast rate fastsatt ved lov.
11361 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11362
11363
11364 mens denne overgangen pågår, skattlegge og kompensere for type-A-deling, i
11365 den grad faktiske skade kan påvises.
11366 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11367 But what if <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">piracy</span>&#8221;</span> doesn't disappear? What if there is a
11368 competitive market providing content at a low cost, but a significant number
11369 of consumers continue to <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">take</span>&#8221;</span> content for nothing? Should the
11370 law do something then?
11371 </p><p>
11372 Ja, det bør den.  Men, nok en gang, hva den bør gjøre avhenger hvordan
11373 realitetene utvikler seg. Disse endringene fjerner kanskje ikke all
11374 type-A-deling. Men det virkelige spørmålet er ikke om de eliminerer deling i
11375 abstrakt betydning.  Det virkelige spørsmålet er hvilken effekt det har på
11376 markedet.  Er det bedre (a) å ha en teknologi som er 95 prosent sikker og
11377 gir et marked av størrelse <em class="citetitle">x</em>, eller (b) å ha en
11378 teknologi som er 50 prosent sikker, og som gir et marked som er fem ganger
11379 større enn <em class="citetitle">x</em>?  Mindre sikker kan gi mer uautorisert
11380 deling, men det vil sannsynligvis også gi et mye større marked for
11381 autorisert deling. Det viktigste er å sikre kunstneres kompensasjon uten å
11382 ødelegge internettet.  Når det er på plass, kan det hende det er riktig å
11383 finne måter å spore opp de smålige piratene.
11384 </p><p>
11385
11386 Men vi er langt unna å spikke problemet ned til dette delsettet av
11387 type-A-delere.  Og vårt fokus inntil er der bør ikke være å finne måter å
11388 ødelegge internettet.  Var fokus inntil vi er der bør være hvordan sikre at
11389 artister får betalt, mens vi beskytter rommet for nyskapning og kreativitet
11390 som internettet er.
11391 </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>
11392 Jeg er en advokat. Jeg lever av å utdanne advokater. Jeg tror på loven. Jeg
11393 tror på opphavsrettsloven. Jeg har faktisk viet livet til å jobbe med loven,
11394 ikke fordi det er mye penger å tjene, men fordi det innebærer idealer som
11395 jeg elsker å leve opp til.
11396 </p><p>
11397 Likevel har mye av denne boken vært kritikk av advokater, eller rollen
11398 advokater har spilt i denne debatten.  Loven taler om idealer, mens det er
11399 min oppfatning av vår yrkesgruppe er blitt for knyttet til klienten.  Og i
11400 en verden der rike klienter har sterke synspunkter vil uviljen hos vår
11401 yrkesgruppe til å stille spørsmål med eller protestere mot dette sterke
11402 synet ødelegge loven.
11403 </p><p>
11404 The evidence of this bending is compelling. I'm attacked as a
11405 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">radical</span>&#8221;</span> by many within the profession, yet the positions that
11406 I am advocating are precisely the positions of some of the most moderate and
11407 significant figures in the history of this branch of the law. Many, for
11408 example, thought crazy the challenge that we brought to the Copyright Term
11409 Extension Act. Yet just thirty years ago, the dominant scholar and
11410 practitioner in the field of copyright, Melville Nimmer, thought it
11411 obvious.<sup>[<a name="id2901486" href="#ftn.id2901486" class="footnote">221</a>]</sup>
11412
11413 </p><p>
11414 Min kritikk av rollen som advokater har spilt i denne debatten handler
11415 imidlertid ikke bare om en profesjonell skjevhet. Det handler enda viktigere
11416 om vår manglende evne til å faktisk ta inn over oss hva loven koster.
11417 </p><p>
11418 Økonomer er forventet å være gode til å forstå utgifter og inntekter.  Men
11419 som oftest antar økonomene uten peiling på hvordan det juridiske systemet
11420 egentlig fungerer, at transaksjonskostnaden i det juridiske systemet er
11421 lav.<sup>[<a name="id2901522" href="#ftn.id2901522" class="footnote">222</a>]</sup>  De ser et system som har
11422 eksistert i hundrevis av år, og de antar at det fungerer slik grunnskolens
11423 samfunnsfagsundervisning lærte dem at det fungerer.
11424 </p><p>
11425
11426
11427 Men det juridiske systemet fungerer ikke. Eller for å være mer nøyaktig, det
11428 fungerer kun for de med mest ressurser.  Det er ikke fordi systemet er
11429 korrupt. Jeg tror overhodet ikke vårt juridisk system (på føderalt nivå, i
11430 hvert fall) er korrupt. Jeg mener ganske enkelt at på grunn av at kostnadene
11431 med vårt juridiske systemet er så hårreisende høyt vil en praktisk talt
11432 aldri oppnå rettferdighet.
11433 </p><p>
11434 Disse kostnadene forstyrrer fri kultur på mange vis.  En advokats tid
11435 faktureres hos de største firmaene for mer enn $400 pr. time. Hvor mye tid
11436 bør en slik advokat bruke på å lese sakene nøye, eller undersøke obskure
11437 rettskilder.  Svaret er i økende grad: svært lite. Jussen er avhengig av
11438 nøye formulering og utvikling av doktrine, men nøye formulering og utvikling
11439 av doktrine er avhengig av nøyaktig arbeid.  Men nøyaktig arbeid koster for
11440 mye, bortsett fra i de mest høyprofilerte og kostbare sakene.
11441 </p><p>
11442 Kostbarheten, klomsetheten og tilfeldigheten til dette systemet håner vår
11443 tradisjon. Og advokater, såvel som akademikere, bør se det som sin plikt å
11444 endre hvordan loven praktiseres&#8212; eller bedre, endre loven slik at den
11445 fungerer. Det er galt at systemet fungerer godt bare for den øverste
11446 1-prosenten av klientene.  Det kan gjøres radikalt mer effektivt, og billig,
11447 og dermed radikalt mer rettferdig.
11448 </p><p>
11449 Men inntil en slik reform er gjennomført, bør vi som samfunn holde lover
11450 unna områder der vi vet den bare vil skade.  Og det er nettopp det loven
11451 altfor ofte vil gjøre hvis for mye av vår kultur er lovregulert.
11452 </p><p>
11453 Tenk på de fantastiske tingene ditt barn kan gjøre eller lage med digital
11454 teknologi&#8212;filmen, musikken, web-siden, bloggen. Eller tenk på de
11455 fantastiske tingene ditt fellesskap kunne få til med digital
11456 teknologi&#8212;en wiki, oppsetting av låve, kampanje til å endre noe. Tenk
11457 på alle de kreative tingene, og tenk deretter på kald sirup helt inn i
11458 maskinene. Dette er hva et hvert regime som krever tillatelser fører
11459 til. Dette er virkeligheten slik den var i Brezhnevs Russland.
11460 </p><p>
11461
11462 Loven bør regulere i visse områder av kulturen&#8212;men det bør regulere
11463 kultur bare der reguleringen bidrar positivt. Likevel tester advokater
11464 sjeldent sin kraft, eller kraften som de fremmer, mot dette enkle pragmatisk
11465 spørsmålet: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">vil det bidra positivt?</span>&#8221;</span>.  Når de blir utfordret
11466 om det utvidede rekkevidden til loven, er advokat-svaret, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hvorfor
11467 ikke?</span>&#8221;</span>
11468 </p><p>
11469 Vi burde spørre: <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Hvorfor?</span>&#8221;</span>. Vis meg hvorfor din regulering av
11470 kultur er nødvendig og vis meg hvordan reguleringen bidrar positivt.  Før du
11471 kan vise meg begge, holde advokatene din unna.
11472 </p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2899316" href="#id2899316" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
11473
11474
11475
11476 See, for example, Marc Rotenberg, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Fair Information Practices and the
11477 Architecture of Privacy (What Larry Doesn't Get),</span>&#8221;</span>
11478 <em class="citetitle">Stanford Technology Law Review</em> 1 (2001):
11479 par. 6&#8211;18, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a> (describing examples in
11480 which technology defines privacy policy). See also Jeffrey Rosen,
11481 <em class="citetitle">The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious
11482 Age</em> (New York: Random House, 2004) (mapping tradeoffs between
11483 technology and privacy).</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2899844" href="#id2899844" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
11484
11485
11486 <em class="citetitle">Willful Infringement: A Report from the Front Lines of the Real
11487 Culture Wars</em> (2003), produced by Jed Horovitz, directed by Greg
11488 Hittelman, a Fiat Lucre production, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a>.
11489 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900033" href="#id2900033" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
11490
11491
11492 The proposal I am advancing here would apply to American works only.
11493 Obviously, I believe it would be beneficial for the same idea to be adopted
11494 by other countries as well.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900156" href="#id2900156" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
11495
11496
11497 There would be a complication with derivative works that I have not solved
11498 here. In my view, the law of derivatives creates a more complicated system
11499 than is justified by the marginal incentive it creates.
11500 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900285" href="#id2900285" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
11501
11502
11503
11504 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">A Radical Rethink,</span>&#8221;</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 366:8308
11505 (25 January 2003): 15, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #74</a>.
11506 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900389" href="#id2900389" class="para">215</a>] </sup>
11507
11508
11509 Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation
11510 and/or Pension, VA Form 21-526 (OMB Approved No. 2900-0001), tilgjengelig
11511 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #75</a>.
11512 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900519" href="#id2900519" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
11513
11514
11515 Benjamin Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">An Unhurried View of Copyright</em> (New
11516 York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 32.
11517 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900549" href="#id2900549" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
11518
11519 Ibid., 56.
11520 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900626" href="#id2900626" class="para">218</a>] </sup>
11521
11522 Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the
11523 Celestial Jukebox</em> (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003),
11524 187&#8211;216.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2899331"></a>
11525 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900874" href="#id2900874" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
11526
11527
11528 See, for example, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Music Media Watch,</span>&#8221;</span> The J@pan
11529 Inc. Newsletter, 3 April 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #76</a>.
11530 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901054" href="#id2901054" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
11531
11532 William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital Music: Problems and
11533 Possibilities</em> (last revised: 10 October 2000), available at
11534 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #77</a>; William Fisher,
11535 <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep: Technology, Law, and the Future of
11536 Entertainment</em> (forthcoming) (Stanford: Stanford University
11537 Press, 2004), ch. 6, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #78</a>. Professor Netanel has
11538 proposed a related idea that would exempt noncommercial sharing from the
11539 reach of copyright and would establish compensation to artists to balance
11540 any loss. See Neil Weinstock Netanel, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Impose a Noncommercial Use Levy
11541 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,
11542 see Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Who's Holding Back Broadband?</span>&#8221;</span>
11543 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 8 January 2002, A17; Philip
11544 S. Corwin on behalf of Sharman Networks, A Letter to Senator Joseph
11545 R. Biden, Jr., Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 26
11546 February 2002, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11547 #80</a>; Serguei Osokine, <em class="citetitle">A Quick Case for Intellectual
11548 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,
11549 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Kazaa, Verizon Propose to Pay Artists Directly,</span>&#8221;</span>
11550 <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,
11551 <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Getting Copyright Right,</span>&#8221;</span> IEEE Spectrum Online, 1 July 2002,
11552 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #83</a>;
11553 Declan McCullagh, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Verizon's Copyright Campaign,</span>&#8221;</span> CNET
11554 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
11555 very similar to Richard Stallman's proposal for DAT. Unlike Fisher's,
11556 Stallman's proposal would not pay artists directly proportionally, though
11557 more popular artists would get more than the less popular. As is typical
11558 with Stallman, his proposal predates the current debate by about a
11559 decade. See <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #85</a>.
11560 <a class="indexterm" name="id2901168"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2901176"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2901182"></a>
11561 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901486" href="#id2901486" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
11562
11563
11564 Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Copyright's First Amendment</span>&#8221;</span> (Melville
11565 B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture), <em class="citetitle">UCLA Law Review</em> 48
11566 (2001): 1057, 1069&#8211;70.
11567 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901522" href="#id2901522" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
11568
11569 A good example is the work of Professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz is to be
11570 commended for his careful review of data about infringement, leading him to
11571 question his own publicly stated position&#8212;twice. He initially
11572 predicted that downloading would substantially harm the industry. He then
11573 revised his view in light of the data, and he has since revised his view
11574 again.  Compare Stan J. Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network
11575 Economy: The True Forces That Drive the Digital Marketplace</em> (New
11576 York: Amacom, 2002), (reviewing his original view but expressing skepticism)
11577 with Stan J.  Liebowitz, <span class="quote">&#8220;<span class="quote">Will MP3s Annihilate the Record
11578 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
11579 analysis is extremely valuable in estimating the effect of file-sharing
11580 technology. In my view, however, he underestimates the costs of the legal
11581 system. See, for example, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174&#8211;76.
11582 <a class="indexterm" name="id2901498"></a>
11583 </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>
11584 I denne teksten er det referanser til lenker på verdensveven.  Og som alle
11585 som har forsøkt å bruke nettet vet, så vil disse lenkene være svært
11586 ustabile.  Jeg har forsøkt å motvirke denne ustabiliteten ved å omdirigere
11587 lesere til den originale kilden gjennom en nettside som hører til denne
11588 boken.  For hver lenke under, så kan du gå til http://free-culture.cc/notes
11589 og finne den originale kilden ved å klikke på nummeret etter #-tegnet.  Hvis
11590 den originale lenken fortsatt er i live, så vil du bli omdirigert til den
11591 lenken.  Hvis den originale lenken har forsvunnet, så vil du bli omdirigert
11592 til en passende referanse til materialet.
11593 </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>
11594 Denne boken er produktet av en lang og så langt mislykket kamp som begynte
11595 da jeg leste om Eric Eldreds krig for å sørge for at bøker forble
11596 frie. Eldreds innsats bidro til å lansere en bevegelse, fri
11597 kultur-bevegelsen, og denne boken er tilegnet ham.
11598 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2901742"></a><p>
11599 Jeg fikk veiledning på ulike steder fra venner og akademikere, inkludert
11600 Glenn Brown, Peter DiCola, Jennifer Mnookin, Richard Posner, Mark Rose og
11601 Kathleen Sullivan. Og jeg fikk korreksjoner og veiledning fra mange
11602 fantastiske studenter ved Stanford Law School og Stanford University. Det
11603 inkluderer Andrew B. Coan, John Eden, James P. Fellers, Christopher
11604 Guzelian, Erica Goldberg, Robert Hallman, Andrew Harris, Matthew Kahn,
11605 Brian-Link, Ohad Mayblum, Alina Ng og Erica Platt. Jeg er særlig takknemlig
11606 overfor Catherine Crump og Harry Surden, som hjalp til med å styre deres
11607 forskning og til Laura Lynch, som briljant håndterte hæren de samlet, samt
11608 bidro med sitt egen kritisk blikk på mye av dette.
11609 </p><p>
11610
11611 Yuko Noguchi hjalp meg å forstå lovene i Japan, så vel som Japans
11612 kultur. Jeg er henne takknemlig, og til de mange i Japan som hjalp meg med
11613 forundersøkelsene til denne boken: Joi Ito, Takayuki Matsutani, Naoto
11614 Misaki, Michihiro Sasaki, Hiromichi Tanaka, Hiroo Yamagata og Yoshihiro
11615 Yonezawa.  Jeg er også takknemlig til professor Nobuhiro Nakayama og Tokyo
11616 University Business Law Center, som ga meg muligheten til å bruke tid i
11617 Japan, og Tadashi Shiraishi og Kiyokazu Yamagami for deres generøse hjelp
11618 mens jeg var der.
11619 </p><p>
11620 Dette er de tradisjonelle former for hjelp som akademikere regelmessig
11621 trekker på. Men i tillegg til dem, har Internett gjort det mulig å motta råd
11622 og korrigering fra mange som jeg har aldri møtt.  Blant de som har svart med
11623 svært nyttig råd etter forespørsler om boken på bloggen min er Dr. Muhammed
11624 Al-Ubaydli, David Gerstein og Peter Dimauro, I tillegg en lang liste med de
11625 som hadde spesifikke idéer om måter å utvikle mine argumenter på.  De
11626 inkluderte Richard Bondi, Steven Cherry, David Coe, Nik Cubrilovic, Bob
11627 Devine, Charles Eicher, Thomas Guida, Elihu M. Gerson, Jeremy Hunsinger,
11628 Vaughn Iverson, John Karabaic, Jeff Keltner, James Lindenschmidt,
11629 K. L. Mann, Mark Manning, Nora McCauley, Jeffrey McHugh, Evan McMullen, Fred
11630 Norton, John Pormann, Pedro A. D.  Rezende, Shabbir Safdar, Saul Schleimer,
11631 Clay Shirky, Adam Shostack, Kragen Sitaker, Chris Smith, Bruce Steinberg,
11632 Andrzej Jan Taramina, Sean Walsh, Matt Wasserman, Miljenko Williams,
11633 <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
11634 Yanco. (jeg beklager hvis jeg gikk glipp av noen, med datamaskiner kommer
11635 feil og en krasj i e-postsystemet mitt gjorde at jeg mistet en haug med
11636 flotte svar.)
11637 </p><p>
11638 Richard Stallman og Michael Carroll har begge lest hele boken i utkast, og
11639 hver av dem har bidratt med svært nyttige korreksjoner og råd. Michael hjalp
11640 meg å se mer tydelig betydningen av regulering for avledede verker . Og
11641 Richard korrigerte en pinlig stor mengde feil.  Selv om mitt arbeid er
11642 delvis inspirert av Stallmans, er han ikke enig med meg på vesentlige steder
11643 i denne boken.
11644 </p><p>
11645 Til slutt, og for evig, er jeg Bettina takknemlig, som alltid har insistert
11646 på at det ville være endeløs lykke utenfor disse kampene, og som alltid har
11647 hatt rett.  Denne trege eleven er som alltid takknemlig for hennes
11648 evigvarende tålmodighet og kjærlighet.
11649 </p></div><div class="index" title="Indeks"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2901872"></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>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></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="#id2875664">&#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="#id2875664">&#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="#id2875664">&#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="#id2875664">&#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2875664">&#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="#id2875664">&#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="#id2875664">&#8220;Piratvirksomhet&#8221;</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div></body></html>