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="no" 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">Copyright © 2004 Lawrence Lessig</p></div><div><div class="legalnotice" title="Legal Notice"><a name="id2999505"></a><p>
   3      <span class="inlinemediaobject"><img src="images/cc.png" align="middle" height="37.5" alt="Creative Commons, noen rettigheter reservert"></span>
   4    </p><p>
   5 Denne versjonen av <em class="citetitle">Fri Kultur</em> er lisensiert med en
   6 Creative Commons-lisens.  Denne lisensen tillater ikke-kommersiell
   7 utnyttelse av verket, hvis opphavsinnehaveren er navngitt.  For mer
   8 informasjon om lisensen, klikk på ikonet over eller besøk <a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/</a>
   9    </p></div></div><div><p class="pubdate">2004-03-25</p></div><div><div class="abstract" title="Om forfatteren"><p class="title"><b>Om forfatteren</b></p><p>
  10 Lawrense Lessig (<a class="ulink" href="http://www.lessig.org" target="_top">http://www.lessig.org</a>), professor i juss
  11 og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School,
  12 er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og styreleder i
  13 Creative Commons (<a class="ulink" href="http://creativecommons.org" target="_top">http://creativecommons.org</a>).
  14 Forfatteren har gitt ut The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) og Code:
  15 And other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), og er medlem av styrene i
  16 Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, og Public
  17 Knowledge.  Han har vunnet Free Software Foundation's Award for the
  18 Advancement of Free Software, to ganger vært oppført i BusinessWeek's
  19 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">e.biz 25,</span>»</span> og omtalt som en av Scientific American's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">50
  20 visjonærer</span>»</span>.  Etter utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania,
  21 Cambridge University, og Yale Law School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard
  22 Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
  23   </p></div></div></div><hr></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="salespoints"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  24 Du kan kjøpe et eksemplar av denne boken ved å klikke på en av lenkene
  25 nedenfor:
  26 </p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="number" compact><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.amazon.com/" target="_top">Amazon</a></p></li><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/" target="_top">B&amp;N</a></p></li><li class="listitem" style="list-style-type: number"><p><a class="ulink" href="http://www.penguin.com/" target="_top">Penguin</a></p></li></ul></div></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="alsobylessig"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  27 Andre bøker av Lawrence Lessig
  28 </p><p>
  29 The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World
  30 </p><p>
  31 Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace
  32 </p></div><div class="dedication"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2943729"></a></h2></div></div></div><p>
  33 Til Eric Eldred &#8212; hvis arbeid først trakk meg til denne saken, og for
  34 hvem saken fortsetter.
  35 </p></div><div class="toc"><dl><dt><span class="preface"><a href="#preface">Forord</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">0. <a href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="part">I. <a href="#c-piracy"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">1. <a href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">2. <a href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">3. <a href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">4. <a href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirater</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">4.1. <a href="#film">Film</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.2. <a href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.3. <a href="#radio">Radio</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">4.4. <a href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">5. <a href="#piracy">Kapittel fem: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">5.1. <a href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">5.2. <a href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">II. <a href="#c-property"><span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">6. <a href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">7. <a href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">8. <a href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">9. <a href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">10. <a href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">10.1. <a href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.2. <a href="#beginnings">Opphav</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.3. <a href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.4. <a href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.5. <a href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.6. <a href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.7. <a href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">10.8. <a href="#together">Sammen</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">III. <a href="#c-puzzles">Nøtter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">11. <a href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">12. <a href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">12.1. <a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.2. <a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.3. <a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">IV. <a href="#c-balances">Maktfordeling</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">13. <a href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">14. <a href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">15. <a href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">16. <a href="#c-afterword">Etterord</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1. <a href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1.1. <a href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.1.2. <a href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2. <a href="#themsoon">Dem, snart</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1. <a href="#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.1. <a href="#registration">Registrering og fornying</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.2. <a href="#marking">Merking</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2.2. <a href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.3. <a href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.4. <a href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.5. <a href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">17. <a href="#c-notes">Notater</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">18. <a href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#id3031955">Index</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Colophon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id2944622"></a>Colophon</h2><p>
  36 THE PENGUIN PRESS, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.  375 Hudson Street
  37 New York, New York
  38 </p><p>
  39 Opphavsrettbeskyttet © Lawrence Lessig.  Alle rettigheter reservert.
  40 </p><p>
  41 Excerpt from an editorial titled <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Coming of Copyright
  42 Perpetuity,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, January 16,
  43 2003. Copyright © 2003 by The New York Times Co.  Reprinted with
  44 permission.
  45 </p><p>
  46 Cartoon in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1711" title="Figure 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.">Figure 10.18, &#8220;VCR/handgun cartoon.&#8221;</a> by Paul Conrad, copyright Tribune
  47 Media Services, Inc.  All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
  48 </p><p>
  49 Diagram in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1761" title="Figure 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.">Figure 10.19, &#8220;Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.&#8221;</a> courtesy of the office of FCC
  50 Commissioner, Michael J. Copps.
  51 </p><p>
  52 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
  53 </p><p>
  54 Lessig, Lawrence.  Free culture : how big media uses technology and the law
  55 to lock down culture and control creativity / Lawrence Lessig.
  56 </p><p>
  57 p. cm.
  58 </p><p>
  59 Includes index.
  60 </p><p>
  61 ISBN 1-59420-006-8 (hardcover)
  62 </p><p>
  63 1. Intellectual property&#8212;United States. 2. Mass media&#8212;United
  64 States.
  65 </p><p>
  66 3. Technological innovations&#8212;United States. 4. Art&#8212;United
  67 States. I. Title.
  68 </p><p>
  69 KF2979.L47
  70 </p><p>
  71 343.7309'9&#8212;dc22
  72 </p><p>
  73 This book is printed on acid-free paper.
  74 </p><p>
  75 Printed in the United States of America
  76 </p><p>
  77 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4
  78 </p><p>
  79 Designed by Marysarah Quinn
  80 </p><p>
  81 Oversatt til bokmål av Petter Reinholdtsen og Anders Hagen
  82 Jarmund. Kildefilene til oversetterprosjektet er <a class="ulink" href="https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/free-culture-lessig" target="_top">tilgjengelig
  83 fra github</a>.  Rapporter feil med oversettelsen via github.
  84 </p><p>
  85 Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this
  86 publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval
  87 system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
  88 photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission
  89 of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.
  90 </p><p>
  91 The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the Internet or
  92 via any other means without the permission of the publisher is illegal and
  93 punishable by law.  Please purchase only authorized electronic editions and
  94 do not participate in or encourage electronic piracy of copyrighted
  95 materials. Your support of the author's rights is appreciated.
  96 </p></div><div class="preface" title="Forord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="preface"></a>Forord</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxpoguedavid"></a><p>
  97 <span class="bold"><strong>På slutten av</strong></span> hans gjennomgang av min
  98 første bok <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace</em>, skrev
  99 David Pogue, en glimrende skribent og forfatter av utallige tekniske
 100 datarelaterte tekster, dette:
 101 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 102 I motsetning til faktiske lover, så har ikke internett-programvare
 103 kapasiteten til å straffe.  Den påvirker ikke folk som ikke er online (og
 104 kun en veldig liten minoritet av verdens befolkning er online).  Og hvis du
 105 ikke liker systemet på internett, så kan du alltid slå av
 106 modemet.<sup>[<a name="preface01" href="#ftn.preface01" class="footnote">1</a>]</sup>
 107 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 108 Pogue var skeptisk til argumentet som er kjernen av boken &#8212; at
 109 programvaren, eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">koden</span>»</span>, fungerte som en slags lov &#8212;
 110 og foreslo i sin anmeldelse den lykkelig tanken at hvis livet i cyberspace
 111 gikk dårlig, så kan vi alltid som med en trylleformel slå over en bryter og
 112 komme hjem igjen. Slå av modemet, koble fra datamaskinen, og eventuelle
 113 problemer som finnes <span class="emphasis"><em>den</em></span> virkeligheten ville ikke
 114 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">påvirke</span>»</span> oss mer.
 115 </p><p>
 116
 117 Pogue kan ha hatt rett i 1999 &#8212; jeg er skeptisk, men det kan
 118 hende. Men selv om han hadde rett da, så er ikke argumentet gyldig
 119 nå. <em class="citetitle">Fri Kultur</em> er om problemene internett forårsaker
 120 selv etter at modemet er slått av.  Den er et argument om hvordan slagene
 121 som nå brer om seg i livet on-line har fundamentalt påvirket <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">folk som
 122 er ikke pålogget.</span>»</span>  Det finnes ingen bryter som kan isolere oss fra
 123 internettets effekt.
 124 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2943898"></a><p>
 125 Men i motsetning til i boken <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, er argumentet her
 126 ikke så mye om internett i seg selv. Istedet er det om konsekvensen av
 127 internett for en del av vår tradisjon som er mye mer grunnleggende, og
 128 uansett hvor hardt dette er for en geek-wanna-be å innrømme, mye viktigere.
 129 </p><p>
 130 Den tradisjonen er måten vår kultur blir laget på.  Som jeg vil forklare i
 131 sidene som følger, kommer vi fra en tradisjon av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri
 132 kultur</span>»</span>&#8212;ikke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri</span>»</span> som i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri bar</span>»</span>
 133 (for å låne et uttrykk fra stifteren av fri
 134 programvarebevegelsen<sup>[<a name="id2943944" href="#ftn.id2943944" class="footnote">2</a>]</sup>), men
 135 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri</span>»</span> som i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">talefrihet</span>»</span>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fritt
 136 marked</span>»</span>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frihandel</span>»</span>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri konkurranse</span>»</span>,
 137 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri vilje</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frie valg</span>»</span>.  En fri kultur støtter
 138 og beskytter skapere og oppfinnere.  Dette gjør den direkte ved å tildele
 139 immaterielle rettigheter.  Men det gjør den indirekte ved å begrense
 140 rekkevidden for disse rettighetene, for å garantere at neste generasjon
 141 skapere og oppfinnere forblir <span class="emphasis"><em>så fri som mulig</em></span> fra
 142 kontroll fra fortiden.  En fri kultur er ikke en kultur uten eierskap, like
 143 lite som et fritt marked er et marked der alt er gratis.  Det motsatte av
 144 fri kultur er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tillatelseskultur</span>»</span>&#8212;en kultur der skapere
 145 kun kan skape med tillatelse fra de mektige, eller fra skaperne fra
 146 fortiden.
 147 </p><p>
 148 Hvis vi forsto denne endringen, så tror jeg vi ville stå imot den.  Ikke
 149 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vi</span>»</span> på venstresiden eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">dere</span>»</span> på høyresiden,
 150 men vi som ikke har investert i den spesifikke kulturindustrien som har
 151 definert det tjuende århundre. Enten du er på venstre eller høyresiden, hvis
 152 du i denne forstand ikke har interesser, vil historien jeg forteller her gi
 153 deg problemer. For endringene jeg beskriver påvirker verdier som begge sider
 154 av vår politiske kultur anser som grunnleggende.
 155 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxpower"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2944036"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2944042"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2944049"></a><p>
 156 Vi så et glimt av dette tverrpolitiske raseri på forsommeren i 2003. Da FCC
 157 vurderte endringer i reglene for medieeierskap som ville slakke på
 158 begrensningene rundt mediekonsentrasjon, sendte en ekstraordinær koalisjon
 159 mer enn 700 000 brev til FCC for å motsette seg endringen.  Mens William
 160 Safire beskrev å marsjere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ubehagelig sammen med CodePink Women for
 161 Peace and the National Rifle Association, mellom liberale Olympia Snowe og
 162 konservative Ted Stevens</span>»</span>, formulerte han  kanskje det enkleste
 163 uttrykket for hva som var på spill: konsentrasjonen av makt.  Så spurte han:
 164 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 165 Høres dette ikke-konservativt ut?  Ikke for meg.  Denne konsentrasjonen av
 166 makt&#8212;politisk, selskapsmessig, pressemessig, kulturelt&#8212;bør være
 167 bannlyst av konservative.  Spredningen av makt gjennom lokal kontroll, og
 168 derigjennom oppmuntre til individuell deltagelse, er essensen i føderalismen
 169 og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<sup>[<a name="id2944095" href="#ftn.id2944095" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
 170 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 171 Denne idéen er et element i argumentet til <em class="citetitle">Fri
 172 Kultur</em>, selv om min fokus ikke bare er på konsentrasjonen av
 173 makt som følger av konsentrasjonen i eierskap, men mer viktig, og fordi det
 174 er mindre synlig, på konsentrasjonen av makt som er resultat av en radikal
 175 endring i det effektive virkeområdet til loven.  Loven er i endring, og
 176 endringen forandrer på hvordan vår kultur blir skapt. Den endringen bør
 177 bekymre deg&#8212;Uansett om du bryr deg om internett eller ikke, og uansett
 178 om du er til venstre for Safires eller til høyre.
 179 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2944123"></a><p>
 180 <span class="strong"><strong>Inspirasjonen</strong></span> til tittelen og mye av
 181 argumentet i denne boken kommer fra arbeidet til Richard Stallman og Free
 182 Software Foundation. Faktisk, da jeg leste Stallmans egne tekster på nytt,
 183 spesielt essyene i <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free Society</em>,
 184 innser jeg at alle de teoretiske innsiktene jeg utvikler her er innsikter
 185 som Stallman beskrev for tiår siden.  Man kan dermed godt argumentere for at
 186 dette verket <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kun</span>»</span> er et avledet verk.
 187 </p><p>
 188
 189 Jeg godtar kritikken, hvis det faktisk er kritikk.  Arbeidet til en advokat
 190 er alltid avledede verker, og jeg mener ikke å gjøre noe mer i denne boken
 191 enn å minne en kultur om en tradisjon som alltid har vært deres egen. Som
 192 Stallman forsvarer jeg denne tradisjonen på grunnlag av verdier. Som
 193 Stallman tror jeg dette er verdiene til frihet.  Og som Stallman, tror jeg
 194 dette er verdier fra vår fortid som må forsvares i vår fremtid.  En fri
 195 kultur har vært vår fortid, men vil bare være vår fremtid hvis vi endrer
 196 retningen vi følger akkurat nå.  På samme måte som Stallmans argumenter for
 197 fri programvare, treffer argumenter for en fri kultur på forvirring som er
 198 vanskelig å unngå, og enda vanskeligere å forstå.  En fri kultur er ikke en
 199 kultur uten eierskap. Det er ikke en kultur der kunstnere ikke får
 200 betalt. En kultur uten eierskap eller en der skaperne ikke kan få betalt, er
 201 anarki, ikke frihet.  Anarki er ikke hva jeg fremmer her.
 202 </p><p>
 203 I stedet er den frie kulturen som jeg forsvarer i denne boken en balanse
 204 mellom anarki og kontroll.  En fri kultur, i likhet med et fritt marked, er
 205 fylt med eierskap.  Den er fylt med regler for eierskap og kontrakter som
 206 blir håndhevet av staten.  Men på samme måte som det frie markedet blir
 207 pervertert hvis dets eierskap blir føydalt, så kan en fri kultur bli ødelagt
 208 av ekstremisme i eierskapsrettighetene som definerer den.  Det er dette jeg
 209 frykter om vår kultur i dag.  Det er som motpol til denne ekstremismen at
 210 denne boken er skrevet.
 211 </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>
 212 David Pogue, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Don't Just Chat, Do Something,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
 213 York Times</em>, 30. januar 2000
 214 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2943944" href="#id2943944" class="para">2</a>] </sup>
 215 Richard M. Stallman, <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free Societies</em> 57
 216 (Joshua Gay, red. 2002).
 217 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2944095" href="#id2944095" class="para">3</a>] </sup> William Safire, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Great Media Gulp,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
 218 Times</em>, 22. mai 2003.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2944106"></a>
 219 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 0. Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Chapter 0. Introduksjon</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxwrightbrothers"></a><p>
 220 <span class="strong"><strong>Den 17. desember</strong></span> 1903, på en vindfylt
 221 strand i Nord-Carolina i såvidt under hundre sekunder, demonstrerte
 222 Wright-brødrene at et selvdrevet fartøy tyngre enn luft kunne fly.
 223 Øyeblikket var elektrisk, og dens betydning ble alment forstått. Nesten
 224 umiddelbart, eksploderte interessen for denne nye teknologien som
 225 muliggjorde bemannet luftfart og en hærskare av oppfinnere begynte å bygge
 226 videre på den.
 227 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxairtraffic"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlandownership"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxproprigtair"></a><p>
 228 Da Wright-brødrene fant opp flymaskinen, hevdet loven i USA at en grunneier
 229 ble antatt å eie ikke bare overflaten på området sitt, men også alt landet
 230 under bakken, helt ned til senterpunktet i jorda, og alt volumet over
 231 bakken, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3000222" href="#ftn.id3000222" class="footnote">4</a>]</sup> I mange år undret lærde over hvordan en best skulle tolke idéen om
 232 at eiendomsretten gikk helt til himmelen. Betød dette at du eide stjernene?
 233 Kunne en dømme gjess for at de regelmessig og med vilje tok seg inn på annen
 234 manns eiendom?
 235 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3000239"></a><p>
 236 Så kom flymaskiner, og for første gang hadde dette prinsippet i lovverket i
 237 USA&#8212;dypt nede i grunnlaget for vår tradisjon og akseptert av de
 238 viktigste juridiske tenkerne i vår fortid&#8212;en betydning. Hvis min
 239 eiendom rekker til himmelen, hva skjer når United flyr over mitt område?
 240 Har jeg rett til å nekte dem å bruke min eiendom?  Har jeg mulighet til å
 241 inngå en eksklusiv avtale med Delta Airlines?  Kan vi gjennomføre en auksjon
 242 for å finne ut hvor mye disse rettighetene er verdt?
 243 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3000250"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3000275"></a><p>
 244 I 1945 ble disse spørsmålene en føderal sak. Da bøndene Thomas Lee og Tinie
 245 Causby i Nord Carolina begynte å miste kyllinger på grunn av lavtflygende
 246 militære fly (vettskremte kyllinger fløy tilsynelatende i låveveggene og
 247 døde), saksøkte Causbyene regjeringen for å trenge seg inn på deres
 248 eiendom. Flyene rørte selvfølgelig aldri overflaten på Causbys' eiendom. Men
 249 hvis det stemte som Blackstone, Kent, og Cola hadde sagt, at deres eiendom
 250 strakk seg <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover,</span>»</span> så hadde regjeringen
 251 trengt seg inn på deres eiendom, og Causbys ønsket å sette en stopper for
 252 dette.
 253 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3000301"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3000307"></a><p>
 254 Høyesterett gikk med på å ta opp Causbys sak. Kongressen hadde vedtatt at
 255 luftfartsveiene var tilgjengelig for alle, men hvis ens eiendom virkelig
 256 rakk til himmelen, da kunne muligens kongressens vedtak ha vært i strid med
 257 grunnlovens forbud mot å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> eiendom uten kompensasjon.
 258 Retten erkjente at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er gammel doktrine etter sedvane at en eiendom
 259 rakk til utkanten av universet.</span>»</span>, men dommer Douglas hadde ikke
 260 tålmodighet for forhistoriske doktriner.  I et enkelt avsnitt, ble hundrevis
 261 av år med eiendomslovgivningen strøket. Som han skrev på vegne av retten,
 262 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 263 [Denne] doktrinen har ingen plass i den moderne verden.  Luften er en
 264 offentlig motorvei, slik kongressen har erklært.  Hvis det ikke var
 265 tilfelle, ville hver eneste transkontinentale flyrute utsette operatørene
 266 for utallige søksmål om inntrenging på annen manns eiendom.  Idéen er i
 267 strid med sunn fornuft.  Å anerkjenne slike private krav til luftrommet
 268 ville blokkere disse motorveiene, seriøst forstyrre muligheten til kontroll
 269 og utvikling av dem i fellesskapets interesse og overføre til privat
 270 eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.<sup>[<a name="id3000359" href="#ftn.id3000359" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
 271 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 272 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>»</span>
 273 </p><p>
 274
 275 Det er hvordan loven vanligvis fungerer.  Ikke ofte like brått eller
 276 utålmodig, men til slutt er dette hvordan loven fungerer.  Det var ikke
 277 stilen til Douglas å utbrodere.  Andre dommere ville ha skrevet mange flere
 278 sider før de nådde sin konklusjon, men for Douglas holdt det med en enkel
 279 linje: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>»</span>.  Men uansett om
 280 det tar flere sider eller kun noen få ord, så er det en genial egenskap med
 281 et rettspraksis-system, slik som vårt er, at loven tilpasser seg til
 282 aktuelle teknologiene.  Og mens den tilpasser seg, så endres den.  Idéer som
 283 var solide som fjell i en tidsalder knuses i en annen.
 284 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3000445"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3000451"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3000458"></a><p>
 285 Eller, det er hvordan ting skjer når det ikke er noen mektige på andre siden
 286 av endringen.  Causbyene var bare bønder.  Og selv om det uten tvil var
 287 mange som dem som var lei av den økende trafikken i luften (og en håper ikke
 288 for mange kyllinger flakset seg inn i vegger), ville Causbyene i verden
 289 finne det svært hardt å samles for å stoppe idéen, og teknologien, som
 290 Wright-brødrene hadde ført til verden.  Wright-brødrene spyttet flymaskiner
 291 inn i den teknologiske meme-dammen. Idéen spredte seg deretter som et virus
 292 i en kyllingfarm. Causbyene i verden fant seg selv omringet av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det
 293 synes rimelig</span>»</span> gitt teknologien som Wright-brødrene hadde produsert.
 294 De kunne stå på sine gårder, med døde kyllinger i hendene, og heve
 295 knyttneven mot disse nye teknologiene så mye de ville.  De kunne ringe sine
 296 representanter eller til og med saksøke.  Men når alt kom til alt, ville
 297 kraften i det som virket <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpenbart</span>»</span> for alle andre&#8212;makten
 298 til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>»</span>&#8212;ville vinne frem.  Deres
 299 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">personlige interesser</span>»</span> ville ikke få lov til å nedkjempe en
 300 åpenbar fordel for fellesskapet.
 301 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3000508"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3000518"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3000529"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxarmstrongedwin"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3000552"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3000558"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3000565"></a><p>
 302
 303 <span class="strong"><strong>Edwin Howard Armstrong</strong></span> er en av USAs
 304 glemte oppfinnergenier. Han dukket opp på oppfinnerscenen etter titaner som
 305 Thomas Edison og Alexander Graham Bell.  Alle hans bidrag på området
 306 radioteknologi gjør han til kanskje den viktigste av alle enkeltoppfinnere i
 307 de første femti årene av radio.  Han var bedre utdannet enn Michael Faraday,
 308 som var bokbinderlærling da han oppdaget elektrisk induksjon i 1831.  Men
 309 han hadde like god intuisjon om hvordan radioverden virket, og ved minst tre
 310 anledninger, fant Armstrong opp svært viktig teknologier som brakte vår
 311 forståelse av radio et hopp videre.
 312
 313 </p><p>
 314 Dagen etter julaften i 1933, ble fire patenter utstedt til Armstrong for
 315 hans mest signifikante oppfinnelse&#8212;FM-radio.  Inntil da hadde
 316 forbrukerradioer vært amplitude-modulert (AM) radio.  Tidens teoretikere
 317 hadde sagt at frekvens-modulert (FM) radio.  De hadde rett når det gjelder
 318 et smalt bånd av spektrumet.  Men Armstrong oppdaget at frekvens-modulert
 319 radio i et vidt bånd i spektrumet leverte en forbløffende gjengivelse av
 320 lyd, med mye mindre senderstyrke og støy.
 321 </p><p>
 322 Den 5. november 1935 demonstrerte han teknologien på et møte hos institutt
 323 for radioingeniører ved Empire State-bygningen i New York City.  Han vred
 324 radiosøkeren over en rekke AM-stasjoner, inntil radioen låste seg mot en
 325 kringkasting som han hadde satt opp 27 kilometer unna.  Radioen ble helt
 326 stille, som om den var død, og så, med en klarhet ingen andre i rommet noen
 327 gang hadde hørt fra et elektrisk apparat, produserte det lyden av en
 328 opplesers stemme: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dette er amatørstasjon W2AG ved Yonkers, New York,
 329 som opererer på frekvensmodulering ved to og en halv meter.</span>»</span>
 330 </p><p>
 331 Publikum hørte noe ingen hadde trodd var mulig:
 332 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 333 Et glass vann ble fylt opp foran mikrofonen i Yonkers, og det hørtes ut som
 334 et glass som ble fylt opp. &#8230; Et papir ble krøllet og revet opp, og
 335 det hørtes ut som papir og ikke som en sprakende skogbrann. &#8230;
 336 Sousa-marsjer ble spilt av fra plater og en pianosolo og et gitarnummer ble
 337 utført. &#8230; Musikken ble presentert med en livaktighet som sjeldent om
 338 noen gang før hadde vært hørt fra en
 339 radio-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">musikk-boks</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3000665" href="#ftn.id3000665" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
 340 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 341
 342 Som vår egen sunn fornuft forteller oss, hadde Armstrong oppdaget en mye
 343 bedre radioteknologi.  Men på tidspunktet for hans oppfinnelse, jobbet
 344 Armstrong for RCA. RCA var den dominerende aktøren i det da dominerende
 345 AM-radiomarkedet. I 1935 var det tusen radiostasjoner over hele USA, men
 346 stasjonene i de store byene var alle eid av en liten håndfull selskaper.
 347
 348 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3000692"></a><p>
 349 Presidenten i RCA, David Sarnoff, en venn av Armstrong, var ivrig etter å få
 350 Armstrong til å oppdage en måte å fjerne støyen fra AM-radio. Så Sarnoff var
 351 ganske spent da Armstrong fortalte ham at han hadde en enhet som fjernet
 352 støy fra <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radio.</span>»</span>.   Men da Armstrong demonstrerte sin
 353 oppfinnelse, var ikke Sarnoff fornøyd.
 354 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 355 Jeg trodde Armstrong ville finne opp et slags filter for å fjerne skurring
 356 fra AM-radioen vår. Jeg trodde ikke han skulle starte en revolusjon &#8212;
 357 starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.<sup>[<a name="id3000601" href="#ftn.id3000601" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
 358 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessing"></a><p>
 359 Armstrongs oppfinnelse truet RCAs AM-herredømme, så selskapet lanserte en
 360 kampanje for å knuse FM-radio. Mens FM kan ha vært en overlegen teknologi,
 361 var Sarnoff en overlegen taktiker. En forfatter beskrev det slik,
 362 <a class="indexterm" name="id3000766"></a>
 363 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 364 Kreftene til fordel for FM, i hovedsak ingeniørfaglige, kunne ikke overvinne
 365 tyngden til strategien utviklet av avdelingene for salg, patenter og juss
 366 for å undertrykke denne trusselen til selskapets posisjon.  For FM utgjorde,
 367 hvis det fikk utvikle seg uten begrensninger &#8230; en komplett endring i
 368 maktforholdene rundt radio &#8230; og muligens fjerningen av det nøye
 369 begrensede AM-systemet som var grunnlaget for RCA stigning til
 370 makt.<sup>[<a name="id3000793" href="#ftn.id3000793" class="footnote">8</a>]</sup>
 371 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 372 RCA holdt først teknologien innomhus, og insistere på at det var nødvendig
 373 med ytterligere tester. Da Armstrong, etter to år med testing, ble
 374 utålmodig, begynte RCA å bruke sin makt hos myndighetene til holde tilbake
 375 den generelle spredningen av FM-radio. I 1936, ansatte RCA den tidligere
 376 lederen av FCC og ga ham oppgaven med å sikre at FCC tilordnet
 377 radiospekteret på en måte som ville kastrere FM&#8212;hovedsakelig ved å
 378 flytte FM-radio til et annet band i spekteret. I første omgang lyktes ikke
 379 disse forsøkene.  Men mens Armstrong og nasjonen var distrahert av andre
 380 verdenskrig, begynte RCAs arbeid å bære frukter.  Like etter at krigen var
 381 over, annonserte FCC et sett med avgjørelser som ville ha en klar effekt:
 382 FM-radio ville bli forkrøplet.Lawrence lessing beskrevet det slik,
 383 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 384 Serien med slag mot kroppen som FM-radio mottok rett etter krigen, i en
 385 serie med avgjørelser manipulert gjennom FCC av de store radiointeressene,
 386 var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.<sup>[<a name="id3000844" href="#ftn.id3000844" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
 387 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3000850"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3000858"></a><p>
 388 For å gjøre plass i spektrumet for RCAs nyeste satsingsområde, televisjon,
 389 skulle FM-radioens brukere flyttes til et helt nytt band i spektrumet.
 390 Sendestyrken til FM-radioene ble også redusert, og gjorde at FM ikke lenger
 391 kunne brukes for å sende programmer fra en del av landet til en annen.
 392 (Denne endringen ble sterkt støttet av AT&amp;T, på grunn av at fjerningen
 393 av FM-videresendingsstasjoner ville bety at radiostasjonene ville bli nødt
 394 til å kjøpe kablede linker fra AT&amp;T.)  Spredningen av FM-radio var
 395 dermed kvalt, i hvert fall midlertidig.
 396 </p><p>
 397 Armstrong sto imot RCAs innsats. Som svar motsto RCA Armstrongs patenter.
 398 Etter å ha bakt FM-teknologi inn i den nye standarden for TV, erklærte RCS
 399 patentene ugyldige&#8212;uten grunn og nesten femten år etter at de ble
 400 utstedet.  De nektet dermed å betale ham for bruken av patentene.  I seks år
 401 kjempet Armstrong en dyr søksmålskrig for å forsvare patentene sine.  Til
 402 slutt, samtidig som patentene utløp, tilbød RCA et forlik så lavt at det
 403 ikke engang dekket Armstrongs advokatregning.  Beseiret, knust og nå blakk,
 404 skrev Armstrong i 1954 en kort beskjed til sin kone, før han gikk ut av et
 405 vindu i trettende etasje og falt i døden.
 406 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3000880"></a><p>
 407
 408 Dette er slik loven virker noen ganger.  Ikke ofte like tragisk, og sjelden
 409 med heltemodig drama, men noen ganger er det slik det virker. Fra starten
 410 har myndigheter og myndighetsorganer blitt tatt til fange. Det er mer
 411 sannsynlig at de blir fanget når en mektig interesse er truet av enten en
 412 juridisk eller teknologisk endring.  Denne mektige interessen utøver for
 413 ofte sin innflytelse hos myndighetene til å få myndighetene til å beskytte
 414 den.  Retorikken for denne beskyttelsen er naturligvis alltid med fokus på
 415 fellesskapets beste.  Realiteten er noe annet.  Idéer som kan være solide
 416 som fjell i en tidsalder, men som overlatt til seg selv, vil falle sammen i
 417 en annen, er videreført gjennom denne subtile korrupsjonen i vår politiske
 418 prosess.  RCA hadde hva Causby-ene ikke hadde: Makten til å undertrykke
 419 effekten av en teknologisk endring.
 420 </p><p>
 421 <span class="strong"><strong>Det er ingen</strong></span> enkeltoppfinner av
 422 Internet.  Ei heller er det en god dato som kan brukes til å markere når det
 423 ble født.  Likevel har internettet i løpet av svært kort tid blitt en del av
 424 vanlige amerikaneres liv.  I følge the Pew Internet and American
 425 Life-prosjektet, har 58 prosent av amerikanerne hatt tilgang til internettet
 426 i 2002, opp fra 49 prosent to år tidligere.<sup>[<a name="id3000953" href="#ftn.id3000953" class="footnote">10</a>]</sup> Det tallet kan uten problemer passere to tredjedeler av nasjonen
 427 ved utgangen av 2004.
 428 </p><p>
 429 Etter hvert som internett er blitt integrert inn i det vanlige liv har ting
 430 blitt endret.  Noen av disse endringene er teknisk&#8212;internettet har
 431 gjort kommunikasjon raskere, det har redusert kostnaden med å samle inn
 432 data, og så videre.  Disse tekniske endringene er ikke fokus for denne
 433 boken.  De er viktige.  De er ikke godt forstått.  Men de er den type ting
 434 som ganske enkelt ville blir borte hvis vi alle bare slo av internettet.  De
 435 påvirker ikke folk som ikke bruker internettet, eller i det miste påvirker
 436 det ikke dem direkte.  De er et godt tema for en bok om internettet.  Men
 437 dette er ikke en bok om internettet.
 438 </p><p>
 439 I stedet er denne boken om effekten av internettet ut over internettet i seg
 440 selv.  En effekt på hvordan kultur blir skapt.  Min påstand er at
 441 internettet har ført til en viktig og ukjent endring i denne prosessen.
 442 Denne endringen vil forandre en tradisjon som er like gammel som republikken
 443 selv.  De fleste, hvis de la merke til denne endringen, ville avvise den.
 444 Men de fleste legger ikke engang merke til denne endringen som internettet
 445 har introdusert.
 446 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2943213"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2943219"></a><p>
 447
 448 Vi kan få en følelse av denne endringen ved å skille mellom kommersiell og
 449 ikke-kommersiell kultur, ved å knytte lovens reguleringer til hver av dem.
 450 Med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kommersiell kultur</span>»</span> mener jeg den delen av vår kultur som
 451 er produsert og solgt eller produsert for å bli solgt.  Med
 452 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke-kommersiell kultur</span>»</span> mener jeg alt det andre. Da gamle
 453 menn satt rundt i parker eller på gatehjørner og fortalte historier som
 454 unger og andre lyttet til, så var det ikke-kommersiell kultur.  Da Noah
 455 Webster publiserte sin <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Reader</span>»</span>, eller Joel Barlow sin poesi,
 456 så var det kommersiell kultur.
 457 </p><p>
 458 Fra historisk tid, og for omtrent hele vår tradisjon, har ikke-kommersiell
 459 kultur i hovedsak ikke vært regulert.  Selvfølgelig, hvis din historie var
 460 utuktig, eller hvis dine sanger forstyrret freden, kunne loven gripe inn.
 461 Men loven var aldri direkte interessert i skapingen eller spredningen av
 462 denne form for kultur, og lot denne kulturen være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri</span>»</span>.  Den
 463 vanlige måten som vanlige individer delte og formet deres
 464 kultur&#8212;historiefortelling, formidling av scener fra teater eller TV,
 465 delta i fan-klubber, deling av musikk, laging av kassetter&#8212;ble ikke
 466 styrt av lovverket.
 467 </p><p>
 468 Fokuset på loven var kommersiell kreativitet.  I starten forsiktig, etter
 469 hvert betraktelig, beskytter loven insentivet til skaperne ved å tildele dem
 470 en eksklusiv rett til deres kreative verker, slik at de kan selge disse
 471 eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.<sup>[<a name="id2943295" href="#ftn.id2943295" class="footnote">11</a>]</sup> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
 472 kreativitet og kultur, og det har blitt en viktigere og viktigere del i
 473 USA.  Men det var på ingen måte dominerende i vår tradisjon.  Det var i
 474 stedet bare en del, en kontrollert del, balansert mot det frie.
 475 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2943331"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2943340"></a><p>
 476 Denne grove inndelingen mellom den frie og den kontrollerte har nå blitt
 477 fjernet.<sup>[<a name="id3001286" href="#ftn.id3001286" class="footnote">12</a>]</sup> Internettet har satt scenen
 478 for denne fjerningen, og pressen frem av store medieaktører har loven nå
 479 påvirket det.  For første gang i vår tradisjon, har de vanlige måtene som
 480 individer skaper og deler kultur havnet innen rekekvidde for reguleringene
 481 til loven, som har blitt utvidet til å dra inn i sitt kontrollområde den
 482 enorme mengden kultur og kreativitet som den aldri tidligere har nådd over.
 483 Teknologien som tok vare på den historiske balansen&#8212;mellom bruken av
 484 den delen av kulturen vår som var fri og bruken av vår kultur som krevde
 485 tillatelse&#8212;har blitt borte.  Konsekvensen er at vi er mindre og mindre
 486 en fri kultur, og mer og mer en tillatelseskultur.
 487 </p><p>
 488 Denne endringen blir rettferdiggjort som nødvendig for å beskytte
 489 kommersiell kreativitet.  Og ganske riktig, proteksjonisme er nøyaktig det
 490 som motiverer endringen.  Men proteksjonismen som rettferdiggjør endringene
 491 som jeg skal beskrive lenger ned er ikke den begrensede og balanserte typen
 492 som har definert loven tidligere.  Dette er ikke en proteksjonisme for å
 493 beskytte artister.  Det er i stedet en proteksjonisme for å beskytte
 494 bestemte forretningsformer.  Selskaper som er truet av potensialet til
 495 internettet for å endre måten både kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell kultur
 496 blir skapt og delt, har samlet seg for å få lovgiverne til å bruke loven for
 497 å beskytte selskapene.  Dette er historien om RCA og Armstrong, og det er
 498 drømmen til Causbyene.
 499 </p><p>
 500 For internettet har sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mulighet for mange til å
 501 delta i prosessen med å bygge og kultivere en kultur som rekker lagt utenfor
 502 lokale grenselinjer.  Den makten har endret markedsplassen for å lage og
 503 kultivere kultur generelt, og den endringen truer i neste omgang etablerte
 504 innholdsindustrier. Internettet er dermed for industriene som bygget og
 505 distribuerte innhold i det tjuende århundret hva FM-radio var for AM-radio,
 506 eller hva traileren var for jernbaneindustrien i det nittende århundret:
 507 begynnelsen på slutten, eller i hvert fall en markant endring. Digitale
 508 teknologier, knyttet til internettet, kunne produsere et mye mer
 509 konkurransedyktig og levende marked for å bygge og kultivere kultur.  Dette
 510 markedet kunne inneholde en mye videre og mer variert utvalg av skapere.
 511 Disse skaperne kunne produsere og distribuere et mye mer levende utvalg av
 512 kreativitet. Og avhengig av noen få viktige faktorer, så kunne disse
 513 skaperne tjenere mer i snitt fra dette systemet enn skaperne gjør i
 514 dag&#8212;så lenge RCA-ene av i dag ikke bruker loven til å beskytte dem
 515 selv mot denne konkurransen.
 516 </p><p>
 517 Likevel, som jeg argumenterer for i sidene som følger, er dette nøyaktig det
 518 som skjer i vår kultur i dag.  Dette som er dagens ekvivalenter til tidlig
 519 tjuende århundres radio og nittende århundres jernbaner bruker deres makt
 520 til å få loven til å beskytte dem mot dette nye, mer effektive, mer levende
 521 teknologi for å bygge kultur. De lykkes i deres plan om å gjøre om
 522 internettet før internettet gjør om på dem.
 523 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3001405"></a><p>
 524 Det ser ikke slik ut for mange.  Kamphandlingene over opphavsrett og
 525 internettet er fjernt for de fleste.  For de få som følger dem, virker de i
 526 hovedsak å handle om et enklere sett med spørsmål&#8212;hvorvidt
 527 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> vil bli akseptert, og hvorvidt
 528 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>»</span> vil bli beskyttet.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Krigen</span>»</span> som
 529 har blitt erklært mot teknologiene til internettet&#8212;det presidenten for
 530 Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) Jack Valenti kaller sin
 531 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">egen terroristkrig</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3001435" href="#ftn.id3001435" class="footnote">13</a>]</sup>&#8212;har blitt rammet inn som en kamp om å følge loven og
 532 respektere eiendomsretten.  For å vite hvilken side vi bør ta i denne
 533 krigen, de fleste tenker at vi kun trenger å bestemme om hvorvidt vi er for
 534 eiendomsrett eller mot den.
 535 </p><p>
 536 Hvis dette virkelig var alternativene, så ville jeg være enig med Jack
 537 Valenti og innholdsindustrien.  Jeg tror også på eiendomsretten, og spesielt
 538 på viktigheten av hva Mr. Valenti så pent kaller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativ
 539 eiendomsrett</span>»</span>.  Jeg tror at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> er galt,
 540 og at loven, riktig innstilt, bør straffe <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>,
 541 både på og utenfor internettet.
 542 </p><p>
 543 Men disse enkle trosoppfatninger maskerer et mye mer grunnleggende spørsmål
 544 og en mye mer dramatisk endring. Min frykt er at med mindre vi begynner å
 545 legge merke til denne endringen, så vil krigen for å befri verden fra
 546 internettets <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span> også fjerne verdier fra vår kultur som
 547 har vært integrert til vår tradisjon helt fra starten.
 548 </p><p>
 549 Disse verdiene bygget en tradisjon som, for i hvert fall de første 180 årene
 550 av vår republikk, garanterte skaperne rettigheten til å bygge fritt på deres
 551 fortid, og beskyttet skaperne og innovatørene fra både statlig og privat
 552 kontroll.  Det første grunnlovstillegget beskyttet skaperne fra statlig
 553 kontroll.  Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,<sup>[<a name="id3001514" href="#ftn.id3001514" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
 554 skaperne mot privat kontroll.  Vår tradisjon var dermed hverken Sovjet eller
 555 tradisjonen til velgjørere.  I stedet skar det ut en bred manøvreringsrom
 556 hvor skapere kunne kultivere og utvide vår kultur.
 557 </p><p>
 558 Likevel har lovens respons til internettet, når det knyttes sammen til
 559 endringer i teknologien i internettet selv, ført til massiv økting av den
 560 effektive reguleringen av kreativitet i USA.  For å bygge på eller kritisere
 561 kulturen rundt oss må en spørre, som Oliver Twist, om tillatelse først.
 562 Tillatelse er, naturligvis, ofte innvilget&#8212;men det er ikke ofte
 563 innvilget til den kritiske eller den uavhengige.  Vi har bygget en slags
 564 kulturell adel.  De innen dette adelskapet har et enkelt liv, mens de på
 565 utsiden har det ikke.  Men det er adelskap i alle former som er fremmed for
 566 vår tradisjon.
 567 </p><p>
 568 Historien som følger er om denne krigen.  Er det ikke om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">betydningen
 569 av teknologi</span>»</span> i vanlig liv.  Jeg tror ikke på guder, hverken digitale
 570 eller andre typer.  Det er heller ikke et forsøk på å demonisere noen
 571 individer eller gruppe, jeg tro heller ikke i en djevel, selskapsmessig
 572 eller på annen måte.  Det er ikke en moralsk historie.  Ei heller er det et
 573 rop om hellig krig mot en industri.
 574 </p><p>
 575 Det er i stedet et forsøk på å forstå en håpløst ødeleggende krig som er
 576 inspirert av teknologiene til internettet, men som rekker lang utenfor dens
 577 kode.  Og ved å forstå denne kampen er den en innsats for å finne veien til
 578 fred.  Det er ingen god grunn for å fortsette dagens batalje rundt
 579 internett-teknologiene.  Det vil være til stor skade for vår tradisjon og
 580 kultur hvis den får lov til å fortsette ukontrollert. Vi må forstå kilden
 581 til denne krigen.  Vi må finne en løsning snart.
 582 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3001602"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3001607"></a><p>
 583 <span class="strong"><strong>Lik Causbyenes</strong></span> kamp er denne krigen,
 584 delvis, om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>»</span>. Eiendommen i denne krigen er ikke
 585 like håndfast som den til Causbyene, og ingen uskyldige kyllinger har så
 586 langt mistet livet.  Likevel er idéene rundt denne
 587 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>»</span> like åpenbare for de fleste som Causbyenes
 588 krav om ukrenkeligheten til deres bondegård var for dem. De fleste av oss
 589 tar for gitt de uvanlig mektige krav som eierne av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle
 590 rettigheter</span>»</span> nå hevder.  De fleste av oss, som Causbyene, behandler
 591 disse kravene som åpenbare.  Og dermed protesterer vi, som Causbyene,, når
 592 ny teknologi griper inn i denne eiendomsretten.  Det er så klart for oss som
 593 det var fro dem at de nye teknologiene til internettet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tar seg til
 594 rette</span>»</span> mot legitime krav til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>»</span>.  Det er
 595 like klart for oss som det var for dem at loven skulle ta affære for å
 596 stoppe denne inntrengingen i annen manns eiendom.
 597 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3001663"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3001670"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3001676"></a><p>
 598
 599 Og dermed, når nerder og teknologer forsvarer sin tids Armstrong og
 600 Wright-brødenes teknologi, får de lite sympati fra de fleste av oss. Sunn
 601 fornuft gjør ikke opprør.  I motsetning til saken til de uheldige Causbyene,
 602 er sunn fornuft på samme side som eiendomseierne i denne krigen.  I
 603 motsetning til hos de heldige Wright-brødrene, har internettet ikke
 604 inspirert en revolusjon til fordel for seg.
 605 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3001699"></a><p>
 606 Mitt håp er å skyve denne sunne fornuften videre.  Jeg har blitt stadig mer
 607 overrasket over kraften til denne idéen om immaterielle rettigheter og, mer
 608 viktig, dets evne til å slå av kritisk tanke hos lovmakere og innbyggere.
 609 Det har aldri før i vår historie vært så mye av vår <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kultur</span>»</span>
 610 som har vært <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eid</span>»</span> enn det er nå.  Og likevel har aldri før
 611 konsentrasjonen av makt til å kontrollere <span class="emphasis"><em>bruken</em></span> av
 612 kulturen vært mer akseptert uten spørsmål enn det er nå.
 613 </p><p>
 614 Gåten er, hvorfor det?  Er det fordi vi fått en innsikt i sannheten om
 615 verdien og betydningen av absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur? Er det
 616 fordi vi har oppdaget at vår tradisjon med å avvise slike absolutte krav var
 617 feil?
 618 </p><p>
 619 Eller er det på grunn av at idéer om absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur
 620 gir fordeler til RCA-ene i vår tid, og passer med vår ureflekterte
 621 intuisjon?
 622 </p><p>
 623 Er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår tradisjon om fri kultur en
 624 forekomst av USA som korrigerer en feil fra sin fortid, slik vi gjorde det
 625 etter en blodig krig mot slaveri, og slik vi sakte gjør det mot
 626 forskjellsbehandling?  Eller er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår
 627 tradisjon med fri kultur nok et eksempel på at vårt politiske system er
 628 fanget av noen få mektige særinteresser?
 629 </p><p>
 630 Fører sunn fornuft til det ekstreme i dette spørsmålet på grunn av at sunn
 631 fornuft faktisk tror på dette ekstreme?  Eller står sunn fornuft i stillhet
 632 i møtet med dette ekstreme fordi, som med Armstrong versus RCA, at den mer
 633 mektige siden har sikret seg at det har et mye mer mektig synspunkt?
 634 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3001781"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3001788"></a><p>
 635
 636 Jeg forsøker ikke å være mystisk.  Mine egne synspunkter er klare. Jeg mener
 637 det var riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør mot ekstremismen til
 638 Causbyene.  Jeg mener det ville være riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør
 639 mot de ekstreme krav som gjøres i dag på vegne av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle
 640 rettigheter</span>»</span>.  Det som loven krever i dag er mer å mer like dumt som
 641 om lensmannen skulle arrestere en flymaskin for å trenge inn på annen manns
 642 eiendom.  Men konsekvensene av den nye dumskapen vil bli mye mer
 643 dyptgripende.
 644
 645 </p><p>
 646 <span class="strong"><strong>Basketaket</strong></span> som pågår akkurat nå senterer
 647 seg rundt to idéer: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> og
 648 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span>.  Mitt mål med denne bokens neste to deler er å
 649 utforske disse to idéene.
 650 </p><p>
 651 Metoden min er ikke den vanlige metoden for en akademiker.  Jeg ønsker ikke
 652 å pløye deg inn i et komplisert argument, steinsatt med referanser til
 653 obskure franske teoretikere&#8212;uansett hvor naturlig det har blitt for
 654 den rare sorten vi akademikere har blitt.  Jeg vil i stedet begynne hver del
 655 med en samling historier som etablerer en sammenheng der disse
 656 tilsynelatende enkle idéene kan bli fullt ut forstått.
 657 </p><p>
 658 De to delene setter opp kjernen i påstanden til denne boken: at mens
 659 internettet faktisk har produsert noe fantastisk og nytt, bidrar våre
 660 myndigheter, presset av store medieaktører for å møte dette <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">noe
 661 nytt</span>»</span> til å ødelegge noe som er svært gammelt.  I stedet for å forstå
 662 endringene som internettet kan gjøre mulig, og i stedet for å ta den tiden
 663 som trengs for å la <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>»</span> finne ut hvordan best svare
 664 på utfordringen, så lar vi de som er mest truet av endringene bruke sin makt
 665 til å endre loven&#8212;og viktigere, å bruke sin makt til å endre noe
 666 fundamentalt om hvordan vi alltid har fungert.
 667 </p><p>
 668 Jeg tror vi tillater dette, ikke fordi det er riktig, og heller ikke fordi
 669 de fleste av oss tror på disse endringene.  Vi tillater det på grunn av at
 670 de interessene som er mest truet er blant de mest mektige aktørene i vår
 671 deprimerende kompromitterte prosess for å utforme lover. Denne boken er
 672 historien om nok en konsekvens for denne type korrupsjon&#8212;en konsekvens
 673 for de fleste av oss forblir ukjent med.
 674 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3000222" href="#id3000222" class="para">4</a>] </sup>
 675 St. George Tucker, <em class="citetitle">Blackstone's Commentaries</em> 3 (South
 676 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1969), 18.
 677 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3000359" href="#id3000359" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
 678 USA mot Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. Domstolen fant at det kunne være
 679 å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> hvis regjeringens bruk av sitt land reelt sett hadde
 680 ødelagt verdien av eiendomen til Causby.  Dette eksemplet ble foreslått for
 681 meg i Keith Aokis flotte stykke, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">(intellectual) Property and
 682 Sovereignty: Notes Toward a cultural Geography of Authorship</span>»</span>,
 683 <em class="citetitle">Stanford Law Review</em> 48 (1996): 1293, 1333. Se også
 684 Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Real Property</em> (Mineola, N.Y.:
 685 Foundation Press (1984)), 1112&#8211;13.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3000398"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3000393"></a>
 686 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3000665" href="#id3000665" class="para">6</a>] </sup>
 687 Lawrence Lessing, <em class="citetitle">Man of High Fidelity:: Edwin Howard
 688 Armstrong</em> (Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company, 1956), 209.
 689 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3000601" href="#id3000601" class="para">7</a>] </sup> Se <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era,</span>»</span>
 690 første elektroniske kirke i USA, hos www.webstationone.com/fecha,
 691 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #1</a>.
 692 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3000793" href="#id3000793" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
 693 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3000844" href="#id3000844" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
 694 Lessing, 256.
 695 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3000953" href="#id3000953" class="para">10</a>] </sup>
 696 Amanda Lenhart, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
 697 Internet Access and the Digital Divide,</span>»</span> Pew Internet and American
 698 Life Project, 15. april 2003: 6, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #2</a>.
 699 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2943295" href="#id2943295" class="para">11</a>] </sup>
 700 Dette er ikke det eneste formålet med opphavsrett, men det er helt klart
 701 hovedformålet med opphavsretten slik den er etablert i føderal grunnlov.
 702 Opphavsrettslovene i delstatene beskyttet historisk ikke bare kommersielle
 703 interesse når det gjaldt publikasjoner, men også personverninteresser.  Ved
 704 å gi forfattere eneretten til å publisere først, ga delstatenes
 705 opphavsrettslovene forfatterne makt til å kontrollere spredningen av fakta
 706 om seg selv. Se Samuel D. Warren og Louis Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to
 707 Privacy</span>»</span>, Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198&#8211;200.
 708 <a class="indexterm" name="id3000580"></a>
 709 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3001286" href="#id3001286" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
 710 Se Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (New York:
 711 Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3001294"></a>
 712 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3001435" href="#id3001435" class="para">13</a>] </sup>
 713 Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates Use New
 714 Tools to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
 715 York Times</em>, 17. januar 2002.
 716 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3001514" href="#id3001514" class="para">14</a>] </sup>
 717 Neil W. Netanel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society,</span>»</span>
 718 <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3001524"></a>
 719 </p></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Part I. «Piratvirksomhet»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Part I. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="«Piratvirksomhet»"><div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield1"></a><p>
 720 <span class="strong"><strong>Helt siden</strong></span> loven begynte å regulere
 721 kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært en krig mot
 722 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>.  De presise konturene av dette konseptet,
 723 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>, har vært vanskelig å tegne opp, men bildet
 724 av urettferdighet er enkelt å beskrive.  Som Lord Mansfield skrev i en sak
 725 som utvidet rekkevidden for engelsk opphavsrettslov til å inkludere noteark,
 726 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 727 En person kan bruke kopien til å spille den, men han har ingen rett til å
 728 robbe forfatteren for profitten, ved å lage flere kopier og distribuere
 729 etter eget forgodtbefinnende.<sup>[<a name="id3001959" href="#ftn.id3001959" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
 730 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3001974"></a></blockquote></div><p>
 731
 732 I dag er vi midt inne i en annen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">krig</span>»</span> mot
 733 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>. Internettet har fremprovosert denne krigen.
 734 Internettet gjør det mulig å effektivt spre innhold.  Peer-to-peer (p2p)
 735 fildeling er blant det mest effektive av de effektive teknologier
 736 internettet muliggjør. Ved å bruke distribuert intelligens, kan p2p-systemer
 737 muliggjøre enkel spredning av innhold på en måte som ingen forestilte seg
 738 for en generasjon siden.
 739
 740 </p><p>
 741 Denne effektiviteten respekterer ikke de tradisjonelle skillene i
 742 opphavsretten. Nettverket skiller ikke mellom deling av
 743 opphavsrettsbeskyttet og ikke opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold. Dermed har det
 744 vært deling av en enorm mengde opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold.  Denne
 745 delingen har i sin tur ansporet til krigen, på grunn av at eiere av
 746 opphavsretter frykter delingen vil <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frata forfatteren
 747 overskuddet.</span>»</span>
 748 </p><p>
 749 Krigerne har snudd seg til domstolene, til lovgiverne, og i stadig større
 750 grad til teknologi for å forsvare sin <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> mot denne
 751 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>»</span>.  En generasjon amerikanere, advarer
 752 krigerne, blir oppdratt til å tro at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> skal være
 753 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratis</span>»</span>.  Glem tatoveringer, ikke tenk på
 754 kroppspiercing&#8212;våre barn blir <span class="emphasis"><em>tyver</em></span>!
 755 </p><p>
 756 Det er ingen tvil om at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> er galt, og at
 757 pirater bør straffes.  Men før vi roper på bødlene, bør vi sette dette
 758 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhets</span>»</span>-begrepet i en sammenheng.  For mens begrepet
 759 blir mer og mer brukt, har det i sin kjerne en ekstraordinær idé som nesten
 760 helt sikkert er feil.
 761 </p><p>
 762 Idéen høres omtrent slik ut:
 763 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 764 Kreativt arbeid har verdi.  Når jeg bruker, eller tar, eller bygger på det
 765 kreative arbeidet til andre, så tar jeg noe fra dem som har verdi.  Når jeg
 766 tar noe av verdi fra noen andre, bør jeg få tillatelse fra dem.  Å ta noe
 767 som har verdi fra andre uten tillatelse er galt.  Det er en form for
 768 piratvirksomhet.
 769 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3002096"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3002102"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3002108"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxifvalue"></a><p>
 770 Dette synet går dypt i de pågående debattene.  Det er hva jussprofessor
 771 Rochelle Dreyfuss ved NYU kritiserer som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så
 772 rettighet</span>»</span>-teorien for kreative eierrettigheter <sup>[<a name="id3002138" href="#ftn.id3002138" class="footnote">16</a>]</sup>&#8212;hvis det finnes verdi, så må noen ha
 773 rettigheten til denne verdien.  Det er perspektivet som fikk komponistenes
 774 rettighetsorganisasjon, ASCAP, til å saksøke jentespeiderne for å ikke
 775 betale for sangene som jentene sagt rundt jentespeidernes
 776 leirbål.<sup>[<a name="id3002161" href="#ftn.id3002161" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> Det fantes
 777 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">verdi</span>»</span> (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en
 778 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rettighet</span>»</span>&#8212;til og med mot jentespeiderne.
 779 </p><p>
 780
 781 Denne idéen er helt klart en mulig forståelse om hvordan kreative
 782 eierrettigheter bør virke.  Det er helt klart et mulig design for et
 783 lovsystem som beskytter kreative eierrettigheter.  Men teorien om
 784 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så rettighet</span>»</span> for kreative eierrettigheter har
 785 aldri vært USAs teori for kreative eierrettigheter.  It har aldri stått rot
 786 i vårt lovverk.
 787 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3002226"></a><p>
 788 I vår tradisjon har immaterielle rettigheter i stedet vært et instrument.
 789 Det bygger fundamentet for et rikt kreativt samfunn, men er fortsatt servilt
 790 til verdien av kreativitet.  Dagens debatt har snudd dette helt rundt.  Vi
 791 har blitt så opptatt av å beskytte instrumentet at vi mister verdien av
 792 syne.
 793 </p><p>
 794 Kilden til denne forvirringen er et skille som loven ikke lenger bryr seg om
 795 å markere&#8212;skillet mellom å gjenpublisere noens verk på den ene siden,
 796 og bygge på og gjøre om verket på den andre.  Da opphavsretten kom var det
 797 kun publisering som ble berørt. Opphavsretten i dag regulerer begge.
 798 </p><p>
 799 Før teknologiene til internettet dukket opp, betød ikke denne begrepsmessige
 800 sammenblandingen mye.  Teknologiene for å publisere var kostbare, som betød
 801 at det meste av publisering var kommersiell. Kommersielle aktører kunne
 802 håndtere byrden pålagt av loven&#8212;til og med byrden som den bysantiske
 803 kompleksiteten som opphavsrettsloven har blitt.  Det var bare nok en kostnad
 804 ved å drive forretning.
 805 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3002264"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3002270"></a><p>
 806 Men da internettet dukket opp, forsvant denne naturlige begrensningen til
 807 lovens virkeområde.  Loven kontrollerer ikke bare kreativiteten til
 808 kommersielle skapere, men effektivt sett kreativiteten til alle. Selv om
 809 utvidelsen ikke ville bety stort hvis opphavsrettsloven kun regulerte
 810 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopiering</span>»</span>, så betyr utvidelsen mye når loven regulerer så
 811 bredt og obskurt som den gjør.  Byrden denne loven gir oppveier nå langt
 812 fordelene den ga da den ble vedtatt&#8212;helt klart slik den påvirker
 813 ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, og i stadig større grad slik den påvirker
 814 kommersiell kreativitet.  Dermed, slik vi ser klarere i kapitlene som
 815 følger, er lovens rolle mindre og mindre å støtte kreativitet, og mer og mer
 816 å beskytte enkelte industrier mot konkurranse.  Akkurat på tidspunktet da
 817 digital teknologi kunne sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mengde med kommersiell
 818 og ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, tynger loven denne kreativiteten med
 819 sinnsykt kompliserte og vage regler og med trusselen om uanstendig harde
 820 straffer.  Vi ser kanskje, som Richard Florida skriver, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fremveksten
 821 av den kreative klasse</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3002309" href="#ftn.id3002309" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup>
 822 Dessverre ser vi også en ekstraordinær fremvekst av reguleringer av denne
 823 kreative klassen.
 824 </p><p>
 825 Disse byrdene gir ingen mening i vår tradisjon.  Vi bør begynne med å forstå
 826 den tradisjonen litt mer, og ved å plassere dagens slag om oppførsel med
 827 merkelappen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> i sin rette sammenheng.
 828 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3001959" href="#id3001959" class="para">15</a>] </sup>
 829
 830
 831 <em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
 832 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777) (Mansfield).
 833 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3002138" href="#id3002138" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
 834
 835
 836 Se Rochelle Dreyfuss, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language
 837 in the Pepsi Generation,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Notre Dame Law
 838 Review</em> 65 (1990): 397.
 839 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3002161" href="#id3002161" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
 840
 841 Lisa Bannon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay
 842 Up,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 21. august 1996,
 843 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #3</a>;
 844 Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of
 845 Property vs. Free Speech, No One Wins,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston
 846 Globe</em>, 24. november 2002.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3002186"></a>
 847 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3002309" href="#id3002309" class="para">18</a>] </sup>
 848
 849 I <em class="citetitle">The Rise of the Creative Class</em> (New York: Basic
 850 Books, 2002), dokumenterer Richard Florida en endring i arbeidsstokken mot
 851 kreativitetsarbeide.  Hans tekst omhandler derimot ikke direkte de juridiske
 852 vilkår som kreativiteten blir muliggjort eller hindret under.  Jeg er helt
 853 klart enig med ham i viktigheten og betydningen av denne endringen, men jeg
 854 tror også at vilkårene som disse endringene blir aktivert under er mye
 855 vanskeligere.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3002351"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3002359"></a>
 856 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 1. Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>Chapter 1. Kapittel en: Skaperne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxanimadedcartoons"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcartoonfilms"></a><p>
 857 <span class="strong"><strong>I 1928</strong></span> ble en tegnefilmfigur født.  En
 858 tidlig Mikke Mus debuterte i mai dette året, i en stille flopp ved navn
 859 <em class="citetitle">Plane Crazy</em>.  I november, i Colony teateret i New
 860 York City, ble den første vidt distribuerte tegnefilmen med synkronisert
 861 lyd, <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willy</em>, vist frem med figuren som
 862 skulle bli til Mikke Mus.
 863 </p><p>
 864 Film med synkronisert lyd hadde blitt introdusert et år tidligere i filmen
 865 <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em>.  Suksessen fikk Walt Disney til å
 866 kopiere teknikken og mikse lyd med tegnefilm.  Ingen visste hvorvidt det
 867 ville virke eller ikke, og om det fungere, hvorvidt publikum villa ha sans
 868 for det.  Men da Disney gjorde en test sommeren 1928, var resultatet
 869 entydig.  Som Disney beskriver dette første eksperimentet,
 870 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 871
 872 Et par av guttene mine kunne lese noteark, og en av dem kunne spille
 873 munnspill.  Vi stappet dem inn i et rom hvor de ikke kunne se skjermen, og
 874 gjorde det slik at lyden de spilte ble sendt videre til et rom hvor våre
 875 koner og venner var plassert for å se på bildet.
 876
 877 </p><p>
 878 Guttene brukte et note- og lydeffekt-ark.  Etter noen dårlige oppstarter,
 879 kom endelig lyd og handling i gang med et smell. Munnspilleren spilte
 880 melodien, og resten av oss i lydavdelingen slamret på tinnkasseroller og
 881 blåste på slide-fløyte til rytmen. Synkroniseringen var nesten helt riktig.
 882 </p><p>
 883 Effekten på vårt lille publikum var intet mindre enn elektrisk.  De reagerte
 884 nesten instinktivt til denne union av lyd og bevegelse.  Jeg trodde de
 885 tullet med meg.  Så de puttet meg i publikum og satte igang på nytt.  Det
 886 var grufullt, men det var fantastisk.  Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id3002502" href="#ftn.id3002502" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
 887 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3002516"></a><p>
 888 Disneys daværende partner, og en av animasjonsverdenens mest ekstraordinære
 889 talenter, Ub Iwerks, uttalte det sterkere: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg har aldri vært så
 890 begeistret i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like
 891 bra.</span>»</span>
 892 </p><p>
 893 Disney hadde laget noe helt nyt, basert på noe relativt nytt. Synkronisert
 894 lyd ga liv til en form for kreativitet som sjeldent hadde&#8212;unntatt fra
 895 Disneys hender&#8212;vært noe annet en fyllstoff for andre filmer.  Gjennom
 896 animasjonens tidligere historie var det Disneys oppfinnelse som satte
 897 standarden som andre måtte sloss for å oppfylle.  Og ganske ofte var Disneys
 898 store geni, hans gnist av kreativitet, bygget på arbeidet til andre.
 899 </p><p>
 900 Dette er kjent stoff.  Det du kanskje ikke vet er at 1928 også markerer en
 901 annen viktig overgang.  I samme år laget et komedie-geni (i motsetning til
 902 tegnefilm-geni) sin siste uavhengig produserte stumfilm.  Dette geniet var
 903 Buster Keaton.  Filmen var <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>.
 904 </p><p>
 905 Keaton ble født inn i en vauderville-familie i 1895.  I stumfilm-æraen hadde
 906 han mestret bruken av bredpenslet fysisk komedie på en måte som tente
 907 ukontrollerbar latter fra hans publikum. <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill,
 908 Jr</em>. var en klassiker av denne typen, berømt blant film-elskere
 909 for sine utrolige stunts.  Filmen var en klassisk Keaton&#8212;fantastisk
 910 populær og blant de beste i sin sjanger.
 911 </p><p>
 912 <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>. kom før Disneys tegnefilm
 913 Steamboat Willie.  Det er ingen tilfeldighet at titlene er så
 914 like. Steamboat Willie er en direkte tegneserieparodi av Steamboat
 915 Bill,<sup>[<a name="id3002600" href="#ftn.id3002600" class="footnote">20</a>]</sup> og begge bygger på en felles sang
 916 som kilde.  Det er ikke kun fra nyskapningen med synkronisert lyd i
 917 <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em> at vi får <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
 918 Willie</em>.  Det er også fra Buster Keatons nyskapning Steamboat
 919 Bill, Jr., som igjen var inspirert av sangen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill</span>»</span>,
 920 at vi får Steamboat Willie.  Og fra Steamboat Willie får vi så Mikke Mus.
 921 </p><p>
 922 Denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">låningen</span>»</span> var ikke unik, hverken for Disney eller for
 923 industrien.  Disney apet alltid etter full-lengde massemarkedsfilmene rundt
 924 ham.<sup>[<a name="id3002673" href="#ftn.id3002673" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> Det samme gjorde mange andre.
 925 Tidlige tegnefilmer er stappfulle av etterapninger&#8212;små variasjoner
 926 over suksessfulle temaer, gamle historier fortalt på nytt.  Nøkkelen til
 927 suksess var brilliansen i forskjellene.  Med Disney var det lyden som ga
 928 gnisten til hans animasjoner.  Senere var det kvaliteten på hans arbeide
 929 relativt til de masseproduserte tegnefilmene som han konkurrerte med.
 930 Likevel var disse bidragene bygget på toppen av fundamentet som var lånt.
 931 Disney bygget på arbeidet til andre som kom før han, og skapte noe nytt ut
 932 av noe som bare var litt gammelt.
 933 </p><p>
 934 Noen ganger var låningen begrenset, og noen ganger var den betydelig. Tenkt
 935 på eventyrene til brødrene Grimm.  Hvis du er like ubevisst som jeg var, så
 936 tror du sannsynlighvis at disse fortellingene er glade, søte historier som
 937 passer for ethvert barn ved leggetid.  Realiteten er at Grimm-eventyrene er,
 938 for oss, ganske dystre.  Det er noen sjeldne og kanskje spesielt ambisiøse
 939 foreldre som ville våge å lese disse blodige moralistiske historiene til
 940 sine barn, ved leggetid eller hvilken som helst annet tidspunkt.
 941 </p><p>
 942
 943 Disney tok disse historiene og fortalte dem på nytt på en måte som førte dem
 944 inn i en ny tidsalder. Han ga historiene liv, med både karakterer og
 945 lys. Uten å fjerne bitene av frykt og fare helt, gjorde han morsomt det som
 946 var mørkt og satte inn en ekte følelse av medfølelse der det før var
 947 frykt. Og ikke bare med verkene av brødrene Grimm.  Faktisk er katalogen
 948 over Disney-arbeid som baserer seg på arbeidet til andre ganske forbløffende
 949 når den blir samlet: <em class="citetitle">Snøhvit</em> (1937),
 950 <em class="citetitle">Fantasia</em> (1940), <em class="citetitle">Pinocchio</em>
 951 (1940), <em class="citetitle">Dumbo</em> (1941), <em class="citetitle">Bambi</em>
 952 (1942), <em class="citetitle">Song of the South</em> (1946),
 953 <em class="citetitle">Askepott</em> (1950), <em class="citetitle">Alice in
 954 Wonderland</em> (1951), <em class="citetitle">Robin Hood</em> (1952),
 955 <em class="citetitle">Peter Pan</em> (1953), <em class="citetitle">Lady og
 956 landstrykeren</em> (1955), <em class="citetitle">Mulan</em> (1998),
 957 <em class="citetitle">Tornerose</em> (1959), <em class="citetitle">101
 958 dalmatinere</em> (1961), <em class="citetitle">Sverdet i steinen</em>
 959 (1963), og <em class="citetitle">Jungelboken</em> (1967)&#8212;for ikke å nevne
 960 et nylig eksempel som vi bør kanskje glemme raskt, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
 961 Planet</em> (2003). I alle disse tilfellene, har Disney (eller
 962 Disney, Inc.) hentet kreativitet fra kultur rundt ham, blandet med
 963 kreativiteten fra sitt eget ekstraordinære talent, og deretter brent denne
 964 blandingen inn i sjelen til sin kultur. Hente, blande og brenne.
 965 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3002804"></a><p>
 966 Dette er en type kreativitet.  Det er en kreativitet som vi bør huske på og
 967 feire.  Det er noen som vil si at det finnes ingen kreativitet bortsett fra
 968 denne typen.  Vi trenger ikke gå så langt for å anerkjenne dens betydning.
 969 Vi kan kalle dette <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span>, selv om det vil være
 970 litt misvisende.  Det er mer presist <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt
 971 Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span>&#8212;en uttrykksform og genialitet som bygger på
 972 kulturen rundt oss og omformer den til noe annet.
 973 </p><p> I 1928 var kulturen som Disney fritt kunne trekke veksler på relativt
 974 fersk.  Allemannseie i 1928 var ikke veldig gammelt og var dermed ganske
 975 levende.  Gjennomsnittlig vernetid i opphavsretten var bare rundt tredve
 976 år&#8212;for den lille delen av kreative verk som faktisk var
 977 opphavsrettsbeskyttet.<sup>[<a name="id3002830" href="#ftn.id3002830" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> Det betyr at i
 978 tredve år, i gjennomsnitt, hadde forfattere eller kreative verks
 979 opphavsrettighetsinnehaver en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eksklusiv rett</span>»</span> til a
 980 kontrollere bestemte typer bruk av verket.  For å bruke disse
 981 opphavsrettsbeskyttede verkene på de begrensede måtene krevde tillatelse fra
 982 opphavsrettsinnehaveren.
 983 </p><p>
 984 Når opphavsrettens vernetid er over, faller et verk i det fri og blir
 985 allemannseie.  Ingen tillatelse trengs da for å bygge på eller bruke dette
 986 verket.  Ingen tillatelse og dermed, ingen advokater. Allemannseie er en
 987 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">advokat-fri sone</span>»</span>.  Det meste av innhold fra det nittende
 988 århundre var dermed fritt tilgjengelig for Disney å bruke eller bygge på i
 989 1928.  Det var tilgjengelig for enhver&#8212;uansett om de hadde
 990 forbindelser eller ikke, om de var rik eller ikke, om de var akseptert eller
 991 ikke&#8212;til å bruke og bygge videre på.
 992 </p><p>
 993
 994 Dette er slik det alltid har vært&#8212;inntil ganske nylig.  For
 995 mesteparten av vår historie, har allemannseiet vært like over horisonten.
 996 Fram til 1978 var den gjennomsnittlige opphavsrettslige vernetiden aldri mer
 997 enn trettito år, som gjorde at det meste av kultur fra en og en halv
 998 generasjon tidligere var tilgjengelig for enhver å bygge på uten tillatelse
 999 fra noen.  Tilsvarende for i dag ville være at kreative verker fra 1960- og
1000 1970-tallet nå ville være fritt tilgjengelig for de neste Walt Disney å
1001 bygge på uten tillatelse.  Men i dag er allemannseie presumtivt kun for
1002 innhold fra før mellomkrigstiden.
1003 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3002931"></a><p>
1004 <span class="strong"><strong>Walt Disney</strong></span> hadde selvfølgelig ikke
1005 monopol på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span>.  Det har heller ikke
1006 USA.  Normen med fri kultur har, inntil nylig, og unntatt i totalitære
1007 nasjoner, vært bredt utnyttet og svært universell.
1008 </p><p>
1009 Vurder for eksempel en form for kreativitet som synes underlig for mange
1010 amerikanere, men som er overalt i japansk kultur:
1011 <em class="citetitle">manga</em>, eller tegneserier.  Japanerne er fanatiske når
1012 det gjelder tegneserier.  Over 40 prosent av publikasjoner er tegneserier,
1013 og 30 prosent av publikasjonsomsetningen stammer fra tegneserier.  De er
1014 over alt i det japanske samfunnet, tilgjengelig fra ethvert
1015 tidsskriftsutsalg, og i hendene på en stor andel av pendlere på Japans
1016 ekstraordinære system for offentlig transport.
1017 </p><p>
1018 Amerikanere har en tendens til å se ned på denne formen for kultur. Det er
1019 et lite attraktivt kjennetegn hos oss.  Vi misforstår sannsynligvis mye
1020 rundt manga, på grunn av at få av oss noen gang har lest noe som ligner på
1021 historiene i disse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grafiske historiene</span>»</span> forteller.  For en
1022 japaner dekker manga ethvert aspekt ved det sosiale liv.  For oss er
1023 tegneserier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menn i strømpebukser</span>»</span>.  Og uansett er det ikke
1024 slik at T-banen i New York er full av folk som leser Joyse eller Hemingway
1025 for den saks skyld.  Folk i ulike kulturer skiller seg ut på forskjellig
1026 måter, og japanerne på dette interessante viset.
1027 </p><p>
1028 Men mitt formål her er ikke å forstå manga.  Det er å beskrive en variant av
1029 manga som fra en advokats perspektiv er ganske merkelig, men som fra en
1030 Disneys perspektiv er ganske godt kjent.
1031 </p><p>
1032
1033 Dette er fenomenet <em class="citetitle">doujinshi</em>.  Doujinshi er også
1034 tegneserier, men de er slags etterapings-tegneserier.  En rik etikk styrer
1035 de som skaper doujinshi.  Det er ikke doujinshi hvis det
1036 <span class="emphasis"><em>bare</em></span> er en kopi.  Kunstneren må gjøre et bidrag til
1037 kunsten han kopierer ved å omforme det enten subtilt eller betydelig.  En
1038 doujinshi-tegneserie kan dermed ta en massemarkeds-tegneserie og utvikle den
1039 i en annen retning&#8212;med en annen historie-linje.  Eller tegneserien kan
1040 beholde figuren som seg selv men endre litt på utseendet.  Det er ingen
1041 bestemt formel for hva som gjør en doujinshi tilstrekkelig
1042 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">forskjellig</span>»</span>.  Men de må være forskjellige hvis de skal anses
1043 som ekte doujinshi.  Det er faktisk komiteer som går igjennom doujinshi for
1044 å bli med på messer, og avviser etterapninger som bare er en kopi.
1045 </p><p>
1046 Disse etterapings-tegneseriene er ikke en liten del av manga-markedet.  Det
1047 er enorme.  Mer en 33 000 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sirkler</span>»</span> av skapere over hele Japan
1048 som produserer disse bitene av Walt Disney-kreativitet.  Mer en 450 000
1049 japanere samles to ganger i året, i den største offentlige samlingen i
1050 langet, for å bytte og selge dem.  Dette markedet er parallelt med det
1051 kommersielle massemarkeds-manga-markedet.  På noen måter konkurrerer det
1052 åpenbart med det markedet, men det er ingen vedvarende innsats fra de som
1053 kontrollerer det kommersielle manga-markedet for å stenge
1054 doujinshi-markedet.  Det blomstrer, på tross av konkurransen og til tross
1055 for loven.
1056 </p><p>
1057 Den mest gåtefulle egenskapen med doujinshi-markedet, for de som har
1058 juridisk trening i hvert fall, er at det overhodet tillates å eksistere.
1059 Under japansk opphavsrettslov, som i hvert fall på dette området (på
1060 papiret) speiler USAs opphavsrettslov, er doujinshi-markedet ulovlig.
1061 Doujinshi er helt klart <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">avledede verk</span>»</span>.  Det er ingen generell
1062 praksis hos doujinshi-kunstnere for å sikre seg tillatelse hos
1063 manga-skaperne.  I stedet er praksisen ganske enkelt å ta og endre det andre
1064 har laget, slik Walt Disney gjorde med <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill,
1065 Jr</em>.  For både japansk og USAs lov, er å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> uten
1066 tillatelse fra den opprinnelige opphavsrettsinnehaver ulovlig.  Det er et
1067 brudd på opphavsretten til det opprinnelige verket å lage en kopi eller et
1068 avledet verk uten tillatelse fra den opprinnelige rettighetsinnehaveren.
1069 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
1070 Likevel eksisterer dette illegale markedet og faktisk blomstrer i Japan, og
1071 etter manges syn er det nettopp fordi det eksisterer at japansk manga
1072 blomstrer.  Som USAs tegneserieskaper Judd Winick fortalte meg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I
1073 amerikansk tegneseriers første dager var det ganske likt det som foregår i
1074 Japan i dag. &#8230; Amerikanske tegneserier kom til verden ved å kopiere
1075 hverandre. &#8230; Det er slik [kunstnerne] lærer å tegne&#8212;ved å se i
1076 tegneseriebøker og ikke følge streken, men ved å se på dem og kopiere
1077 dem</span>»</span> og bygge basert på dem.<sup>[<a name="id3003137" href="#ftn.id3003137" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
1078 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3003164"></a><p>
1079 Amerikanske tegneserier nå er ganske annerledes, forklarer Winick, delvis på
1080 grunn av de juridiske problemene med å tilpasse tegneserier slik doujinshi
1081 får lov til.  Med for eksempel Supermann, fortalte Winick meg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er det
1082 en rekke regler, og du må følge dem</span>»</span>.  Det er ting som Supermann
1083 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke kan</span>»</span> gjøre.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For en som lager tegneserier er det
1084 frustrerende å måtte begrense seg til noen parameter som er femti år
1085 gamle.</span>»</span>
1086 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3003196"></a><p>
1087 Normen i Japan reduserer denne juridiske utfordringen.  Noen sier at det
1088 nettopp er den oppsamlede fordelen i det japanske mangamarkedet som
1089 forklarer denne reduksjonen.  Jussprofessor Salil Mehra ved Temple
1090 University hypnotiserer for eksempel med at manga-markedet aksepterer disse
1091 teoretiske bruddene fordi de får mangamarkedet til å bli rikere og mer
1092 produktivt.  Alle ville få det verre hvis doujinshi ble bannlyst, så loven
1093 bannlyser ikke doujinshi.<sup>[<a name="id3003222" href="#ftn.id3003222" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
1094 </p><p>
1095 Problemet med denne historien, derimot, og som Mehra helt klart erkjenner,
1096 er at mekanismen som produserer denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hold hendene
1097 borte</span>»</span>-responsen ikke er forstått.  Det kan godt være at markedet som
1098 helhet gjør det bedre hvis doujinshi tillates i stedet for å bannlyse den,
1099 men det forklarer likevel ikke hvorfor individuelle opphavsrettsinnehavere
1100 ikke saksøker.  Hvis loven ikke har et generelt unntak for doujinshi, og det
1101 finnes faktisk noen tilfeller der individuelle manga-kunstnere har saksøkt
1102 doujinshi-kunstnere, hvorfor er det ikke et mer generelt mønster for å
1103 blokkere denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frie takingen</span>»</span> hos doujinshi-kulturen?
1104 </p><p>
1105 Jeg var fire nydelige måneder i Japan, og jeg stilte dette spørsmål så ofte
1106 som jeg kunne.  Kanskje det beste svaret til slutt kom fra en venn i et
1107 større japansk advokatfirma. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vi har ikke nok advokater</span>»</span>,
1108 fortalte han meg en ettermiddag.  Det er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bare ikke nok ressurser til
1109 å tiltale tilfeller som dette</span>»</span>.
1110 </p><p>
1111
1112 Dette er et tema vi kommer tilbake til: at lovens regulering både er en
1113 funksjon av ordene i bøkene, og kostnadene med å få disse ordene til å ha
1114 effekt.  Akkurat nå er det endel åpenbare spørsmål som presser seg frem:
1115 Ville Japan gjøre det bedre med flere advokater? Ville manga være rikere
1116 hvis doujinshi-kunstnere ble regelmessig rettsforfulgt?  Ville Japan vinne
1117 noe viktig hvis de kunne stoppe praksisen med deling uten kompensasjon?
1118 Skader piratvirksomhet ofrene for piratvirksomheten, eller hjelper den dem?
1119 Ville advokaters kamp mot denne piratvirksomheten hjelpe deres klienter,
1120 eller skade dem?
1121 </p><p>
1122 <span class="strong"><strong>La oss ta</strong></span> et øyeblikks pause.
1123 </p><p>
1124 Hvis du er som meg et tiår tilbake, eller som folk flest når de først
1125 begynner å tenke på disse temaene, da bør du omtrent nå være rådvill om noe
1126 du ikke hadde tenkt igjennom før.
1127 </p><p>
1128 Vi lever i en verden som feirer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span>.  Jeg er en av de som
1129 feierer.  Jeg tror på verdien av eiendom generelt, og jeg tror også på
1130 verdien av den sære formen for eiendom som advokater kaller
1131 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immateriell eiendom</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3003343" href="#ftn.id3003343" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> Et
1132 stort og variert samfunn kan ikke overleve uten eiendom, og et moderne
1133 samfunn kan ikke blomstre uten immaterielle eierrettigheter.
1134 </p><p>
1135 Men det tar bare noen sekunders refleksjon for å innse at det er masse av
1136 verdi der ute som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> ikke dekker.  Jeg mener ikke
1137 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kjærlighet kan ikke kjøpes med penger</span>»</span> men heller, at en verdi
1138 som ganske enkelt er del av produksjonsprosessen, både for kommersiell og
1139 ikke-kommersiell produksjon.  Hvis Disneys animatører hadde stjålet et sett
1140 med blyanter for å tegne Steamboat Willie, vi ville ikke nølt med å dømme
1141 det som galt&#8212;selv om det er trivielt og selv om det ikke blir
1142 oppdaget.  Men det var intet galt, i hvert fall slik loven var da, med at
1143 Disney tok fra Buster Keaton eller fra Grimm-brødrene.  Det var intet galt
1144 med å ta fra Keaton, fordi Disneys bruk ville blitt ansett som
1145 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig</span>»</span>.  Det var intet galt med å ta fra brødrene Grimm
1146 fordi deres verker var allemannseie.
1147 </p><p>
1148
1149 Dermed, selv om de tingene som Disney tok&#8212;eller mer generelt, tingene
1150 som blir tatt av enhver som utøver Walt Disney-kreativitet&#8212;er
1151 verdifulle, så anser ikke vår tradisjon det som galt å ta disse tingene.
1152 Noen ting forblir frie til å bli tatt i en fri kultur og denne friheten er
1153 bra.
1154 </p><p>
1155 Det er det samme med doujinshi-kulturen.  Hvis en doujinshi-kunstner brøt
1156 seg inn på kontoret til en forlegger, og stakk av med tusen kopier av hans
1157 siste verk&#8212;eller bare en kopi&#8212;uten å betale, så ville vi uten å
1158 nøle si at kunstneren har gjort noe galt.  I tillegg til å ha trengt seg inn
1159 på andres eiendom, ville han ha stjålet noe av verdi. Loven forbyr stjeling
1160 i enhver form, uansett hvor stort eller lite som blir tatt.
1161 </p><p>
1162 Likevel er det en åpenbar motvilje, selv blant japanske advokater, for å si
1163 at etterapende tegneseriekunstnere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeler</span>»</span>.  Denne formen for
1164 Walt Disney-kreativitet anses som rimelig og riktig, selv om spesielt
1165 advokater synes det er vanskelig å forklare hvorfor.
1166 </p><p>
1167 Det er det same med tusen eksempler som dukker opp over alt med en gang en
1168 begynner å se etter dem.  Forskerne bygger på arbeidet til andre forskere
1169 uten å spørre eller betale for privilegiet. (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Unnskyld meg, professor
1170 Einstein, men kan jeg få tillatelse til å bruke din relativitetsteori til å
1171 vise at du tok feil om kvantefysikk?</span>»</span>) Teatertropper viser frem
1172 bearbeidelser av verkene til Shakespeare uten å sikre seg noen tillatelser.
1173 (Er det <span class="emphasis"><em>noen</em></span> som tror at Shakespeare ville vært mer
1174 spredt i vår kultur om det var et sentralt rettighetsklareringskontor for
1175 Shakespeare som alle som laget Shakespeare-produksjoner måtte appellere til
1176 først?)  Og Hollywood går igjennom sykluser med en bestemt type filmer: fem
1177 astroidefilmer i slutten av 1990-tallet, to vulkankatastrofefilmer i 1997.
1178 </p><p>
1179
1180 Skapere her og overalt har alltid og til alle tider bygd på kreativiteten
1181 som eksisterte før og som omringer dem nå.  Denne byggingen er alltid og
1182 overalt i det minste delvis gjort uten tillatelse og uten å kompensere den
1183 opprinnelige skaperen.  Intet samfunn, fritt eller kontrollert, har noen
1184 gang krevd at enhver bruk skulle bli betalt for eller at tillatelse for Walt
1185 Disney-kreativitet alltid måtte skaffes.  Istedet har ethvert samfunn latt
1186 en bestemt bit av sin kultur være fritt tilgjengelig for alle å
1187 ta&#8212;frie samfunn muligens i større grad enn ufrie, men en viss grad i
1188 alle samfunn.
1189
1190 </p><p>
1191 Det vanskelige spørsmålet er derfor ikke <span class="emphasis"><em>om</em></span> en kultur
1192 er fri.  Alle kulturer er frie til en viss grad. Det vanskelige spørsmålet
1193 er i stedet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><span class="emphasis"><em>hvor</em></span> fri er denne kulturen
1194 er?</span>»</span> Hvor mye og hvor bredt, er kulturen fritt tilgjengelig for andre
1195 å ta, og bygge på?  Er den friheten begrenset til partimedlemmer?  Til
1196 medlemmer av kongefamilien?  Til de ti største selskapene på New
1197 York-børsen?  Eller er at frihet bredt tilgjengelig? Til kunstnere generelt,
1198 uansett om de er tilknyttet til nasjonalmuseet eller ikke?  Til musikere
1199 generelt, uansett om de er hvite eller ikke? Til filmskapere generelt,
1200 uansett om de er tilknyttet et studio eller ikke?
1201 </p><p>
1202 Frie kulturer er kulturer som etterlater mye åpent for andre å bygge på.
1203 Ufrie, eller tillatelse-kulturer etterlater mye mindre.  Vår var en fri
1204 kultur. Den er på tur til å bli mindre fri.
1205 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3002502" href="#id3002502" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
1206
1207
1208 Leonard Maltin, <em class="citetitle">Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated
1209 Cartoons</em> (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 34&#8211;35.
1210 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3002600" href="#id3002600" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
1211
1212
1213 Jeg er takknemlig overfor David Gerstein og hans nøyaktige historie,
1214 beskrevet på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #4</a>.  I
1215 følge Dave Smith ved the Disney Archives, betalte Disney for å bruke
1216 musikken til fem sanger i <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willie</em>:
1217 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill,</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Simpleton</span>»</span> (Delille),
1218 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mischief Makers</span>»</span> (Carbonara), <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Joyful Hurry
1219 No. 1</span>»</span> (Baron), og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Gawky Rube</span>»</span> (Lakay). En sjette sang,
1220 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Turkey in the Straw,</span>»</span> var allerede allemannseie.  Brev fra
1221 David Smith til Harry Surden, 10. juli 2003, tilgjenglig i arkivet til
1222 forfatteren.
1223 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3002673" href="#id3002673" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
1224
1225
1226 Han var også tilhenger av allmannseiet. Se Chris Sprigman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Mouse
1227 that Ate the Public Domain,</span>»</span> Findlaw, 5. mars 2002, fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #5</a>.
1228 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3002830" href="#id3002830" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
1229
1230
1231 Inntil 1976 ga opphavsrettsloven en forfatter to mulige verneperioder: en
1232 initiell periode, og en fornyingsperiode.  Jeg har beregnet
1233 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gjennomsnittlig</span>»</span> vernetid ved å finne vektet gjennomsnitt av
1234 de totale registreringer for et gitt år, og andelen fornyinger.  Hvis 100
1235 opphavsretter ble registrert i år 1, bare 15 av dem ble fornyet, og
1236 fornyingsvernetiden er 28 år, så er gjennomsnittlig vernetid 32,2
1237 år. Fornyingsdata og andre relevante data ligger på nettsidene tilknyttet
1238 denne boka, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
1239 #6</a>.
1240 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3003137" href="#id3003137" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
1241
1242
1243 For en utmerket historie, se Scott McCloud, <em class="citetitle">Reinventing
1244 Comics</em> (New York: Perennial, 2000).
1245 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3003222" href="#id3003222" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
1246
1247
1248 Se Salil K. Mehra, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain
1249 Why All the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?</span>»</span>
1250 <em class="citetitle">Rutgers Law Review</em> 55 (2002): 155, 182. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det
1251 kan være en kollektiv økonomisk rasjonalitet som får manga- og
1252 anime-kunstnere til ikke å saksøke for opphavsrettsbrudd. Én hypotese er at
1253 alle manga-kunstnere kan være bedre stilt hvis de setter sin individuelle
1254 egeninteresse til side og bestemmer seg for ikke å forfølge sine juridiske
1255 rettigheter. Dette er essensielt en løsning på fangens dilemma.</span>»</span>
1256 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3003343" href="#id3003343" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
1257
1258 Begrepet <em class="citetitle">immateriell eiendom</em> er av relativ ny
1259 opprinnelse. Se See Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
1260 Copywrongs</em>, 11 (New York: New York University Press, 2001). Se
1261 også Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> (New York:
1262 Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. Begrepet presist beskriver et sett med
1263 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendoms</span>»</span>-rettigheter&#8212;opphavsretter, patenter,
1264 varemerker og forretningshemmeligheter&#8212;men egenskapene til disse
1265 rettighetene er svært forskjellige.<a class="indexterm" name="id3003365"></a>
1266 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 2. Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Chapter 2. Kapittel to: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcameratech"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3003609"></a><p>
1267 <span class="strong"><strong>I 1839</strong></span> fant Louis Daguerre opp den første
1268 praktiske teknologien for å produsere det vi ville kalle
1269 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fotografier</span>»</span>.  Rimelig nok ble de kalt
1270 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">daguerreotyper</span>»</span>.  Prosessen var komplisert og kostbar, og
1271 feltet var dermed begrenset til profesjonelle og noen få ivrige og
1272 velstående amatører.  (Det var til og med en amerikansk Daguerre-forening
1273 som hjalp til med å regulere industrien, slik alle slike foreninger gjør,
1274 ved å holde konkurransen ned slik at prisene var høye.)
1275 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3003644"></a><p>
1276 Men til tross for høye priser var etterspørselen etter daguerreotyper
1277 sterk.  Dette inspirerte oppfinnere til å finne enklere og billigere måter å
1278 lage <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">automatiske bilder</span>»</span>.  William Talbot oppdaget snart en
1279 prosess for å lage <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">negativer</span>»</span>.  Men da negativene var av
1280 glass, og måtte holdes fuktige, forble prosessen kostbar og tung.  På
1281 1870-tallet ble tørrplater utviklet, noe som gjorde det enklere å skille det
1282 å ta et bilde fra å fremkalle det.  Det var fortsatt plater av glass, og
1283 dermed var det fortsatt ikke en prosess som var innenfor rekkevidden til de
1284 fleste amatører.
1285 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxeastmangeorge"></a><p>
1286
1287 Den teknologiske endringen som gjorde masse-fotografering mulig skjedde ikke
1288 før i 1888, og det var takket være en eneste mann. George Eastman, selv en
1289 amatørfotograf, var frustrert over den plate-baserte fotografi-teknologien.
1290 I et lysglimt av innsikt (for å si det slik), forsto Eastman at hvis filmen
1291 kunne gjøres bøyelig, så kunne den holdes på en enkel rull.  Denne rullen
1292 kunne så sendes til en fremkaller, og senke kostnadene til fotografering
1293 vesentlig.  Ved å redusere kostnadene, forventet Eastman at han dramatisk
1294 kunne utvide andelen fotografer.
1295 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3003707"></a><p>
1296 Eastman utviklet bøyelig, emulsjons-belagt papirfilm og plasserte ruller med
1297 dette i små, enkle kameraer: Kodaken.  Enheten ble markedsfør med grunnlag
1298 dens enkelhet. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Du trykker på knappen og vi fikser
1299 resten.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3003725" href="#ftn.id3003725" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> Som han beskrev det i
1300 <em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>:
1301 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1302 Prinsippet til Kodak-systemet er skillet mellom arbeidet som enhver kan
1303 utføre når en tar fotografier, fra arbeidet som kun en ekspert kan
1304 gjøre. &#8230; Vi utstyrte alle, menn, kvinner og barn, som hadde
1305 tilstrekkelig intelligens til å peke en boks i riktig retning og trykke på
1306 en knapp, med et instrument som helt fjernet fra praksisen med å fotografere
1307 nødvendigheten av uvanlig utstyr eller for den del, noe som helst spesiell
1308 kunnskap om kunstarten.  Det kan tas i bruk uten forutgående studier, uten
1309 et mørkerom og uten kjemikalier.<sup>[<a name="id3000843" href="#ftn.id3000843" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
1310 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1311 For $25 kunne alle ta bilder.  Det var allerede film i kameraet, og når det
1312 var brukt ble kameraet returnert til en Eastman-fabrikk hvor filmen ble
1313 fremkalt.  Etter hvert, naturligvis, ble både kostnaden til kameraet og hvor
1314 enkelt et var å bruke forbedret.  Film på rull ble dermed grunnlaget for en
1315 eksplosiv vekst i fotografering blant folket. Eastmans kamera ble lagt ut
1316 for salg i 1888, og et år senere trykket Kodak mer enn seks tusen negativer
1317 om dagen.  Fra 1888 til 1909, mens produksjonen i industrien vokste med 4,7
1318 prosent, økte salget av fotografisk utstyr og materiale med 11
1319 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id3003798" href="#ftn.id3003798" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
1320 samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id3003808" href="#ftn.id3003808" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
1321 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3003817"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3003825"></a><p>
1322
1323
1324 Den virkelige betydningen av oppfinnelsen til Eastman, var derimot ikke
1325 økonomisk.  Den var sosial.  Profesjonell fotografering ga individer et
1326 glimt av steder de ellers aldri ville se. Amatørfotografering ga dem
1327 muligheten til å arkivere deres liv på en måte som de aldri hadde vært i
1328 stand til tidligere.  Som forfatter Brian Coe skriver, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For første
1329 gang tilbød fotoalbumet mannen i gata et permanent arkiv over hans familie
1330 og dens aktiviteter. &#8230; For første gang i historien fantes det en
1331 autentisk visuell oppføring av utseende og aktivitet til vanlige mennesker
1332 laget uten [skrivefør] tolkning eller forutinntatthet.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3003749" href="#ftn.id3003749" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
1333 </p><p>
1334 På denne måten var Kodak-kameraet og film uttrykksteknologier. Blyanten og
1335 malepenselen var selvfølgelig også en uttrykksteknologi. Men det tok årevis
1336 med trening før de kunne bli brukt nyttig og effektiv av amatører.  Med
1337 Kodaken var uttrykk mulig mye raskere og enklere.  Barrièren for å uttrykke
1338 seg var senket.  Snobber ville fnyse over <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kvaliteten</span>»</span>,
1339 profesjonelle ville avvise den som irrelevant.  Men se et barn studere
1340 hvordan best velge bildemotiv og du får følelsen av hva slags
1341 kreativitetserfaring som Kodaken muliggjorde.  Demokratiske verktøy ga
1342 vanlige folk en måte å uttrykke dem selv på enklere enn noe annet verktøy
1343 kunne ha gjort før.
1344 </p><p>
1345 Hva krevdes for at denne teknologien skulle blomstre.  Eastmans genialitet
1346 var åpenbart en viktig del.  Men den juridiske miljøet som Eastmans
1347 oppfinnelse vokste i var også viktig.  For tidlig i historien til
1348 fotografering, var det en rekke av rettsavgjørelser som godt kunne ha endret
1349 kursen til fotograferingen betydelig.  Domstoler ble spurt om fotografen,
1350 amatør eller profesjonell, måtte ha ha tillatelse før han kunne fange og
1351 trykke hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket.  Svaret var nei.<sup>[<a name="id3003909" href="#ftn.id3003909" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
1352 </p><p>
1353
1354 Argumentene til fordel for å kreve tillatelser vil høres overraskende kjent
1355 ut.  Fotografen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tok</span>»</span> noe fra personen eller bygningen som ble
1356 fotografert&#8212;røvet til seg noe av verdi.  Noen trodde til og med at han
1357 tok målets sjel.  På samme måte som Disney ikke var fri til å ta blyantene
1358 som hans animatører brukte til å tegne Mikke, så skulle heller ikke disse
1359 fotografene være fri til å ta bilder som de fant verdi i.
1360 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3003525"></a><p>
1361 På den andre siden var et argument som også bør bør være kjent. Joda, det
1362 var kanskje noe av verdi som ble brukt.  Men borgerne burde ha rett til å
1363 fange i hvert fall de bildene som var tatt av offentlig område.  (Louis
1364 Brandeis, som senere ble høyesterettsjustitiarus, mente regelen skulle være
1365 annerledes for bilder tatt av private områder.<sup>[<a name="id3003978" href="#ftn.id3003978" class="footnote">32</a>]</sup>) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting.
1366 På samme måte som Disney kunne hente inspirasjon fra <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
1367 Bill, Jr</em>. eller Grimm-brødrene, så burde fotografene stå fritt
1368 til å fange et bilde uten å kompensere kilden.
1369 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3004018"></a><p>
1370 Heldigvis for Mr. Eastman, og for fotografering generelt, gikk disse
1371 tidligere avgjørelsene i favør av piratene.  Generelt ble det ikke nødvendig
1372 å sikre seg tillatelse før et bilde kunne tas og deles med andre.  I stedet
1373 var det antatt at tillatelse var gitt.  Frihet var utgangspunktet.  (Loven
1374 ga etter en stund et unntak for berømte personer: kommersielle fotografer
1375 som tok bilder av berømte personer for kommersielle formål har flere
1376 begrensninger enn resten av oss.  Men i det vanlige tilfellet, kan bildet
1377 fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.<sup>[<a name="id3004039" href="#ftn.id3004039" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
1378 </p><p>
1379 Vi kan kun spekulere om hvordan fotografering ville ha utviklet seg om loven
1380 hadde slått ut den andre veien.  Hvis den hadde vært mot fotografen, da
1381 ville fotografen måttet dokumentere at tillatelse var på plass.  Kanskje
1382 Eastman Kodak også måtte ha dokumentert at tillatelse var gitt, før de
1383 utviklet filmen som bildene ble fanget på.  Tross alt, hvis tillatelse ikke
1384 var gitt, da ville Eastman Kodak ha nytt fordeler fra
1385 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tyveriet</span>»</span> begått av fotografer.  På samme måte som Napster nøt
1386 fordeler fra opphavsrettsbrudd utført av Napster-brukere, så ville Kodak
1387 nytt fordeler fra <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bilde-rettighets</span>»</span>-brudd til deres
1388 fotografer.  Vi kan forestille oss at loven da krevede at en form for
1389 tillatelse ble vist frem før et selskap fremkalte bildene.  Vi kan
1390 forestille oss et system bli utviklet for å legge frem slike tillatelser.
1391 </p><p>
1392
1393
1394
1395 Men selv om vi kan tenke oss dette godkjenningssystemet, så vil det være
1396 svært vanskelig å se hvordan fotografering skulle ha blomstret slik det
1397 gjorde hvis det var bygd inn krav om godkjenning i reglene som styrte det.
1398 Fotografering ville eksistert.  Det ville ha økt sin betydning over tid.
1399 Profesjonelle ville ha fortsatt å bruke teknologien slik de
1400 gjorde&#8212;siden profesjonelle enklere kunne håndtert byrdene pålagt dem
1401 av godkjenningssystemet.  Men spredningen av fotografering til vanlige folk
1402 villa aldri ha skjedd.  Veksten det skapte kunne aldri ha skjedd.  Og det
1403 ville uten tvil aldri vært realisert en slik vekst i demokratisk
1404 uttrykksteknologi.
1405 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3004109"></a><p>
1406 <span class="strong"><strong>Hvis du kjører</strong></span> gjennom området Presidio i
1407 San Francisco, kan det hende du ser to gusjegule skolebusser overmalt med
1408 fargefulle og iøynefallende bilder, og logoen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Just Think!</span>»</span> i
1409 stedet for navnet på en skole. Men det er lite som er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bare</span>»</span>
1410 mentalt i prosjektene som disse bussene muliggjør.  Disse bussene er fylt
1411 med teknologi som lærer unger å fikle med film.  Ikke filmen til Eastman.
1412 Ikke en gang filmen i din videospiller.  I stedet er det snakk om
1413 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">filmen</span>»</span> til digitale kamera.  Just Think! er et prosjekt som
1414 gjør det mulig for unger å lage filmer, som en måte å forstå og kritisere
1415 den filmede kulturen som de finner over alt rundt seg.  Hvert år besøker
1416 disse bussene mer enn tredve skoler og gir mellom tre hundre og fire hundre
1417 barn muligheten til å lære noe om media ved å gjøre noe med media.  Ved å
1418 gjøre, så tenker de.  Ved å fikle, så lærer de.
1419 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3004185"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3004193"></a><p>
1420 Disse bussene er ikke billige, men teknologien de har med seg blir billigere
1421 og billigere.  Kostnaden til et høykvalitets digitalt videosystem har falt
1422 dramatisk.  Som en analytiker omtalte det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for fem år siden kostet et
1423 godt sanntids redigerinssystem for digital video $25 000.  I dag kan du
1424 få profesjonell kvalitet for $595.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3004224" href="#ftn.id3004224" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup> Disse bussene er fylt med teknologi som ville kostet
1425 hundre-tusenvis av dollar for bare ti år siden.  Og det er nå mulig å
1426 forestille seg ikke bare slike busser, men klasserom rundt om i landet hvor
1427 unger kan lære mer og mer av det lærerne kaller
1428 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">medie-skriveføre</span>»</span> eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mediekompetanse</span>»</span>.
1429 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3004251"></a><p>
1430
1431
1432 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Media-skriveføre,</span>»</span> eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mediekompetanse</span>»</span> som
1433 administrerende direktør Dave Yanofsky i Just Think!, sier det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er
1434 evnen til &#8230; å forstå, analysere og dekonstruere mediebilder. Dets mål
1435 er å gjøre [unger] i stand til å forstå hvordan mediene fungerer, hvordan de
1436 er konstruert, hvordan de blir levert, og hvordan folk bruker dem</span>»</span>.
1437 </p><p>
1438 Dette kan virke som en litt rar måte å tenke på
1439 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">skrivefør</span>»</span>. For de fleste handler skrivefør å kunne lese og
1440 skrive. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Skriveføre</span>»</span> folk kjenner ting som Faulkner, Hemingway
1441 og å kjenne igjen delte infinitiver.
1442 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3004305"></a><p>
1443 Mulig det.  Men i en verden hvor barn ser i gjennomsnitt 390 timer med
1444 TV-reklaager i året, eller generelt mellom 20 000 og 45 000
1445 reklameinnslag,<sup>[<a name="id3004319" href="#ftn.id3004319" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> så er det mer og mer
1446 viktig å forstå <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gramatikken</span>»</span> til media.  For på samme måte som
1447 det er en gramatikk for det skrevne ord, så er det også en for media.  Og
1448 akkurat slik som unger lærer å skrive ved å skrive masse grusom prosa, så
1449 lærer unger å skrive media ved å konstruere masse (i hvert fall i
1450 begynnelsen) grusom media.
1451 </p><p>
1452 Et voksende felt av akademikere og aktivister ser denne formen for
1453 skriveføre som avgjørende for den neste generasjonen av kultur. For selv om
1454 de som har skrevet forstår hvor vanskelig det er å skrive&#8212;hvor
1455 vanskelig det er å bestemme rekkefølge i historien, å holde på
1456 oppmerksomheten hos leseren, å forme språket slik at det er
1457 forståelig&#8212;så har få av oss en reell følelse av hvor vanskelig medier
1458 er. Eller mer fundamentalt, de færreste av av oss har en følelse for
1459 hvordan media fungerer, hvordan det holder et publikum eller leder leseren
1460 gjennom historien, hvordan det utløser følelser eller bygger opp spenningen.
1461 </p><p>
1462 Det tok filmkusten en generasjon før den kunne gjøre disse tingene bra.  Men
1463 selv da, så var kunnskapen i filmingen, ikke i å skrive om filmen.
1464 Ferdigheten kom fra erfaring med å lage en film, ikke fra å lese en bok om
1465 den.  En lærer å skrive ved å skrive, og deretter reflektere over det en har
1466 skrevet.  En lærer å skrive med bilder ved å lage dem, og deretter
1467 reflektere over det en har laget.
1468 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3004360"></a><p>
1469 Denne gramatikken har endret seg etter hvert som media har endret seg.  Da
1470 det kun var film, som Elizabeth Daley, administrerende direktør ved
1471 Universitetet i Sør-Califorias Anneberg-senter for kommunkasjon og rektor
1472 ved USC skole for Kino-Televisjon, forklarte for meg, var gramatikken om
1473 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">plasseringen av objekter, farger, &#8230; rytme, skritt og
1474 tekstur</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3004419" href="#ftn.id3004419" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> Men etter hvert som
1475 datamaskiner åpner opp et interaktivt rom hvor en historie blir
1476 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">spillt</span>»</span> i tillegg til opplevd, endrer gramatikken seg.  Den
1477 enkle kontrollen til forstellerstemmen er forsvunnet, og dermed er andre
1478 teknikker nødvendig.  Forfatter Michael Crichton hadde mestret
1479 fortellerstemmen til science fiction.  Men da han forsøkte å lage et
1480 dataspill basert på et av sine verk, så var det et nytt håndverk han måtte
1481 lære.  Det var ikke åpenbart hvordan en leder folk gjennom et spill uten at
1482 de far følelsen av å ha blitt ledet, selv for en enormt vellykket
1483 forfatter.<sup>[<a name="id3004463" href="#ftn.id3004463" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
1484 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3004490"></a><p>
1485 Akkurat denne ferdigheten er håndverket en lærer til de som lager
1486 filmer. Som Daley skriver, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">folk er svært overrasket over hvordan de
1487 blir ledet gjennom en film.  Den er perfekt konstruert for å hindre deg fra
1488 å se det, så du aner det ikke.  Hvis en som lager filmer lykkes så vet du
1489 ikke at du har vært ledet.</span>»</span> Hvis du vet at du ble ledet igjennom en
1490 film, så har filmen feilet.
1491 </p><p>
1492 Likevel er innsatsen for å utvide skriveføren&#8212;til en som går ut over
1493 tekst til å ta med lyd og visuelle elementer&#8212;handler ikke om å lage
1494 bedre filmregisører.  Målet er ikke å forbedre filmyrket i det hele tatt.  I
1495 stedet, som Daley forklarer,
1496 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1497 Fra mitt perspektiv er antagelig det viktigste digitale skillet ikke om en
1498 har tilgang til en boks eller ikke.  Det er evnen til å ha kontroll over
1499 språket som boksen bruker.  I motsatt fall er det bare noen få som kan
1500 skrive i dette språket, og alle oss andre er redusert til å ikke kunne
1501 skrive.
1502 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1503 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke kunne skrive.</span>»</span> Passive mottakerne av kultur produsert
1504 andre steder. Sofapoteter. Forbrukere. Dette er medieverden fra det tjuende
1505 århundre.
1506 </p><p>
1507 Det tjueførste århundret kan bli annerledes.  Dette er et kritisk punkt: Det
1508 kan bli både lesing og skriving.  Eller i det minste lesing og bedre
1509 forståelse for håndverket å skrive.  Eller det beste, lesing og forstå
1510 verktøyene som gir skriving mulighet til å veilede eller villede.  Målet med
1511 enhver skriveførhet, og denne skriveførheten spesielt, er å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gi folket
1512 myndighet til å velge det språket som passer for det de trenger å lage eller
1513 uttrykke</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3004575" href="#ftn.id3004575" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> Det gir studenter
1514 mulighet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">til å kommunisere i språket til det tjueførste
1515 århundret</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3004597" href="#ftn.id3004597" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
1516 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3004604"></a><p>
1517 Som det alle andre språk, læres dette språket lettere for noen enn for
1518 andre.  Det kommer ikke nødvendigvis lettere for de som gjør det godt
1519 skriftlig. Daley og Stephanie Barish, direktør for Institutt for
1520 Multimedia-skriveføre ved Annenberg-senteret, beskriver et spesielt sterkt
1521 eksempel fra et prosjekt de gjennomførte i en videregående skole.  Den
1522 videregående skolen var en veldig fattig skole i den indre byen i Los
1523 Angeles.  Etter alle tradisjonelle måleenheter for suksess var denne skolen
1524 en fiasko.  Men Daley og Barish gjennomførte et program som ga ungene en
1525 mulighet til å bruke film til å uttrykke sine meninger om noe som studentene
1526 visste noe om&#8212;våpen-relatert vold.
1527 </p><p>
1528 Klassen møttes fredag ettermiddag, og skapte et relativt nytt problem for
1529 skolen.  Mens utfordringen i de fleste klasser var å få ungene til å dukke
1530 opp, var utfordringen for denne klassen å holde dem unna. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ungene
1531 dukket opp 06:00, og dro igjen 05:00 på natta</span>»</span>, sa Barish. De jobbet
1532 hardere enn i noen annen klasse for å gjøre det utdanning burde handle
1533 om&#8212;å lære hvordan de skulle uttrykke seg.
1534 </p><p>
1535 Ved å bruke hva som helst av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fritt tilgjengelig web-stoff de kunne
1536 finne</span>»</span>, og relativt enkle verktøy som gjorde det mulig for ungene å
1537 blande <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bilde, lyd og tekst</span>»</span>, sa Barish at denne klassen
1538 produserte en serie av prosjekter som viste noe om våpen-basert vold som få
1539 ellers ville forstå. Dette var et tema veldig nært livene til disse
1540 studentene.  Prosjektet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ga dem et verktøy og bemyndiget dem slik at
1541 de både ble i stand til å forstå det og snakke om det</span>»</span>, forklarer
1542 Barish.  Dette verktøyet lyktes med å skape uttrykk&#8212;mye mer vellykket
1543 og kraffylt enn noe som hadde blitt laget ved å kun bruke tekst.
1544 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis du hadde sagt til disse studentene at 'du må gjøre dette i
1545 tekstform', så hadde de bare kastet hendene i været og gått og gjort noe
1546 annet</span>»</span>, forklarer Barish.  Delvis, uten tvil, fordi å uttrykke seg
1547 selv i tekstform ikke er noe disse studentene gjør godt. Heller ikke er
1548 tekstform en form som kan uttrykke <span class="emphasis"><em>disse</em></span> idéene godt.
1549 Kraften i denne meldingen avhenger av dens forbindelse med denne for for
1550 uttrykk.
1551 </p><p>
1552
1553
1554
1555 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Men handler ikke utdanning om å lære unger å skrive?</span>»</span> spurte
1556 jeg. Jo delvis, naturligvis.  Men hvorfor lærer vi unger å skrive?
1557 Utdanning, forklarer Daley, handler om å gi studentene en måte å
1558 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">konstruere mening</span>»</span>.  Å si at det kun betyr skriving er som å
1559 si at å lære bort skriving kun handler om å lære ungene å
1560 stave. Tekstforming er bare en del&#8212;og i større grad ikke den
1561 kraftigste delen&#8212;for å konstruere mening.  Som Daley forklarte i den
1562 mest rørende delen av vårt intervju,
1563 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1564 Det du ønsker er å gi disse studentene en måte å konstruere mening. Hvis alt
1565 du gir dem er tekst, så kommer de ikke til å gjøre det. Fordi de kan ikke.
1566 Du vet, du har Johnny som kan se på en video, han kan spille på et TV-spill,
1567 han kan spre grafitti over alle dine vegger, han kan ta fra hverandre bilen
1568 din, og han kan gjøre alle mulige andre ting.  Men han kan ikke lese teksten
1569 din.  Så Jonny kommer på skolen og du sier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Johnny, du er analfabet.
1570 Ingenting du gjør betyr noe</span>»</span>.  Vel, da har Johnny to valg: Han kan
1571 avvise deg eller han kan avvise seg selv.  Hvis han har et sunt ego så vil
1572 han avvise deg.  Men hvis du i stedet sier, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vel, med alle disse
1573 tingene som du kan gjøre, la oss snakke om dette temaet.  Spill musikk til
1574 meg som du mener reflekterer over temaet, eller vis meg bilder som du mener
1575 reflekterer over temaet, eller tegn noe til meg som reflektere
1576 temaet</span>»</span>.  Ikke ved å gi en unge et videokamera og &#8230; si
1577 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">La oss dra å ha det morsomt med videokameraet og lage en liten
1578 film</span>»</span>. Men istedet, virkelig hjelpe deg å ta disse elementene som du
1579 forstår, som er ditt språk, og konstruer mening om temaet.&#8230;
1580 </p><p>
1581 Dette bemyndiger enormt.  Og det som skjer til slutt, selvfølgelig, som det
1582 har skjedd i alle disse klassene, er at de stopper opp når de treffer
1583 faktumet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">jeg trenger å forklare dette, og da trenger jeg virkelig å
1584 skrive noe</span>»</span>.  Og som en av lærerne fortalte Stephanie, de vil skrive
1585 om avsnittet 5, 6, 7, 8 ganger, helt til det blir riktig.
1586 </p><p>
1587
1588 Fordi de trengte det.  Det var en grunn til å gjøre det.  De trengte å si
1589 noe, i motsetning til å kun danse etter din pipe.  De trengte faktisk å
1590 bruke det språket de ikke håndterte veldig bra.  Men de hadde begynt å
1591 forstå at de hadde mye gjennomslagskraft med dette språket.
1592 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3004827"></a><p>
1593 <span class="strong"><strong>Da to fly</strong></span> krasjet inn i World Trade
1594 Center, og et annet inn i Pentagon, og et fjerde inn i et jorde i
1595 Pennsylvania, snudde alle medier verden rundt seg til denne nyheten.
1596 Ethvert moment for omtreng hver eneste dag den uka, og ukene som fulgte
1597 gjenfortalte TV spesielt, men media generelt, historien om disse hendelsene
1598 som vi nettopp hadde vært vitne til.  Genialiteten i denne forferdelige
1599 terrorhandlingen var at det forsinkede andre-angrepet var perfekt tidsatt
1600 for å sikre at hele verden ville være der for å se på.
1601 </p><p>
1602 Disse gjenfortellingene ga en økende familiær følelse.  Det var musikk
1603 spesiallaget for mellom-innslagene, og avansert grafikk som blinket tvers
1604 over skjermen.  Det var en formel for intervjuer.  Det var
1605 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balanse</span>»</span> og seriøsitet.  Dette var nyheter koreaografert slik
1606 vi i stadig større grad forventer det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nyheter som
1607 underholdning</span>»</span>, selv om underholdningen er en tragedie.
1608 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3004877"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3004883"></a><p>
1609 Men i tillegg til disse produserte nyhetene om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tragedien
1610 11. september</span>»</span>, kunne de av oss som er knyttet til internettet i
1611 tillegg se en svært annerledes produksjon. Internettet er fullt av
1612 fortellinger om de samme hendelsene.  Men disse internet-fortellingene hadde
1613 en veldig annerledes smak.  Noen folk konstruerte foto-sider som fanget
1614 bilder fra hele verden og presenterte dem som lysbildepresentasjoner med
1615 tekst.  Noen tilbød åpne brev.  Det var lydopptak.  Det var sinne og
1616 frustrasjon.  Det var forsøk på å tilby en sammenheng.  Det var, kort og
1617 godt, en ekstraordinær verdensomspennende låvebygging, slik Mike Godwin
1618 bruker begrepet i hans bok <em class="citetitle">Cyber Rights</em>, rundt en
1619 nyhetshendelse som hadde fanget oppmerksomheten til hele verden.  Det var
1620 ABC og CBS, men det var også internettet.
1621 </p><p>
1622
1623 Det er ikke så enkelt som at jeg ønsker å lovprise internettet&#8212;selv om
1624 jeg mener at folkene som støtter denne formen for tale bør lovprises.  Jeg
1625 ønsker i stedet å peke på viktigheten av denne formen for tale.  For på
1626 samme måte som en Kodak, gjør internettet folk i stand til å fange bilder.
1627 Og på samme måte som med en film laget av en av studentene på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Just
1628 Think!</span>»</span>-bussen, kan visuelle bilder bli blandet med lyd og tekst.
1629 </p><p>
1630 Men i motsetning til en hvilken som helst teknologi for å enkelt fange
1631 bilder, tillater internettet at en nesten umiddelbart deler disse
1632 kreasjonene med et ekstraordinært antall menesker.  Dette er noe nytt i vår
1633 tradisjon&#8212;ikke bare kan kultur fanges inn mekanisk, og åpenbart heller
1634 ikke at hendelser blir kommentert kritisk, men at denne blandingen av
1635 bilder, lyd og kommentar kan spres vidt omkring nesten umiddelbart.
1636 </p><p>
1637 11. september var ikke et avvik.  Det var en start.  Omtrent på samme tid,
1638 begynte en form for kommunkasjon som hadde vokst dramatisk å komme inn i
1639 offentlig bevissthet: web-loggen, eller blog.  Bloggen er en slags offentlig
1640 dagbok, og i noen kulturer, slik som i Japan, fungerer den veldig lik en
1641 dagbok.  I disse kulturene registrerer den private fakta på en offentlig
1642 måte&#8212;det er en slags elektronisk <em class="citetitle">Jerry
1643 Springer</em>, tilgjengelig overalt i verden.
1644 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3004971"></a><p>
1645 Men i USA har blogger inntatt en svært annerledes karakter.  Det er noen som
1646 bruker denne plassen til å snakke om sitt private liv.  Men det er mange som
1647 bruker denne plassen til å delta i offentlig debatt. Diskuterer saker med
1648 offentlig interesse, kritiserer andre som har feil synspunkt, kritisere
1649 politigere for avgjørelser de tar, tilbyr løsninger på problemer vi alle
1650 ser.  Blogger skaper en følelse av et virtuelt offentlig møte, men et hvor
1651 vi ikke alle håper å være tilstede på samme tid og hvor konversasjonene ikke
1652 nødvendigvis er koblet sammen.  De beste av bloggoppføringene er relativt
1653 korte.  De peker direkte til ord bruk av andre, kritiserer dem eller bidrar
1654 til dem.  Det kan argumenteres for at de er den viktigste form for
1655 ukoreografert offentlig debatt som vi har.
1656 </p><p>
1657
1658 Dette er en sterk uttalelse.  Likevel sier den like mye om vårt demokrati
1659 som den sier om blogger.  Dette er delen av USA som det er mest vanskelig
1660 for oss som elsker USA å akseptere: vårt demokrati har svunnet hen.  Vi har
1661 naturligvis valg, og mesteparten av tiden tillater domstolene at disse
1662 valgene teller.  Et relativt lite antall mennesker stemmer i disse valgene.
1663 Syklusen med disse valgene har blitt totalt profesjonalisert og
1664 rutinepreget.  De fleste av oss tenker på dette som demokrati.
1665 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3005025"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3005031"></a><p>
1666 Men demokrati har aldri kun handlet om valg.  Demokrati betyr at folket
1667 styrer, og å styre betyr noe mer enn kun valg.  I vår tradisjon betyr det
1668 også kontroll gjennom gjennomtenkt meningsbrytning.  Dette var idéen som
1669 fanget fantasien til Alexis de Tocqueville, den franske
1670 nittenhundretalls-advokaten som skrev den viktigste historien om det tidlige
1671 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">demokratiet i Amerika</span>»</span>.  Det var ikke allmenn stemmerett som
1672 fascinerte han&#8212;det var juryen, en institusjon som ga vanlige folk
1673 retten til å velge liv eller død før andre borgere.  Og det som fascinerte
1674 han mest var at juryen ikke bare stemte over hvilket resultat de ville legge
1675 frem.  De diskuterte.  Medlemmene argumenterte om hva som var
1676 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">riktig</span>»</span> resultat, de forsøkte å overbevise hverandre om
1677 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">riktig</span>»</span>resultat, og i hvert fall i kriminalsaker måtte de bli
1678 enige om et enstemming resultat for at prosessen skulle
1679 avsluttes.<sup>[<a name="id3005078" href="#ftn.id3005078" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
1680 </p><p>
1681 Og likevel fremheves denne institusjonen i USA i dag.  Og i dets sted er det
1682 ingen systematisk innsats for å muliggjøre borger-diskusjon. Noen gjør en
1683 innsats for å lage en slik institusjon.<sup>[<a name="id3005100" href="#ftn.id3005100" class="footnote">41</a>]</sup>
1684 Og i noen landsbyer i New England er det noe i nærheten av diskusjon igjen.
1685 Men for de fleste av oss mesteparten av tiden, er det ingen tid og sted for
1686 å gjennomføre <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">demokratisk diskusjon</span>»</span>.
1687 </p><p>
1688 Mer merkelig er at en generelt sett ikke engang har aksept for at det skal
1689 skje.  Vi, det mektigste demokratiet i verden, har utviklet en sterk norm
1690 mot å diskutere politikk.  Det er greit å diskutere politikk med folk du er
1691 enig med, men det er uhøflig å diskutere politikk med folk du er uenig med.
1692 Politisk debatt blir isolert, og isolert diskusjon blir mer
1693 ekstrem.<sup>[<a name="id3005138" href="#ftn.id3005138" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> Vi sier det våre venner vil
1694 høre, og hører veldig lite utenom hva våre venner sier.
1695 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxblogs1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3005164"></a><p>
1696
1697 Så kommer bloggen.  Selve bloggens arkitektur løser en del av dette
1698 problemet.  Folk publiserer det de ønsker å publisere, og folk leser det de
1699 ønsker å lese.  Det vanskeligste tiden er synkron tid. Teknologier som
1700 muliggjør asynkron kommunasjons, slik som epost, øker muligheten for
1701 kommunikasjon.  Blogger gjør det mulig med offentlig debatt uten at folket
1702 noen gang trenger å samle seg på et enkelt offentlig sted.
1703 </p><p>
1704 Men i tillegg til arkitektur, har blogger også løst problemet med normer.
1705 Det er (ennå) ingen norm i blogg-sfæren om å ikke snakke om politikk.
1706 Sfæren er faktisk fylt med politiske innlegg, både på høyre- og
1707 venstresiden.  Noen av de mest populære stedene er konservative eller
1708 libertarianske, men det er mange av alle politiske farger.  Til og med
1709 blogger som ikke er politiske dekker politiske temaer når anledningen krever
1710 det.
1711 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3005200"></a><p>
1712 Betydningene av disse bloggene er liten nå, men ikke ubetydelig. Navnet
1713 Howard Dean har i stor grad forsvunnet fra 2004-presidentvalgkampen bortsett
1714 fra hos noen få blogger.  Men selv om antallet lesere er lavt, så har det å
1715 lese dem en effekt.
1716 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3005218"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3005225"></a><p>
1717 En direkte effekt er på historier som hadde en annerledes livssyklus i de
1718 store mediene.  Trend Lott-affæren er et eksempel.  Da Logg <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sa
1719 feil</span>»</span> på en fest for senator Storm Thurmond, og essensielt lovpriste
1720 segregeringspolitikken til Thurmond, regnet han ganske riktig med at
1721 historien ville forsvinne fra de store mediene i løpet av førtiåtte timer.
1722 Det skjedde.  Men han regnet ikke med dens livssyklus i bloggsfæren.
1723 Bloggerne fortsatte å undersøke historien.  Etter hvert dukket flere og
1724 flere tilfeller av tilsvarende <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">feiluttalelser</span>»</span> opp. Så dukket
1725 historien opp igjen hos de store mediene.  Lott ble til slutt tvinget til å
1726 trekke seg som leder for senatets flertall.<sup>[<a name="id3005259" href="#ftn.id3005259" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup>
1727 </p><p>
1728 Denne annerledes syklusen er mulig på grunn av at et tilsvarende kommersielt
1729 press ikke eksisterer hos blogger slik det gjør hos andre kanaler.
1730 Televisjon og aviser er kommersielle aktører.  De må arbeide for å holde på
1731 oppmerksomheten.  Hvis de mister lesere, så mister de inntekter.  Som haier,
1732 må de bevege seg videre.
1733 </p><p>
1734 Men bloggere har ikke tilsvarende begresninger.  De kan bli opphengt, de kan
1735 fokusere, de kan bli seriøse.  Hvis en bestemt blogger skriver en spesielt
1736 interessant historie, så vil flere og flere folk lenke til den historien.
1737 Og etter hvert som antalet lenker til en bestemt historie øker, så stiger
1738 den i rangeringen for historier.  Folk leser det som er populært, og hva som
1739 er populært har blitt valgt gjennom en svært demokratisk prosess av
1740 likemanns-generert rangering.
1741 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinerdave"></a><p>
1742
1743 Det er også en annen måte, hvor blogger har en annen syklus enn de store
1744 mediene.  Som Dave Winer, en av fedrene til denne bevegelsen og en
1745 programvareutvikler i mange tiår fortalte meg, er en annen forskjell
1746 fraværet av finansiell <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">interessekonflikt</span>»</span>.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg tror du
1747 må ta interessekonflikten</span>»</span> ut av journalismen, fortalte Winer
1748 meg. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">En amatørjournalist har ganske enkelt ikke interessekonflikt,
1749 eller interessekonflikten er så enkelt å avsløre at du liksom vet du kan
1750 rydde den av veien.</span>»</span>
1751 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3005344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3005350"></a><p>
1752 Disse konfliktene blir mer viktig etter hvert som mediene blir mer
1753 konsentert (mer om dette under).  Konsenterte medier kan skjule mer fra
1754 offentligheten enn ikke-konsenterte medier kan&#8212;slik CNN innrømte at de
1755 gjorde etter Iraq-krigen fordi de var rett for konsekvensene for sine egne
1756 ansatte.<sup>[<a name="id3005056" href="#ftn.id3005056" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> De trenger også å opprettholde
1757 en mer konsistent rapportering.  (Midt under Irak-krigen, leste jeg en
1758 melding på Internet fra noen som på det tidspunktet lyttet på
1759 satellitt-forbindelsen til en reporter i Iraq.  New York-hovedkvarteret ba
1760 reporteren gang på gang at hennes rapport om krigen var for trist: Hun måtte
1761 tilby en mer optimistisk historie. Når hun fortalte New York at det ikke var
1762 grunnlag for det, fortalte de henne at det var <span class="emphasis"><em>dem</em></span> som
1763 skrev <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">historien</span>»</span>.)
1764 </p><p> Blogg-sfæren gir amatører en måte å bli med i
1765 debatten&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">amatør</span>»</span> ikke i betydningen uerfaren, men i
1766 betydningen til en Olympisk atlet, det vil si ikke betalt av noen for å
1767 komme med deres rapport.  Det tillater en mye bredere rekke av innspill til
1768 en historie, slik rapporteringen Columbia-katastrofen avdekket, når
1769 hundrevis fra hele sørvest-USA vendte seg til internettet for å gjenfortelle
1770 hva de hadde sett.<sup>[<a name="id3005413" href="#ftn.id3005413" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> Og det får lesere
1771 til å lese på tvers av en rekke fortellinger og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">triangulere</span>»</span>,
1772 som Winer formulerer det, sannheten.  Blogger, sier Winer,
1773 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kommunserer direkte med vår velgermasse, og mellommannen er
1774 fjernet</span>»</span>&#8212; med alle de fordeler og ulemper det kan føre med seg.
1775 </p><p>
1776
1777 Winer er optimistisk når det gjelder en journalistfremtid infisert av
1778 blogger.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det kommer til å bli en nødvendig ferdighet</span>»</span>, spår
1779 Winer, for offentlige aktører og også i større grad for private aktører.
1780 Det er ikke klart at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">journalismen</span>»</span> er glad for
1781 dette&#8212;noen journalister har blitt bedt om å kutte ut sin
1782 blogging.<sup>[<a name="id3005450" href="#ftn.id3005450" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> Men det er klart at vi
1783 fortsatt er i en overgangsfase.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mye av det vi gjør nå er
1784 oppvarmingsøvelser</span>»</span>, fortalte Winer meg.  Det er mye som må modne før
1785 dette området har sin modne effekt.  Og etter som inkludering av innhold i
1786 dette området er det området med minst opphavsrettsbrudd på internettet, sa
1787 Wiener at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vi vil være den siste tingen som blir skutt ned</span>»</span>.
1788 </p><p>
1789 Slik tale påvirker demokratiet.  Winer mener dette skjer fordi <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">du
1790 trenger ikke jobber for noen som kontrollerer, [for] en
1791 portvokter</span>»</span>. Det er sant.  Men det påvirker demokratiet også på en
1792 annen måte. Etter hvert som flere og flere borgere uttrykker hva de mener,
1793 og forsvarer det skriftlig, så vil det endre hvordan folk forstår offentlige
1794 temaer.  Det er enkelt å ha feil og være på villspor i hodet ditt.  Det er
1795 vanskeligere når resultatet fra dine tanker kan bli kritisert av andre.  Det
1796 er selvfølgelig et sjeldent menneske som innrømmer at han ble overtalt til å
1797 innse at han tok feil.  Men det er mer sjeldent for et menneske å ignorere
1798 at noen har bevist at han tok feil.  Å skrive ned idéer, argumenter og
1799 kritikk forbedrer demokratiet.  I dag er det antagelig et par millioner
1800 blogger der det skrives på denne måten.  Når det er ti milloner, så vil det
1801 være noe ekstraordært å rapportere.
1802 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3005593"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3005601"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising1"></a><p>
1803 <span class="strong"><strong>John Seely Brown</strong></span> er sjefsforsker ved
1804 Xerox Corporation.  Hans arbeid, i følge hans eget nettsted, er
1805 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menneskelig læring og &#8230; å skape kunnskapsøkologier for å skape
1806 &#8230; innovasjon</span>»</span>.
1807 </p><p>
1808 Brown ser dermed på disse teknologiene for digital kreativitet litt
1809 annerledes enn fra perspektivene jeg har skissert opp så langt.  Jeg er
1810 sikker på at han blir begeistret for enhver teknologi som kan forbedre
1811 demokratiet.  Men det han virkelig blir begeistret over er hvordan disse
1812 teknologiene påvirker læring.
1813 </p><p>
1814
1815 Brown tror vi lærer med å fikle.  Da <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mange av oss vokste opp</span>»</span>,
1816 forklarer han, ble fiklingen gjort <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pa motorsykkelmotorer,
1817 gressklippermotorer, biler, radioer og så videre</span>»</span>.  Men digitale
1818 teknologier muliggjør en annen type fikling&#8212;med abstrakte idéer i sin
1819 konkrete form.  Ungene i Just Think! tenker ikke bare på hvordan et
1820 reklameinnslag fremstiller en politiker.  Ved å bruke digital teknologi kan
1821 de ta reklameinnslaget fra hverandre og manipulerer det, fikle med det, og
1822 se hvordan det blir gjort.  Digitale teknologier setter igang en slags
1823 *bricolage* eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling</span>»</span>, som
1824 Brown kaller det.  Mange får mulighet til å legge til på eller endre på
1825 fiklingen til mange andre.
1826 </p><p>
1827 Det beste eksemplet i større skala så langt på denne typen fikling er fri
1828 programvare og åpen kildekode (FS/OSS).  FS/OSS er programvare der
1829 kildekoden deles ut.  Alle kan laste ned teknologien som får et
1830 FS/OSS-program til å fungere.  Og enhver som har lyst til å lære hvordan en
1831 bestemt bit av FS/OSS-teknologi fungerer kan fikle med koden.
1832 </p><p>
1833 Denne muligheten gir en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">helt ny type læringsplattform</span>»</span>, i
1834 følge Brown.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Så snart du begynner å gjøre dette, så &#8230; slipper
1835 du løs en fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling til fellesskapet, slik at andre
1836 folk kan begynne å se på koden din, fikle med den, teste den, seom de kan
1837 forbedre den</span>»</span>.  Og hver innsats er et slags læretid.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Åpen
1838 kildekode blir en stor lærlingeplatform.</span>»</span>.
1839 </p><p>
1840 I denne prossesen, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er de konkrete tingene du fikler med abstrakte. De
1841 er kildekode</span>»</span>.  Unger <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">endres til å få evnen til å fikle med
1842 det abstrakte, og denne fiklingen er ikke lenger en isolert aktivitet som du
1843 gjør i garasjen din.  Du fikler med en fellesskapsplatform. &#8230; Du
1844 fikler med andre folks greier.  Og jo mer du fikler, jo mer forbedrer
1845 du.</span>»</span> Jo mer du forbedrer, jo mer lærer du.
1846 </p><p>
1847 Denne sammen tingen skjer også med innhold.  Og det skjer på samme
1848 samarbeidende måte når dette innholdet er del av nettet.  Som Brown
1849 formulerer det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nettet er det første medium som virkelig tar hensyn
1850 til flere former for intelligens</span>»</span>.  Tidligere teknologier, slik som
1851 skrivemaskin eller tekstbehandling, hjelper med å fremme tekst.  Men nettet
1852 fremmer mye mer enn tekst.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Nettet &#8230; si hvis du er musikalsk,
1853 hvis du er kunstnerisk, hvis du er visuell, hvis du er interessert i film
1854 &#8230;da er det en masse du kan gå igang med på dette mediet.  Det kan
1855 fremme og ta hensyn til alle disse formene for intelligens.</span>»</span>
1856 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3005786"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3005794"></a><p>
1857
1858 Brown snakker om hva Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish Og Just Think! lærer
1859 bort: at denne fiklingen med kultur lærer såvel som den skaper. Den utvikler
1860 talenter litt anderledes, og den bygger en annen type gjenkjenning.
1861 </p><p>
1862 Likevel er friheten til å fikle med disse objektene ikke garantert. Faktisk,
1863 som vi vil se i løpet av denne boken, er den friheten i stadig større grad
1864 omstridt.  Mens det ikke er noe tvil om at din far hadde rett til å fikle
1865 med bilmotoren, så er det stor tvil om dine barn vil ha retten til å fikle
1866 med bilder som hun finner over alt. Loven, og teknologi i stadig større
1867 grad, forstyrrer friheten som teknolog, nysgjerrigheten, ellers ville sikre.
1868 </p><p>
1869 Disse begresningene har blitt fokusen for forskere og akademikere. Professor
1870 Ed Felten ved Princeton (som vi vil se mer fra i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>) har utviklet et
1871 kraftfylt argument til fordel for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">retten til å fikle</span>»</span> slik det
1872 gjøres i informatikk og til kunnskap generelt.<sup>[<a name="id3005845" href="#ftn.id3005845" class="footnote">47</a>]</sup> Men bekymringen til Brown er tidligere, og mer fundamentalt.  Det
1873 handler om hva slags læring unger kan få, eller ikke kan få, på grunn av
1874 loven.
1875 </p><p>
1876 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dette er dit utviklingen av utdanning i det tjueførste århundret er
1877 på vei</span>»</span>, forklarer Brown.  Vi må <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">forstå hvordan unger som
1878 vokser opp digitalt tenker og ønsker å lære</span>»</span>.
1879 </p><p>
1880 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Likevel</span>»</span>, fortsatte Brown, og som balansen i denne boken vil
1881 føre bevis for, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bygger vi et juridisk system som fullstendig
1882 undertrykker den naturlige tendensen i dagens digitale unger. &#8230; We
1883 bygger en arkitektur som frigjør 60 prosent av hjernen [og] et juridisk
1884 system som stenger ned den delen av hjernen</span>»</span>.
1885 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3005904"></a><p>
1886 Vi bygger en teknologi som tar magien til Kodak, mikser inn bevegelige
1887 bilder og lyd, og legger inn plass for kommentarer og en mulighet til å spre
1888 denne kreativiteten over alt.  Men vi bygger loven for å stenge ned denne
1889 teknologien.
1890 </p><p>
1891 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke måten å drive en kultur på</span>»</span>, sa Brewster Kahle, som vi
1892 møtte i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="Chapter 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere">9</a>, kommenterte til meg i et sjeldent øyeblikk av
1893 nedstemthet.
1894 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3003725" href="#id3003725" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
1895
1896
1897 Reese V. Jenkins, <em class="citetitle">Images and Enterprise</em> (Baltimore:
1898 Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 112.
1899 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3000843" href="#id3000843" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
1900
1901 Brian Coe, <em class="citetitle">The Birth of Photography</em> (New York:
1902 Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3003772"></a>
1903 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3003798" href="#id3003798" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
1904
1905
1906 Jenkins, 177.
1907 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3003808" href="#id3003808" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
1908
1909
1910 Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178.
1911 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3003749" href="#id3003749" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
1912
1913
1914 Coe, 58.
1915 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3003909" href="#id3003909" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
1916
1917
1918 For illustrerende saker, se for eksempel, <em class="citetitle">Pavesich</em>
1919 mot <em class="citetitle">N.E. Life Ins. Co</em>., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905);
1920 <em class="citetitle">Foster-Milburn Co</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Chinn</em>,
1921 123090 S.W. 364, 366 (Ky. 1909); <em class="citetitle">Corliss</em> mot
1922 <em class="citetitle">Walker</em>, 64 F. 280 (Mass.  Dist. Ct. 1894).
1923 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3003978" href="#id3003978" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
1924
1925 Samuel D. Warren og Louis D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy</span>»</span>,
1926 <em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3003990"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3003998"></a>
1927 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3004039" href="#id3004039" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
1928
1929
1930 Se Melville B. Nimmer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right of Publicity</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Law
1931 and Contemporary Problems</em> 19 (1954): 203; William L. Prosser,
1932 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Privacy</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">California Law Review</em> 48
1933 (1960) 398&#8211;407; <em class="citetitle">White</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Samsung
1934 Electronics America, Inc</em>., 971 F.  2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992),
1935 sert. nektet, 508 U.S. 951 (1993).
1936 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3004224" href="#id3004224" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
1937
1938
1939 H. Edward Goldberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and
1940 Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations,</span>»</span>
1941 cadalyst, februar 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #7</a>.
1942 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3004319" href="#id3004319" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
1943
1944
1945 Judith Van Evra, <em class="citetitle">Television and Child Development</em>
1946 (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Findings on
1947 Family and TV Study</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25. mai
1948 1997, B6.
1949 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3004419" href="#id3004419" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
1950
1951 Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002.
1952 <a class="indexterm" name="id3004426"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3004435"></a>
1953 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3004463" href="#id3004463" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
1954
1955
1956 Se Scott Steinberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs</span>»</span>, E!online,
1957 4. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #8</a>;
1958 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Timeline</span>»</span>, 22. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #9</a>.
1959 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3004575" href="#id3004575" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
1960
1961 Intervju med Daley og Barish.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3004581"></a>
1962 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3004597" href="#id3004597" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
1963
1964
1965 ibid.
1966 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3005078" href="#id3005078" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
1967
1968
1969 Se for eksempel Alexis de Tocqueville, <em class="citetitle">Democracy in
1970 America</em>, bk. 1, overs.  Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books,
1971 2000), kap. 16.
1972 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3005100" href="#id3005100" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
1973
1974
1975 Bruce Ackerman og James Fishkin, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Deliberation Day</span>»</span>,
1976 <em class="citetitle">Journal of Political Philosophy</em> 10 (2) (2002): 129.
1977 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3005138" href="#id3005138" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
1978
1979
1980 Cass Sunstein, <em class="citetitle">Republic.com</em> (Princeton: Princeton
1981 University Press, 2001), 65&#8211;80, 175, 182, 183, 192.
1982 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3005259" href="#id3005259" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
1983
1984
1985 Noah Shachtman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the
1986 Pot</span>»</span>, New York Times, 16. januar 2003, G5.
1987 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3005056" href="#id3005056" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
1988
1989
1990 Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003.
1991 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3005413" href="#id3005413" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
1992
1993
1994 John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
1995 Information Online</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 2 februar
1996 2003, A28; Staci D. Kramer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but
1997 Strong Overall</span>»</span>, Online Journalism Review, 2. februar 2003,
1998 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
1999 #10</a>.
2000 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3005450" href="#id3005450" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
2001
2002 <a class="indexterm" name="id3005480"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3005488"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3005495"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3005501"></a>  Se Michael Falcone, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does an Editor's
2003 Pencil Ruin a Web Log?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>,
2004 29. september 2003, C4. (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke alle nyhetsorganisasjoner har hatt like
2005 stor aksept for ansatte som blogger. Kevin Sites, en CNN-korrespondent i
2006 Irak som startet en blogg om sin rapportering av krigen 9. mars, stoppet å
2007 publisere 12 dager senere på forespørsel fra sine sjefer. I fjor fikk Steve
2008 Olafson, en <em class="citetitle">Houston Chronicle</em>-reporter, sparken for å
2009 ha hatt en personlig web-logg, publisert under pseudonym, som handlet om
2010 noen av temaene og folkene som han dekket.</span>»</span>)
2011 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3005845" href="#id3005845" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
2012
2013
2014 Se for eksempel, Edward Felten og Andrew Appel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Technological Access
2015 Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,</span>»</span>
2016 <em class="citetitle">Communications of the Association for Computer
2017 Machinery</em> 43 (2000): 9.
2018 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Chapter 3. Kapittel tre: Kataloger</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3005954"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><p>
2019 <span class="strong"><strong>Høsten 2001</strong></span>, ble Jesse Jordan fra
2020 Oceanside, New York, innrullert som førsteårsstudent ved Rensselaer
2021 Polytechnic Institute, i Troy, New York.  Hans studieprogram ved RPI var
2022 informasjonsteknologi.  Selv om han ikke var en programmerer, bestemte Jesse
2023 seg i oktober å begynne å fikle med en søkemotorteknologi som var
2024 tilgjengelig på RPI-nettverket.
2025 </p><p>
2026 RPI er en av Amerikas fremste teknologiske forskningsinstitusjoner. De
2027 tilbyr grader innen områder som går fra arkitektur og ingeniørfag til
2028 informasjonsvitenskap.  Mer enn 65 prosent av de fem tusen
2029 laveregradsstudentene fullførte blant de 10 prosent beste i deres klasse på
2030 videregående.  Skolen er dermed en perfekt blanding av talent og erfaring
2031 for å se for seg og deretter bygge, en generasjon tilpasset
2032 nettverksalderen.
2033 </p><p>
2034 RPIs data-nettverk kobler studenter, forelesere og administrasjon sammen.
2035 Det kobler også RPI til internettet.  Ikke alt som er tilgjengelig på
2036 RPI-nettet er tilgjengelig på internettet.  Men nettverket er utformet for å
2037 gi alle studentene mulighet til å bruke internettet, i tillegg til mer
2038 direkte tilgang til andre medlemmer i RPI-fellesskapet.
2039 </p><p>
2040
2041 Søkemotorer er et mål pa hvor nært et nettverk oppleves å være. Google
2042 brakte internettet mye nærmere oss alle ved en utrolig forbedring av
2043 kvaliteten på søk i nettverket.  Spesialiserte søkemotorer kan gjøre dette
2044 enda bedre.  Idéen med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intranett</span>»</span>-søkemotorer, søkemotorer som
2045 kun søker internt i nettverket til en bestemt institusjon, er å tilby
2046 brukerne i denne institusjonen bedre tilgang til materiale fra denne
2047 institusjonen. Bedrifter gjør dette hele tiden, ved å gi ansatte mulighet
2048 til å få tak i materiale som folk på utsiden av bedriften ikke kan få tak
2049 i. Universitetet gjør også dette.
2050 </p><p>
2051 Disse motorene blir muliggjort av netverksteknologien selv.  For eksempel
2052 har Microsoft et nettverksfilsystem som gjør det veldig enkelt for
2053 søkemotorer tilpasset det nettverket å spørre systemet etter informasjon om
2054 det offentlig (innen nettverket) tilgjengelige innholdet.  Søkemotoren til
2055 Jesse var bygget for å dra nytte av denne teknologien.  Den brukte
2056 Microsofts nettverksfilsystem for å bygge en indeks over alle filene
2057 tilgjengelig inne i RPI-nettverket.
2058 </p><p>
2059 Jesse sin var ikke den første søkemotoren bygget for RPI-nettverket. Hans
2060 motor var faktisk en enkel endring av motorer som andre hadde bygget.  Hans
2061 viktigste enkeltforbedring i forhold til disse motorene var å fikse en feil
2062 i Microsofts fildelings-system som fikk en brukers datamaskin til å krasje.
2063 Med motorene som hadde eksistert tidligere, hvis du forsøkte å koble deg ved
2064 hjelp av Windows-utforskeren til en fil som var på en datamaskin som ikke
2065 var på nett, så ville din datamaskin krasje.  Jesse endret systemet litt for
2066 å fikse det problemet, ved å legge til en knapp som en bruker kunne klikke
2067 på for å se om maskinen som hadde filen fortsatt var på nett.
2068 </p><p>
2069 Motoren til Jesse kom pa nett i slutten av oktober.  I løpet av de følgende
2070 seks månedene fortsatte han å justere den for å forbedre dens
2071 funksjonalitet.  I mars fungerte systemet ganske bra.  Jesse hadde mer enn
2072 en million filer i sin katalog, inkludert alle mulige typer innhold som
2073 fantes på brukernes datamaskiner.
2074 </p><p>
2075
2076 Dermed inneholdt indeksen som hans søkemotor produserte bilder, som
2077 studentene kunne bruke til å legge inn på sine egne nettsider, kopier av
2078 notater og forskning, kopier av informasjonshefter, filmklipp som studentene
2079 kanskje hadde laget, universitetsbrosjyrer&#8212;ganske enkelt alt som
2080 brukerne av RPI-nettverket hadde gjort tilgjengelig i en fellesmappe på sine
2081 datamaskiner.
2082 </p><p>
2083 Men indeksen inneholdt også musikkfiler.  Faktisk var en fjerdedel av filene
2084 som Jesses søkemotor inneholdt musikkfiler.  Men det betyr, naturligvis, at
2085 tre fjerdedeler ikke var det, og&#8212;slik at dette poenget er helt
2086 klart&#8212;Jesse gjorde ingenting for å få folk til å plassere musikkfiler
2087 i deres fellesmapper.  Han gjorde ingenting for å sikte søkemotoren mot
2088 disse filene.  Han var en ungdom som fiklet med Google-lignende teknologi
2089 ved et universitet der han studerte informasjonsvitenskap, og dermed var
2090 fiklingen målet.  I motsetning til Google, eller Microsoft for den saks
2091 skyld, tjente han ingen penger på denne fiklingen.  Han var ikke knyttet til
2092 noen bedrift som skulle tjene penger fra dette eksperimentet.  Han var en
2093 ungdom som fiklet med teknologi i en omgivelse hvor fikling med teknologi
2094 var nøyaktig hva han var ment å gjøre.
2095 </p><p>
2096 Den 3. april 2003 ble Jesse kontaktet av lederen for studentkontoret ved
2097 RPI.  Lederen fortalte Jesse at Foreningen for musikkindustri i USA, RIAA,
2098 wille levere inn et søksmål mot han og tre andre studenter som han ikke en
2099 gang kjente, to av dem på andre undersiteter.  Noen få timer senere ble
2100 Jesse forkynt søksmålet og fikk overlevert dokumentene.  Mens han leste
2101 disse dokumentene og så på nyhetsrapportene om den, ble han stadig mer
2102 forbauset.
2103 </p><p>
2104 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det var absurd</span>»</span>, fortalte han meg. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg mener at jeg
2105 ikke gjorde noe galt. &#8230; Jeg mener det ikke er noe galt med
2106 søkemotoren som jeg kjørte eller &#8230; hva jeg hadde gjort med den.  Jeg
2107 mener, jeg hadde ikke endret den på noen måte som fremmet eller forbedret
2108 arbeidet til pirater.  Jeg endret kun søkemotoren slik at den ble enklere å
2109 bruke</span>»</span>&#8212;igjen, en <span class="emphasis"><em>søkemotor</em></span>, som Jesse ikke
2110 hadde bygd selv, som brukte fildelingssystemet til Windows, som Jesse ikke
2111 hadde bygd selv, for å gjøre det mulig for medlemmer av RPI-fellesskapet å
2112 få tilgang til innhold, som Jesse ikke hadde laget eller gjort tilgjengelig,
2113 og der det store flertall av dette ikke hadde noe å gjøre med musikk.
2114 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3006205"></a><p>
2115
2116 Men RIAA kalte Jesse en pirat.  De hevdet at han opererte et nettverk og
2117 dermed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">med vilje</span>»</span> hadde brutt opphavsrettslovene.  De krevde
2118 at han betalte dem skadeerstatning for det han hadde gjort galt.  I saker
2119 med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">krenkelser med vilje</span>»</span>, spesifiserer opphavsrettsloven noe
2120 som advokater kaller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lovbestemte skader</span>»</span>.  Disse skadene
2121 tillater en opphavsrettighetseier å kreve $150 000 per krenkelse.
2122 Etter som RIAA påsto det var mer enn et hundre spesifikke
2123 opphavsrettskrenkelser, krevde de dermed at Jesse betalte dem minst
2124 $15 000 000.
2125 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3006231"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3006241"></a><p>
2126 Lignende søksmål ble gjort mot tre andre studenter: en annen student ved
2127 RPI, en ved Michegan Technical University og en ved Princeton. Deres
2128 situasjoner var lik den til Jesse.  Selv om hver sak hadde forskjellige
2129 detaljer, var hovedpoenget nøyaktig det samme: store krav om
2130 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">erstatning</span>»</span> som RIAA påsto de hadde rett på.  Hvis du summerte
2131 opp disse kravene, ba disse fire søksmålene domstolene i USA å tildele
2132 saksøkerne nesten $100 <span class="emphasis"><em>milliarder</em></span>&#8212;seks ganger det
2133 <span class="emphasis"><em>totale</em></span> overskuddet til filmindustrien i
2134 2001.<sup>[<a name="id3006274" href="#ftn.id3006274" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
2135 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3006291"></a><p>
2136 Jesse kontaktet sine foreldre.  De støttet ham, men var litt skremt. En
2137 onkel var advokat.  Han startet forhandlinger med RIAA.  De krevde å få vite
2138 hvor mye penger Jesse hadde.  Jesse hadde spart opp $12 000 fra
2139 sommerjobber og annet arbeid.  De krevde 12 000 for å trekke saken.
2140 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3006312"></a><p>
2141 RIAA ville at Jesse skulle innrømme at han hadde gjort noe galt.  Han
2142 nektet.  De ville ha han til å godta en kjennelse som i praksis ville gjøre
2143 det umulig for han å arbeide i mange områder innen teknologi for resten av
2144 hans liv.  Han nektet.  De fikk han til å forstå at denne prosessen med å
2145 bli saksøkt ikke kom til å bli hyggelig.  (Som faren til Jesse refererte til
2146 meg, fortalte sjefsadvokaten på saken, Matt Oppenheimer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Du ønsker
2147 ikke et tannlegebesøk hos meg flere ganger</span>»</span>) Og gjennom det hele
2148 insisterte RIAA at de ikke ville inngå forlik før de hadde tatt hver eneste
2149 øre som Jesse hadde spart opp.
2150 </p><p>
2151
2152 Familien til Jessie ble opprørt over disse påstandene.  De ønsket å kjempe.
2153 Men onkelen til Jessie gjorde en innsats for å lære familien om hvordan det
2154 amerikanske juridiske systemet fungerte.  Jesse kunne sloss mot RIAA.  Han
2155 kunne til og med vinne.  Men kostnaden med å loss mot et søksmål som dette,
2156 ble Jesse fortalt, ville være minst $250 000.  Hvis han vant ville han
2157 ikke få tilbake noen av de pengene.  Hvis han vant, så ville han ha en bit
2158 papir som sa at han vant, og en bit papir som sa at han og hans familie var
2159 konkurs.
2160 </p><p>
2161 Så Jesse hadde et mafia-lignende valg: $250 000 og en sjanse til å
2162 vinne, eller $12 000 og et forlik.
2163 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3006353"></a><p>
2164 Musikkindustrien insisterer at dette er et spørsmål om lov og moral.  La oss
2165 legge loven til side for et øyeblikk og tenke på moralen.  Hvor er moralen i
2166 et søksmål som dette?  Hva er dyden i å skape offerlam.  RIAA er en spesielt
2167 mektig lobby.  Presidenten i RIAA tjener i følge rapporter mer enn $1
2168 million i året.  Artister, på den andre siden, får ikke godt betalt.  Den
2169 gjennomsnittelige innspillingsartist tjener $45 900.<sup>[<a name="id3006357" href="#ftn.id3006357" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> Det er utallige måter som RIAA kan bruke for å
2170 påvirke og styre politikken.  Så hva er det moralske i å ta penger fra en
2171 student for å drive en søkemotor?<sup>[<a name="id3006411" href="#ftn.id3006411" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
2172 </p><p>
2173 23. juni overførte Jesse alle sine oppsparte midler til advokaten som jobbet
2174 for RIAA.  Saken mot ham ble trukket.  Og med dette, ble unggutten som hadde
2175 fiklet med en datamaskin og blitt saksøkt for 15 millioner dollar en
2176 aktivist:
2177 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2178 Jeg var definitivt ikke en aktivist [tidligere].  Jeg mente egentlig aldri å
2179 være en aktivist. &#8230; [men] jeg har blitt skjøvet inn i dette.  Jeg
2180 forutså over hodet ikke noe slik som dette, men jeg tror det er bare helt
2181 absurd det RIAA har gjort.
2182 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2183 Foreldrene til Jesse avslører en viss stolthet over deres motvillige
2184 aktivist.  Som hans far fortalte meg, Jesse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">anser seg selv for å være
2185 konservativ, og det samme gjør jeg. &#8230; Han er ingen
2186 treklemmer. &#8230; Jeg synes det er sært at de ville lage bråk med ham.
2187 Men han ønsker å la folk vite at de sender feil budskap.  Og han ønsker å
2188 korrigere rullebladet.</span>»</span>
2189 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3006274" href="#id3006274" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
2190
2191
2192
2193 Tim Goral, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks: Suit
2194 Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Professional Media
2195 Group LCC</em> 6 (2003): 5, tilgjengelig fra 2003 WL 55179443.
2196 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3006357" href="#id3006357" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
2197
2198
2199 Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001)
2200 (27&#8211;2042&#8212;Musikere og Sangere). Se også National Endowment for
2201 the Arts, <em class="citetitle">More Than One in a Blue Moon</em> (2000).
2202 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3006411" href="#id3006411" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
2203
2204
2205 Douglas Lichtman kommer med et relatert poeng i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">KaZaA and
2206 Punishment,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>,
2207 10. september 2003, A24.
2208 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 4. Kapittel fire: «Pirater»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Chapter 4. Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirater</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3006486"></a><p>
2209 <span class="strong"><strong>Hvis <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> betyr</strong></span>
2210 å bruke den kreative eiendommen til andre uten deres tillatelse&#8212;hvis
2211 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så rettighet</span>»</span> er sant&#8212;da er historien om
2212 innholdsindustrien en historie om piratvirksomhet.  Hver eneste viktige
2213 sektor av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">store medier</span>»</span> i dag&#8212;film, plater, radio og
2214 kabel-TV&#8212;kom fra en slags piratvirksomhet etter den definisjonen.  Den
2215 konsekvente fortellingen er at forrige generasjon pirater blir del av denne
2216 generasjonens borgerskap&#8212;inntil nå.
2217 </p><div class="section" title="4.1. Film"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="film"></a>4.1. Film</h2></div></div></div><p>
2218
2219 Filmindustrien i Hollywood var bygget av flyktende pirater.<sup>[<a name="id3006538" href="#ftn.id3006538" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> Skapere og regisører migrerte fra østkysten til
2220 California tidlig i det tjuende århundret delvis for å slippe unna
2221 kontrollene som patenter ga oppfinneren av det å lage filmer, Thomas
2222 Edison.  Disse kontrollene be utøvet gjennom et
2223 monopol-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kartell</span>»</span>, The Motion Pictures Patents company, og var
2224 basert på Tomhas Edisons kreative eierrettigheter&#8212;patenter. Edison
2225 stiftet MPPC for å utøve rettighetene som disse kreative eierrettighetene ga
2226 ham, og MPPC var seriøst med kontrollen de krevde.
2227 </p><p>
2228 Som en kommentaror forteller en del av historien,
2229 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2230 En tidsfrist ble satt til januar 1909 for alle selskaper å komme i samsvar
2231 med lisensen.  Når februar kom, protesterte de ulisensierte fredløse, som
2232 refererte til seg selv som uavhengige, mot kartellet og fortsatte sin
2233 forretningsvirksomhet uten å bøye seg for Edisons monopol.  Sommeren 1909
2234 var bevegelsen med uavhenginge i full sving, med produsenter og kinoeiere
2235 som brukte ulovlig utstyr og importerte filmlager for å opprette sitt eget
2236 undergrunnsmarked.
2237 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3006606"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3006613"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3006619"></a><p>
2238 Med et land som så en kolosal økning i antall billige kinoer, såkalte
2239 nickelodeons, reagerte patentselskapet på bevegelsen av uavhengige med å
2240 stifte et hardhendt datterselskap ved navn General Film Company for å
2241 blokkere innføringen av ulisensierte uavhengige.  Med tvangstaktikker som
2242 har blitt legendariske, konfiserte General Film ulisensiert utstyr, stoppet
2243 varelevering til kinoer som viste ulisensiert fil, og effektivt
2244 monopoliserte distribusjon ved å kjøpe opp alle USAs filmsentraler, med
2245 unntak av den ene som var eid av den uavhengige William Fox som motsto
2246 kartellet selv etter at hans lisens var trukket tilbake.<sup>[<a name="id3006638" href="#ftn.id3006638" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup>
2247 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2248 Napsterne i de dager, de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">uavhengige</span>»</span>, var selskaper som Fox.
2249 Og ikke mindre enn i dag ble disse uavhengige intenst motarbeidet.
2250 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Opptak ble avbrutt av stjålet maskineri, og 'uhell' som førte til
2251 tapte negativer, utstyr, bygninger og noen ganger liv og lemmer skjedde
2252 ofte.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3006698" href="#ftn.id3006698" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> Dette fikk de uavhengige
2253 til å flykte til østkysten.  Californa var fjernt nok fra Edisons
2254 innflytelse til at filmskaperne der kunne røve hans nyvinninger uten å
2255 frykte loven.  Og lederne blant Hollywods filmskapere, Fox mest
2256 fremtredende, gjorde akkurat dette.
2257 </p><p>
2258
2259 California vokste naturligvis raskt, og effektiv håndhevelse av føderale
2260 lover spredte seg til slutt vestover.  Men fordi patenter tildeler
2261 patentinnehaveren et i sannhet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">begrenset</span>»</span> monopol (kun sytten
2262 år på den tiden), så patentene var utgått før nok føderale lovmenn dukket
2263 opp. En ny industri var født, delvis fra piratvirksomhet mot Edison's
2264 kreative rettigheter.
2265 </p></div><div class="section" title="4.2. Innspilt musikk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="recordedmusic"></a>4.2. Innspilt musikk</h2></div></div></div><p>
2266 Musikkindustrien ble født av en annen type piratvirksomhet, dog for å forstå
2267 hvordan krever at en setter seg inn i detaljer om hvordan loven regulerer
2268 musikk.
2269 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3006777"></a><p>
2270 På den tiden da Edison og Henri Fourneaux fant opp maskiner for å
2271 reprodusere musikk (Edison fonografen, Fourneaux det automatiske pianoet),
2272 gav loven komponister eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere kopier av
2273 deres musikk og eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere fremføringer av
2274 deres musikk.  Med andre ord, i 1900, hvis jeg ønsket et kopi av Phil
2275 Russels populære låt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>»</span>, sa loven at jeg måtte betale
2276 for rettigheten til å få en kopi av notearkene, og jeg måtte også betale for
2277 å ha rett til å fremføre det offentlig.
2278 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3006805"></a><p>
2279 Men hva hvis jeg ønsket å spille inn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>»</span> ved hjelp av
2280 Edisons fonograf eller Fourneaux automatiske piano?  Her snublet loven.  Det
2281 var klart nok at jeg måtte kjøpe en kopi av notene som jeg fremførte når jeg
2282 gjorde innspillingen.  Og det var klart nok at jeg måtte betale for enhver
2283 offentlig fremførelse av verket jeg spilte inn.  Men det var ikke helt klart
2284 at jeg måtte betale for en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>»</span> hvis jeg
2285 spilte inn sangen i mitt eget hus (selv i dag skylder du ingenting til
2286 Beatles hvis du synger en av deres sanger i dusjen), eller hvis jeg spilte
2287 inn sangen fra hukommelsen (kopier i din hjerne er
2288 ikke&#8212;ennå&#8212;regulert av opphavsrettsloven).  Så hvis jeg ganske
2289 enkelt sang sangen inn i et innspillingsaparat i mitt eget hjem, så var det
2290 ikke klart at jeg skyldte komponisten noe.  Og enda viktigere, det var ikke
2291 klart om jeg skyldte komponisten noe hvis jeg så laget kopier av disse
2292 innspillingene.  På grunn av dette hullet i loven, sa kunne jeg i effekt
2293 røve noen andres sang uten å betale dets komponist noe.
2294 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3006833"></a><p>
2295 Komponistene (og utgiverne) var ikke veldig glade for denne kapasiteten til
2296 å røve.  Som Senator Alfred Kittredge fra Sør-Dakota formulerte
2297 det,<a class="indexterm" name="id3006869"></a>
2298 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2299 Forestill dere denne urettferdigheten.  En komponist skriver en sang eller
2300 en opera.  En utgiver kjøper til et høy sum rettighetene til denne, og
2301 registrerer opphavsretten til den.  Så kommer de fonografiske selskapene og
2302 selskapene som skjærer musikk-ruller og med vitende og vilje stjeler
2303 arbeidet som kommer fra hjernet til komponisten og utgiveren uten å bry seg
2304 om [deres] rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id3006896" href="#ftn.id3006896" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
2305 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3006925"></a><p>
2306 Innovatørene som utviklet teknologien for å spille inn andres arbeide
2307 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">snyltet på innsatsen, arbeidet, tallentet og geniet til amerikanske
2308 komponister</span>»</span>,<sup>[<a name="id3006942" href="#ftn.id3006942" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> og
2309 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">musikkpubliseringsindistrien</span>»</span> var dermed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fullstendig i
2310 denne piratens vold</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3006958" href="#ftn.id3006958" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> Som John
2311 Philip Sousa formulerte det, så direkte som det kan sies, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">når de
2312 tjener penger på mine stykker, så vil jeg ha en andel</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3006975" href="#ftn.id3006975" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
2313 </p><p>
2314 Disse argumentene høres omtrent ut som argumentene fra våre dager. Det samme
2315 gjør argumentene fra den andre siden.  Oppfinnerne som utviklet det
2316 auomatiske pianoet argumenterte med at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er fullt mulig å vise at
2317 introduksjonen av automatiske musikkspillere ikke har fratatt noen komponist
2318 noe han hadde før det ble introdusert.</span>»</span> I stedet økte maskinene
2319 salget av noteark.<sup>[<a name="id3007003" href="#ftn.id3007003" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> Uansett,
2320 argumenterte oppfinnerne, jobben til kongressen var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">å først vurdere
2321 interessen til [folket], som de representerte, og som de skal
2322 tjene.</span>»</span>.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alt snakk om 'tyveri',</span>»</span> skrev sjefsjuristen
2323 til American Graphophone Company, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er kun nonsens, for det finnes
2324 ingen eiendom i musikalske ideer, skriftlig eller kunstnerisk, unntatt det
2325 som er definert i loven.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3007027" href="#ftn.id3007027" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
2326 <a class="indexterm" name="id3007039"></a>
2327 </p><p>
2328
2329 Loven løste snart denne kampen i favør av <span class="emphasis"><em>både</em></span>
2330 komponisten og innspillingsartisten.  Kongressen endret loven slik at
2331 komponisten fikk betalt for den <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mekaniske reproduksjonen</span>»</span> av
2332 deres musikk.  Men i stedet for å ganske enkelt gi komponisten full kontroll
2333 over rettigheten til å lage mekaniske reproduksjoner, ga kongressen
2334 innspillingsartister rett en til å spille inn musikk, til en pris satt av
2335 kongressen, så snart komponisten har tillatt at den ble spilt inn en gang.
2336 Det er denne delen av opphavsrettsloven som gjør cover-låter mulig.  Så
2337 snart en komponist tillater en innspilling av hans sang, har andre mulighet
2338 til å spille inn samme sang, så lenge de betaler den originale komponisten
2339 et gebyr fastsatt av loven.
2340 </p><p>
2341 Amerikansk lov kaller dette vanligvis en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tvangslisens</span>»</span>, men
2342 jeg vil referere til dette som en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lovbestemt lisens</span>»</span>.  En
2343 lovbestemt lisens er en lisens hvis nøkkelvilkår er bestemt i lovverket.
2344 Etter kongressens endring av opphavsrettsloven i 1909, sto plateselskapene
2345 fritt til å distribuere kopier av innspillinger så lenge som de betalte
2346 komponisten (eller opphavsrettsinnehaveren) gebyret spesifisert i lovverket.
2347 </p><p>
2348 Dette er et unntak i opphavsrettsloven.  Når John Grisham skriver en roman
2349 så kan en utgiver kun utgi denne romanen hvis Grisham gir utgiveren
2350 tillatelse til det.  Girsham står fritt til å kreve hvilken som helst
2351 betaling for den tillatelsen.  Prisen for å publisere Grisham er dermed
2352 bestemt av Grisham og opphavsrettsloven sier at du ikke har tillatelse til å
2353 bruke Grishams verker med mindre du har tillatelse fra Grisham.
2354 <a class="indexterm" name="id3007109"></a>
2355 </p><p>
2356 Men loven som styrer innspillinger gir innspillingsartisten mindre. Og
2357 dermed er effekten at loven <span class="emphasis"><em>subsidierer</em></span>
2358 musikkindustrien med et slags piratvirksomhet&#8212;ved å gi
2359 innspillingsartister en svakere rettighet enn de gir kreative forfattere.
2360 The Beatles har mindre kontroll over deres kreative verker enn Grisham har.
2361 Og de som nyter godt av at de har mindre kontroll er musikkindustrien og
2362 folket.  Musikkindustrien får noe av verdi for mindre enn de ellers måtte
2363 betalt, og folket får tilgang til en større mengde musikalsk kreativitet.
2364 Kongressen var faktisk svært eksplisitt i sine grunner for å dele ut denne
2365 rettigheten.  Den fryktet monopolmakten til rettighetsinnehaverne, og at
2366 denne makten skulle kvele påvølgende kreativitet.<sup>[<a name="id3006578" href="#ftn.id3006578" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3007156"></a>
2367 </p><p>
2368 Mens musikkindustrien har vært ganske stille om dette i det siste, har de
2369 historisk vært høylytte tilhengere av den lovbestemte lisensen for
2370 innspillinger.  Som det sto i en rapport fra 1967 utgitt av House Committee
2371 on the Judiciary:
2372 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2373 plateprodusentene argumenterte energisk for at tvangslisens-systemet måtte
2374 bevares.  De tok utgangspunkt i at musikkindustrien er et forretningsområde
2375 på en halv milliard dollar som er veldig viktig for økonomien i USA og
2376 resten av verden. Plater er i dag den viktigste måten å spre musikk, og
2377 dette fører til spesielle problemer, siden utøvere trenger uhindret tilgang
2378 til musikalsk materiale på ikke-diskriminerende vilkår.  Plateprodusentene
2379 pekte på at historisk var det ingen innspillingsrettigheter før 1909 og
2380 1909-endringen i lovverket vedtok tvangslisensen som en gjennomtenkt
2381 mekanisme for å unngå monopol da de tildelte disse rettighetene.  De
2382 argumenterer med at resultatet har vært at det har strømmet på med innspillt
2383 musikk, at folket har fått lavere priser, bedre kvalitet og flere
2384 valg.<sup>[<a name="id3007208" href="#ftn.id3007208" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
2385 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2386 Ved å begrense rettighetene musikere hadde, ved å delvis røve deres kreative
2387 verk, fikk innspillingsprodusentene, og folket, fordeler.
2388 </p></div><div class="section" title="4.3. Radio"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="radio"></a>4.3. Radio</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments1"></a><p>
2389 Radio kom også fra piratvirksomhet.
2390 </p><p>
2391 Når en radiostasjon spiller en plate på luften, så utgjør dette en
2392 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>»</span> av komponistens verk.<sup>[<a name="id3007270" href="#ftn.id3007270" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> Som jeg beskrev over, gir loven komponisten (eller
2393 opphavsrettsinnehaveren) en eksklusiv rett til offentlige fremføringer av
2394 hans verk.  Radiostasjonen skylder dermed komponisten penger for denne
2395 fremføringe.
2396 </p><p>
2397
2398 Men når en radiostasjon spiller en plage, så fremfører det ikke bare et
2399 eksemplar av <span class="emphasis"><em>komponistens</em></span> verk. Radiostasjonen
2400 fremfører også et eksemplar av <span class="emphasis"><em>innspillingsartistens</em></span>
2401 verk.  Det er en ting å få <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> sunget på radio av
2402 det lokale barnekoret.  Det er noe ganske annet å få det sunget av Rolling
2403 Stones eller Lyle Lovett.  Innspillingsartisten legger til verdi på
2404 komposisjonen fremført på radiostasjonen.  Og hvis loven var fullstendig
2405 konsistent, så burde radiostasjonen også vært nødt til å betale
2406 innspillingsartisten for hans verk, på samme måten som den betaler
2407 komponisten av musikken for hans verk.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3007361"></a>
2408
2409
2410 </p><p>
2411 Men det gjør den ikke.  I følge loven som styrer radiofremføringer, trenger
2412 ikke radiostasjonen å betale noe til innspillingsartisten. Radiostasjonen
2413 trenger kun å betale komponisten.  Radiostasjonen får dermed noe uten å
2414 betale.  Den får fremføre innspillingsartistens verk gratis, selv om den må
2415 betale komponisten noe for privilegiet det er å spille sangen.
2416 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmadonna"></a><p>
2417 Denne forskjellen kan bli stor.  Forestill deg at du komponerer et stykke
2418 musikk.  Se for deg at det er ditt første stykke.  Du eier de eksklusive
2419 rettighetene til å godkjenne offentlig fremføring av den musikken.  Så hvis
2420 Madonna ønsker å synge din sang offentlig, må hun få din tillatelse.
2421 </p><p>
2422 Tenkt deg videre at hun synger din sang, og at hun liker den veldig
2423 godt. Hun bestemmer seg deretter for å spille inn sangen din, og den blir en
2424 populær hitlåt.  Med vår lov vil du få litt penger hver gang en radiostasjon
2425 spiller din sang.  Men Madonna får ingenting, fortsett fra de indirekte
2426 effektene fra salg av hennes CD-er.  Den offentlige fremføringen av hennes
2427 innspilling er ikke en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">beskyttet</span>»</span> rettighet. Radiostasjonen
2428 får dermed <span class="emphasis"><em>røve</em></span> verdien av Madonnas arbeid uten å
2429 betale henne noen ting.
2430 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3007432"></a><p>
2431 Uten tvil kan en argumentere at, totalt sett, tjener innspillingsartistene
2432 på dette.  I snitt er reklamen de får verdt mer enn enn
2433 fremføringsrettighetene de frasier seg.  Kanskje.  Men selv om det er slik,
2434 så gir loven vanligvis skaperen retten til å gjøre dette valget.  Ved å
2435 gjøre valgen for ham eller henne, gir loven radiostasjonen rett til å ta noe
2436 uten å betale.
2437 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3007456"></a></div><div class="section" title="4.4. Kabel-TV"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="cabletv"></a>4.4. Kabel-TV</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcabletv1"></a><p>
2438 Kabel-TV kom også fra en form for piratvirksomhet.
2439 </p><p>
2440
2441 Da kabel-TV-gründere først begynte å koble opp fellesskap med kabel-TV i
2442 1948, nektet de fleste å betale kringkasterne for innholdet som de sendte
2443 videre til sine kunder.  Selv da kabelselskapene begynte å selge tilgang til
2444 TV-kringkastinger, nektet de å betale for det de solgte.  Kabelselskapene
2445 Napsteriserte dermed kringkasternes innhold, men grovere enn det Napster
2446 noen gang gjorde&#8212;Napster tok aldri betalt for innholdet som det ble
2447 mulig for andre å gi bort.
2448 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3007493"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3007499"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3007524"></a><p>
2449 Kringkastere og opphavsrettsinnehavere var raske til å angripe dette
2450 tyveriet.  Rosel Hyde, styreleder i FCC, så praksisen som en slags
2451 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">urettferdig og potensielt ødeleggende
2452 konkurranse</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3007542" href="#ftn.id3007542" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup> Det kan ha vært en
2453 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig interesse</span>»</span> i å øke spredningen til kabel-TV, men som
2454 Douglas Anello, sjefsjurist hos Nasjonalforeningen for kringkastere spurte
2455 senator Quentin Burdick under sitt vitnemål, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dikterer offentlig
2456 interesse at du kan bruke noen andres eiendom?</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3007577" href="#ftn.id3007577" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> Som en annen kringkaster formulerte det,
2457 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2458 Den uvanlige tingen med kabel-TV-selskapene er at det er de eneste
2459 selskapene jeg vet om hvor produktet som blir solgt ikke er betalt
2460 for.<sup>[<a name="id3007594" href="#ftn.id3007594" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
2461 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2462 Igjen, kravene til opphavsrettsinnehaverne virket rimelige nok:
2463 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2464 Alt vi ber om er en veldig enkel ting, at folk som tar vår eiendom gratis
2465 betaler for den.  Vi forsøker å stoppe piratvirksomhet og jeg kan ikke tenke
2466 på et svakere ord for å beskrive det.  Jeg tror det er sterkere ord som
2467 ville passe.<sup>[<a name="id3007622" href="#ftn.id3007622" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
2468 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3007634"></a><p>
2469 Disse var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratispassasjerer</span>»</span>, sa presidenten Charlton Heston i
2470 Screen Actor's Guild, som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tok lønna fra
2471 skuespillerne</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3007650" href="#ftn.id3007650" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
2472 </p><p>
2473 Men igjen, det er en annen side i debatten.  Som assisterende justisminister
2474 Edwin Zimmerman sa det,
2475 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2476 Vårt poeng her er ikke problemet med om hvorvidt du over hode har
2477 opphavsrettsbeskyttelse.  Problemet her er hvorvidt opphavsrettsinnehavere
2478 som allerede blir kompensert, som allerede har et monopol, skal få lov til å
2479 utvide dette monopolet. &#8230; Spørsmålet er hvor mye kompensasjon de bør
2480 ha, og hvor langt de kan strekke sin rett på kompenasjon.<sup>[<a name="id3006445" href="#ftn.id3006445" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3007705"></a>
2481 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2482 Opphavsrettinnehaverne tok kabelselskapene til retten. Høyesterett fant to
2483 ganger at kabelselskaper ikke skyldte opphavsrettinnehaverne noen ting.
2484 </p><p>
2485 Det tok kongressen nesten tredve år før den fikk løst spørsmålet om hvorvidt
2486 kabel-TV-selskapene måtte betale for innholdet de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røvet</span>»</span>.  Til
2487 slutt løste kongressen dette spørsmålet på samme måte som den hadde løst
2488 spørsmålet om platespillere og automatiske pianoer.  Ja, kabel-TV-selskapene
2489 måtte betale for innholdet som de kringkastet, men prisen de måtte betale
2490 ble ikke satt av opphavsrettsinnehaveren.  Prisen ble fastsatt ved lov, slik
2491 at kringkasterne ikke kunne utøve vetomakt over den nye teknologien
2492 kabel-TV.  Kabel-TV-selskapene bygde dermed deres imperie delvis ved å
2493 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røve</span>»</span> verdien skapt av kringkasternes innhold.
2494 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3007748"></a><p>
2495 <span class="strong"><strong>Disse separate historiene</strong></span> synger en
2496 felles melodi.  Hvis <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> betyr å bruke verdien
2497 fra noen andres kreative eiendom uten tillatelse fra dets skaper&#8212;slik
2498 det stadig oftere beskrives i dag<sup>[<a name="id3007680" href="#ftn.id3007680" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup>
2499 &#8212;da er <span class="emphasis"><em>enhver</em></span> industri påvirket av opphavsrett i
2500 dag produktet og de som har nytt godt av ulike former for piratvirksomhet.
2501 Film, plater, radio, kabel-TV. &#8230; Listen er lang og kunne vært
2502 lengre.  Hver generasjon ønsker piratene fra den forrige velkommen.  Hver
2503 generasjon&#8212;inntil nå.
2504 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3006538" href="#id3006538" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
2505
2506 Jeg er takknemlig til Peter DiMauro for å ha pekt meg i retning av denne
2507 ekstraordinære historien.  Se også Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights
2508 and Copywrongs</em>, 87&#8211;93, som forteller detaljer om Edisons
2509 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eventyr</span>»</span> med opphavsrett og patent. <a class="indexterm" name="id3006554"></a>
2510 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3006638" href="#id3006638" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
2511
2512 J. A. Aberdeen, <em class="citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent
2513 Motion Picture Producers</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) og
2514 utvidede tekster lagt ut på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion
2515 Picture Patents Company vs. the Independent Outlaws</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig
2516 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #11</a>. For en
2517 diskusjon om det økomiske motivet bak begge disse begresningene, og
2518 begresningene pålagt av Victor på fonografer, se Randal C. Picker,
2519 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal
2520 and the Propertization of Copyright</span>»</span> (september 2002), University of
2521 Chicago Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working
2522 Paper No.  159.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3006671"></a>
2523 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3006698" href="#id3006698" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
2524
2525
2526 Marc Wanamaker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First Studios,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">The Silents
2527 Majority</em>, arkivert på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #12</a>.
2528 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3006896" href="#id3006896" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
2529
2530 Endre og slå sammen lovforslag om å respektere opphavsretten: Høring om
2531 S. 6330 og H.R. 19853 foran (felles)-komiteene om patenter, 59. kongr. 59,
2532 1. sess. (1906) (uttalelse til senator Alfred B. Kittredge fra Sør-Dakota,
2533 formann), gjengitt i <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright
2534 Act</em>, E.  Fulton Brylawski og Abe Goldman, red. (South
2535 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3006913"></a>
2536 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3006942" href="#id3006942" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
2537
2538
2539 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223 (uttalelse fra
2540 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2541 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3006958" href="#id3006958" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
2542
2543
2544 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (uttalelse fra
2545 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2546 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3006975" href="#id3006975" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
2547
2548
2549 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (uttalelse fra
2550 John Philip Sousa, komponist).
2551 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3007003" href="#id3007003" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
2552
2553
2554
2555 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283&#8211;84
2556 (uttalelse fra Albert Walker, representant for the Auto-Music Perforating
2557 Company of New York).
2558 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3007027" href="#id3007027" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
2559
2560
2561 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 376 (forberedt
2562 innlegg fra Philip Mauro, sjefspatentrådgiver for the American Graphophone
2563 Company Association).
2564 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3006578" href="#id3006578" class="para">60</a>] </sup>
2565
2566
2567
2568 Endring i opphavsrettsloven: Høring om S. 2499, S.2900, H.R. 243, og
2569 H.R. 11794 foran (felles)-komiteen om patenter, 60. kongr., 1. sess., 217
2570 (1908) (uttalelse fra senator Reed Smooth, formann), gjengitt i
2571 <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act</em>, E.
2572 Fulton Brylawski og Abe Goldman, red. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman
2573 Reprints, 1976).
2574 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3007208" href="#id3007208" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
2575
2576
2577 Endring av opphavsrettsloven: Rapport som følger H.R. 2512, House Committee
2578 on the Judiciary, 90. Kongr., 1. sess., House Document no. 83, (8. mars
2579 1967).  Jeg er takknemlig til Glenn Brown for å ha gjort meg oppmerksom på
2580 denne rapporten.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3007270" href="#id3007270" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
2581
2582 Se 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, seksjon 106 og 110. I
2583 begynnelsen skrev noen plateselskaper <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke lisensiert for
2584 radiokringkasting</span>»</span> og andre meldinger som ga inntrykk av å begrense
2585 muligheten tli å spille en plate på en radiostasjon.  Dommer Learned Hand
2586 avviste argumentet om at en advarsel klistret på en plate kunne begrense
2587 rettighetene til radiostasjonen. Se <em class="citetitle">RCA Manufacturing
2588 Co</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Whiteman</em>, 114 F. 2d 86 (2nd
2589 Cir. 1940).  Se også Randal C.  Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast
2590 Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of
2591 Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em>
2592 70 (2003): 281.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3007307"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3007315"></a>
2593 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3007542" href="#id3007542" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
2594
2595 Endring i opphavsrettsloven&#8212;Kabel-TV: Høring om S. 1006 foran
2596 underkomiteen om patenter, varemerker og opphavsrett av Senate Committee on
2597 the Judiciary, 89. Kongr., 2. sess., 78 (1966) (uttalelse fra Rosel H. Hyde,
2598 styreleder i den føderale kommunikasjonskommisjonen.<a class="indexterm" name="id3007503"></a>
2599 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3007577" href="#id3007577" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
2600
2601
2602 Endring i opphavsretttsloven&#8212;Kabel-TV, 116 (uttalelse fra Douglas
2603 A. Anello, sjefsjuristen i Nasjonalforeningen for kringkastere).
2604 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3007594" href="#id3007594" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
2605
2606
2607 Endring i opphavsrettsloven&#8212;Kabel-TV, 126 (uttalelse fra Ernest
2608 W. Jennes, sjefsjurist ved Association of Maximum Service Telecasters,
2609 Inc.).
2610 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3007622" href="#id3007622" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
2611
2612
2613 Endring i opphavsrettsloven&#8212;Kabel-TV, 169 (felles uttalelse fra Arthur
2614 B.  Krim, president i United Artists Corp. og John Sinn, president i United
2615 Artists Television Inc.).
2616 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3007650" href="#id3007650" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
2617
2618 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 209 (uttalelse fra Charlton Heston,
2619 president i Screen Actors Guild).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3007627"></a>
2620 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3006445" href="#id3006445" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
2621
2622 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 216 (uttalelse fra Edwin M. Zimmerman,
2623 fungerende assisterende justisministeren).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3007653"></a>
2624 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3007680" href="#id3007680" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
2625
2626
2627 Se for eksempel National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The
2628 Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet&#8212;The Myth of Free
2629 Information</em>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #13</a>. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Trusselen fra
2630 piratvirksomhet&#8212;bruken av noen andres kreative verker uten tillatelse
2631 eller kompenasjons&#8212;har vokst med internettet.</span>»</span>
2632 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 5. Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="piracy"></a>Chapter 5. Kapittel fem: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
2633 Det røves opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale.  Massevis.  Og denne
2634 piratvirksomheten antar mange former.  Den mest betydningsfulle er
2635 kommersiell piratvirksomhet, det å ta andres innhold uten lov i en
2636 kommersiell setting.  På tross av de mange forklaringer om hvorfor dette er
2637 greit som fremføres i dets forsvar, så er dette galt.  Ingen bør gå god for
2638 det, og loven bør stoppe det.
2639 </p><p>
2640
2641 Men på samme måte som med piratvirksomheten til kopierings-firma, så
2642 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tas</span>»</span> det på en annen måte som er mer direkte relatert til
2643 internettet.  Denne måten å ta på virker galt for mante, og det er galt mye
2644 av tiden.  Før vi kaller det å ta på denne måten for
2645 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>, bør vi dog forstå dets natur litt mer. For
2646 skaden som denne formen for å ta gjør er betydelig mer tvetydig enn direkte
2647 kopiering, og loven bør ta hensyn til denne tvetydingheten, slik den har
2648 gjort ofte tidligere.
2649
2650 </p><div class="section" title="5.1. Piratvirksomhet I"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="piracy-i"></a>5.1. Piratvirksomhet I</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3007873"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsforeign"></a><p>
2651 Over hele verden, men spesielt i Asia og Øst-Europa, er det selskaper som
2652 ikke gjør annet enn å ta andre folks opphavsrettsbeskyttede innhold,
2653 kopierer det og selger det&#8212;alt dette uten tillatelse fra
2654 opphavsrettseieren.  Musikkindustrien estimerer at de taper rundt $4,6
2655 milliarder hvert år på fysisk piratvirksomhet <sup>[<a name="id3007683" href="#ftn.id3007683" class="footnote">70</a>]</sup> (det blir ca. en av tre CD-er solgt på verdensbasis).  MPAA
2656 estimerer at de taper $3 milliarder på verdensbasis på piratvirksomhet.
2657 </p><p>
2658 Dette er enkelt og greit piratvirksomhet.  Ingenting i argumentet i denne
2659 boken, og heller ikke i argumentet til de fleste folkene som omtaler temaet
2660 i denne boken, bør trekke i tvil dette enkle poenget: Slik piratvirksomhet
2661 er galt.
2662 </p><p>
2663 Hvilket ikke er å si at unnskyldninger og begrunnelser ikke kan lages for
2664 det.  Vi kan, for eksempel, minne oss selv om at for de første hundre årene
2665 USA har vært republikk, respekterte ikke USA utenlandske
2666 opphavsrettigheter.  Vi ble på en måte skapt som en piratnasjon.  Det kan
2667 dermed synes hyklersk for oss å insistere så sterkt at andre utviklingsland
2668 skal behandle som galt det vi, for de første hundre årene vi eksisterte,
2669 behandlet som riktig.
2670 </p><p>
2671 Denne unnskyldningen er ikke veldig vektig.  Teknisk sett forbød ikke vårt
2672 lovverk å ta utenlandske verker.  Det begrenset seg eksplisitt til
2673 amerikanske verker.  Dermed brøt de amerikanske forleggerne som publiserte
2674 utenlandske verker uten tillatelse fra de utenlandske forfattere noen
2675 regler.  Kopierings-selskapene i asia bryter derimot loven i asia.  Loven i
2676 asia beskytter utenlandsk opphavsrett, og aktiviteten til
2677 kopierings-selskapene bryter den loven.  Så det at piratvirksomheten er galt
2678 er ikke bare moralsk galt, men juridisk galt.  Og ikke bare galt i følge
2679 internasjonal lovgiving, men også juridisk galt etter lokal lovgiving.
2680 </p><p>
2681
2682 Joda, disse reglene har i praksis blitt påtvunget disse landene. Intet land
2683 kan være del av verdensøkonomien og velge å ikke beskytte opphavsrett
2684 internasjonalt.  Vi ble kanskje skapt som en piratnasjon, men vi tillater
2685 ingen annen nasjon å ha en tilsvarende barndom.
2686 </p><p>
2687 Men likevel, hvis et land skal behandles som selvstending da er landets
2688 lover landets lover, uavhengig av deres kilde.  De internasjonale lovene som
2689 disse landene lever under gir dem noen muligheter til å slippe unna byrden
2690 til immaterielle rettighetslover.<sup>[<a name="id3008002" href="#ftn.id3008002" class="footnote">71</a>]</sup> Etter
2691 mitt syn burde flere utviklingsland utnytte den muligheten, men når de ikke
2692 gjør det bør deres lover likevel respekteres.  Og i følge lovene i disse
2693 landene, er piratvirksomhet galt.
2694 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3008051"></a><p>
2695 Alternativt, så kan vi forsøke å unnskylde denne piratvirksomheten ved å
2696 legge merke til at det uansett ikke skader industrien. Kineserne som får
2697 tilgang til amerikanske CDer for 50 cent pr. utgave er ikke folk som ville
2698 kjøpt disse CDene for #15 per utgave.  Så ingen har egentlig noe mindre
2699 penger enn de ellers ville hatt.<sup>[<a name="id3008071" href="#ftn.id3008071" class="footnote">72</a>]</sup>
2700 </p><p>
2701 Dette er ofte riktig (selv om jeg har venner som har kjøpt flere tusen
2702 piratkopierte DVDer og som helt klart har nok penger til å betale for
2703 innholdet de har tatt), og det begrenser til en hvis grad skaden forårsaket
2704 av å ta på denne måten.  Ekstremister i denne debatten elsker å si,
2705 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Du ville ikke gå inn på Barnes &amp; Noble og ta en bok fra hyllen
2706 der uten å betale.  Hvorfor skulle det være noe annerledes med musikk på
2707 nettet?</span>»</span> Forskjellen er, naturligvis, at når du tar en bok fra Barnes
2708 &amp; Noble så er det en mindre bok som kan selges.  Dette er forskjellig
2709 fra når du tar en MP3 fra et datanettverk, der det ikke blir en mindre CD
2710 som kan selges.  Fysikken til røving av det uhåndgripelige er forskjellig
2711 fra fysikken til røving av det håndgripelige.
2712 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3008139"></a><p>
2713
2714 Dette er likevel et veldig dårlig argument.  For selv om opphavsretten er en
2715 eiendomsrett av en veldig spesiell type, så <span class="emphasis"><em>er</em></span> det en
2716 eiendomsrett.  På samme måte som med alle eiendomsretter gir opphavsretten
2717 eieneren retten til å bestemme vilkårene for når innholdet blir delt.  Hvis
2718 opphavsrettseieren ikke ønsker å selge, så må hun ikke det.  Det finnes
2719 unntak: viktige lovbestemte lisenser som gjelder for opphavsrettsbeskyttet
2720 innhold uavhengig av ønsket til opphavsrettseieren.  Disse lisensene gir
2721 folk retten til å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold uavhengig
2722 av om opphavsrettseieren ønsker å selge eller ikke.  Men der loven ikke gir
2723 folk retten til å ta innhold, så er det galt å ta det innholdet selv om det
2724 ikke gjør noen skade å gjøre dette gale.  Hvis vi har et eiendomssystem og
2725 det systemet er skikkelig balansert opp mot teknologien i tiden, så er det
2726 galt å ta eiendom uten tillatelse fra eiendomseieren.  Det er nøyaktig hva
2727 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> betyr.
2728 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3008190"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3008196"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3008204"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3008211"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3008218"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3008224"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3008232"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3008239"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3008248"></a><p>
2729 Til slutt kan vi forsøke å unnskylde denne piratvirksomheten med argumentet
2730 om at piratvirksomheten faktisk hjelper opphavsrettseieren. Når kineserne
2731 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeler</span>»</span> Windows, så gjør det kinserne avhengig av Microsoft.
2732 Microsoft mister verdien til programvaren som ble tatt, men det vinner
2733 brukere som er vant til livet i Microsoft-verdenen.  Over tid, etter hvert
2734 som nasjonen blir mer velstående, vil flere og flere folk kjøpe programvare
2735 is stedet for å stjele den.  Og dermed vil det over tid, på grunn av at
2736 disse kjøpene kommer Microsoft til gode, vil Microsoft tjene på
2737 piratvirksomheten. Hvis kineserne i stedet for å piratkopiere Windows,
2738 brukte det fritt tilgjengelige operativsystemet GNU/Linux, så ville disse
2739 kinesiske brukerne ikke til slutt kjøpe Microsoft.  Uten piratvirksomheten
2740 ville dermed Microsoft tape.
2741 </p><p>
2742 Det er også noe sant i dette argumentet.  Å gjøre folk avhengig er en god
2743 strategi.  Mange selskaper praktiserer det.  Noen gjør det godt på grunn av
2744 det.  Juss-studenter, for eksempel, får gratis tilgang til de to største
2745 juridiske databasene.  Begge selskapenes markedsfører dette i håp om at
2746 studentene vil bli så vant til deres tjenester at de vil ønske å bruke deres
2747 tjeneste og ikke konkurrentens når de blir advokater (og må betale høy
2748 abonnementsavgift).
2749 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3008304"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3008311"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3008317"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3008323"></a><p>
2750 Likevel er ikke dette argumentet spesielt overbevistende.  Vi gir ikke
2751 alkoholikeren et forsvar når han stjeler sin første øl, kun på grunn av at
2752 det vil gjøre det mer sannsynlig at han vil betale for de tre neste.  I
2753 stedet lar vi vanligvis bedrifter bestemme selv når det er best for dem å gi
2754 bort deres produkter.  Hvis Microsoft frykter konkurransen fra GNU/Linux, så
2755 kan Microsoft gi bort produktet sitt, slik de for eksempel gjorde med
2756 Internet Explorer for å bekjempe Netscape.  En eiendomsrett betyr å la
2757 eiendomseieren ha retten til å si hvem som får tilgang til hva&#8212;i hvert
2758 fall vanligvis.  Og hvis loven ordentlig balanserer rettighetene til
2759 opphavsrettighetseieren med rettighetene for tilgang, så er det å bryte
2760 loven fortsatt galt.
2761 </p><p>
2762
2763
2764 Dermed, selv om jeg forstår dragningen mot disse begrunnelsene for
2765 piratvirksomhet, og helt klart ser motivasjonen, så er konklusjonen etter
2766 mitt syn til slutt, at disse forsøkene på å begrunne kommersiell
2767 piratvirksomhet ganske enklet ikke holder.  Denne typen piratvirksomhet er
2768 krampaktig og ganske enkelt galt.  Den endrer ikke innholdet den stjeler,
2769 den endrer ikke markedet den konkurrerer i. Den gir kun noen tilgang til noe
2770 som loven sier at han ikke skulle hatt.  Ingenting har endret for å skape
2771 tvil om loven.  Denne formen for piratvirksomhet er rett ut galt.
2772 </p><p>
2773 Men som eksemplene fra de fire kapittlene som introduserte denne delen
2774 foreslår, selv om noe piratvirksomhet helt klart er galt, er ikke all
2775 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> galt.  Eller i det minste er ikke all
2776 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> galt hvis uttrykket skal forstås slik det i
2777 stadig større grad blir brukt i dag.  Mange typer
2778 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> er nyttig og produktivt, enten for å
2779 produsere nytt innhold eller nye måter å drive forretninger.  Hverken vår
2780 tradisjon eller noen annen tradisjon har noen sinne bannlyst all
2781 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> i den betydningen av uttrykket.
2782 </p><p>
2783 Dette betyr ikke at det ikke er reist noen spørsmål på grunn av den nyeste
2784 piratvirksomhetsbekymringen, peer-to-peer-fildeling.  Men det betyr at vi
2785 trenger å forstå skaden i peer-to-peer-deling litt mer før vi dømmer den til
2786 galgen med anklager om piratvirksomhet.
2787 </p><p>
2788 For (1) på samme måte som det opprinnelige Hollywod, rømmer p2p-fildeling
2789 fra en altfor kontrollerene industri og (2) på samme måte som den
2790 opprinnelige innspillingsindustrien, ganske enkelt utnytter den nye måter å
2791 spre innhold på, men (3) til forskjell fra kabel-TV er det ingen som selger
2792 innholdet som blir delt med p2p-tjenester.
2793 </p><p>
2794 Disse forskjellene skiller p2p-deling fra virkelig
2795 piratvirksomhet. Forskjellen bør få oss til å finne en måte å beskytte
2796 kustnerne mens vi gjør det mulig for denne delingen å overleve.
2797 </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>
2798
2799 Nøkkelen til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>»</span> som loven tar sikte på å svise
2800 er den bruken som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frata forfatteren overskuddet</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3008466" href="#ftn.id3008466" class="footnote">73</a>]</sup> Dette betyr vi må avgjøre hvorvidt og hvor mye
2801 p2p-deling skader før vi vet hvor sterkt loven bør søke å enten hindre det
2802 eller finne et alternativ for å sikre forfatteren hans overskudd.
2803 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3008487"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3008494"></a><p>
2804 Peer-to-peer-deling ble gjort berømt av Napster.  Men oppfinnerne av
2805 Napster-teknologien hadde ikke gjort noen store teknologiske nyskapninger.
2806 Som ethvert stort steg i nyskapningen på internettet (og, kan det
2807 argumenteres for, utenfor internettet<sup>[<a name="id3008510" href="#ftn.id3008510" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>)
2808 hadde Shawn Fanning og hans bemanning ganske enkelt satt sammen deler som
2809 hadde blitt utviklet uavhengig av hverandre.
2810 </p><p>
2811 The result was spontaneous combustion. Launched in July 1999, Napster
2812 amassed over 10 million users within nine months. After eighteen months,
2813 there were close to 80 million registered users of the system.<sup>[<a name="id3008554" href="#ftn.id3008554" class="footnote">75</a>]</sup> Courts quickly shut Napster down, but other
2814 services emerged to take its place. (Kazaa is currently the most popular p2p
2815 service. It boasts over 100 million members.) These services' systems are
2816 different architecturally, though not very different in function: Each
2817 enables users to make content available to any number of other users. With a
2818 p2p system, you can share your favorite songs with your best friend&#8212;
2819 or your 20,000 best friends.
2820 </p><p>
2821 According to a number of estimates, a huge proportion of Americans have
2822 tasted file-sharing technology. A study by Ipsos-Insight in September 2002
2823 estimated that 60 million Americans had downloaded music&#8212;28 percent of
2824 Americans older than 12.<sup>[<a name="id3008603" href="#ftn.id3008603" class="footnote">76</a>]</sup> A survey by
2825 the NPD group quoted in <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> estimated
2826 that 43 million citizens used file-sharing networks to exchange content in
2827 May 2003.<sup>[<a name="id3008631" href="#ftn.id3008631" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these
2828 are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a massive quantity of content is
2829 being <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taken</span>»</span> on these networks. The ease and inexpensiveness
2830 of file-sharing networks have inspired millions to enjoy music in a way that
2831 they hadn't before.
2832 </p><p>
2833 Some of this enjoying involves copyright infringement. Some of it does
2834 not. And even among the part that is technically copyright infringement,
2835 calculating the actual harm to copyright owners is more complicated than one
2836 might think. So consider&#8212;a bit more carefully than the polarized
2837 voices around this debate usually do&#8212;the kinds of sharing that file
2838 sharing enables, and the kinds of harm it entails.
2839 </p><p>
2840
2841
2842 Fildelerne deler ulike typer innhold.  Vi kan dele disse ulike typene inn i
2843 fire typer.
2844 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="id3008682"></a><p>
2845
2846
2847 There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing
2848 content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD,
2849 these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who
2850 takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available
2851 for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who
2852 would.  The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead
2853 of purchasing.
2854 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2855
2856
2857 There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing
2858 it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard
2859 of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of
2860 targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed.  If the friend recommending
2861 the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect
2862 that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this
2863 sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.
2864 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2865
2866
2867 There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content
2868 that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the
2869 transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is
2870 among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood
2871 but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the
2872 network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a
2873 solid weekend <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">recalling</span>»</span> old songs. She was astonished at the
2874 range and mix of content that was available.)  For content not sold, this is
2875 still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright
2876 owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is
2877 zero&#8212;the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s
2878 45-rpm records to a local collector.
2879 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884 Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content
2885 that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.
2886 </p></li></ol></div><p>
2887 Hvordan balanserer disse ulike delingstypene?
2888 </p><p>
2889 Let's start with some simple but important points. From the perspective of
2890 the law, only type D sharing is clearly legal. From the perspective of
2891 economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.<sup>[<a name="id3008763" href="#ftn.id3008763" class="footnote">78</a>]</sup> Type B sharing is illegal but plainly
2892 beneficial. Type C sharing is illegal, yet good for society (since more
2893 exposure to music is good)  and harmless to the artist (since the work is
2894 not otherwise available). So how sharing matters on balance is a hard
2895 question to answer&#8212;and certainly much more difficult than the current
2896 rhetoric around the issue suggests.
2897 </p><p>
2898 Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how harmful
2899 type A sharing is. Just as Edison complained about Hollywood, composers
2900 complained about piano rolls, recording artists complained about radio, and
2901 broadcasters complained about cable TV, the music industry complains that
2902 type A sharing is a kind of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theft</span>»</span> that is
2903 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">devastating</span>»</span> the industry.
2904 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassette"></a><p>
2905 While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder
2906 to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame
2907 technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a
2908 good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst &amp; Young put it,
2909 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels
2910 fought it.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3008829" href="#ftn.id3008829" class="footnote">79</a>]</sup> The labels claimed
2911 that every album taped was an album unsold, and when record sales fell by
2912 11.4 percent in 1981, the industry claimed that its point was
2913 proved. Technology was the problem, and banning or regulating technology was
2914 the answer.
2915 </p><p>
2916 Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity to enact
2917 regulation, MTV was launched, and the industry had a record
2918 turnaround. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the end,</span>»</span> Cap Gemini concludes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
2919 `crisis' &#8230; was not the fault of the tapers&#8212;who did not [stop
2920 after MTV came into being]&#8212;but had to a large extent resulted from
2921 stagnation in musical innovation at the major labels.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3008084" href="#ftn.id3008084" class="footnote">80</a>]</sup>
2922 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3008896"></a><p>
2923 But just because the industry was wrong before does not mean it is wrong
2924 today. To evaluate the real threat that p2p sharing presents to the industry
2925 in particular, and society in general&#8212;or at least the society that
2926 inherits the tradition that gave us the film industry, the record industry,
2927 the radio industry, cable TV, and the VCR&#8212;the question is not simply
2928 whether type A sharing is harmful. The question is also
2929 <span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> harmful type A sharing is, and how beneficial the
2930 other types of sharing are.
2931 </p><p>
2932 We start to answer this question by focusing on the net harm, from the
2933 standpoint of the industry as a whole, that sharing networks cause.  The
2934 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">net harm</span>»</span> to the industry as a whole is the amount by which
2935 type A sharing exceeds type B. If the record companies sold more records
2936 through sampling than they lost through substitution, then sharing networks
2937 would actually benefit music companies on balance. They would therefore have
2938 little <span class="emphasis"><em>static</em></span> reason to resist them.
2939
2940 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdssales"></a><p>
2941 Could that be true? Could the industry as a whole be gaining because of file
2942 sharing? Odd as that might sound, the data about CD sales actually suggest
2943 it might be close.
2944 </p><p>
2945 In 2002, the RIAA reported that CD sales had fallen by 8.9 percent, from 882
2946 million to 803 million units; revenues fell 6.7 percent.<sup>[<a name="id3008961" href="#ftn.id3008961" class="footnote">81</a>]</sup> This confirms a trend over the past few years. The
2947 RIAA blames Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other
2948 causes that could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a
2949 more than 20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since 1999. That no
2950 doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales. Rising prices could
2951 account for at least some of the loss. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From 1999 to 2001, the average
2952 price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3009011" href="#ftn.id3009011" class="footnote">82</a>]</sup> Competition from other forms of media could also
2953 account for some of the decline. As Jane Black of
2954 <em class="citetitle">BusinessWeek</em> notes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The soundtrack to the film
2955 <em class="citetitle">High Fidelity</em> has a list price of $18.98. You could
2956 get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3009048" href="#ftn.id3009048" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
2957 </p><p>
2958
2959
2960
2961 But let's assume the RIAA is right, and all of the decline in CD sales is
2962 because of Internet sharing. Here's the rub: In the same period that the
2963 RIAA estimates that 803 million CDs were sold, the RIAA estimates that 2.1
2964 billion CDs were downloaded for free. Thus, although 2.6 times the total
2965 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, sales revenue fell by just 6.7
2966 percent.
2967 </p><p>
2968 There are too many different things happening at the same time to explain
2969 these numbers definitively, but one conclusion is unavoidable: The recording
2970 industry constantly asks, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What's the difference between downloading a
2971 song and stealing a CD?</span>»</span>&#8212;but their own numbers reveal the
2972 difference. If I steal a CD, then there is one less CD to sell. Every taking
2973 is a lost sale. But on the basis of the numbers the RIAA provides, it is
2974 absolutely clear that the same is not true of downloads. If every download
2975 were a lost sale&#8212;if every use of Kazaa <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rob[bed] the author of
2976 [his] profit</span>»</span>&#8212;then the industry would have suffered a 100
2977 percent drop in sales last year, not a 7 percent drop. If 2.6 times the
2978 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, and yet sales revenue dropped
2979 by just 6.7 percent, then there is a huge difference between
2980 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">downloading a song and stealing a CD.</span>»</span>
2981 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3009096"></a><p>
2982 These are the harms&#8212;alleged and perhaps exaggerated but, let's assume,
2983 real. What of the benefits? File sharing may impose costs on the recording
2984 industry. What value does it produce in addition to these costs?
2985 </p><p>
2986 One benefit is type C sharing&#8212;making available content that is
2987 technically still under copyright but is no longer commercially available.
2988 This is not a small category of content. There are millions of tracks that
2989 are no longer commercially available.<sup>[<a name="id3009106" href="#ftn.id3009106" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup>
2990 And while it's conceivable that some of this content is not available
2991 because the artist producing the content doesn't want it to be made
2992 available, the vast majority of it is unavailable solely because the
2993 publisher or the distributor has decided it no longer makes economic sense
2994 <span class="emphasis"><em>to the company</em></span> to make it available.
2995 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3009145"></a><p>
2996 In real space&#8212;long before the Internet&#8212;the market had a simple
2997 response to this problem: used book and record stores. There are thousands
2998 of used book and used record stores in America today.<sup>[<a name="id3009156" href="#ftn.id3009156" class="footnote">85</a>]</sup> These stores buy content from owners, then sell the
2999 content they buy. And under American copyright law, when they buy and sell
3000 this content, <span class="emphasis"><em>even if the content is still under
3001 copyright</em></span>, the copyright owner doesn't get a dime. Used book and
3002 record stores are commercial entities; their owners make money from the
3003 content they sell; but as with cable companies before statutory licensing,
3004 they don't have to pay the copyright owner for the content they sell.
3005 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3009214"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3009221"></a><p>
3006 Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used record
3007 stores. It is different, of course, because the person making the content
3008 available isn't making money from making the content available.  It is also
3009 different, of course, because in real space, when I sell a record, I don't
3010 have it anymore, while in cyberspace, when someone shares my 1949 recording
3011 of Bernstein's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Two Love Songs,</span>»</span> I still have it. That
3012 difference would matter economically if the owner of the copyright were
3013 selling the record in competition to my sharing. But we're talking about the
3014 class of content that is not currently commercially available. The Internet
3015 is making it available, through cooperative sharing, without competing with
3016 the market.
3017 </p><p>
3018 It may well be, all things considered, that it would be better if the
3019 copyright owner got something from this trade. But just because it may well
3020 be better, it doesn't follow that it would be good to ban used book
3021 stores. Or put differently, if you think that type C sharing should be
3022 stopped, do you think that libraries and used book stores should be shut as
3023 well?
3024 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline1"></a><p>
3025
3026 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, file-sharing networks enable type D
3027 sharing to occur&#8212;the sharing of content that copyright owners want to
3028 have shared or for which there is no continuing copyright. This sharing
3029 clearly benefits authors and society. Science fiction author Cory Doctorow,
3030 for example, released his first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
3031 Kingdom</em>, both free on-line and in bookstores on the same
3032 day. His (and his publisher's) thinking was that the on-line distribution
3033 would be a great advertisement for the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">real</span>»</span> book. People
3034 would read part on-line, and then decide whether they liked the book or
3035 not. If they liked it, they would be more likely to buy it. Doctorow's
3036 content is type D content. If sharing networks enable his work to be spread,
3037 then both he and society are better off. (Actually, much better off: It is a
3038 great book!)
3039 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3009296"></a><p>
3040 Likewise for work in the public domain: This sharing benefits society with
3041 no legal harm to authors at all. If efforts to solve the problem of type A
3042 sharing destroy the opportunity for type D sharing, then we lose something
3043 important in order to protect type A content.
3044 </p><p>
3045 The point throughout is this: While the recording industry understandably
3046 says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This is how much we've lost,</span>»</span> we must also ask,
3047 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much has society gained from p2p sharing? What are the
3048 efficiencies? What is the content that otherwise would be
3049 unavailable?</span>»</span>
3050 </p><p>
3051 For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this chapter, much
3052 of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> that file sharing enables is plainly legal and
3053 good.  And like the piracy I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Chapter 4. Kapittel fire: «Pirater»">4</a>, much of this piracy is motivated by a new
3054 way of spreading content caused by changes in the technology of
3055 distribution. Thus, consistent with the tradition that gave us Hollywood,
3056 radio, the recording industry, and cable TV, the question we should be
3057 asking about file sharing is how best to preserve its benefits while
3058 minimizing (to the extent possible) the wrongful harm it causes artists. The
3059 question is one of balance. The law should seek that balance, and that
3060 balance will be found only with time.
3061 </p><p>
3062 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Men er ikke krigen bare en krig mot ulovlig deling?  Er ikke
3063 angrepsmålet bare det du kaller type-A-deling?</span>»</span>
3064 </p><p>
3065 You would think. And we should hope. But so far, it is not. The effect of
3066 the war purportedly on type A sharing alone has been felt far beyond that
3067 one class of sharing. That much is obvious from the Napster case
3068 itself. When Napster told the district court that it had developed a
3069 technology to block the transfer of 99.4 percent of identified infringing
3070 material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4 percent was not
3071 good enough. Napster had to push the infringements <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">down to
3072 zero.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3009382" href="#ftn.id3009382" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
3073 </p><p>
3074 If 99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing
3075 technologies, not a war on copyright infringement. There is no way to assure
3076 that a p2p system is used 100 percent of the time in compliance with the
3077 law, any more than there is a way to assure that 100 percent of VCRs or 100
3078 percent of Xerox machines or 100 percent of handguns are used in compliance
3079 with the law. Zero tolerance means zero p2p.  The court's ruling means that
3080 we as a society must lose the benefits of p2p, even for the totally legal
3081 and beneficial uses they serve, simply to assure that there are zero
3082 copyright infringements caused by p2p.
3083 </p><p>
3084 Zero tolerance has not been our history. It has not produced the content
3085 industry that we know today. The history of American law has been a process
3086 of balance. As new technologies changed the way content was distributed, the
3087 law adjusted, after some time, to the new technology.  In this adjustment,
3088 the law sought to ensure the legitimate rights of creators while protecting
3089 innovation. Sometimes this has meant more rights for creators. Sometimes
3090 less.
3091 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3009432"></a><p>
3092 So, as we've seen, when <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mechanical reproduction</span>»</span> threatened
3093 the interests of composers, Congress balanced the rights of composers
3094 against the interests of the recording industry. It granted rights to
3095 composers, but also to the recording artists: Composers were to be paid, but
3096 at a price set by Congress. But when radio started broadcasting the
3097 recordings made by these recording artists, and they complained to Congress
3098 that their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> was not being respected (since
3099 the radio station did not have to pay them for the creativity it broadcast),
3100 Congress rejected their claim. An indirect benefit was enough.
3101 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxcabletv2"></a><p>
3102 Cable TV followed the pattern of record albums. When the courts rejected the
3103 claim that cable broadcasters had to pay for the content they rebroadcast,
3104 Congress responded by giving broadcasters a right to compensation, but at a
3105 level set by the law. It likewise gave cable companies the right to the
3106 content, so long as they paid the statutory price.
3107 </p><p>
3108
3109
3110
3111 This compromise, like the compromise affecting records and player pianos,
3112 served two important goals&#8212;indeed, the two central goals of any
3113 copyright legislation. First, the law assured that new innovators would have
3114 the freedom to develop new ways to deliver content.  Second, the law assured
3115 that copyright holders would be paid for the content that was
3116 distributed. One fear was that if Congress simply required cable TV to pay
3117 copyright holders whatever they demanded for their content, then copyright
3118 holders associated with broadcasters would use their power to stifle this
3119 new technology, cable. But if Congress had permitted cable to use
3120 broadcasters' content for free, then it would have unfairly subsidized
3121 cable. Thus Congress chose a path that would assure
3122 <span class="emphasis"><em>compensation</em></span> without giving the past (broadcasters)
3123 control over the future (cable).
3124 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3009503"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3009511"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs1"></a><p>
3125 In the same year that Congress struck this balance, two major producers and
3126 distributors of film content filed a lawsuit against another technology, the
3127 video tape recorder (VTR, or as we refer to them today, VCRs) that Sony had
3128 produced, the Betamax. Disney's and Universal's claim against Sony was
3129 relatively simple: Sony produced a device, Disney and Universal claimed,
3130 that enabled consumers to engage in copyright infringement. Because the
3131 device that Sony built had a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">record</span>»</span> button, the device could
3132 be used to record copyrighted movies and shows. Sony was therefore
3133 benefiting from the copyright infringement of its customers. It should
3134 therefore, Disney and Universal claimed, be partially liable for that
3135 infringement.
3136 </p><p>
3137
3138 There was something to Disney's and Universal's claim. Sony did decide to
3139 design its machine to make it very simple to record television shows. It
3140 could have built the machine to block or inhibit any direct copying from a
3141 television broadcast. Or possibly, it could have built the machine to copy
3142 only if there were a special <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy me</span>»</span> signal on the line. It
3143 was clear that there were many television shows that did not grant anyone
3144 permission to copy. Indeed, if anyone had asked, no doubt the majority of
3145 shows would not have authorized copying. And in the face of this obvious
3146 preference, Sony could have designed its system to minimize the opportunity
3147 for copyright infringement. It did not, and for that, Disney and Universal
3148 wanted to hold it responsible for the architecture it chose.
3149 </p><p>
3150 MPAA president Jack Valenti became the studios' most vocal champion. Valenti
3151 called VCRs <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tapeworms.</span>»</span> He warned, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">When there are 20,
3152 30, 40 million of these VCRs in the land, we will be invaded by millions of
3153 `tapeworms,' eating away at the very heart and essence of the most precious
3154 asset the copyright owner has, his copyright.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3009583" href="#ftn.id3009583" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">One does not have to be trained in
3155 sophisticated marketing and creative judgment,</span>»</span> he told Congress,
3156 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to understand the devastation on the after-theater marketplace caused
3157 by the hundreds of millions of tapings that will adversely impact on the
3158 future of the creative community in this country. It is simply a question of
3159 basic economics and plain common sense.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3009605" href="#ftn.id3009605" class="footnote">88</a>]</sup> Indeed, as surveys would later show, percent of VCR owners had
3160 movie libraries of ten videos or more<sup>[<a name="id3009614" href="#ftn.id3009614" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup>
3161 &#8212; a use the Court would later hold was not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair.</span>»</span> By
3162 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the means of an exemption from
3163 copyright infringementwithout creating a mechanism to compensate
3164 copyrightowners,</span>»</span> Valenti testified, Congress would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">take from
3165 the owners the very essence of their property: the exclusive right to
3166 control who may use their work, that is, who may copy it and thereby profit
3167 from its reproduction.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3009644" href="#ftn.id3009644" class="footnote">90</a>]</sup>
3168 </p><p>
3169 It took eight years for this case to be resolved by the Supreme Court. In
3170 the interim, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Hollywood in
3171 its jurisdiction&#8212;leading Judge Alex Kozinski, who sits on that court,
3172 refers to it as the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hollywood Circuit</span>»</span>&#8212;held that Sony
3173 would be liable for the copyright infringement made possible by its
3174 machines. Under the Ninth Circuit's rule, this totally familiar
3175 technology&#8212;which Jack Valenti had called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Boston Strangler
3176 of the American film industry</span>»</span> (worse yet, it was a
3177 <span class="emphasis"><em>Japanese</em></span> Boston Strangler of the American film
3178 industry)&#8212;was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id3009666" href="#ftn.id3009666" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id3009690"></a>
3179 </p><p>
3180
3181 But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit.  And in
3182 its reversal, the Court clearly articulated its understanding of when and
3183 whether courts should intervene in such disputes. As the Court wrote,
3184 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3185 Sound policy, as well as history, supports our consistent deference to
3186 Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for
3187 copyrighted materials. Congress has the constitutional authority and the
3188 institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of
3189 competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new
3190 technology.<sup>[<a name="id3009716" href="#ftn.id3009716" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
3191 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3192 Congress was asked to respond to the Supreme Court's decision.  But as with
3193 the plea of recording artists about radio broadcasts, Congress ignored the
3194 request. Congress was convinced that American film got enough, this
3195 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span> notwithstanding.  If we put these cases together, a
3196 pattern is clear:
3197 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t1"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Tilfelle</th><th align="left">Hvems verdi ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røvet</span>»</span></th><th align="left">Responsen til domstolene</th><th align="left">Responsen til Kongressen</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Innspillinger</td><td align="left">Komponister</td><td align="left">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="left">Lovbestemt lisens</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Radio</td><td align="left">Innspillingsartister</td><td align="left">N/A</td><td align="left">Ingenting</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Kabel-TV</td><td align="left">Kringkastere</td><td align="left">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="left">Lovbestemt lisens</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Videospiller/opptaker</td><td align="left">Filmskapere</td><td align="left">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="left">Ingenting</td></tr></tbody></table></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3009844"></a><p>
3198 In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the way
3199 content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id3009856" href="#ftn.id3009856" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
3200 throughout our history, that change meant that someone got a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free
3201 ride</span>»</span> on someone else's work.
3202 </p><p>
3203
3204 In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these cases did either the courts or
3205 Congress eliminate all free riding. In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these
3206 cases did the courts or Congress insist that the law should assure that the
3207 copyright holder get all the value that his copyright created. In every
3208 case, the copyright owners complained of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy.</span>»</span> In every
3209 case, Congress acted to recognize some of the legitimacy in the behavior of
3210 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates.</span>»</span> In each case, Congress allowed some new
3211 technology to benefit from content made before. It balanced the interests at
3212 stake.
3213
3214 </p><p>
3215 When you think across these examples, and the other examples that make up
3216 the first four chapters of this section, this balance makes sense. Was Walt
3217 Disney a pirate? Would doujinshi be better if creators had to ask
3218 permission? Should tools that enable others to capture and spread images as
3219 a way to cultivate or criticize our culture be better regulated? Is it
3220 really right that building a search engine should expose you to $15 million
3221 in damages? Would it have been better if Edison had controlled film? Should
3222 every cover band have to hire a lawyer to get permission to record a song?
3223 </p><p>
3224 We could answer yes to each of these questions, but our tradition has
3225 answered no. In our tradition, as the Supreme Court has stated, copyright
3226 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all
3227 possible uses of his work.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3009962" href="#ftn.id3009962" class="footnote">94</a>]</sup>
3228 Instead, the particular uses that the law regulates have been defined by
3229 balancing the good that comes from granting an exclusive right against the
3230 burdens such an exclusive right creates. And this balancing has historically
3231 been done <span class="emphasis"><em>after</em></span> a technology has matured, or settled
3232 into the mix of technologies that facilitate the distribution of content.
3233 </p><p>
3234 We should be doing the same thing today. The technology of the Internet is
3235 changing quickly. The way people connect to the Internet (wires
3236 vs. wireless) is changing very quickly. No doubt the network should not
3237 become a tool for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stealing</span>»</span> from artists. But neither should
3238 the law become a tool to entrench one particular way in which artists (or
3239 more accurately, distributors) get paid. As I describe in some detail in the
3240 last chapter of this book, we should be securing income to artists while we
3241 allow the market to secure the most efficient way to promote and distribute
3242 content. This will require changes in the law, at least in the
3243 interim. These changes should be designed to balance the protection of the
3244 law against the strong public interest that innovation continue.
3245 </p><p>
3246
3247
3248 This is especially true when a new technology enables a vastly superior mode
3249 of distribution. And this p2p has done. P2p technologies can be ideally
3250 efficient in moving content across a widely diverse network.  Left to
3251 develop, they could make the network vastly more efficient.  Yet these
3252 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">potential public benefits,</span>»</span> as John Schwartz writes in
3253 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">could be delayed in the
3254 P2P fight.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3010022" href="#ftn.id3010022" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup>
3255 </p><p>
3256 <span class="strong"><strong>Yet when anyone</strong></span> begins to talk about
3257 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balance,</span>»</span> the copyright warriors raise a different
3258 argument. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All this hand waving about balance and incentives,</span>»</span>
3259 they say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">misses a fundamental point. Our content,</span>»</span> the
3260 warriors insist, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">is our <span class="emphasis"><em>property</em></span>. Why should we
3261 wait for Congress to `rebalance' our property rights? Do you have to wait
3262 before calling the police when your car has been stolen? And why should
3263 Congress deliberate at all about the merits of this theft? Do we ask whether
3264 the car thief had a good use for the car before we arrest him?</span>»</span>
3265 </p><p>
3266 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det er <span class="emphasis"><em>vår eiendom</em></span>,</span>»</span> insisterer
3267 krigerne. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">og den bør være beskyttet på samme måte som all annen
3268 eiendom er beskyttet.</span>»</span>
3269 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3007683" href="#id3007683" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
3270
3271
3272 See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry),
3273 <em class="citetitle">The Recording Industry Commercial Piracy Report 2003</em>,
3274 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
3275 #14</a>. See also Ben Hunt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Companies Warned on Music Piracy
3276 Risk,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Financial Times</em>, 14 February 2003, 11.
3277 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3008002" href="#id3008002" class="para">71</a>] </sup>
3278
3279 Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: <em class="citetitle">Who
3280 Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New Press, 2003),
3281 10&#8211;13, 209.  Avtalen om handelsrelaterte aspektene av immaterielle
3282 rettigheter (TRIPS) forplikter medlemsnasjonene til å få på plass
3283 administrative og håndhevingsmekanismer for immaterielle rettigheter,
3284 hvilket er et kostbar forslag for utviklingsland.  I tillegg kan
3285 patentrettigheter føre til høyere priser for grunnleggende industrier som
3286 næringsmiddelindustrien.  Kritikerne av TRIPS stiller spørsmål om avviket
3287 mellom belastningen den legger på utviklingland og fordelene den gir til
3288 industrialiserte land.  TRIPS tillater myndigheter å bruke patenter til
3289 ikke-kommersielle formål som kommer folket til gode uten å først få
3290 tillatelse fra patentinnehaveren.  Utviklingsland kan være i stand til å
3291 bruke dette til å få fordelene fra utenlandske patenter til lavere priser.
3292 Dette er en lovende strategi for utviklingsland innenfor
3293 TRIPS-rammeverket. <a class="indexterm" name="id3007009"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3008036"></a>
3294 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3008071" href="#id3008071" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
3295
3296 For en analyse av den økomiske effekten av kopieringsteknologi, se Stan
3297 Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em> (New York:
3298 Amacom, 2002), 144&#8211;190. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I noen tilfeller &#8230; vil effekten
3299 av piratvirksomhet på opphavsrettsinnehaverens mulighet til å nyte godt av
3300 verdien av verket vil være neglisjerbart. Et åpenbart tilfelle er der
3301 individet som tar nyter godt av piratvirksomheten ikke ville ha kjøpt
3302 originalen selv om piratvirksomhet ikke var en mulighet.</span>»</span> Ibid.,
3303 149.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3008095"></a>
3304 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3008466" href="#id3008466" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
3305
3306
3307 <em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
3308 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777).
3309 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3008510" href="#id3008510" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
3310
3311 <a class="indexterm" name="id3008514"></a> See Clayton M. Christensen,
3312 <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary National Bestseller
3313 That Changed the Way We Do Business</em> (New York: HarperBusiness,
3314 2000). Professor Christensen examines why companies that give rise to and
3315 dominate a product area are frequently unable to come up with the most
3316 creative, paradigm-shifting uses for their own products.  This job usually
3317 falls to outside innovators, who reassemble existing technology in inventive
3318 ways. For a discussion of Christensen's ideas, see Lawrence Lessig,
3319 <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 89&#8211;92, 139.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3008081"></a>
3320 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3008554" href="#id3008554" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
3321
3322
3323 See Carolyn Lochhead, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood
3324 Nightmare,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24
3325 September 2002, A1; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rock 'n' Roll Suicide,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
3326 Scientist</em>, 6 July 2002, 42; Benny Evangelista, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Napster
3327 Names CEO, Secures New Financing,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
3328 Chronicle</em>, 23 May 2003, C1; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Napster's Wake-Up
3329 Call,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24 June 2000, 23; John
3330 Naughton, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hollywood at War with the Internet</span>»</span> (London)
3331 <em class="citetitle">Times</em>, 26 July 2002, 18.
3332 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3008603" href="#id3008603" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
3333
3334
3335
3336 See Ipsos-Insight, <em class="citetitle">TEMPO: Keeping Pace with Online Music
3337 Distribution</em> (September 2002), reporting that 28 percent of
3338 Americans aged twelve and older have downloaded music off of the Internet
3339 and 30 percent have listened to digital music files stored on their
3340 computers.
3341 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3008631" href="#id3008631" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
3342
3343
3344 Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,</span>»</span>
3345 <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 6. juni 2003, A1.
3346 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3008763" href="#id3008763" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
3347
3348 Se Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
3349 148&#8211;49.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3008538"></a>
3350 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3008829" href="#id3008829" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
3351
3352 <a class="indexterm" name="id3008832"></a> See Cap Gemini Ernst &amp; Young,
3353 <em class="citetitle">Technology Evolution and the Music Industry's Business Model
3354 Crisis</em> (2003), 3. This report describes the music industry's
3355 effort to stigmatize the budding practice of cassette taping in the 1970s,
3356 including an advertising campaign featuring a cassette-shape skull and the
3357 caption <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Home taping is killing music.</span>»</span> At the time digital
3358 audio tape became a threat, the Office of Technical Assessment conducted a
3359 survey of consumer behavior. In 1988, 40 percent of consumers older than ten
3360 had taped music to a cassette format. U.S.  Congress, Office of Technology
3361 Assessment, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the
3362 Law</em>, OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.  Government Printing
3363 Office, October 1989), 145&#8211;56.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3008084" href="#id3008084" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
3364
3365
3366 U.S. Congress, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying</em>, 4.
3367 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3008961" href="#id3008961" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
3368
3369
3370 See Recording Industry Association of America, <em class="citetitle">2002 Yearend
3371 Statistics</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #15</a>. A later report
3372 indicates even greater losses. See Recording Industry Association of
3373 America, <em class="citetitle">Some Facts About Music Piracy</em>, 25 June 2003,
3374 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #16</a>:
3375 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the past four years, unit shipments of recorded music have fallen
3376 by 26 percent from 1.16 billion units in to 860 million units in 2002 in the
3377 United States (based on units shipped).  In terms of sales, revenues are
3378 down 14 percent, from $14.6 billion in to $12.6 billion last year (based on
3379 U.S. dollar value of shipments). The music industry worldwide has gone from
3380 a $39 billion industry in 2000 down to a $32 billion industry in 2002 (based
3381 on U.S. dollar value of shipments).</span>»</span>
3382 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3009011" href="#id3009011" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
3383 Jane Black, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Big Music's Broken Record</span>»</span>, BusinessWeek online,
3384 13. februar 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3009028"></a>
3385 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3009048" href="#id3009048" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
3386
3387
3388 ibid.
3389 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3009106" href="#id3009106" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
3390
3391
3392 By one estimate, 75 percent of the music released by the major labels is no
3393 longer in print. See Online Entertainment and Copyright Law&#8212;Coming
3394 Soon to a Digital Device Near You: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on
3395 the Judiciary, 107th Cong., 1st sess. (3 April 2001) (prepared statement of
3396 the Future of Music Coalition), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #18</a>.
3397 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3009156" href="#id3009156" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
3398
3399 <a class="indexterm" name="id3009165"></a> While there are not good estimates of
3400 the number of used record stores in existence, in 2002, there were 7,198
3401 used book dealers in the United States, an increase of 20 percent since
3402 1993. See Book Hunter Press, <em class="citetitle">The Quiet Revolution: The Expansion
3403 of the Used Book Market</em> (2002), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #19</a>. Used records accounted
3404 for $260 million in sales in 2002. See National Association of Recording
3405 Merchandisers, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">2002 Annual Survey Results,</span>»</span> available at
3406 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #20</a>.
3407 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3009382" href="#id3009382" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
3408
3409
3410 See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34- 35
3411 (N.D. Cal., 11 July 2001), nos. MDL-00-1369 MHP, C 99-5183 MHP, available at
3412 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #21</a>. For an account
3413 of the litigation and its toll on Napster, see Joseph Menn, <em class="citetitle">All
3414 the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster</em> (New
3415 York: Crown Business, 2003), 269&#8211;82.
3416 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3009583" href="#id3009583" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
3417
3418
3419 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders): Hearing on S. 1758
3420 Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess.,
3421 459 (1982) (testimony of Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association
3422 of America, Inc.).
3423 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3009605" href="#id3009605" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
3424
3425
3426 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
3427 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3009614" href="#id3009614" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
3428
3429
3430 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Sony
3431 Corp. of America</em>, 480 F. Supp. 429, (C.D. Cal., 1979).
3432 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3009644" href="#id3009644" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
3433
3434
3435 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (testimony of Jack
3436 Valenti).
3437 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3009666" href="#id3009666" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
3438
3439
3440 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Sony
3441 Corp. of America</em>, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th Cir.  1981).
3442 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3009716" href="#id3009716" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
3443
3444
3445 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3446 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984).
3447 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3009856" href="#id3009856" class="para">93</a>] </sup>
3448
3449 These are the most important instances in our history, but there are other
3450 cases as well. The technology of digital audio tape (DAT), for example, was
3451 regulated by Congress to minimize the risk of piracy. The remedy Congress
3452 imposed did burden DAT producers, by taxing tape sales and controlling the
3453 technology of DAT. See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (Title 17 of the
3454 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>), Pub. L. No. 102-563, 106 Stat.
3455 4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. §1001. Again, however, this regulation did not
3456 eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
3457 Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. See also Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From
3458 Edison to the Broadcast Flag,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law
3459 Review</em> 70 (2003): 293&#8211;96.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3009404"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3009901"></a>
3460 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3009962" href="#id3009962" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
3461
3462
3463 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3464 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, (1984).
3465 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3010022" href="#id3010022" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
3466
3467
3468 John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software
3469 Echoes Past Efforts,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>,
3470 22. september 2003, C3.
3471 </p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Part II. «Eiendom»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-property"></a>Part II. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="«Eiendom»"><div></div><p>
3472
3473
3474
3475 <span class="strong"><strong>Opphavsretts-krigerne</strong></span> har rett:
3476 Opphavsretten er en type eiendom. Den kan eies og selges, og loven beskytter
3477 mot at den blir stjålet. Vanligvis, kan opphavsrettseieren be om hvilken som
3478 helst pris som han ønsker.  Markeder bestemmer tilbud og etterspørsel som i
3479 hvert tilfelle bestemmer prisen hun kan få.
3480 </p><p>
3481 Men i vanlig språk er det å kalle opphavsrett for en
3482 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendoms</span>»</span>-rett litt misvisende, for eindommen i opphavsretten
3483 er en merkelig type eiendom.  Selve Idéen om eienrettigheter til en idé
3484 eller et uttrykk er nemlig veldig merkelig.  Jeg forstår hva jeg tar når jeg
3485 tar en piknik-bord som du plasserte i din bakhage.  Jeg tar en ting,
3486 piknik-bokrdet, og etter at jeg tar det har ikke du det.  Men hva tar jeg
3487 når jeg tar den gode <span class="emphasis"><em>idéen</em></span> som du hadde om å plassere
3488 piknik-bordet i bakhagen&#8212;ved å for eksempel dra til butikken Sears,
3489 kjøpe et bord, og plassere det i min egen bakhage? Hva er tingen jeg tar da?
3490 </p><p>
3491 Poenget er ikke bare om hvorvidt piknik-bord og ideer er ting, selv om det
3492 er en viktig forskjell.  Poenget er istedet at i det vanlige
3493 tilfelle&#8212;faktisk i praktisk talt ethvert tilfelle unntatt en begrenset
3494 rekke med unntak&#8212;er ideer sluppet ut i verden frie. Jeg tar ingenting
3495 fra deg når jeg kopierer måten du kler deg&#8212;selv om det ville se sært
3496 ut hvis jeg gjorde det hver dag, og spesielt sært hvis du er en kvinne.
3497 Istedet, som Thomas Jefferson sa (og det er spesielt sant når jeg kopierer
3498 hvordan noen andre kler seg), <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Den som mottar en idé fra meg, får selv
3499 information uten å ta noe fra me, på samme måte som den som tenner sitt lys
3500 från min veike får lys utan å forlate meg i mørket</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3010184" href="#ftn.id3010184" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
3501 </p><p>
3502 Unntakene til fri bruk er ideer og uttrykk innenfor dekningsområdet til
3503 loven om patent og opphavsrett, og noen få andre områder som jeg ikke vil
3504 diskutere her.  Her sier loven at du ikke kan ta min idé eller uttrykk uten
3505 min tilatelse: Loven gjør det immaterielle til eiendom.
3506 </p><p>
3507 Men hvordan, og i hvilken utstrekning, og i hvilken form&#8212;detaljene,
3508 med andre ord&#8212;betyr noe.  For å få en god forståelse om hvordan denne
3509 praksis om å gjøre det immaterielle om til eiendom vokste frem, trenger vi å
3510 plassere denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> i sin rette sammenheng.<sup>[<a name="id3010227" href="#ftn.id3010227" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
3511 </p><p>
3512 Min strategi for å gjøre detet er den samme som min strategi i den
3513 foregående del.  Jeg tilbyr fire historier som bidrar til å plassere
3514 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettsmateriale er eiendom</span>»</span> i sammenheng.  Hvor kom
3515 idéen fra?  Hva er dens begresninger?  Hvordan fungerer dette i praksis.
3516 Etter disse historiene vil betydningen til dette sanne
3517 utsagnet&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettsmateriale er eiendom</span>»</span>&#8212; bli
3518 litt mer klart, og dets implikasjoner vil bli avslørt som ganske forskjellig
3519 fra implikasjonene som opphavsrettskrigerne vil at vi skal forstå.
3520 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3010184" href="#id3010184" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
3521
3522
3523 Brev fra Thomas Jefferson til Isaac McPherson (13. august 1813) i
3524 <em class="citetitle">The Writings of Thomas Jefferson</em>, vol. 6 (Andrew
3525 A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, eds., 1903), 330, 333&#8211;34.
3526 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3010227" href="#id3010227" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
3527
3528
3529 Slik de juridiske realistene lærte bort amerikansk lov, var alle
3530 eiendomsretter immaterielle.  En eiendomsrett er ganske enkelt den retten
3531 som et idivid har mot verden til å gjøre eller ikke gjøre visse ting som er
3532 eller ikke er knyttet til et fysisk objekt.  Retten i seg selv er
3533 immateriell, selv om objektet som det er (metafysisk) knyttet til er
3534 materielt.  Se Adam Mossoff, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What Is Property? Putting the Pieces
3535 Back Together,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Arizona Law Review</em> 45 (2003):
3536 373, 429 n. 241.
3537 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Chapter 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3010291"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3010297"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksenglishlaw"></a><p>
3538 <span class="strong"><strong>William Shakespeare</strong></span> skrev
3539 <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> i 1595. Skuespillet ble først utgitt i
3540 1597. Det var det ellevte store skuespillet Shakespeare hadde skrevet. Han
3541 fortsatte å skrive skuespill helt til 1613, og stykkene han skrevhar
3542 fortsatt å definere angloamerikansk kultur siden. Så dypt har verkene av en
3543 1500-talls forfatter sunket inn i vår kultur at vi ofte ikke engang kjenner
3544 kilden. Jeg overhørte en gang noen som kommentere Kenneth Branaghs utgave av
3545 Henry V: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg likte det, men Shakespeare er så full av
3546 klisjeer.</span>»</span>
3547 </p><p>
3548
3549 I 1774, nesten 180 år etter at <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> ble
3550 skrevet, mente mange at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsretten</span>»</span> kun tilhørte én eneste
3551 utgiver i London, John Tonson. <sup>[<a name="id3010358" href="#ftn.id3010358" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson
3552 var den mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
3553 Conger</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3010407" href="#ftn.id3010407" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup>, som kontrollerte
3554 boksalget i England gjennom hele 1700-tallet. The Conger hevdet at de hadde
3555 en evigvarende rett over <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopier</span>»</span> av bøker de hadde fått av
3556 forfatterne. Denne evigvarende retten innebar at ingen andre kunne publisere
3557 kopier av disse bøkene. Slik ble prisen på klassiske bøker holdt oppe; alle
3558 konkurrenter som lagde bedre eller billigere utgaver, ble fjernet.
3559 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbritishparliament"></a><p>
3560 Men altså, det er noe spennende med året 1774 for alle som vet litt om
3561 opphavsretts-lovgivning. Det mest kjente året for opphavsrett er 1710, da
3562 det britiske parlamentet vedtok den første loven. Denne loven er kjent som
3563 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> og sa at alle publiserte verk skulle være
3564 beskyttet i fjorten år, en periode som kunne fornyes én gang dersom
3565 forfatteren ennå levde, og at alle verk publisert i eller før 1710 skulle ha
3566 en ekstraperiode på 22 tillegsår.<sup>[<a name="id3010464" href="#ftn.id3010464" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> På
3567 grunn av denne loven, så skulle <em class="citetitle">Rome og Julie</em> ha falt
3568 i det fri i 1731. Hvordan kunne da Tonson fortsatt ha kontroll over verket i
3569 1774?
3570 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3010494"></a><p>
3571 Årsaken var ganske enkelt at engelskmennene ennå ikke hadde bestemt hva
3572 opphavsrett innebar -- faktisk hadde ingen i verden det. På den tiden da
3573 engelskmennene vedtok <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, var det ingen annen
3574 lovgivning om opphavsrett. Den siste loven som regulerte utgivere var
3575 lisensieringsloven av 1662, utløpt i 1695. At loven ga utgiverne monopol
3576 over publiseringen, noe som gjorde det enklere for kronen å kontrollere hva
3577 ble publisert. Men etter at det har utløpt, var det ingen positiv lov som sa
3578 at utgiverne hadde en eksklusiv rett til å trykke bøker.
3579 </p><p>
3580 At det ikke fantes noen <span class="emphasis"><em>positiv</em></span> lov, betydde ikke at
3581 det ikke fantes noen lov. Den anglo-amerikanske juridiske tradisjon ser både
3582 til lover skapt av politikere (det lovgivende statsorgen)og til lover
3583 (prejudikater) skapt av domstolene for å bestemme hvordan folket skal
3584 leve. Vi kaller politikernes lover for positiv lov og vi kaller lovene fra
3585 dommerne sedvanerett.<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Common law</span>»</span> angir bakgrunnen for de
3586 lovgivendes lovgivning; retten til lovgiving, vanligvis kan trumfe at
3587 bakgrunnen bare hvis det går gjennom en lov til å forskyve den. Og så var
3588 det virkelige spørsmålet etter lisensiering lover hadde utløpt om felles lov
3589 beskyttet opphavsretten, uavhengig av lovverket positiv.
3590 </p><p>
3591
3592 Dette spørsmålet var viktig for utgiverne eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bokselgere</span>»</span>,
3593 som de ble kalt, fordi det var økende konkurranse fra utenlandske utgivere,
3594 Særlig fra Skottland hvor publiseringen og eksporten av bøker til England
3595 hadde økt veldig. Denne konkurransen reduserte fortjenesten til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The
3596 Conger</span>»</span>, som derfor krevde at parlamentet igjen skulle vedta en lov
3597 for å gi dem eksklusiv kontroll over publisering. Dette kravet resulterte i
3598 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>.
3599 </p><p>
3600 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> ga forfatteren eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eieren</span>»</span> av
3601 en bok en eksklusiv rett til å publisere denne boken. Men det var, til
3602 bokhandernes forferdelse en viktig begrensning, nemlig hvor lenge denne
3603 retten skulle vare. Etter dette gikk trykkeretten bort og verket falt i det
3604 fri og kunne trykkes av hvem som helst. Det var ihvertfall det lovgiverne
3605 hadde tenkt.
3606 </p><p>
3607 Men nå det mest interessante med dette: Hvorfor ville parlamentet begrense
3608 trykkeretten? Sprøsmålet er ikke hvorfor de bestemte seg for denne perioden,
3609 men hvorfor ville de begrense retten <span class="emphasis"><em>i det hele tatt?</em></span>
3610 </p><p>
3611 Bokhandlerne, og forfatterne som de representerte, hadde et veldig sterkt
3612 krav. Ta <em class="citetitle">romeo og Julie</em> som et eksempel: Skuespillet
3613 ble skrevet av Shakespeare. Det var hans kreativitet som brakte det til
3614 verden. Han krenket ikke noens rett da han skrev dette verket (det er en
3615 kontroversiell påstanden, men det er urelevant), og med sin egen rett skapte
3616 han verket, han gjorde det ikke noe vanskeligere for andre til å lage
3617 skuespill. Så hvorfor skulle loven tillate at noen annen kunne komme og ta
3618 Shakespeares verkuten hans, eller hans arvingers, tillatelse? Hvilke grunner
3619 finnes for å tillate at noen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeler</span>»</span> Shakespeares verk?
3620 </p><p>
3621 Svaret er todel. Først må vi se på noe spesielt med oppfatningen av
3622 opphavsrett som fantes på tidspunktet da <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> ble
3623 vedtatt. Deretter må vi se på noe spesielt med bokhandlerne.
3624 </p><p>
3625
3626 Først om opphavsretten. I de siste tre hundre år har vi kommet til å bruke
3627 begrepet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> i stadig videre forstand. Men i 1710 var
3628 det ikke så mye et konsept som det var en bestemt rett. Opphavsretten ble
3629 født som et svært spesifikt sett med begrensninger: den forbød andre å
3630 reprodusere en bok. I 1710 var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopi-rett</span>»</span> en rett til å bruke
3631 en bestemt maskin til å replikere en bestemt arbeid. Den gikk ikke utover
3632 dette svært smale formålet. Den kontrollerte ikke mer generelt hvordan et
3633 verk kunne <span class="emphasis"><em>brukes</em></span>. Idag inkluderer retten en stor
3634 samling av restriksjoner på andres frihet: den gir forfatteren eksklusiv
3635 rett til å kopiere, eksklusiv rett til å distribuere, eksklusiv rett til å
3636 fremføre, og så videre.
3637 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3010698"></a><p>
3638 Så selv om f. eks. opphavsretten til Shakespeares verker var evigvarende,
3639 betydde det under den opprinnelige betydningen av begrepet at ingen kunne
3640 trykke Shakespeares arbeid uten tillatelse fra Shakespeares arvinger. Den
3641 ville ikke ha kontrollert noe mer, for eksempel om hvordan verket kunne
3642 fremføres, om verket kunne oversettes eller om Kenneth Branagh ville hatt
3643 lov til å lage filmer. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kopi-retten</span>»</span> var bare en eksklusiv rett
3644 til å trykke--ikke noe mindre, selvfølgelig, men heller ikke mer.
3645 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3010724"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3010731"></a><p>
3646 Selv dnne begrensede retten ble møtt med skepsis av britene. De hadde hatt
3647 en lang og stygg erfaring med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eksklusive rettigheter</span>»</span>,
3648 spesielt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">enerett</span>»</span> gitt av kronen. Engelskmennene hadde
3649 utkjempet en borgerkrig delvis mot kronens praksis med å dele ut
3650 monopoler--spesielt monopoler for verk som allerede eksisterte. Kong Henrik
3651 VIII hadde gitt patent til å trykke Bibelen og monopol til Darcy for å lage
3652 spillkort. Det engelske parlamentet begynte å kjempe tilbake mot denne
3653 makten hos kronen. I 1656 ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Monopolis</span>»</span> vedtatt
3654 for å begrense monopolene på patenter for nye oppfinnelser. Og i 1710 var
3655 parlamentet ivrig etter å håndtere det voksende monopolet på publisering.
3656 </p><p>
3657 Dermed ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopi-retten</span>»</span>, når den sees på som en monopolrett,
3658 en rettighet som bør være begrenset. (Uansett hvor overbevisende påstanden
3659 om at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er min eiendom, og jeg skal ha for alltid,</span>»</span> prøv
3660 hvor overbevisende det er når men sier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er mitt monopol, og jeg
3661 skal ha det for alltid.</span>»</span>) Staten ville beskytte eneretten, men bare
3662 så lenge det gavnet samfunnet. Britene så skadene særinteresserte kunne
3663 skape; de vedtok en lov for å stoppe dem.
3664 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksellers"></a><p>
3665 Dernest, om bokhandlerne. Det var ikke bare at kopiretten var et
3666 monopol. Det var også et monopol holdt av bokhandlerne. En bokhandler høres
3667 greie og ufarlige ut for oss, men slik var det ikke i syttenhundretallets
3668 England. Medlemmene i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span> ble av en voksende mengde
3669 sett på som monopolister av verste sort - et verktøy for kronens
3670 undertrykkelse, de solgte Englands frihet mot å være garantert en
3671 monopolskinntekt. Men monopolistene ble kvast kritisert: Milton beskrev dem
3672 som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gamle patentholdere og monopolister i bokhandlerkunsten</span>»</span>;
3673 de var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menn som derfor ikke hadde  et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er
3674 nødvendig.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3010840" href="#ftn.id3010840" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
3675 </p><p>
3676 Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap,
3677 var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste
3678 Opplysningen viktigheten av utdannelse og kunnskap for alle. idéen om at
3679 kunnskap burde være gratis er et kjennetegn for tiden, og disse kraftige
3680 kommersielle interesser forstyrret denne idéen.
3681 </p><p>
3682 For å balansere denne makten, besluttet Parlamentet å øke konkurransen blant
3683 bokhandlerne, og den enkleste måten å gjøre det på, var å spre mengden av
3684 verdifulle bøker. Parlamentet begrenset derfor begrepet om opphavsrett, og
3685 garantert slik at verdifulle bøker ville bli frie for alle utgiver å
3686 publisere etter en begrenset periode. Slik ble det å gi eksisterende verk en
3687 periode på tjueen år et kompromiss for å bekjempe bokhandlernes
3688 makt. Begrensninger med dato var en indirekte måte å skape konkurranse
3689 mellom utgivere, og slik en skapelse og spredning av kultur.
3690 </p><p>
3691 Når 1731 (1710+21) kom, ble bokhandlerne engstelige. De så konsekvensene av
3692 mer konkurranse, og som alle konkurrenter, likte de det ikke. Først
3693 ignorerte bokhandlere ganske enkelt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, og
3694 fortsatte å kreve en evigvarende rett til å kontrollere publiseringen. Men i
3695 1735 og 1737 de prøvde å tvinge Parlamentet til å utvide periodene. Tjueen
3696 år var ikke nok, sa de; de trengte mer tid.
3697 </p><p>
3698 Parlamentet avslo kravene, Som en pamflett sa, i en vending som levere ennå
3699 idag,
3700 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3701 Jeg ser ingen grunn til å gi en utvidet perioden nå som ikke ville kunne gi
3702 utvidelser om igjen og om igjen, så fort de gamle utgår; så dersom dette
3703 lovforslaget blir vedtatt, vil effekten være: at et evig monopol blir skapt,
3704 et stort nederlag for handelen, et angrep mot kunnskapen, ingen fordel for
3705 forfatterne, men en stor avgift for folket; og alt dette kun for å øke
3706 bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<sup>[<a name="id3010924" href="#ftn.id3010924" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
3707 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3708 Etter å ha mislyktes i Parlamentet gikk utgiverne til rettssalen i en rekke
3709 saker. Deres argument var enkelt og direkte: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>
3710 ga forfatterne en viss beskyttelse gjennom positiv loven, men denne
3711 beskyttelsenvar ikke ment som en erstatning for felles lov. Istedet var de
3712 ment å supplere felles lov. Ifølge sedvanerett var det galt å ta en annen
3713 persons kreative eiendom og bruke den uten hans tillatelse. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute
3714 of Anne</span>»</span>, hevdet bokhandlere, endret ikke dette faktum. Derfor
3715 betydde ikke det at beskyttelsen gitt av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>
3716 utløp, at beskyttelsen fra sedvaneretten utløp: Ifølge sedvaneretten hadde
3717 de rett til å fordømme publiseringen av en bok, selv følgelig om
3718 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> sa at de var falt i det fri. Dette, mente de,
3719 var den eneste måten å beskytte forfatterne.
3720 </p><p>
3721 Dette var et godt argument, og hadde støtte fra flere av den tidens ledende
3722 jurister. Det viste også en ekstraordinær chutzpah. Inntail da, som
3723 jusprofessor Raymond Pattetson har sagt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var utgiverne &#8230; like
3724 bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3008880" href="#ftn.id3008880" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om
3725 forfatternes rettigheter. Deres bekymring var den monopolske inntekten
3726 forfatterens verk ga.
3727 </p><p>
3728 Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne
3729 kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id3011030" href="#ftn.id3011030" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
3730 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3011044"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3011050"></a><p>
3731 Donaldson var en fremmed for Londons <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span>. Han startet
3732 in karriere i Edinburgh i 1750. Hans forretningsidé var billige kopier av
3733 standardverk falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
3734 Anne</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3011070" href="#ftn.id3011070" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldsons forlag vokste
3735 og ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">et sentrum for litterære skotter.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Blant
3736 dem,</span>»</span> skriver professor Mark Rose, var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">den unge James Boswell
3737 som, sammen med sin venn Andrew Erskine, publiserte en hel antologi av
3738 skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3011100" href="#ftn.id3011100" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup>
3739 </p><p>
3740 Da Londons bokselgere prøvde å få stengt Donaldsons butikk i Skottland, så
3741 flyttet han butikken til London. Her solgte han billige utgaver av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">de
3742 mest populære, engelske bøker, i kamp mot sedvanerettens rett til litterær
3743 eiendom.</span>»</span> <sup>[<a name="id3011123" href="#ftn.id3011123" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> Bøkene hans var
3744 mellom 30% og 50% billigere enn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span>s, og han baserte
3745 sin rett til denne konkurransen på at bøkene, takket være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
3746 Anne</span>»</span>, var falt i det fri.
3747 </p><p>
3748 Londons bokselgere begynte straks å slå ned mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span> som
3749 Donaldson. Flere tiltak var vellykkede, den viktigste var den tidlig seieren
3750 i kampen mellom <em class="citetitle">Millar</em> og
3751 <em class="citetitle">Taylor</em>.
3752 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3011162"></a><p>
3753 Millar var en bokhandler som i 1729 hadde kjøpt opp rettighetene til James
3754 Thomsons dikt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Seasons</span>»</span>. Millar hadde da full beskyttelse
3755 gjennom <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, men etter at denne beskyttelsen var
3756 uløpt, begynte Robert Taylor å trykke et konkurrerende bind. Millar gikk til
3757 sak, og hevdet han hadde en evig rett gjennom sedvaneretten, uansett hva
3758 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> sa.<sup>[<a name="id3011190" href="#ftn.id3011190" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
3759 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield2"></a><p>
3760 Til moderne juristers forbløffelse, var en av, ikke bare datidens, men en av
3761 de største dommere i engelsk historie, Lord Mansfield, enig med
3762 bokhandlerne. Uansett hvilken beskyttelse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> gav
3763 bokhandlerne, så sa han at den ikke fortrengte noe fra
3764 sedvaneretten. Spørsmålet var hvorvidt sedvaneretten beskyttet forfatterne
3765 mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span>. Mansfield svar var ja: Sedvaneretten nektet
3766 Taylor å reprodusere Thomsons dikt uten Millars tillatelse. Slik gav
3767 sedvaneretten bokselgerne en evig publiseringsrett til bøker solgt til dem.
3768 </p><p>
3769
3770 Ser man på det som et spørsmål innen abstrakt jus - dersom man resonnere som
3771 om rettferdighet bare var logisk deduksjon fra de første bud - kunne
3772 Mansfields konklusjon gitt mening. Men den overså det Parlamentet hadde
3773 kjempet for i 1710: Hvordan man på best mulig vis kunne innskrenke
3774 utgivernes monopolmakt. Parlamentets strategi hadde vært å kjøpe fred
3775 gjennom å tilby en beskyttelsesperiode også for eksisterende verk, men
3776 perioden måtte være så kort at kulturen ble utsatt for konkurranse innen
3777 rimelig tid. Storbritannia skulle vokse fra den kontrollerte kulturen under
3778 kronen, inn i en fri og åpen kultur.
3779 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3011271"></a><p>
3780 Kampen for å forsvare <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>s begrensninger sluttet
3781 uansett ikke der, for nå kommer Donaldson.
3782 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3011289"></a><p>
3783 Millar døde kort tid etter sin seier. Boet hans solgte rettighetene over
3784 Thomsons dikt til et syndikat av utgivere, deriblant Thomas
3785 Beckett.<sup>[<a name="id3011302" href="#ftn.id3011302" class="footnote">109</a>]</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
3786 uautorisert utgave av Thomsons verk. Etter avgjørelsen i
3787 <em class="citetitle">Millar</em>-saken, gikk Beckett til sak mot
3788 Donaldson. Donaldson tok saken inn for Overhuset, som da fungerte som en
3789 slags høyesterett. I februar 1774 hadde dette organet muligheten til å tolke
3790 Parlamentets mening med utøpsdatoen fra seksti år før.
3791 </p><p>
3792 Rettssaken <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot
3793 <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> fikk en enorm oppmerksomhet i hele
3794 Storbritannia. Donaldsons advokater mente at selv om det før fantes en del
3795 rettigheter i sedvaneretten, så var disse fortrengt av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
3796 Anne</span>»</span>. Etter at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> var blitt vedtatt,
3797 skulle den eneste lovlige beskyttelse for trykkerett kom derfra. Og derfor,
3798 mente de, i tråd med vilkårene i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, falle i det
3799 fri så fort beskyttelsesperioden var over.
3800 </p><p>
3801 Overhuset var en merkelig institusjon. Juridiske spørsmål ble presentert for
3802 huset, og ble først stemt over av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">juslorder</span>»</span>, medlemmer av
3803 enspesiell rettslig gruppe som fungerte nesten slik som justiariusene i vår
3804 Høyesterett. Deretter, etter at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">juslordene</span>»</span> hadde stemt,
3805 stemte resten av Overhuset.
3806 </p><p>
3807
3808 Rapportene om juslordene stemmer er uenige. På enkelte punkter ser det ut
3809 som om evigvarende beskyttelse fikk flertall. Men det er ingen tvil om
3810 hvordan resten av Overhuset stemte. Med en majoritet på to mot en (22 mot
3811 11) stemte de ned forslaget om en evig beskyttelse. Uansett hvordan man
3812 hadde tolket sedvaneretten, var nå kopiretten begrenset til en periode, og
3813 etter denne ville verket falle i det fri.
3814 </p><p>
3815 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Å falle i det fri</span>»</span>. Før rettssaken
3816 <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> var det
3817 ingen klar oppfatning om hva å falle i det fri innebar. Før 1774 var det jo
3818 en allmenn oppfatning om at kopiretten var evigvarende. Men etter 1774 ble
3819 Public Domain født.For første gang i angloamerikansk historie var den
3820 lovlige beskyttelsen av et verk utgått, og de største verk i engelsk
3821 historie - inkludert Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Johnson og Bunyan - var
3822 frie.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3011415"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3011422"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3011428"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3011434"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3011440"></a>
3823 </p><p>
3824 Vi kan knapt forestille oss det, men denne avgjørelsen fra Overhuset fyrte
3825 opp under en svært populær og politisk reaksjon. I Skottland, hvor de fleste
3826 piratugiverne hadde holdt til, ble avgjørelsen feiret i gatene. Som
3827 <em class="citetitle">Edinburgh Advertiser</em> skrev <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ingen privatsak har
3828 noen gang fått slik oppmerksomhet fra folket, og ingen sak som har blitt
3829 prøvet i Overhuset har interessert så mange enkeltmennesker.</span>»</span>
3830 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Stor glede i Edinburgh etter seieren over litterær eiendom: bål og
3831 *illuminations*.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3011474" href="#ftn.id3011474" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
3832 </p><p>
3833 I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i
3834 motsatt retning. <em class="citetitle">Morning Chronicle</em> skrev:
3835 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3836 Gjennom denne avgjørelsen &#8230; er verdier til nesten 200 000 pund, som
3837 er blitt ærlig kjøpt gjennom allment salg, og som i går var eiendom, er nå
3838 redusert til ingenting. Bokselgerne i London og Westminster, mange av dem
3839 har solgt hus og eiendom for å kjøpe kopirettigheter, er med ett ruinerte,
3840 og mange som gjennom mange år har opparbeidet kompetanse for å brødfø
3841 familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="id3010999" href="#ftn.id3010999" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
3842 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3843
3844
3845 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ruinert</span>»</span> er en overdrivelse. Men det er ingen overdrivelse å
3846 si at endringen var stor. Vedtaket fra Overhuset betydde at bokhandlerne
3847 ikke lenger kunnen kontrollere hvordan kulturen i England ville vokse og
3848 utvikle seg. Kulturen i England var etter dette
3849 <span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span>. Ikke i den betydning at kopiretten ble ignorert,
3850 for utgiverne hadde i en begrenset periode rett over trykkingen. Og heller
3851 ikke i den betydningen at bøker kunne stjeles, for selv etter at boken var
3852 falt i det fri, så måtte den kjøpes. Men <span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span> i
3853 betydningen at kulturen og dens vekst ikke lenger var kontrollert av en
3854 liten gruppe utgivere. Som alle frie markeder, ville dette markedet vokse og
3855 utvikle seg etter tilbud og etterspørsel. Den engelske kulturen ble nå
3856 formet slik flertallet Englands lesere ville at det skulle formes - gjennom
3857 valget av hva de kjøpte og skrev, gjennom valget av *memes* de gjentok og
3858 beundret. Valg i en <span class="emphasis"><em>konkurrerende sammenheng</em></span>, ikke der
3859 hvor valgene var om hvilken kultur som skulle være tilgjengelig for folket
3860 og hvor deres tilgang til den ble styrt av noen få, på tros av flertallets
3861 ønsker.
3862 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3011571"></a><p>
3863 Til sist, dette var en verden hvor Parlamentet var antimonopolistisk, og
3864 holdt stand mot utgivernes krav. I en verden hvor parlamentet er lett å
3865 påvirke, vil den frie kultur være mindre beskyttet.
3866 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3011589"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3011597"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3010358" href="#id3010358" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
3867
3868 <a class="indexterm" name="id3010362"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3010370"></a> Jacob Tonson er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med 1700-tallets
3869 litterære storheter, spesielt John Dryden, og for hans kjekke<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ferdige
3870 versjoner</span>»</span> av klassiske verk. I tillegg til <em class="citetitle">Romeo og
3871 Julie</em>, utga han en utrolig rekke liste av verk som ennå er
3872 hjertet av den engelske kanon, inkludert de samlede verk av Shakespeare, Ben
3873 Jonson, John Milton, og John Dryden. Se Keith Walker: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jacob Tonson,
3874 Bookseller</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992):
3875 424-31.
3876 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3010407" href="#id3010407" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
3877
3878
3879 Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3880 Perspective</em> (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968),
3881 151&#8211;52.
3882 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3010464" href="#id3010464" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
3883
3884 Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette
3885 en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettslov</span>»</span>. Se Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights
3886 and Copywrongs</em>, 40.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3010477"></a>
3887 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3010840" href="#id3010840" class="para">101</a>] </sup>
3888
3889
3890
3891 Philip Wittenberg, <em class="citetitle">The Protection and Marketing of Literary
3892 Property</em> (New York: J. Messner, Inc., 1937), 31.
3893 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3010924" href="#id3010924" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
3894
3895
3896 A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending in the
3897 House of Commons, for making more effectual an Act in the Eighth Year of the
3898 Reign of Queen Anne, entitled, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by
3899 Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such
3900 Copies, during the Times therein mentioned (London, 1735), in Brief Amici
3901 Curiae of Tyler T. Ochoa et al., 8, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
3902 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618).
3903 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3008880" href="#id3008880" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
3904
3905 Lyman Ray Patterson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use</span>»</span>,
3906 <em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt Law Review</em> 40 (1987): 28. For en
3907 fantastisk overbevisende fortelling, se Vaidhyanathan, 37&#8211;48.
3908 <a class="indexterm" name="id3010417"></a>
3909 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3011030" href="#id3011030" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
3910
3911
3912 For a compelling account, see David Saunders, <em class="citetitle">Authorship and
3913 Copyright</em> (London: Routledge, 1992), 62&#8211;69.
3914 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3011070" href="#id3011070" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
3915
3916 Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
3917 University Press, 1993), 92.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3011078"></a>
3918 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3011100" href="#id3011100" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
3919
3920
3921 Ibid., 93.
3922 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3011123" href="#id3011123" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
3923
3924
3925 Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3926 Perspective</em>, 167 (quoting Borwell).
3927 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3011190" href="#id3011190" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
3928
3929
3930 Howard B. Abrams, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
3931 Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law
3932 Review</em> 29 (1983): 1152.
3933 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3011302" href="#id3011302" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
3934
3935
3936 Ibid., 1156.
3937 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3011474" href="#id3011474" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
3938
3939
3940 Rose, 97.
3941 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3010999" href="#id3010999" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
3942
3943
3944 ibid.
3945 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="recorders"></a>Chapter 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</h2></div></div></div><p>
3946 <span class="strong"><strong>Jon Else</strong></span> er en filmskaper. Han er mest
3947 kjent for sine dokumentarer og har på ypperlig vis klart å spre sin
3948 kunst. Han er også en lærer, som meg selv, og jeg misunner den lojaliteten
3949 og beundringen hans studenter har for ham. (Ved et uhell møtte jeg to av
3950 hans studenter i et middagsselskap og han var deres Gud.)
3951 </p><p>
3952 Else arbeidet med en dokumentarfilm hvor også jeg var involvert. I en pause
3953 så fortalte han meg om hvordan det kunne være å skape film i dagens Amerika.
3954 </p><p>
3955 I 1990 arbeidet Else med en dokumentar om Wagners Ring Cycle. Fokuset var på
3956 *stagehands* på San Francisco Opera. Stagehands er spesielt morsomt og
3957 fargerikt innslag i en opera. I løpet av forestillingen oppholder de seg
3958 blant publikum og på lysloftet. De er en perfekt kontrast til kunsten på
3959 scenen.<a class="indexterm" name="id3011658"></a>
3960 </p><p>
3961
3962 Under en forestilling, filmet Else noen stagehands som spilte *checkers*. I
3963 et hjørne av rommet stod det et fjernsynsapparat. På fjernsynet, mens
3964 forestillingen pågikk og operakompaniet spilte Wagner, gikk <em class="citetitle">The
3965 Simpsons</em>. Slik Else så det, så hjalp dette tegnefilm-innslaget
3966 med å fange det spesielle med scenen.
3967 </p><p>
3968 Så noen år senere, da han endelig hadde fått ordnet den siste
3969 finansieringen, ville Else skaffe rettigheter til å bruke disse få sekundene
3970 med <em class="citetitle">The Simpson</em>. For disse få sekundene var selvsagt
3971 beskyttet av opphavsretten, og for å bruke beskyttet materiale må man ha
3972 tillatelse fra eieren, dersom det ikke er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> eller
3973 det foreligger spesielle avtaler.
3974 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3011705"></a><p>
3975 Else kontaktet <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-skaper Matt Groenings kontor
3976 for å få tillatelse. Og Groening gav ham det. Det var tross alt kun snakk om
3977 fire og et halvt sekund på et lite fjernsyn, bakerst i et hjørne av
3978 rommet. Hvordan kunne det skade? Groening var glad for å få ha det med i
3979 filmen, men han ba Else om å kontakte Gracie Films, firmaet som produserer
3980 programmet.
3981 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3011729"></a><p>
3982 Gracie Films sa også at det var greit, men de, slik som Groening, ønsket å
3983 være forsiktige, og ba Else om å kontakte Fox, konsernet som eide Gracie. Og
3984 Else kontaktet Fox og forklarte situasjonen; at det var snakk om et klipp i
3985 hjørnet i bakgrunnen i ett rom i filmen. Matt Groening hadde allerede gitt
3986 sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox.
3987 </p><p>
3988 Deretter, fortalte Else: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">skjedde to ting. Først oppdaget vi &#8230;
3989 at Matt Groening ikke eide sitt eget verk &#8212; ihvertfall at noen [hos
3990 Fox] trodde at han ikke eide sitt eget verk.</span>»</span> Som det andre krevde
3991 Fox <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ti tusen dollar i lisensavgift for disse fire og et halvt
3992 sekundene med &#8230; fullstendig tilfeldig <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>
3993 som var i et hjørne i ett opptak.</span>»</span>
3994 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3011769"></a><p>
3995 Ellers var sikker på at det var en feil. Han fikk tak i noen som han trodde
3996 var nestleder for lisensiering, Rebecca Herrera. Han forklarte for henne at
3997 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det må være en feil her &#8230; Vi ber deg om en utdanningssats på
3998 dette.</span>»</span> Og de hadde fått utdanningssats, fortalte Herrera. Kort tid
3999 etter ringte Else igjen for å få dette bekreftet.
4000 </p><p>
4001
4002 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg måtte være sikker på at jeg hadde riktige opplysninger foran
4003 meg</span>»</span>, sa han. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ja, du har riktige opplysninger</span>»</span>, sa
4004 hun. Det ville koste $10 000 å bruke dette lille klippet av <em class="citetitle">The
4005 Simpson</em>, plassert bakerst i et hjørne i en scene i en dokumentar
4006 om Wagners Ring Cycle. Som om det ikke var nok, forbløffet Herrera Else med
4007 å si <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Og om du siterer meg, vil du høre fra våre advokater.</span>»</span> En
4008 av Herreras assistenter fortalte Else at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">De bryr seg ikke i det
4009 heletatt. Alt de vil ha er pengene.</span>»</span>
4010 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3011830"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3011836"></a><p>
4011 Men Else hadde ikke penger til å kjøpe lisens for klippet. Så å gjenskape
4012 denne delen av virkeligheten, lå langt utenfor hans budsjett. Like før
4013 dokumentaren skulle slippes, redigerte Else inn et annet klipp på
4014 fjernsynet, et klipp fra en av hans andre filmer <em class="citetitle">The Day After
4015 Trinity</em> fra ti år tidligere.
4016 </p><p>
4017 Det er ingen tvil om at noen, enten det er er Matt Groening eller Fox, eier
4018 rettighetene til <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Rettighetene er deres
4019 eiendom. For å bruke beskyttet mteriale, kreves det ofte at men får
4020 tillatelse fra eieren eller eierne. Dersom Else ønsket å bruke
4021 <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em> til noe hvor loven gir verket
4022 beskyttelse, så må han innhente tillatelse fra eieren før han kan bruke
4023 det. Og i et fritt markes er det eieren som bestemmer hvor mye han/hun vil
4024 ta for hvilken som helst bruk (hvor loven krever tillatelse fra eier).
4025 </p><p>
4026 For eksempel <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremvisning</span>»</span>* av <em class="citetitle">The
4027 Simpson</em> er en form for bruk hvor loven gir eieren
4028 kontroll. Dersom du velger ut dine favorittepisoder, leier en kinosal og
4029 selger billetter til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mine
4030 <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-favoritter</span>»</span>, så må du ha tillatelse
4031 fra rettighetsinnhaveren (eieren). Og eieren kan (med rette, slik jeg ser
4032 det) kreve hvor mye han vil; $10ellr $1 000 000. Det er hans rett ifølge
4033 loven.
4034 </p><p>
4035 Men når jurister hører denne historien om Jon Else og Fox, så er deres
4036 første tanke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3011917" href="#ftn.id3011917" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Elses bruk av 4,5 sekunder med et indirekte klipp av en
4037 <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>-episode er et klart eksempel på
4038 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>&#8212; og
4039 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> krever ingen tillatelse fra noen.
4040 </p><p>
4041
4042
4043 Så jeg spurte Else om hvorfor han ikke bare stolte på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
4044 use</span>»</span>. Og her er hans svar:
4045 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4046 <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>-fiaskoen lærte meg om hvor stor avstand det
4047 var mellom det jurister finner urelevant på en abstrakt måte, og hva som er
4048 knusende relevant på en konkret måte for oss som prøver å lage og kringkaste
4049 dokumentarer. Jeg tvilte aldri på at dette helt klart var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
4050 bruk</span>»</span>, men jeg kunne ikke stole på konseptet på noen konkret måte. Og
4051 dette er grunnen:
4052 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
4053
4054
4055 Før våre filmer kan kringkastes, krever nettverket at vi kjøper en
4056 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Errors and Omissions</span>»</span>-forsikring. Den krever en detailjert
4057 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">visual cue sheet</span>»</span> med alle kilder og lisens-status på alle
4058 scener i filmen. De har et smalt syn på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>, og å påstå
4059 at noe er nettopp det kan forsinke, og i verste fall stoppe, prosessen.
4060 </p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="id3012027"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3012034"></a><p>
4061
4062
4063 Jeg skulle nok aldri ha bedt om Matt Groenings tillatelse. Men jeg visste
4064 (ihvertfall fra rykter) at Fox tidligere hadde brukt å jakte på og stoppe
4065 ulisensiert bruk av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>, på samme måte som
4066 George Lucas var veldig ivrig på å forfølge bruken av <em class="citetitle">Star
4067 Wars</em>. Så jeg bestemte meg for å følge boka, og trodde at vi
4068 kulle få til en gratis, i alle fall rimelig, avtale for fire sekunders bruk
4069 av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Som en dokumentarskaper, arbeidende
4070 på randen av utryddelse, var det siste jeg ønsket en juridisk strid, selv
4071 for å forsvare et prinsipp.
4072 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4073
4074
4075
4076 Jeg snakket faktisk med en av dine kolleger på Stanford Law School &#8230;
4077 som bekreftet at dette var rimelig bruk. Han bekreftet også at Fox ville
4078 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">depose and litigate you to within an inch of your life</span>»</span>,
4079 uavhengig av sannheten i mine krav. Han gjorde det klart at alt ville koke
4080 ned til hvem som hadde flest jurister og dypest lommer, jeg eller dem.
4081
4082 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4083
4084
4085 Spørsmålet om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> dukker om regel opp helt mot slutten
4086 av prosjektet, når vi nærmer oss siste frist og er tomme for penger.
4087 </p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><p>
4088 I teorien betyr <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> at du ikke trenger
4089 tillatelse. Teorien støtter derfor den frie kultur og arbeider mot
4090 tillatelseskulturen. Men i praksis fungerer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> helt
4091 annerledes. Men de uklare linjene i lovverket, samt de fryktelige
4092 konsekvensene dersom man tar feil, gjør at mange kunstnere ikke stoler på
4093 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>. Loven har en svært god hensikt, men praksisen har
4094 ikke fulgt opp.
4095 </p><p>
4096 Dette eksempelet viser hvor langt denne loven har kommet fra sine
4097 syttenhundretalls røtter. Loven som skulle beskytte utgiverne mot
4098 urettferdig piratkonkurranse, hadde utviklet seg til et sverd som slo ned på
4099 _all_ bruk, transformativ* eller ikke.
4100 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3011917" href="#id3011917" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
4101
4102
4103 Ønsker du å lese en flott redegjørelse om hvordan dette er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
4104 use</span>»</span>, og hvordan advokatene ikke anerkjenner det, så les Richard
4105 A. Posner og William F. Patry, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the
4106 Wake of <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> </span>»</span> (utkast arkivert hos
4107 forfatteren), University of Chicago Law School, 5. august 2003.
4108 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Chapter 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3012161"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3012177"></a><p>
4109 <span class="strong"><strong>I 1993</strong></span> var Alex Alben en jurist som
4110 arbeidet hos Starwave Inc. Starwave var et innovativt firma grunnlagt av
4111 Paul Allen, som også hadde vært med på å grunnlegge Microsoft.Starwaves mål
4112 var å utvikle digital underholdning. Lenge før internett ble superpopulært,
4113 forsket Starwave på ny teknologi for å levere underholdning utennettverk.
4114 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsretrospective"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdroms"></a><p>
4115 Alben var veldig interessert i ny teknologi. Han var fascinert av det
4116 voksende markedet for CD-ROM-teknologi&#8212;ikke for å distribuere film,
4117 men for å gjøre ting med filmen som før ville vært svært vanskelig. I 1993
4118 lanserte han ideen om å utvikle et produkt for å vise retrospectives* rundt
4119 verkene av en bestemt kunstner. Den første skuespilleren som ble valgt, var
4120 Clint Eastwood. Ideen var å vise alle Eastwoods verker, sammen med klipp fra
4121 filmene hans og intervjuer av personer som hadde vært viktige i hans
4122 karriere.
4123 </p><p>
4124 På den tiden hadde Eastwood lagd over femti filmer, både som skuespiller og
4125 som regissør. Alben begynte med en serie intervjuer med Eastwood, hvor tema
4126 var hans karriere. Siden Starwave produserte disse intervjuene, kunne de
4127 fritt ha dem med på CD-en.
4128 </p><p>
4129
4130
4131 Men det alene hadde ikke blitt noe interessant produkt, så Starwave ønsket å
4132 legge til litt innhold fra noen av Eastwoods filmer, noen plakater, manus og
4133 andre ting som kunne knyttes til filmene hans. Mesteparten av Eastwoods
4134 karriere hadde foregått hos Warner Brothers og det var relativt enkelt å få
4135 tillatelse for det materialet.
4136 </p><p>
4137 Deretter ønsket Alben og hans team å bruke noen faktiske klipp fra aktuelle
4138 filmer. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vårt mål var å ha et klipp fra alle Eastwoods filmer</span>»</span>
4139 fortalte Alben meg. Det var her problemene startet. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ingen hadde
4140 noensinne gjort dette før</span>»</span>, forklarte Alben. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ingen hadde prøvd
4141 å presentere et slikt kunstnerisk overblikk over en skuespillers
4142 karriere.</span>»</span>
4143 </p><p>
4144 Alben tok ideen videre til Michael Slade, leder for Starwave. Slade spurte
4145 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vel, hvor mye vil det kreve?</span>»</span>
4146 </p><p>
4147 Alben svarte, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tja, vi må innhente tillatelse fra alle som opptrer i
4148 disse filmene, for musikken og for alt annet som er i disse
4149 filmklippene.</span>»</span> Slade svarte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Flott! Gjør
4150 det.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3012318" href="#ftn.id3012318" class="footnote">113</a>]</sup>
4151 </p><p>
4152 Problemet var at verken Alben eller Slade forstod hva det innebar å innhente
4153 disse tillatelsene. Alle skuespillerne i hver av filmene kunne ha krav på
4154 royalties for bruk av sin film. Men CD-ROM hadde ikke vært spesifisert i
4155 skuespillernes kontrakter, så ingen visste helt hva Starwave skulle gjøre.
4156 </p><p>
4157 Jeg spurte Alben om hvordan han løste problemet. Med en tydelig stolthet som
4158 overskygget hvor bisarr historien var, så fortalte han hva de de gjorde:
4159 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4160 Så vi dro og fant frem filmene og gjorde noen kunstneriske beslutninger om
4161 hvilke klipp som skulle være med. Selvsagt skulle vi bruke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Make my
4162 day</span>»</span>-scenen fra Dirty Harry. Men da måtte vi oppsøke den personen som
4163 ligger på bakken under geværet og få hans tillatelse. Og så måtte vi
4164 bestemme hva han skulle få betalt.
4165 </p><p>
4166
4167
4168 Vi bestemte at det ville være rettferdig hvis vi tilbydde dem en
4169 dagspiller-sats for retten til å bruke klippet. Vi snakker tross alt om et
4170 klipp på under et minutt, men satsen for å bruke klippet på CD-ROM lå på den
4171 tiden på $600. Så vi måtte identifisere personene - noen var vanskelig å
4172 identifisere, siden det ofte er vanskelig å vite hvem som er skuespilleren
4173 og hvem som er stuntmannen i Eastwoods filmer. Og deretter samlet vi oss en
4174 gjeng og begynte å ringe rundt.
4175 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3012413"></a><p>
4176 Noen skuespillere var glade for å kunne hjelpe &#8212; Donald Sutherland
4177 fulgte for eksempel opp saken personlig for å sørge for at alt var
4178 greit. Andre brydde seg mest om pengene. Alben kunne spørre <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hei, kan
4179 jeg betale deg $600, eller hvis du var i to filmer $1200?</span>»</span> Og de
4180 kunne svare <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Er det sant? Jeg vil svært gjerne ha $1200.</span>»</span> Og
4181 noen kunne være litt vanskelige av seg (særlig krevende eks-koner). Men til
4182 slutt greide Alben og hans team å gjøre rede for alle rettighetene til CD-en
4183 om Clint Eastwoods karriere.
4184 </p><p>
4185 Det gått ett <span class="emphasis"><em>år</em></span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">og selv da var vi ikke sikre på
4186 om alt var helt klart.</span>»</span>
4187 </p><p>
4188 Alben er stolt av arbeidet sitt. Prosjektet var det første av sitt slag, og
4189 første gang han hadde hørt om et team som hadde tatt på seg så mye arbeid
4190 for å gi ut en *retrospective*.
4191 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4192 Alle hadde trodd det skulle bli for vanskelig. De hadde kastet hendene i
4193 været og sagt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oi, en film. Det er så mange rettigheter; det er
4194 musikk, det er scenekusten, det er skuespillere, det er regissører.</span>»</span>
4195 Men vi gjorde det! Vi tok delen fra hverandre og sa <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">okei, det er så
4196 mange skuespillere, så mange regissører ... så mange musikere</span>»</span>, så
4197 gikk vi systematisk igjennom det og fikk tak i rettighetene.
4198 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4199
4200
4201
4202 Og produktet ble uten tvil særdeles godt. Eastwood elsket det og det solgte
4203 veldig godt.
4204 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3012502"></a><p>
4205 Men jeg spurte Alben om hvor merkelig det syntes at det skulle ta et helt år
4206 bare å få orden på rettigheter. Alben hadde gjort det hele svært effektivt,
4207 men som Peter Drucker så berømmelig har sagt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det er ikke noe som er
4208 så ubrukelig å gjøre effektivt enn det som egentlig ikke gjøres i det
4209 heletatt.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3012523" href="#ftn.id3012523" class="footnote">114</a>]</sup> Var det noe fornuft i
4210 at det var slik et nye verk skulle skapes, spurte jeg Alben.
4211 </p><p>
4212 For, som han innrømmet, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">veldig få ... har tid og ressurser, og ikke
4213 minst vilje til å gjøre dette</span>»</span>, og veldig få slike verk har blitt
4214 lagd, Gir det noen mening, spurte jeg ham, ********* at du må gjøre alt
4215 dette for å få rett til å bruke disse klippene?
4216 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4217 Jeg tror ikke det. Når en skuespiller gjengir en forestilling i en film, får
4218 han eller hun veldig godt betalt &#8230; Og derfor, når 30 sekunder av
4219 denne forestillingen blir brukt i et nytt produkt som er et tilbakeblikk på
4220 noens karriere, så tror jeg ikke at den personen &#8230; burde få
4221 kompensasjon for det.
4222 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4223 Eller er det kanskje <span class="emphasis"><em>slik</em></span> en kunstner burde få
4224 kompensasjon? Gir det noen mening, spurte jeg, om det var en form for
4225 lovbestemt lisens som noen kan betale og fritt videreutvikle og bearbeide
4226 klipp som disse?  Ga det virkelig mening at en videreutviklende skaper
4227 skulle måtte spore opp hver eneste artist, skuespiller, regissør, musiker og
4228 få eksplisitt tillatelse fra hver av dem.  Ville ikke mye mer bli laget hvis
4229 den juridiske delen av den kreative prosessen kunne gjøres enklere.
4230 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4231
4232 Absolutt. Jeg tror at hvis det fantes en form for
4233 lisensieringsmekanisme&#8212;hvor du ikke risikerte å bli offer for
4234 forglemmelser eller problematiske ekskoner&#8212;ville man kanskje ha sett
4235 mange flere av denne typen verk, rett og slett fordi det ikke ville sett så
4236 skrekkinngytende ut å sette sammen et tilbakeblikk på noens karriere og å
4237 bruke mange media-illustrasjoner fra dennes karriere. Du ville kunne lage en
4238 budsjettpost på dette. Sette opp en kostnad på X dollar til talentet som
4239 fremførte. Og det ville være en kjent kostnad. Det er kanskje
4240 kjerneproblemet med å produsere slike produkter. Hvis man visste at man
4241 hadde 100 minutter med film, kunne man si at dette vil koste meg så og så
4242 mange dollar, og lage et budsjett rundt det. Deretter kan du skaffe
4243 investorer og alt annet som trengs for å produsere det. Men dersom man kun
4244 kan si <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hm, jeg ønsker 100 minutter med noe, og jeg aner ikke hvor mye
4245 det vil koste meg, og et bestemt antall personer vil kreve penger</span>»</span>,
4246 vil det være ganske vanskelig å få til slike ting.
4247 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4248 Alben jobbet for et stort selskap. Hans selskap var støttet av noen av de
4249 rikeste investorene i verden. Derfor hadde han myndighet og ressurser som en
4250 gjennomsnittlig webdesigner ikke kunne drømme om. Så hvis det tok ham et år,
4251 hvor lang tid ville det ta noen andre? Og hvor mye kreativitet får aldri
4252 form på grunn av kostnadene rundt å kartlegge og skaffe rettigheter?
4253 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3012646"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3012655"></a><p>
4254 Disse kostnadene er byrdene av en form for regulering. Vi kan prøve å ta på
4255 oss en republikanerhatt og bli sinte for et øyeblikk. Staten styrer disse
4256 rettighetenes dekningsområde, og dekningsområdet bestemmer hvor mye det vil
4257 koste å krenke disse rettighetene. (Husker dere ideen om at en eiendom
4258 strakte seg til universets grense? Og se for dere piloten som må betale for
4259 å krysse eiendommen som han krenker ved å fly fra Los Angeles til San
4260 Fracisco.) Disse rettighetene gav sikkert mening en gang, men nå som
4261 forholdene har endret seg, er meningen borte. Ihvertfall så burde en
4262 veltrenet, reguleringsfientlig republikaner se på rettighetene og spørre
4263 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Gir dette mening nå?</span>»</span>
4264 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3012681"></a><p>
4265
4266 Jeg har sett glimt av gjenkjennelse på dette punktet, men bare noen få
4267 ganger. Første gang var på en konferanse for føderale dommere i
4268 California. Dommerne var samlet for å dikutere det økende temaet
4269 cyber-lov. Jeg ble spurt om å sitte i panelet. Harvey Saferstein, en
4270 respektert lawyer fra et firma i Los Angeles, introduserte en film han og
4271 hans venn Robert Fairbank hadde laget for panelet.
4272 </p><p>
4273 Videoen var en glimrende sammenstilling av filmer fra hver periode i det
4274 tjuende århundret, rammet inn rundt idéen om en episode i TV-serien
4275 <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em>. Utførelsen var perfekt, ned til seksti
4276 minutter stoppeklokken. Dommerne elsket enhver minutt av den.
4277 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3012721"></a><p>
4278 Da lysene kom på, kikket jeg over til min medpaneldeltager, David Nimmer,
4279 kanskje den ledende opphavsrettakademiker og utøver i nasjonen. Han hadde en
4280 forbauset uttrykk i ansiktet sitt, mens han tittet ut over rommet med over
4281 250 godt underholdte dommere. Med en en illevarslende tone, begynte han sin
4282 tale med et spørsmål: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vet dere hvor mange føderale lover som nettopp
4283 brutt i dette rommet?</span>»</span>
4284 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3012747"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3012753"></a><p>
4285 Og selvsagt hadde ikke disse to briljante talentene gjort hva Alben hadde
4286 gjort. De hadde ikke ordnet alle rettighetene til klippene de brukte. Rent
4287 teknisk hadde de brutt loven. Men ingen kom til å straffeforfølge disse to
4288 (selv om de viste den for 250 dommere og en gjeng føderale marshaller". Men
4289 Nimmer hadde et viktig poeng: Et år før noen hadde hørt ordet Napster, og to
4290 år før et annet medlem av panelet, David Boies, ville forsvare Napster for
4291 den niende Circuit Court of Appeals, prøvde Nimmer å få dommerne til å
4292 forstå at loven ikke var særlig åpen for de nye kapasitetene den nye
4293 teknologien ville gi. Teknologi betyr at du kan gjøre fantastiske ting,
4294 enkelt. Men du kan ikke nødvendigvis gjøre dem enkelt, lovlig.
4295 </p><p>
4296 Vi lever i en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">klippe og lime</span>»</span>-kultur som er muliggjort av
4297 dagens teknologi. Alle som lager presentasjoner vet hvilken eksepsjonell
4298 frihet internettets <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">klippe og lime</span>»</span>-arkitektur gir&#8212;på et
4299 sekund kan du finne akkurat det bildet du vil ha, og du kan få den inn i
4300 presentasjonen din.
4301 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3012795"></a><p>
4302
4303 Men presentasjoner er bare en liten begynnelse. Ved hjelp av internett og
4304 dets arkiver, er musikere i stand til å sy sammen nye lydmikser som ingen
4305 hadde kunnet forestille seg; filmskapere er i stand til å lage filmer ut av
4306 klipp på datamaskiner rundt om i verden. Et spesielt nettsted i Sverige tar
4307 bilder av politikere og blander dem med musikk å skape bitende politiske
4308 kommentarer. En nettside kalt Camp Chaos har skapt noe av den skarpeste
4309 kritikken som finnes mot musikkindustrien, gjennom å mikse Flash! og musikk.
4310 </p><p>
4311 Men alt dette er rent teknisk ulovlig. Selv om skaperen ønsket å holde seg
4312 på rett side av loven, ville kostnadene ved å følge loven vært
4313 umenneskelige. Derfor vil de som ønsker å følge loven bli hindret i å bruke
4314 sin kreativitet, og mye blir aldri skapt. Og det som er skapt, vil ikke bli
4315 publisert fordi det ikke følger *clearence-rules*.
4316 </p><p>
4317 Noen ser synes at denne historien kommer med et forslag til forbedring: La
4318 oss fjerne miksen av rettigheter slik at folk fritt kan bygge på vår
4319 kultur. Fritt å legge til eller mikse som de synes det passer. Vi kunne
4320 innføre dette uten at det ble fritt som i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri bar</span>»</span>. I stedet
4321 kunne systemet gjøre det lettere for nye kunstnere å kompensere den
4322 originale artisten uten at det krever en hær av jurister. Hva med regler som
4323 f. eks. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kompensasjon til en opphavsrettholder for uregistrerte verk
4324 vil for avledede verk føre 1% av netto overskudd (*to be held in escrow for
4325 the copyright owner.*)</span>»</span> Med en slik regel ville opphavsrettholderen
4326 få en inntekt, men han vil ikke ha en full eiendomsrett over opphavsretten
4327 (som betyr retten til å sette sin egen pris) uten å ha registrert verket.
4328 </p><p>
4329 Hve vil nekte å bli med på det? Og hvilke grunner finner for å nekte dette?
4330 Vi snakker om et verk som ikke blir lagd akkurat nå, men om det blir lagd
4331 under denne planen, vil det skape inntekter for artistene. Hvilke baktanker
4332 kan noen ha for motarbeide det?
4333 </p><p>
4334
4335 <span class="strong"><strong>I februar 2003</strong></span> kunne DreamWorks studios
4336 kunngjøre at de hadde fått en avtale med komikeren Mike Myers (mannen bak
4337 Saturday Night Liva og Austin Powers). Ifølge kunngjøringen skulle
4338 DreamWorks og Myers arbeide for å skape en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">unik
4339 filmskaperavtale</span>»</span>. Og under denne avtalen ville DreamWorks <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">få
4340 rett til å benytte eksisterende filmklipp, skrive nye storylines* og - med
4341 hjelp av *stateof-the-art-teknologi - sette inn Myers og andre skuespillere
4342 i filmene, og slik skape et helt nytt stykke underholdning.</span>»</span>
4343 </p><p>
4344 Dette ble kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">film sampling</span>»</span>, og som Myers forklarte var
4345 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">film sampling en fantastisk måte å få ny vri på eksisterende filmer
4346 og lar publikum se gamle filmer i et nytt lys. Rap-artister har gjort slikt
4347 i en årrekke og nå kan vi ta det samme konseptet og bruke det på
4348 film.</span>»</span> Steven Spielberg er sitert med følgende utsagn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis
4349 noen kan klare å bringe gamle filmer til et nytt publikum, så er det
4350 Mike.</span>»</span>
4351 </p><p>
4352 Spielberg har rett. Film sampling med Myers ville vært brilliant. Men hvis
4353 du ikke følger godt med, så vil du overse det forbløffende med denne
4354 kunngjøringen. Siden den aller største delen av vår filmarv fortsetter å
4355 være regulert av loven, så er den virkelige meningen i DreamWorks
4356 kunngjøring følgende: Det er Mike Myers og kun Mike Myers som har lov til å
4357 gjøre slikt. All generell frihet til å fortsette å bygge på verdens
4358 filmkultur, en frihet som i andre sammenhenger er en selvfølge, er et
4359 privilegium forbeholdt de morsomme og berømte - og antakelig rike.
4360 </p><p>
4361 Dette privilegiet er såpass reservert av to grunner: Første grunn er en
4362 fortsettelse av forrige kapittel, vagheten i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
4363 bruk</span>»</span>. Mye av denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">samplingen</span>»</span> vil nok betraktes som
4364 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span>, men ingen våger å stole på et så vagt
4365 prinsipp. Det leder oss til neste grunn for at privilegiet er forbeholdt få:
4366 Kostnadene ved å krenke opphavsretten ved kreativt gjenbruk er
4367 astronomiske. Disse kostnadene speiler kostnaden for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
4368 bruk</span>»</span>: Enten betaler du en jurist til å forsvare dine <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
4369 bruk</span>»</span>-rettigheter, eller så betaler du en jurist for å oppspore og
4370 ordne med rettighetene du trenger, slik at du slipper å stole på rimelig
4371 bruk. I begge tilfeller er den kreative prosessen blitt en prosess med å
4372 betale jurister&#8212;igjen, et privilegium forbeholdt de få.
4373 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3012318" href="#id3012318" class="para">113</a>] </sup>
4374
4375 Teknisk sett var rettighetene som Alben måtte klarere i hovedsak de om
4376 publisitet&#8212;rettigheten en artist har til å kontrollere den
4377 kommersielle utnyttelsen av hans bilde.  Men disse rettighetene belaster
4378 også <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rip, miks, brenn</span>»</span>-kreativiteten slik dette kapittelet
4379 demonstrerer.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3012336"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3012346"></a>
4380 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3012523" href="#id3012523" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
4381
4382
4383 U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management,
4384 <em class="citetitle">Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services
4385 Acquisition</em>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #22</a>.
4386 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Chapter 9. Kapittel ni: Samlere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3013023"></a><p>
4387 <span class="strong"><strong>In April 1996</strong></span>, millions of
4388 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bots</span>»</span>&#8212;computer codes designed to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">spider,</span>»</span>
4389 or automatically search the Internet and copy content&#8212;began running
4390 across the Net. Page by page, these bots copied Internet-based information
4391 onto a small set of computers located in a basement in San Francisco's
4392 Presidio. Once the bots finished the whole of the Internet, they started
4393 again. Over and over again, once every two months, these bits of code took
4394 copies of the Internet and stored them.
4395 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3013038"></a><p>
4396 By October 2001, the bots had collected more than five years of copies. And
4397 at a small announcement in Berkeley, California, the archive that these
4398 copies created, the Internet Archive, was opened to the world. Using a
4399 technology called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Way Back Machine,</span>»</span> you could enter a Web
4400 page, and see all of its copies going back to 1996, as well as when those
4401 pages changed.
4402 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxorwellgeorge"></a><p>
4403 This is the thing about the Internet that Orwell would have appreciated.  In
4404 the dystopia described in <em class="citetitle">1984</em>, old newspapers were
4405 constantly updated to assure that the current view of the world, approved of
4406 by the government, was not contradicted by previous news reports.
4407 </p><p>
4408
4409
4410 Thousands of workers constantly reedited the past, meaning there was no way
4411 ever to know whether the story you were reading today was the story that was
4412 printed on the date published on the paper.
4413 </p><p>
4414 It's the same with the Internet. If you go to a Web page today, there's no
4415 way for you to know whether the content you are reading is the same as the
4416 content you read before. The page may seem the same, but the content could
4417 easily be different. The Internet is Orwell's library&#8212;constantly
4418 updated, without any reliable memory.
4419 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3013102"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3013119"></a><p>
4420 Until the Way Back Machine, at least. With the Way Back Machine, and the
4421 Internet Archive underlying it, you can see what the Internet was. You have
4422 the power to see what you remember. More importantly, perhaps, you also have
4423 the power to find what you don't remember and what others might prefer you
4424 forget.<sup>[<a name="id3013133" href="#ftn.id3013133" class="footnote">115</a>]</sup>
4425 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3013165"></a><p>
4426 <span class="strong"><strong>We take it</strong></span> for granted that we can go
4427 back to see what we remember reading. Think about newspapers. If you wanted
4428 to study the reaction of your hometown newspaper to the race riots in Watts
4429 in 1965, or to Bull Connor's water cannon in 1963, you could go to your
4430 public library and look at the newspapers. Those papers probably exist on
4431 microfiche. If you're lucky, they exist in paper, too. Either way, you are
4432 free, using a library, to go back and remember&#8212;not just what it is
4433 convenient to remember, but remember something close to the truth.
4434 </p><p>
4435 It is said that those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat
4436 it. That's not quite correct. We <span class="emphasis"><em>all</em></span> forget
4437 history. The key is whether we have a way to go back to rediscover what we
4438 forget. More directly, the key is whether an objective past can keep us
4439 honest. Libraries help do that, by collecting content and keeping it, for
4440 schoolchildren, for researchers, for grandma. A free society presumes this
4441 knowedge.
4442 </p><p>
4443
4444 The Internet was an exception to this presumption. Until the Internet
4445 Archive, there was no way to go back. The Internet was the quintessentially
4446 transitory medium. And yet, as it becomes more important in forming and
4447 reforming society, it becomes more and more important to maintain in some
4448 historical form. It's just bizarre to think that we have scads of archives
4449 of newspapers from tiny towns around the world, yet there is but one copy of
4450 the Internet&#8212;the one kept by the Internet Archive.
4451 </p><p>
4452 Brewster Kahle is the founder of the Internet Archive. He was a very
4453 successful Internet entrepreneur after he was a successful computer
4454 researcher.  In the 1990s, Kahle decided he had had enough business
4455 success.  It was time to become a different kind of success. So he launched
4456 a series of projects designed to archive human knowledge. The Internet
4457 Archive was just the first of the projects of this Andrew Carnegie of the
4458 Internet. By December of 2002, the archive had over 10 billion pages, and it
4459 was growing at about a billion pages a month.
4460 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3013211"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3013236"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3013242"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3013249"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3013255"></a><p>
4461 The Way Back Machine is the largest archive of human knowledge in human
4462 history. At the end of 2002, it held <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">two hundred and thirty terabytes
4463 of material</span>»</span>&#8212;and was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ten times larger than the Library
4464 of Congress.</span>»</span> And this was just the first of the archives that Kahle
4465 set out to build. In addition to the Internet Archive, Kahle has been
4466 constructing the Television Archive. Television, it turns out, is even more
4467 ephemeral than the Internet. While much of twentieth-century culture was
4468 constructed through television, only a tiny proportion of that culture is
4469 available for anyone to see today. Three hours of news are recorded each
4470 evening by Vanderbilt University&#8212;thanks to a specific exemption in the
4471 copyright law. That content is indexed, and is available to scholars for a
4472 very low fee. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But other than that, [television] is almost
4473 unavailable,</span>»</span> Kahle told me. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If you were Barbara Walters you
4474 could get access to [the archives], but if you are just a graduate
4475 student?</span>»</span> As Kahle put it,
4476 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id3013299"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3013305"></a><p>
4477
4478 Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown? Remember
4479 that back and forth surreal experience of a politician interacting with a
4480 fictional television character? If you were a graduate student wanting to
4481 study that, and you wanted to get those original back and forth exchanges
4482 between the two, the <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em> episode that came out
4483 after it &#8230; it would be almost impossible. &#8230; Those materials
4484 are almost unfindable. &#8230;
4485 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3013329"></a><p>
4486 Why is that? Why is it that the part of our culture that is recorded in
4487 newspapers remains perpetually accessible, while the part that is recorded
4488 on videotape is not? How is it that we've created a world where researchers
4489 trying to understand the effect of media on nineteenthcentury America will
4490 have an easier time than researchers trying to understand the effect of
4491 media on twentieth-century America?
4492 </p><p>
4493 In part, this is because of the law. Early in American copyright law,
4494 copyright owners were required to deposit copies of their work in
4495 libraries.  These copies were intended both to facilitate the spread of
4496 knowledge and to assure that a copy of the work would be around once the
4497 copyright expired, so that others might access and copy the work.
4498 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3013357"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3013363"></a><p>
4499 These rules applied to film as well. But in 1915, the Library of Congress
4500 made an exception for film. Film could be copyrighted so long as such
4501 deposits were made. But the filmmaker was then allowed to borrow back the
4502 deposits&#8212;for an unlimited time at no cost. In 1915 alone, there were
4503 more than 5,475 films deposited and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">borrowed back.</span>»</span> Thus, when
4504 the copyrights to films expire, there is no copy held by any library. The
4505 copy exists&#8212;if it exists at all&#8212;in the library archive of the
4506 film company.<sup>[<a name="id3013376" href="#ftn.id3013376" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
4507 </p><p>
4508 The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts were
4509 originally not copyrighted&#8212;there was no way to capture the broadcasts,
4510 so there was no fear of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theft.</span>»</span> But as technology enabled
4511 capturing, broadcasters relied increasingly upon the law. The law required
4512 they make a copy of each broadcast for the work to be
4513 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrighted.</span>»</span> But those copies were simply kept by the
4514 broadcasters. No library had any right to them; the government didn't demand
4515 them.  The content of this part of American culture is practically invisible
4516 to anyone who would look.
4517 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3013428"></a><p>
4518
4519 Kahle was eager to correct this. Before September 11, 2001, he and his
4520 allies had started capturing television. They selected twenty stations from
4521 around the world and hit the Record button. After September 11, Kahle,
4522 working with dozens of others, selected twenty stations from around the
4523 world and, beginning October 11, 2001, made their coverage during the week
4524 of September 11 available free on-line.  Anyone could see how news reports
4525 from around the world covered the events of that day.
4526 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3013448"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3013455"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3013463"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3013471"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3013478"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3013484"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3013490"></a><p>
4527 Kahle had the same idea with film. Working with Rick Prelinger, whose
4528 archive of film includes close to 45,000 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ephemeral films</span>»</span>
4529 (meaning films other than Hollywood movies, films that were never
4530 copyrighted), Kahle established the Movie Archive. Prelinger let Kahle
4531 digitize 1,300 films in this archive and post those films on the Internet to
4532 be downloaded for free. Prelinger's is a for-profit company. It sells copies
4533 of these films as stock footage. What he has discovered is that after he
4534 made a significant chunk available for free, his stock footage sales went up
4535 dramatically. People could easily find the material they wanted to use. Some
4536 downloaded that material and made films on their own. Others purchased
4537 copies to enable other films to be made.  Either way, the archive enabled
4538 access to this important part of our culture.  Want to see a copy of the
4539 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Duck and Cover</span>»</span> film that instructed children how to save
4540 themselves in the middle of nuclear attack? Go to archive.org, and you can
4541 download the film in a few minutes&#8212;for free.
4542 </p><p>
4543 Here again, Kahle is providing access to a part of our culture that we
4544 otherwise could not get easily, if at all. It is yet another part of what
4545 defines the twentieth century that we have lost to history. The law doesn't
4546 require these copies to be kept by anyone, or to be deposited in an archive
4547 by anyone. Therefore, there is no simple way to find them.
4548 </p><p>
4549 The key here is access, not price. Kahle wants to enable free access to this
4550 content, but he also wants to enable others to sell access to it. His aim is
4551 to ensure competition in access to this important part of our culture.  Not
4552 during the commercial life of a bit of creative property, but during a
4553 second life that all creative property has&#8212;a noncommercial life.
4554 </p><p>
4555
4556 For here is an idea that we should more clearly recognize. Every bit of
4557 creative property goes through different <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lives.</span>»</span> In its first
4558 life, if the creator is lucky, the content is sold. In such cases the
4559 commercial market is successful for the creator. The vast majority of
4560 creative property doesn't enjoy such success, but some clearly does. For
4561 that content, commercial life is extremely important. Without this
4562 commercial market, there would be, many argue, much less creativity.
4563 </p><p>
4564 After the commercial life of creative property has ended, our tradition has
4565 always supported a second life as well. A newspaper delivers the news every
4566 day to the doorsteps of America. The very next day, it is used to wrap fish
4567 or to fill boxes with fragile gifts or to build an archive of knowledge
4568 about our history. In this second life, the content can continue to inform
4569 even if that information is no longer sold.
4570 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3013571"></a><p>
4571 The same has always been true about books. A book goes out of print very
4572 quickly (the average today is after about a year<sup>[<a name="id3013584" href="#ftn.id3013584" class="footnote">117</a>]</sup>). After it is out of print, it can be sold in used book stores
4573 without the copyright owner getting anything and stored in libraries, where
4574 many get to read the book, also for free. Used book stores and libraries are
4575 thus the second life of a book. That second life is extremely important to
4576 the spread and stability of culture.
4577 </p><p>
4578 Yet increasingly, any assumption about a stable second life for creative
4579 property does not hold true with the most important components of popular
4580 culture in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. For
4581 these&#8212;television, movies, music, radio, the Internet&#8212;there is no
4582 guarantee of a second life. For these sorts of culture, it is as if we've
4583 replaced libraries with Barnes &amp; Noble superstores. With this culture,
4584 what's accessible is nothing but what a certain limited market demands.
4585 Beyond that, culture disappears.
4586 </p><p>
4587
4588 <span class="strong"><strong>For most of</strong></span> the twentieth century, it was
4589 economics that made this so. It would have been insanely expensive to
4590 collect and make accessible all television and film and music: The cost of
4591 analog copies is extraordinarily high. So even though the law in principle
4592 would have restricted the ability of a Brewster Kahle to copy culture
4593 generally, the real restriction was economics. The market made it impossibly
4594 difficult to do anything about this ephemeral culture; the law had little
4595 practical effect.
4596 </p><p>
4597 Perhaps the single most important feature of the digital revolution is that
4598 for the first time since the Library of Alexandria, it is feasible to
4599 imagine constructing archives that hold all culture produced or distributed
4600 publicly. Technology makes it possible to imagine an archive of all books
4601 published, and increasingly makes it possible to imagine an archive of all
4602 moving images and sound.
4603 </p><p>
4604 The scale of this potential archive is something we've never imagined
4605 before. The Brewster Kahles of our history have dreamed about it; but we are
4606 for the first time at a point where that dream is possible. As Kahle
4607 describes,
4608 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id3013678"></a><p>
4609 It looks like there's about two to three million recordings of music.
4610 Ever. There are about a hundred thousand theatrical releases of movies,
4611 &#8230; and about one to two million movies [distributed] during the
4612 twentieth century. There are about twenty-six million different titles of
4613 books. All of these would fit on computers that would fit in this room and
4614 be able to be afforded by a small company.  So we're at a turning point in
4615 our history. Universal access is the goal. And the opportunity of leading a
4616 different life, based on this, is &#8230; thrilling. It could be one of the
4617 things humankind would be most proud of. Up there with the Library of
4618 Alexandria, putting a man on the moon, and the invention of the printing
4619 press.
4620 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4621
4622 Kahle is not the only librarian. The Internet Archive is not the only
4623 archive. But Kahle and the Internet Archive suggest what the future of
4624 libraries or archives could be. <span class="emphasis"><em>When</em></span> the commercial
4625 life of creative property ends, I don't know. But it does. And whenever it
4626 does, Kahle and his archive hint at a world where this knowledge, and
4627 culture, remains perpetually available. Some will draw upon it to understand
4628 it; some to criticize it. Some will use it, as Walt Disney did, to re-create
4629 the past for the future. These technologies promise something that had
4630 become unimaginable for much of our past&#8212;a future
4631 <span class="emphasis"><em>for</em></span> our past. The technology of digital arts could make
4632 the dream of the Library of Alexandria real again.
4633 </p><p>
4634 Technologists have thus removed the economic costs of building such an
4635 archive. But lawyers' costs remain. For as much as we might like to call
4636 these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">archives,</span>»</span> as warm as the idea of a
4637 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">library</span>»</span> might seem, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">content</span>»</span> that is
4638 collected in these digital spaces is also someone's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span>
4639 And the law of property restricts the freedoms that Kahle and others would
4640 exercise.
4641 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3013749"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3013133" href="#id3013133" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
4642
4643 <a class="indexterm" name="id3013136"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3013144"></a> The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the
4644 White House changes its own press releases without notice. A May 13, 2003,
4645 press release stated, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.</span>»</span>
4646 That was later changed, without notice, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Major Combat Operations in
4647 Iraq Have Ended.</span>»</span> E-mail from Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
4648 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3013376" href="#id3013376" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
4649
4650
4651 Doug Herrick, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
4652 the Library of Congress,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Film Library
4653 Quarterly</em> 13 nos. 2&#8211;3 (1980): 5; Anthony Slide,
4654 <em class="citetitle">Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film Preservation in the United
4655 States</em> ( Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland &amp; Co., 1992), 36.
4656 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3013584" href="#id3013584" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
4657
4658 <a class="indexterm" name="id3013587"></a> Dave Barns, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fledgling Career
4659 in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord, Bar Owner Starts a New Chapter by
4660 Adopting Business,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 5
4661 September 1997, at Metro Lake 1L. Of books published between 1927 and 1946,
4662 only 2.2 percent were in print in 2002. R. Anthony Reese, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First
4663 Sale Doctrine in the Era of Digital Networks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston
4664 College Law Review</em> 44 (2003): 593 n. 51.
4665 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3013772"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3013778"></a><p>
4666 <span class="strong"><strong>Jack Valenti</strong></span> has been the president of
4667 the Motion Picture Association of America since 1966. He first came to
4668 Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's administration&#8212;literally. The
4669 famous picture of Johnson's swearing-in on Air Force One after the
4670 assassination of President Kennedy has Valenti in the background. In his
4671 almost forty years of running the MPAA, Valenti has established himself as
4672 perhaps the most prominent and effective lobbyist in Washington.
4673 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3013792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3013807"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3013814"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3013820"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3013826"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3013832"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3013839"></a><p>
4674 The MPAA is the American branch of the international Motion Picture
4675 Association. It was formed in 1922 as a trade association whose goal was to
4676 defend American movies against increasing domestic criticism.  The
4677 organization now represents not only filmmakers but producers and
4678 distributors of entertainment for television, video, and cable. Its board is
4679 made up of the chairmen and presidents of the seven major producers and
4680 distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States:
4681 Walt Disney, Sony Pictures Entertainment, MGM, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth
4682 Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers.
4683 </p><p>
4684
4685
4686 Valenti is only the third president of the MPAA. No president before him has
4687 had as much influence over that organization, or over Washington. As a
4688 Texan, Valenti has mastered the single most important political skill of a
4689 Southerner&#8212;the ability to appear simple and slow while hiding a
4690 lightning-fast intellect. To this day, Valenti plays the simple, humble
4691 man. But this Harvard MBA, and author of four books, who finished high
4692 school at the age of fifteen and flew more than fifty combat missions in
4693 World War II, is no Mr. Smith. When Valenti went to Washington, he mastered
4694 the city in a quintessentially Washingtonian way.
4695 </p><p>
4696 In defending artistic liberty and the freedom of speech that our culture
4697 depends upon, the MPAA has done important good. In crafting the MPAA rating
4698 system, it has probably avoided a great deal of speech-regulating harm. But
4699 there is an aspect to the organization's mission that is both the most
4700 radical and the most important. This is the organization's effort,
4701 epitomized in Valenti's every act, to redefine the meaning of
4702 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span>
4703 </p><p>
4704 In 1982, Valenti's testimony to Congress captured the strategy perfectly:
4705 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4706 No matter the lengthy arguments made, no matter the charges and the
4707 counter-charges, no matter the tumult and the shouting, reasonable men and
4708 women will keep returning to the fundamental issue, the central theme which
4709 animates this entire debate: <span class="emphasis"><em>Creative property owners must be
4710 accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other property
4711 owners in the nation</em></span>. That is the issue.  That is the
4712 question. And that is the rostrum on which this entire hearing and the
4713 debates to follow must rest.<sup>[<a name="id3013910" href="#ftn.id3013910" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
4714 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4715
4716 The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's
4717 rhetoric, is brilliant and simple and brilliant because simple. The
4718 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">central theme</span>»</span> to which <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">reasonable men and
4719 women</span>»</span> will return is this: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative property owners must be
4720 accorded the same rights and protections resident in all other property
4721 owners in the nation.</span>»</span> There are no second-class citizens, Valenti
4722 might have continued. There should be no second-class property owners.
4723 </p><p>
4724 This claim has an obvious and powerful intuitive pull. It is stated with
4725 such clarity as to make the idea as obvious as the notion that we use
4726 elections to pick presidents. But in fact, there is no more extreme a claim
4727 made by <span class="emphasis"><em>anyone</em></span> who is serious in this debate than this
4728 claim of Valenti's. Jack Valenti, however sweet and however brilliant, is
4729 perhaps the nation's foremost extremist when it comes to the nature and
4730 scope of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span> His views have
4731 <span class="emphasis"><em>no</em></span> reasonable connection to our actual legal tradition,
4732 even if the subtle pull of his Texan charm has slowly redefined that
4733 tradition, at least in Washington.
4734 </p><p>
4735 While <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> is certainly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span>
4736 in a nerdy and precise sense that lawyers are trained to
4737 understand,<sup>[<a name="id3013979" href="#ftn.id3013979" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case,
4738 nor should it be, that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property owners</span>»</span> have been
4739 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other
4740 property owners.</span>»</span> Indeed, if creative property owners were given the
4741 same rights as all other property owners, that would effect a radical, and
4742 radically undesirable, change in our tradition.
4743 </p><p>
4744 Valenti knows this. But he speaks for an industry that cares squat for our
4745 tradition and the values it represents. He speaks for an industry that is
4746 instead fighting to restore the tradition that the British overturned in
4747 1710. In the world that Valenti's changes would create, a powerful few would
4748 exercise powerful control over how our creative culture would develop.
4749 </p><p>
4750
4751 I have two purposes in this chapter. The first is to convince you that,
4752 historically, Valenti's claim is absolutely wrong. The second is to convince
4753 you that it would be terribly wrong for us to reject our history.  We have
4754 always treated rights in creative property differently from the rights
4755 resident in all other property owners. They have never been the same. And
4756 they should never be the same, because, however counterintuitive this may
4757 seem, to make them the same would be to fundamentally weaken the opportunity
4758 for new creators to create.  Creativity depends upon the owners of
4759 creativity having less than perfect control.
4760 </p><p>
4761 Organizations such as the MPAA, whose board includes the most powerful of
4762 the old guard, have little interest, their rhetoric notwithstanding, in
4763 assuring that the new can displace them. No organization does. No person
4764 does. (Ask me about tenure, for example.)  But what's good for the MPAA is
4765 not necessarily good for America. A society that defends the ideals of free
4766 culture must preserve precisely the opportunity for new creativity to
4767 threaten the old.
4768 </p><p>
4769 <span class="strong"><strong>To get</strong></span> just a hint that there is
4770 something fundamentally wrong in Valenti's argument, we need look no further
4771 than the United States Constitution itself.
4772 </p><p>
4773 The framers of our Constitution loved <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> Indeed, so
4774 strongly did they love property that they built into the Constitution an
4775 important requirement. If the government takes your property&#8212;if it
4776 condemns your house, or acquires a slice of land from your farm&#8212;it is
4777 required, under the Fifth Amendment's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Takings Clause,</span>»</span> to pay
4778 you <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">just compensation</span>»</span> for that taking. The Constitution thus
4779 guarantees that property is, in a certain sense, sacred. It cannot
4780 <span class="emphasis"><em>ever</em></span> be taken from the property owner unless the
4781 government pays for the privilege.
4782 </p><p>
4783
4784 Yet the very same Constitution speaks very differently about what Valenti
4785 calls <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span> In the clause granting Congress the
4786 power to create <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property,</span>»</span> the Constitution
4787 <span class="emphasis"><em>requires</em></span> that after a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited time,</span>»</span>
4788 Congress take back the rights that it has granted and set the
4789 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> free to the public domain. Yet when
4790 Congress does this, when the expiration of a copyright term
4791 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">takes</span>»</span> your copyright and turns it over to the public domain,
4792 Congress does not have any obligation to pay <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">just
4793 compensation</span>»</span> for this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking.</span>»</span> Instead, the same
4794 Constitution that requires compensation for your land requires that you lose
4795 your <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> right without any compensation at all.
4796 </p><p>
4797 The Constitution thus on its face states that these two forms of property
4798 are not to be accorded the same rights. They are plainly to be treated
4799 differently. Valenti is therefore not just asking for a change in our
4800 tradition when he argues that creative-property owners should be accorded
4801 the same rights as every other property-right owner. He is effectively
4802 arguing for a change in our Constitution itself.
4803 </p><p>
4804 Arguing for a change in our Constitution is not necessarily wrong.  There
4805 was much in our original Constitution that was plainly wrong.  The
4806 Constitution of 1789 entrenched slavery; it left senators to be appointed
4807 rather than elected; it made it possible for the electoral college to
4808 produce a tie between the president and his own vice president (as it did in
4809 1800). The framers were no doubt extraordinary, but I would be the first to
4810 admit that they made big mistakes. We have since rejected some of those
4811 mistakes; no doubt there could be others that we should reject as well. So
4812 my argument is not simply that because Jefferson did it, we should, too.
4813 </p><p>
4814 Instead, my argument is that because Jefferson did it, we should at least
4815 try to understand <span class="emphasis"><em>why</em></span>. Why did the framers, fanatical
4816 property types that they were, reject the claim that creative property be
4817 given the same rights as all other property? Why did they require that for
4818 creative property there must be a public domain?
4819 </p><p>
4820 To answer this question, we need to get some perspective on the history of
4821 these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> rights, and the control that they
4822 enabled.  Once we see clearly how differently these rights have been
4823 defined, we will be in a better position to ask the question that should be
4824 at the core of this war: Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> creative property
4825 should be protected, but how. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> we will
4826 enforce the rights the law gives to creative-property owners, but what the
4827 particular mix of rights ought to be. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span>
4828 artists should be paid, but whether institutions designed to assure that
4829 artists get paid need also control how culture develops.
4830 </p><p>
4831
4832
4833
4834 To answer these questions, we need a more general way to talk about how
4835 property is protected. More precisely, we need a more general way than the
4836 narrow language of the law allows. In <em class="citetitle">Code and Other Laws of
4837 Cyberspace</em>, I used a simple model to capture this more general
4838 perspective. For any particular right or regulation, this model asks how
4839 four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the
4840 right or regulation. I represented it with this diagram:
4841 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1331"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.1. How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken
4842 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>
4843 At the center of this picture is a regulated dot: the individual or group
4844 that is the target of regulation, or the holder of a right. (In each case
4845 throughout, we can describe this either as regulation or as a right.  For
4846 simplicity's sake, I will speak only of regulations.)  The ovals represent
4847 four ways in which the individual or group might be regulated&#8212; either
4848 constrained or, alternatively, enabled. Law is the most obvious constraint
4849 (to lawyers, at least). It constrains by threatening punishments after the
4850 fact if the rules set in advance are violated. So if, for example, you
4851 willfully infringe Madonna's copyright by copying a song from her latest CD
4852 and posting it on the Web, you can be punished with a $150,000 fine. The
4853 fine is an ex post punishment for violating an ex ante rule. It is imposed
4854 by the state.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3013867"></a>
4855 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3014257"></a><p>
4856 Norms are a different kind of constraint. They, too, punish an individual
4857 for violating a rule. But the punishment of a norm is imposed by a
4858 community, not (or not only) by the state. There may be no law against
4859 spitting, but that doesn't mean you won't be punished if you spit on the
4860 ground while standing in line at a movie. The punishment might not be harsh,
4861 though depending upon the community, it could easily be more harsh than many
4862 of the punishments imposed by the state. The mark of the difference is not
4863 the severity of the rule, but the source of the enforcement.
4864 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3014278"></a><p>
4865 The market is a third type of constraint. Its constraint is effected through
4866 conditions: You can do X if you pay Y; you'll be paid M if you do N. These
4867 constraints are obviously not independent of law or norms&#8212;it is
4868 property law that defines what must be bought if it is to be taken legally;
4869 it is norms that say what is appropriately sold. But given a set of norms,
4870 and a background of property and contract law, the market imposes a
4871 simultaneous constraint upon how an individual or group might behave.
4872 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3014286"></a><p>
4873 Finally, and for the moment, perhaps, most mysteriously,
4874 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture</span>»</span>&#8212;the physical world as one finds
4875 it&#8212;is a constraint on behavior.  A fallen bridge might constrain your
4876 ability to get across a river. Railroad tracks might constrain the ability
4877 of a community to integrate its social life. As with the market,
4878 architecture does not effect its constraint through ex post
4879 punishments. Instead, also as with the market, architecture effects its
4880 constraint through simultaneous conditions. These conditions are imposed not
4881 by courts enforcing contracts, or by police punishing theft, but by nature,
4882 by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture.</span>»</span> If a 500-pound boulder blocks your way, it
4883 is the law of gravity that enforces this constraint. If a $500 airplane
4884 ticket stands between you and a flight to New York, it is the market that
4885 enforces this constraint.
4886 </p><p>
4887
4888
4889
4890 So the first point about these four modalities of regulation is obvious:
4891 They interact. Restrictions imposed by one might be reinforced by
4892 another. Or restrictions imposed by one might be undermined by another.
4893 </p><p>
4894 The second point follows directly: If we want to understand the effective
4895 freedom that anyone has at a given moment to do any particular thing, we
4896 have to consider how these four modalities interact.  Whether or not there
4897 are other constraints (there may well be; my claim is not about
4898 comprehensiveness), these four are among the most significant, and any
4899 regulator (whether controlling or freeing)  must consider how these four in
4900 particular interact.
4901 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivespeed"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3014360"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3014366"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3014372"></a><p>
4902 So, for example, consider the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> to drive a car at a
4903 high speed. That freedom is in part restricted by laws: speed limits that
4904 say how fast you can drive in particular places at particular times. It is
4905 in part restricted by architecture: speed bumps, for example, slow most
4906 rational drivers; governors in buses, as another example, set the maximum
4907 rate at which the driver can drive. The freedom is in part restricted by the
4908 market: Fuel efficiency drops as speed increases, thus the price of gasoline
4909 indirectly constrains speed. And finally, the norms of a community may or
4910 may not constrain the freedom to speed. Drive at 50 mph by a school in your
4911 own neighborhood and you're likely to be punished by the neighbors. The same
4912 norm wouldn't be as effective in a different town, or at night.
4913 </p><p>
4914
4915 The final point about this simple model should also be fairly clear: While
4916 these four modalities are analytically independent, law has a special role
4917 in affecting the three.<sup>[<a name="id3014406" href="#ftn.id3014406" class="footnote">120</a>]</sup> The law, in
4918 other words, sometimes operates to increase or decrease the constraint of a
4919 particular modality.  Thus, the law might be used to increase taxes on
4920 gasoline, so as to increase the incentives to drive more slowly. The law
4921 might be used to mandate more speed bumps, so as to increase the difficulty
4922 of driving rapidly. The law might be used to fund ads that stigmatize
4923 reckless driving. Or the law might be used to require that other laws be
4924 more strict&#8212;a federal requirement that states decrease the speed
4925 limit, for example&#8212;so as to decrease the attractiveness of fast
4926 driving.
4927 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3014430"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.2. Law has a special role in affecting the three.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1361.png" alt="Law has a special role in affecting the three."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="id3014466"></a><p>
4928 These constraints can thus change, and they can be changed. To understand
4929 the effective protection of liberty or protection of property at any
4930 particular moment, we must track these changes over time. A restriction
4931 imposed by one modality might be erased by another. A freedom enabled by one
4932 modality might be displaced by another.<sup>[<a name="id3014481" href="#ftn.id3014481" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
4933 </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>
4934 The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just how,
4935 Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress and the
4936 courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that rallying makes
4937 sense.
4938 </p><p>
4939 Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the Internet:
4940 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1371"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.3. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="Copyright's regulation before the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="id3014599"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3014606"></a><p>
4941
4942
4943 There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
4944 limits the ability to copy and share content, by imposing penalties on those
4945 who copy and share content. Those penalties are reinforced by technologies
4946 that make it hard to copy and share content (architecture) and expensive to
4947 copy and share content (market). Finally, those penalties are mitigated by
4948 norms we all recognize&#8212;kids, for example, taping other kids'
4949 records. These uses of copyrighted material may well be infringement, but
4950 the norms of our society (before the Internet, at least) had no problem with
4951 this form of infringement.
4952 </p><p>
4953 Enter the Internet, or, more precisely, technologies such as MP3s and p2p
4954 sharing. Now the constraint of architecture changes dramatically, as does
4955 the constraint of the market. And as both the market and architecture relax
4956 the regulation of copyright, norms pile on. The happy balance (for the
4957 warriors, at least) of life before the Internet becomes an effective state
4958 of anarchy after the Internet.
4959 </p><p>
4960
4961 Thus the sense of, and justification for, the warriors' response.
4962 Technology has changed, the warriors say, and the effect of this change,
4963 when ramified through the market and norms, is that a balance of protection
4964 for the copyright owners' rights has been lost. This is Iraq after the fall
4965 of Saddam, but this time no government is justifying the looting that
4966 results.
4967 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1381"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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>
4968 Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the
4969 warriors. Indeed, in a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">White Paper</span>»</span> prepared by the Commerce
4970 Department (one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in 1995, this
4971 mix of regulatory modalities had already been identified and the strategy to
4972 respond already mapped. In response to the changes the Internet had
4973 effected, the White Paper argued (1) Congress should strengthen intellectual
4974 property law, (2) businesses should adopt innovative marketing techniques,
4975 (3) technologists should push to develop code to protect copyrighted
4976 material, and (4) educators should educate kids to better protect copyright.
4977 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3014683"></a><p>
4978
4979 This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed&#8212;if it was to
4980 preserve the particular balance that existed before the change induced by
4981 the Internet. And it's just what we should expect the content industry to
4982 push for. It is as American as apple pie to consider the happy life you have
4983 as an entitlement, and to look to the law to protect it if something comes
4984 along to change that happy life. Homeowners living in a flood plain have no
4985 hesitation appealing to the government to rebuild (and rebuild again) when a
4986 flood (architecture) wipes away their property (law). Farmers have no
4987 hesitation appealing to the government to bail them out when a virus
4988 (architecture) devastates their crop. Unions have no hesitation appealing to
4989 the government to bail them out when imports (market) wipe out the
4990 U.S. steel industry.
4991 </p><p>
4992 Thus, there's nothing wrong or surprising in the content industry's campaign
4993 to protect itself from the harmful consequences of a technological
4994 innovation. And I would be the last person to argue that the changing
4995 technology of the Internet has not had a profound effect on the content
4996 industry's way of doing business, or as John Seely Brown describes it, its
4997 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture of revenue.</span>»</span>
4998 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3014722"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3014727"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3014733"></a><p>
4999 But just because a particular interest asks for government support, it
5000 doesn't follow that support should be granted. And just because technology
5001 has weakened a particular way of doing business, it doesn't follow that the
5002 government should intervene to support that old way of doing
5003 business. Kodak, for example, has lost perhaps as much as 20 percent of
5004 their traditional film market to the emerging technologies of digital
5005 cameras.<sup>[<a name="id3014749" href="#ftn.id3014749" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
5006 government should ban digital cameras just to support Kodak? Highways have
5007 weakened the freight business for railroads. Does anyone think we should ban
5008 trucks from roads <span class="emphasis"><em>for the purpose of</em></span> protecting the
5009 railroads? Closer to the subject of this book, remote channel changers have
5010 weakened the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stickiness</span>»</span> of television advertising (if a
5011 boring commercial comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf ), and
5012 it may well be that this change has weakened the television advertising
5013 market. But does anyone believe we should regulate remotes to reinforce
5014 commercial television? (Maybe by limiting them to function only once a
5015 second, or to switch to only ten channels within an hour?)
5016 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3014797"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3014804"></a><p>
5017 The obvious answer to these obviously rhetorical questions is no.  In a free
5018 society, with a free market, supported by free enterprise and free trade,
5019 the government's role is not to support one way of doing business against
5020 others. Its role is not to pick winners and protect them against loss. If
5021 the government did this generally, then we would never have any progress. As
5022 Microsoft chairman Bill Gates wrote in 1991, in a memo criticizing software
5023 patents, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">established companies have an interest in excluding future
5024 competitors.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3014823" href="#ftn.id3014823" class="footnote">123</a>]</sup> And relative to a
5025 startup, established companies also have the means. (Think RCA and FM
5026 radio.) A world in which competitors with new ideas must fight not only the
5027 market but also the government is a world in which competitors with new
5028 ideas will not succeed. It is a world of stasis and increasingly
5029 concentrated stagnation. It is the Soviet Union under Brezhnev.
5030 </p><p>
5031 Thus, while it is understandable for industries threatened with new
5032 technologies that change the way they do business to look to the government
5033 for protection, it is the special duty of policy makers to guarantee that
5034 that protection not become a deterrent to progress. It is the duty of policy
5035 makers, in other words, to assure that the changes they create, in response
5036 to the request of those hurt by changing technology, are changes that
5037 preserve the incentives and opportunities for innovation and change.
5038 </p><p>
5039 In the context of laws regulating speech&#8212;which include, obviously,
5040 copyright law&#8212;that duty is even stronger. When the industry
5041 complaining about changing technologies is asking Congress to respond in a
5042 way that burdens speech and creativity, policy makers should be especially
5043 wary of the request. It is always a bad deal for the government to get into
5044 the business of regulating speech markets. The risks and dangers of that
5045 game are precisely why our framers created the First Amendment to our
5046 Constitution: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Congress shall make no law &#8230; abridging the
5047 freedom of speech.</span>»</span> So when Congress is being asked to pass laws that
5048 would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">abridge</span>»</span> the freedom of speech, it should ask&#8212;
5049 carefully&#8212;whether such regulation is justified.
5050 </p><p>
5051
5052 My argument just now, however, has nothing to do with whether the changes
5053 that are being pushed by the copyright warriors are
5054 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">justified.</span>»</span> My argument is about their effect. For before we
5055 get to the question of justification, a hard question that depends a great
5056 deal upon your values, we should first ask whether we understand the effect
5057 of the changes the content industry wants.
5058 </p><p>
5059 Her kommer metaforen som vil forklare argumentet.
5060 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxddt"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3014908"></a><p>
5061 In 1873, the chemical DDT was first synthesized. In 1948, Swiss chemist Paul
5062 Hermann Müller won the Nobel Prize for his work demonstrating the
5063 insecticidal properties of DDT. By the 1950s, the insecticide was widely
5064 used around the world to kill disease-carrying pests. It was also used to
5065 increase farm production.
5066 </p><p>
5067 No one doubts that killing disease-carrying pests or increasing crop
5068 production is a good thing. No one doubts that the work of Müller was
5069 important and valuable and probably saved lives, possibly millions.
5070 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3014939"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3014945"></a><p>
5071 But in 1962, Rachel Carson published <em class="citetitle">Silent Spring</em>,
5072 which argued that DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having
5073 unintended environmental consequences. Birds were losing the ability to
5074 reproduce.  Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed.
5075 </p><p>
5076 No one set out to destroy the environment. Paul Müller certainly did not aim
5077 to harm any birds. But the effort to solve one set of problems produced
5078 another set which, in the view of some, was far worse than the problems that
5079 were originally attacked. Or more accurately, the problems DDT caused were
5080 worse than the problems it solved, at least when considering the other, more
5081 environmentally friendly ways to solve the problems that DDT was meant to
5082 solve.
5083 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3014977"></a><p>
5084
5085 It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James Boyle
5086 appeals when he argues that we need an <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">environmentalism</span>»</span> for
5087 culture.<sup>[<a name="id3014993" href="#ftn.id3014993" class="footnote">124</a>]</sup> His point, and the point I
5088 want to develop in the balance of this chapter, is not that the aims of
5089 copyright are flawed. Or that authors should not be paid for their work. Or
5090 that music should be given away <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for free.</span>»</span> The point is that
5091 some of the ways in which we might protect authors will have unintended
5092 consequences for the cultural environment, much like DDT had for the natural
5093 environment. And just as criticism of DDT is not an endorsement of malaria
5094 or an attack on farmers, so, too, is criticism of one particular set of
5095 regulations protecting copyright not an endorsement of anarchy or an attack
5096 on authors.  It is an environment of creativity that we seek, and we should
5097 be aware of our actions' effects on the environment.
5098 </p><p>
5099 My argument, in the balance of this chapter, tries to map exactly this
5100 effect. No doubt the technology of the Internet has had a dramatic effect on
5101 the ability of copyright owners to protect their content. But there should
5102 also be little doubt that when you add together the changes in copyright law
5103 over time, plus the change in technology that the Internet is undergoing
5104 just now, the net effect of these changes will not be only that copyrighted
5105 work is effectively protected. Also, and generally missed, the net effect of
5106 this massive increase in protection will be devastating to the environment
5107 for creativity.
5108 </p><p>
5109 In a line: To kill a gnat, we are spraying DDT with consequences for free
5110 culture that will be far more devastating than that this gnat will be lost.
5111 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3015043"></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>
5112 America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
5113 English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative
5114 property</span>»</span> rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English
5115 aim to avoid overly powerful publishers.
5116 </p><p>
5117 The power to establish <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> rights is granted to
5118 Congress in a way that, for our Constitution, at least, is very odd. Article
5119 I, section 8, clause 8 of our Constitution states that:
5120 </p><p>
5121
5122 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
5123 by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
5124 to their respective Writings and Discoveries.  We can call this the
5125 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Progress Clause,</span>»</span> for notice what this clause does not say. It
5126 does not say Congress has the power to grant <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property
5127 rights.</span>»</span> It says that Congress has the power <span class="emphasis"><em>to promote
5128 progress</em></span>. The grant of power is its purpose, and its purpose is a
5129 public one, not the purpose of enriching publishers, nor even primarily the
5130 purpose of rewarding authors.
5131 </p><p>
5132 The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw in
5133 chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Chapter 6. Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">6</a>, the
5134 English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a few would not
5135 exercise disproportionate control over culture by exercising
5136 disproportionate control over publishing. We can assume the framers followed
5137 the English for a similar purpose. Indeed, unlike the English, the framers
5138 reinforced that objective, by requiring that copyrights extend <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to
5139 Authors</span>»</span> only.
5140 </p><p>
5141 The design of the Progress Clause reflects something about the
5142 Constitution's design in general. To avoid a problem, the framers built
5143 structure. To prevent the concentrated power of publishers, they built a
5144 structure that kept copyrights away from publishers and kept them short. To
5145 prevent the concentrated power of a church, they banned the federal
5146 government from establishing a church. To prevent concentrating power in the
5147 federal government, they built structures to reinforce the power of the
5148 states&#8212;including the Senate, whose members were at the time selected
5149 by the states, and an electoral college, also selected by the states, to
5150 select the president. In each case, a <span class="emphasis"><em>structure</em></span> built
5151 checks and balances into the constitutional frame, structured to prevent
5152 otherwise inevitable concentrations of power.
5153 </p><p>
5154 I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call
5155 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond
5156 anything they ever considered. To begin to understand what they did, we need
5157 to put our <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> in context: We need to see how it has
5158 changed in the 210 years since they first struck its design.
5159 </p><p>
5160
5161 Some of these changes come from the law: some in light of changes in
5162 technology, and some in light of changes in technology given a particular
5163 concentration of market power. In terms of our model, we started here:
5164 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1441"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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>
5165 Vi kommer til å ende opp her:
5166 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1442"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.6. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Opphavsrett</span>»</span> i dag.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1442.png" alt="Opphavsrett i dag."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5167
5168 La meg forklare hvordan.
5169
5170 </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>
5171 When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it faced
5172 the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that the English
5173 had confronted in 1774. Many states had passed laws protecting creative
5174 property, and some believed that these laws simply supplemented common law
5175 rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="id3015224" href="#ftn.id3015224" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
5176 domain in the United States in 1790. If copyrights were protected by the
5177 common law, then there was no simple way to know whether a work published in
5178 the United States was controlled or free. Just as in England, this lingering
5179 uncertainty would make it hard for publishers to rely upon a public domain
5180 to reprint and distribute works.
5181 </p><p>
5182 That uncertainty ended after Congress passed legislation granting
5183 copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law, federal
5184 protections for copyrighted works displaced any state law protections.  Just
5185 as in England the Statute of Anne eventually meant that the copyrights for
5186 all English works expired, a federal statute meant that any state copyrights
5187 expired as well.
5188 </p><p>
5189 In 1790, Congress enacted the first copyright law. It created a federal
5190 copyright and secured that copyright for fourteen years. If the author was
5191 alive at the end of that fourteen years, then he could opt to renew the
5192 copyright for another fourteen years. If he did not renew the copyright, his
5193 work passed into the public domain.
5194 </p><p>
5195 Selv om det ble skapt mange verker i USA i de første 10 årene til
5196 republikken, så ble kun 5 prosent av verkene registrert under det føderale
5197 opphavsrettsregimet.  Av alle verker skapt i USA både før 1790 og fra 1790
5198 fram til 1800, så ble 95 prosent øyeblikkelig allemannseie (public
5199 domain). Resten ble allemannseie etter maksimalt 20 år, og som oftest etter
5200 14 år.<sup>[<a name="id3015292" href="#ftn.id3015292" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
5201 </p><p>
5202
5203 Dette fornyelsessystemet var en avgjørende del av det amerikanske systemet
5204 for opphavsrett.  Det sikret at maksimal vernetid i opphavsretten bare ble
5205 gitt til verker der det var ønsket. Etter den første perioden på fjorten år,
5206 hvis forfatteren ikke så verdien av å fornye sin opphavsrett, var det heller
5207 ikke verdt det for samfunnet å håndheve opphavsretten.
5208 </p><p>
5209 Fourteen years may not seem long to us, but for the vast majority of
5210 copyright owners at that time, it was long enough: Only a small minority of
5211 them renewed their copyright after fourteen years; the balance allowed their
5212 work to pass into the public domain.<sup>[<a name="id3015359" href="#ftn.id3015359" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
5213 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3015389"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3015398"></a><p>
5214 Even today, this structure would make sense. Most creative work has an
5215 actual commercial life of just a couple of years. Most books fall out of
5216 print after one year.<sup>[<a name="id3015412" href="#ftn.id3015412" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
5217 happens, the used books are traded free of copyright regulation. Thus the
5218 books are no longer <span class="emphasis"><em>effectively</em></span> controlled by
5219 copyright. The only practical commercial use of the books at that time is to
5220 sell the books as used books; that use&#8212;because it does not involve
5221 publication&#8212;is effectively free.
5222 </p><p>
5223 In the first hundred years of the Republic, the term of copyright was
5224 changed once. In 1831, the term was increased from a maximum of 28 years to
5225 a maximum of 42 by increasing the initial term of copyright from 14 years to
5226 28 years. In the next fifty years of the Republic, the term increased once
5227 again. In 1909, Congress extended the renewal term of 14 years to 28 years,
5228 setting a maximum term of 56 years.
5229 </p><p>
5230 Then, beginning in 1962, Congress started a practice that has defined
5231 copyright law since. Eleven times in the last forty years, Congress has
5232 extended the terms of existing copyrights; twice in those forty years,
5233 Congress extended the term of future copyrights. Initially, the extensions
5234 of existing copyrights were short, a mere one to two years.  In 1976,
5235 Congress extended all existing copyrights by nineteen years.  And in 1998,
5236 in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Congress extended the term
5237 of existing and future copyrights by twenty years.
5238 </p><p>
5239
5240 The effect of these extensions is simply to toll, or delay, the passing of
5241 works into the public domain. This latest extension means that the public
5242 domain will have been tolled for thirty-nine out of fifty-five years, or 70
5243 percent of the time since 1962. Thus, in the twenty years after the Sonny
5244 Bono Act, while one million patents will pass into the public domain, zero
5245 copyrights will pass into the public domain by virtue of the expiration of a
5246 copyright term.
5247 </p><p>
5248 The effect of these extensions has been exacerbated by another,
5249 little-noticed change in the copyright law. Remember I said that the framers
5250 established a two-part copyright regime, requiring a copyright owner to
5251 renew his copyright after an initial term. The requirement of renewal meant
5252 that works that no longer needed copyright protection would pass more
5253 quickly into the public domain. The works remaining under protection would
5254 be those that had some continuing commercial value.
5255 </p><p>
5256 The United States abandoned this sensible system in 1976. For all works
5257 created after 1978, there was only one copyright term&#8212;the maximum
5258 term. For <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natural</span>»</span> authors, that term was life plus fifty
5259 years. For corporations, the term was seventy-five years. Then, in 1992,
5260 Congress abandoned the renewal requirement for all works created before
5261 1978. All works still under copyright would be accorded the maximum term
5262 then available. After the Sonny Bono Act, that term was ninety-five years.
5263 </p><p>
5264 This change meant that American law no longer had an automatic way to assure
5265 that works that were no longer exploited passed into the public domain. And
5266 indeed, after these changes, it is unclear whether it is even possible to
5267 put works into the public domain. The public domain is orphaned by these
5268 changes in copyright law. Despite the requirement that terms be
5269 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited,</span>»</span> we have no evidence that anything will limit them.
5270 </p><p>
5271 The effect of these changes on the average duration of copyright is
5272 dramatic. In 1973, more than 85 percent of copyright owners failed to renew
5273 their copyright. That meant that the average term of copyright in 1973 was
5274 just 32.2 years. Because of the elimination of the renewal requirement, the
5275 average term of copyright is now the maximum term.  In thirty years, then,
5276 the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.<sup>[<a name="id3015514" href="#ftn.id3015514" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
5277 </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>
5278 The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">scope</span>»</span> of a copyright is the range of rights granted by
5279 the law.  The scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those
5280 changes are not necessarily bad. But we should understand the extent of the
5281 changes if we're to keep this debate in context.
5282 </p><p>
5283 In 1790, that scope was very narrow. Copyright covered only <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">maps,
5284 charts, and books.</span>»</span> That means it didn't cover, for example, music or
5285 architecture. More significantly, the right granted by a copyright gave the
5286 author the exclusive right to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">publish</span>»</span> copyrighted works. That
5287 means someone else violated the copyright only if he republished the work
5288 without the copyright owner's permission. Finally, the right granted by a
5289 copyright was an exclusive right to that particular book. The right did not
5290 extend to what lawyers call <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative works.</span>»</span> It would not,
5291 therefore, interfere with the right of someone other than the author to
5292 translate a copyrighted book, or to adapt the story to a different form
5293 (such as a drama based on a published book).
5294 </p><p>
5295 This, too, has changed dramatically. While the contours of copyright today
5296 are extremely hard to describe simply, in general terms, the right covers
5297 practically any creative work that is reduced to a tangible form. It covers
5298 music as well as architecture, drama as well as computer programs. It gives
5299 the copyright owner of that creative work not only the exclusive right to
5300 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">publish</span>»</span> the work, but also the exclusive right of control
5301 over any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span> of that work. And most significant for our
5302 purposes here, the right gives the copyright owner control over not only his
5303 or her particular work, but also any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative work</span>»</span> that
5304 might grow out of the original work. In this way, the right covers more
5305 creative work, protects the creative work more broadly, and protects works
5306 that are based in a significant way on the initial creative work.
5307 </p><p>
5308
5309 At the same time that the scope of copyright has expanded, procedural
5310 limitations on the right have been relaxed. I've already described the
5311 complete removal of the renewal requirement in 1992. In addition to the
5312 renewal requirement, for most of the history of American copyright law,
5313 there was a requirement that a work be registered before it could receive
5314 the protection of a copyright. There was also a requirement that any
5315 copyrighted work be marked either with that famous © or the word
5316 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>. And for most of the history of American
5317 copyright law, there was a requirement that works be deposited with the
5318 government before a copyright could be secured.
5319 </p><p>
5320 The reason for the registration requirement was the sensible understanding
5321 that for most works, no copyright was required. Again, in the first ten
5322 years of the Republic, 95 percent of works eligible for copyright were never
5323 copyrighted. Thus, the rule reflected the norm: Most works apparently didn't
5324 need copyright, so registration narrowed the regulation of the law to the
5325 few that did. The same reasoning justified the requirement that a work be
5326 marked as copyrighted&#8212;that way it was easy to know whether a copyright
5327 was being claimed. The requirement that works be deposited was to assure
5328 that after the copyright expired, there would be a copy of the work
5329 somewhere so that it could be copied by others without locating the original
5330 author.
5331 </p><p>
5332 All of these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">formalities</span>»</span> were abolished in the American
5333 system when we decided to follow European copyright law. There is no
5334 requirement that you register a work to get a copyright; the copyright now
5335 is automatic; the copyright exists whether or not you mark your work with a
5336 ©; and the copyright exists whether or not you actually make a copy
5337 available for others to copy.
5338 </p><p>
5339 Vurder et praktisk eksempel for å forstå omfanget av disse forskjellene.
5340 </p><p>
5341 If, in 1790, you wrote a book and you were one of the 5 percent who actually
5342 copyrighted that book, then the copyright law protected you against another
5343 publisher's taking your book and republishing it without your
5344 permission. The aim of the act was to regulate publishers so as to prevent
5345 that kind of unfair competition. In 1790, there were 174 publishers in the
5346 United States.<sup>[<a name="id3015667" href="#ftn.id3015667" class="footnote">130</a>]</sup> The Copyright Act was
5347 thus a tiny regulation of a tiny proportion of a tiny part of the creative
5348 market in the United States&#8212;publishers.
5349 </p><p>
5350
5351
5352 The act left other creators totally unregulated. If I copied your poem by
5353 hand, over and over again, as a way to learn it by heart, my act was totally
5354 unregulated by the 1790 act. If I took your novel and made a play based upon
5355 it, or if I translated it or abridged it, none of those activities were
5356 regulated by the original copyright act. These creative activities remained
5357 free, while the activities of publishers were restrained.
5358 </p><p>
5359 Today the story is very different: If you write a book, your book is
5360 automatically protected. Indeed, not just your book. Every e-mail, every
5361 note to your spouse, every doodle, <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> creative act
5362 that's reduced to a tangible form&#8212;all of this is automatically
5363 copyrighted.  There is no need to register or mark your work. The protection
5364 follows the creation, not the steps you take to protect it.
5365 </p><p>
5366 That protection gives you the right (subject to a narrow range of fair use
5367 exceptions) to control how others copy the work, whether they copy it to
5368 republish it or to share an excerpt.
5369 </p><p>
5370 That much is the obvious part. Any system of copyright would control
5371 competing publishing. But there's a second part to the copyright of today
5372 that is not at all obvious. This is the protection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative
5373 rights.</span>»</span> If you write a book, no one can make a movie out of your
5374 book without permission. No one can translate it without permission.
5375 CliffsNotes can't make an abridgment unless permission is granted. All of
5376 these derivative uses of your original work are controlled by the copyright
5377 holder. The copyright, in other words, is now not just an exclusive right to
5378 your writings, but an exclusive right to your writings and a large
5379 proportion of the writings inspired by them.
5380 </p><p>
5381 It is this derivative right that would seem most bizarre to our framers,
5382 though it has become second nature to us. Initially, this expansion was
5383 created to deal with obvious evasions of a narrower copyright.  If I write a
5384 book, can you change one word and then claim a copyright in a new and
5385 different book? Obviously that would make a joke of the copyright, so the
5386 law was properly expanded to include those slight modifications as well as
5387 the verbatim original work.
5388 </p><p>
5389
5390 In preventing that joke, the law created an astonishing power within a free
5391 culture&#8212;at least, it's astonishing when you understand that the law
5392 applies not just to the commercial publisher but to anyone with a
5393 computer. I understand the wrong in duplicating and selling someone else's
5394 work. But whatever <span class="emphasis"><em>that</em></span> wrong is, transforming someone
5395 else's work is a different wrong. Some view transformation as no wrong at
5396 all&#8212;they believe that our law, as the framers penned it, should not
5397 protect derivative rights at all.<sup>[<a name="id3015762" href="#ftn.id3015762" class="footnote">131</a>]</sup>
5398 Whether or not you go that far, it seems plain that whatever wrong is
5399 involved is fundamentally different from the wrong of direct piracy.
5400 </p><p>
5401 Yet copyright law treats these two different wrongs in the same way. I can
5402 go to court and get an injunction against your pirating my book. I can go to
5403 court and get an injunction against your transformative use of my
5404 book.<sup>[<a name="id3015810" href="#ftn.id3015810" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
5405 creative work are treated the same.
5406 </p><p>
5407 This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should you be
5408 able to write a movie that takes my story and makes money from it without
5409 paying me or crediting me? Or if Disney creates a creature called
5410 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mickey Mouse,</span>»</span> why should you be able to make Mickey Mouse
5411 toys and be the one to trade on the value that Disney originally created?
5412 </p><p>
5413 These are good arguments, and, in general, my point is not that the
5414 derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower: simply to
5415 make clear that this expansion is a significant change from the rights
5416 originally granted.
5417 </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>
5418 Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
5419 copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users, and
5420 authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making copies,
5421 and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id3015876" href="#ftn.id3015876" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
5422 </p><p>
5423
5424
5425 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copies.</span>»</span> That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for
5426 <span class="emphasis"><em>copy</em></span>right law to regulate. But as with Jack Valenti's
5427 argument at the start of this chapter, that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span>
5428 deserves the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">same rights</span>»</span> as all other property, it is the
5429 <span class="emphasis"><em>obvious</em></span> that we need to be most careful about. For
5430 while it may be obvious that in the world before the Internet, copies were
5431 the obvious trigger for copyright law, upon reflection, it should be obvious
5432 that in the world with the Internet, copies should <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span>
5433 be the trigger for copyright law. More precisely, they should not
5434 <span class="emphasis"><em>always</em></span> be the trigger for copyright law.
5435 </p><p>
5436 This is perhaps the central claim of this book, so let me take this very
5437 slowly so that the point is not easily missed. My claim is that the Internet
5438 should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which the law of
5439 copyright automatically applies,<sup>[<a name="id3015954" href="#ftn.id3015954" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
5440 because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never
5441 contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright
5442 law.
5443 </p><p>
5444 We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely empty
5445 circle.
5446 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1521"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.7. Alle potensielle bruk av en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1521.png" alt="Alle potensielle bruk av en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksusetypes"></a><p>
5447
5448
5449 Think about a book in real space, and imagine this circle to represent all
5450 its potential <span class="emphasis"><em>uses</em></span>. Most of these uses are unregulated
5451 by copyright law, because the uses don't create a copy. If you read a book,
5452 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you give someone the book,
5453 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you resell a book, that act
5454 is not regulated (copyright law expressly states that after the first sale
5455 of a book, the copyright owner can impose no further conditions on the
5456 disposition of the book). If you sleep on the book or use it to hold up a
5457 lamp or let your puppy chew it up, those acts are not regulated by copyright
5458 law, because those acts do not make a copy.
5459 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1531"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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>
5460 Obviously, however, some uses of a copyrighted book are regulated by
5461 copyright law. Republishing the book, for example, makes a copy. It is
5462 therefore regulated by copyright law. Indeed, this particular use stands at
5463 the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work. It is the
5464 paradigmatic use properly regulated by copyright regulation (see first
5465 diagram on next page).
5466 </p><p>
5467 Til slutt er det en tynn skive av ellers regulert kopierings-bruk som
5468 forblir uregluert på grunn av at loven anser dette som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
5469 bruk</span>»</span>.
5470 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1541"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.9. Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a
5471 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>
5472 These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law treats as
5473 unregulated because public policy demands that they remain unregulated.  You
5474 are free to quote from this book, even in a review that is quite negative,
5475 without my permission, even though that quoting makes a copy. That copy
5476 would ordinarily give the copyright owner the exclusive right to say whether
5477 the copy is allowed or not, but the law denies the owner any exclusive right
5478 over such <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair uses</span>»</span> for public policy (and possibly First
5479 Amendment) reasons.
5480 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1542"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.10. Uregulert kopiering anses som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1542.png" alt="Uregulert kopiering anses som rimelig bruk."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p> </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1551"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.11. Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
5481 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>
5482
5483
5484 In real space, then, the possible uses of a book are divided into three
5485 sorts: (1) unregulated uses, (2) regulated uses, and (3) regulated uses that
5486 are nonetheless deemed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair</span>»</span> regardless of the copyright
5487 owner's views.
5488 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3016137"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3016145"></a><p>
5489 Enter the Internet&#8212;a distributed, digital network where every use of a
5490 copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id3015885" href="#ftn.id3015885" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
5491 because of this single, arbitrary feature of the design of a digital
5492 network, the scope of category 1 changes dramatically. Uses that before were
5493 presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated. No longer is
5494 there a set of presumptively unregulated uses that define a freedom
5495 associated with a copyrighted work. Instead, each use is now subject to the
5496 copyright, because each use also makes a copy&#8212;category 1 gets sucked
5497 into category 2. And those who would defend the unregulated uses of
5498 copyrighted work must look exclusively to category 3, fair uses, to bear the
5499 burden of this shift.
5500 </p><p>
5501
5502 So let's be very specific to make this general point clear. Before the
5503 Internet, if you purchased a book and read it ten times, there would be no
5504 plausible <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>-related argument that the copyright
5505 owner could make to control that use of her book. Copyright law would have
5506 nothing to say about whether you read the book once, ten times, or every
5507 night before you went to bed. None of those instances of
5508 use&#8212;reading&#8212; could be regulated by copyright law because none of
5509 those uses produced a copy.
5510 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3016195"></a><p>
5511 But the same book as an e-book is effectively governed by a different set of
5512 rules. Now if the copyright owner says you may read the book only once or
5513 only once a month, then <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright law</em></span> would aid the
5514 copyright owner in exercising this degree of control, because of the
5515 accidental feature of copyright law that triggers its application upon there
5516 being a copy. Now if you read the book ten times and the license says you
5517 may read it only five times, then whenever you read the book (or any portion
5518 of it) beyond the fifth time, you are making a copy of the book contrary to
5519 the copyright owner's wish.
5520 </p><p>
5521 There are some people who think this makes perfect sense. My aim just now is
5522 not to argue about whether it makes sense or not. My aim is only to make
5523 clear the change. Once you see this point, a few other points also become
5524 clear:
5525 </p><p>
5526 First, making category 1 disappear is not anything any policy maker ever
5527 intended. Congress did not think through the collapse of the presumptively
5528 unregulated uses of copyrighted works. There is no evidence at all that
5529 policy makers had this idea in mind when they allowed our policy here to
5530 shift. Unregulated uses were an important part of free culture before the
5531 Internet.
5532 </p><p>
5533 Second, this shift is especially troubling in the context of transformative
5534 uses of creative content. Again, we can all understand the wrong in
5535 commercial piracy. But the law now purports to regulate
5536 <span class="emphasis"><em>any</em></span> transformation you make of creative work using a
5537 machine. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copy and paste</span>»</span> and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>»</span>
5538 become crimes. Tinkering with a story and releasing it to others exposes the
5539 tinkerer to at least a requirement of justification.  However troubling the
5540 expansion with respect to copying a particular work, it is extraordinarily
5541 troubling with respect to transformative uses of creative work.
5542 </p><p>
5543
5544 Third, this shift from category 1 to category 2 puts an extraordinary burden
5545 on category 3 (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>) that fair use never before had to
5546 bear.  If a copyright owner now tried to control how many times I could read
5547 a book on-line, the natural response would be to argue that this is a
5548 violation of my fair use rights. But there has never been any litigation
5549 about whether I have a fair use right to read, because before the Internet,
5550 reading did not trigger the application of copyright law and hence the need
5551 for a fair use defense. The right to read was effectively protected before
5552 because reading was not regulated.
5553 </p><p>
5554 This point about fair use is totally ignored, even by advocates for free
5555 culture. We have been cornered into arguing that our rights depend upon fair
5556 use&#8212;never even addressing the earlier question about the expansion in
5557 effective regulation. A thin protection grounded in fair use makes sense
5558 when the vast majority of uses are <span class="emphasis"><em>unregulated</em></span>. But
5559 when everything becomes presumptively regulated, then the protections of
5560 fair use are not enough.
5561 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising2"></a><p>
5562 The case of Video Pipeline is a good example. Video Pipeline was in the
5563 business of making <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trailer</span>»</span> advertisements for movies
5564 available to video stores. The video stores displayed the trailers as a way
5565 to sell videos. Video Pipeline got the trailers from the film distributors,
5566 put the trailers on tape, and sold the tapes to the retail stores.
5567 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3016322"></a><p>
5568 The company did this for about fifteen years. Then, in 1997, it began to
5569 think about the Internet as another way to distribute these previews.  The
5570 idea was to expand their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">selling by sampling</span>»</span> technique by
5571 giving on-line stores the same ability to enable <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">browsing.</span>»</span>
5572 Just as in a bookstore you can read a few pages of a book before you buy the
5573 book, so, too, you would be able to sample a bit from the movie on-line
5574 before you bought it.
5575 </p><p>
5576
5577 In 1998, Video Pipeline informed Disney and other film distributors that it
5578 intended to distribute the trailers through the Internet (rather than
5579 sending the tapes) to distributors of their videos. Two years later, Disney
5580 told Video Pipeline to stop. The owner of Video Pipeline asked Disney to
5581 talk about the matter&#8212;he had built a business on distributing this
5582 content as a way to help sell Disney films; he had customers who depended
5583 upon his delivering this content. Disney would agree to talk only if Video
5584 Pipeline stopped the distribution immediately.  Video Pipeline thought it
5585 was within their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> rights to distribute the clips as
5586 they had. So they filed a lawsuit to ask the court to declare that these
5587 rights were in fact their rights.
5588 </p><p>
5589 Disney countersued&#8212;for $100 million in damages. Those damages were
5590 predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">willfully
5591 infringed</span>»</span> on Disney's copyright. When a court makes a finding of
5592 willful infringement, it can award damages not on the basis of the actual
5593 harm to the copyright owner, but on the basis of an amount set in the
5594 statute. Because Video Pipeline had distributed seven hundred clips of
5595 Disney movies to enable video stores to sell copies of those movies, Disney
5596 was now suing Video Pipeline for $100 million.
5597 </p><p>
5598 Disney has the right to control its property, of course. But the video
5599 stores that were selling Disney's films also had some sort of right to be
5600 able to sell the films that they had bought from Disney. Disney's claim in
5601 court was that the stores were allowed to sell the films and they were
5602 permitted to list the titles of the films they were selling, but they were
5603 not allowed to show clips of the films as a way of selling them without
5604 Disney's permission.
5605 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3016401"></a><p>
5606 Now, you might think this is a close case, and I think the courts would
5607 consider it a close case. My point here is to map the change that gives
5608 Disney this power. Before the Internet, Disney couldn't really control how
5609 people got access to their content. Once a video was in the marketplace, the
5610 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">first-sale doctrine</span>»</span> would free the seller to use the video as
5611 he wished, including showing portions of it in order to engender sales of
5612 the entire movie video. But with the Internet, it becomes possible for
5613 Disney to centralize control over access to this content. Because each use
5614 of the Internet produces a copy, use on the Internet becomes subject to the
5615 copyright owner's control. The technology expands the scope of effective
5616 control, because the technology builds a copy into every transaction.
5617 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3016429"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3016435"></a><p>
5618
5619
5620 No doubt, a potential is not yet an abuse, and so the potential for control
5621 is not yet the abuse of control. Barnes &amp; Noble has the right to say you
5622 can't touch a book in their store; property law gives them that right.  But
5623 the market effectively protects against that abuse. If Barnes &amp; Noble
5624 banned browsing, then consumers would choose other bookstores.  Competition
5625 protects against the extremes. And it may well be (my argument so far does
5626 not even question this) that competition would prevent any similar danger
5627 when it comes to copyright. Sure, publishers exercising the rights that
5628 authors have assigned to them might try to regulate how many times you read
5629 a book, or try to stop you from sharing the book with anyone. But in a
5630 competitive market such as the book market, the dangers of this happening
5631 are quite slight.
5632 </p><p>
5633 Again, my aim so far is simply to map the changes that this changed
5634 architecture enables. Enabling technology to enforce the control of
5635 copyright means that the control of copyright is no longer defined by
5636 balanced policy. The control of copyright is simply what private owners
5637 choose. In some contexts, at least, that fact is harmless. But in some
5638 contexts it is a recipe for disaster.
5639 </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>
5640 The disappearance of unregulated uses would be change enough, but a second
5641 important change brought about by the Internet magnifies its
5642 significance. This second change does not affect the reach of copyright
5643 regulation; it affects how such regulation is enforced.
5644 </p><p>
5645 In the world before digital technology, it was generally the law that
5646 controlled whether and how someone was regulated by copyright law.  The law,
5647 meaning a court, meaning a judge: In the end, it was a human, trained in the
5648 tradition of the law and cognizant of the balances that tradition embraced,
5649 who said whether and how the law would restrict your freedom.
5650 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3016527"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
5651 Det er en berømt historie om en kamp mellom Marx-brødrene (the Marx
5652 Brothers) og Warner Brothers.  Marx-brødrene planla å lage en parodi av
5653 <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>. Warner Brothers protesterte.  De skrev et
5654 ufint brev til Marx-brødrene og advarte dem om at det ville få seriøse
5655 juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.<sup>[<a name="id3016570" href="#ftn.id3016570" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
5656 </p><p>
5657 Dette fikk Marx-brødrene til å svare tilbake med samme mynt.  De advarte
5658 Warner Brothers om at Marx-brødrene <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var brødre lenge før dere var
5659 det</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id3016598" href="#ftn.id3016598" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> Marx-brødrene eide derfor
5660 ordet <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>, og hvis Warner Brothers insisterte på
5661 å forsøke å kontrollere <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>, så ville
5662 Marx-brødrene insistere på kontroll over <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>.
5663 </p><p>
5664 Det var en absurd og hul trussel, selvfølgelig, fordi Warner Brothers, på
5665 samme måte som Marx-brødrene, visste at ingen domstol noensinne ville
5666 håndheve et slikt dumt krav. Denne ekstremismen var irrelevant for de ekte
5667 friheter som alle (inkludert Warner Brothers) nøt godt av.
5668 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksoninternet"></a><p>
5669 On the Internet, however, there is no check on silly rules, because on the
5670 Internet, increasingly, rules are enforced not by a human but by a machine:
5671 Increasingly, the rules of copyright law, as interpreted by the copyright
5672 owner, get built into the technology that delivers copyrighted content. It
5673 is code, rather than law, that rules. And the problem with code regulations
5674 is that, unlike law, code has no shame. Code would not get the humor of the
5675 Marx Brothers. The consequence of that is not at all funny.
5676 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3016668"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3016676"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
5677 La oss se på livet til min Adobe eBook Reader.
5678 </p><p>
5679 En ebok er en bok levert i elektronisk form.  En Adobe eBook er ikke en bok
5680 som Adobe har publisert.  Adobe produserer kun programvaren som utgivere
5681 bruker å levere e-bøker.  Den bidrar med teknologien, og utgiveren leverer
5682 innholdet ved hjelp av teknologien.
5683 </p><p>
5684 On the next page is a picture of an old version of my Adobe eBook Reader.
5685 </p><p>
5686
5687 As you can see, I have a small collection of e-books within this e-book
5688 library. Some of these books reproduce content that is in the public domain:
5689 <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, for example, is in the public domain.
5690 Some of them reproduce content that is not in the public domain: My own book
5691 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> is not yet within the public
5692 domain.  Consider <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> first. If you click on
5693 my e-book copy of <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, you'll see a fancy
5694 cover, and then a button at the bottom called Permissions.
5695 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1611"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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>
5696 If you click on the Permissions button, you'll see a list of the permissions
5697 that the publisher purports to grant with this book.
5698 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1612"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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>
5699
5700
5701 According to my eBook Reader, I have the permission to copy to the clipboard
5702 of the computer ten text selections every ten days. (So far, I've copied no
5703 text to the clipboard.)  I also have the permission to print ten pages from
5704 the book every ten days. Lastly, I have the permission to use the Read Aloud
5705 button to hear <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> read aloud through the
5706 computer.
5707 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3016792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3016798"></a><p>
5708 Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen):
5709 Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em>.
5710 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.14. E-bok av Aristoteles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Politikk</span>»</span></b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1621.png" alt="E-bok av Aristoteles Politikk"></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5711 According to its permissions, no printing or copying is permitted at
5712 all. But fortunately, you can use the Read Aloud button to hear the book.
5713 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1622"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.15. Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1622.png" alt='Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".'></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5714 Finally (and most embarrassingly), here are the permissions for the original
5715 e-book version of my last book, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>:
5716 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1631"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.16. Liste med tillatelser for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Future of Ideas</span>»</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1631.png" alt="Liste med tillatelser for The Future of Ideas."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5717 Ingen kopiering, ingen utskrift, og våg ikke å prøve å lytte til denne
5718 boken!
5719 </p><p>
5720 Now, the Adobe eBook Reader calls these controls
5721 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span>&#8212; as if the publisher has the power to
5722 control how you use these works.  For works under copyright, the copyright
5723 owner certainly does have the power&#8212;up to the limits of the copyright
5724 law. But for work not under copyright, there is no such copyright
5725 power.<sup>[<a name="id3016889" href="#ftn.id3016889" class="footnote">138</a>]</sup> When my e-book of
5726 <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> says I have the permission to copy only
5727 ten text selections into the memory every ten days, what that really means
5728 is that the eBook Reader has enabled the publisher to control how I use the
5729 book on my computer, far beyond the control that the law would enable.
5730 </p><p>
5731 The control comes instead from the code&#8212;from the technology within
5732 which the e-book <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lives.</span>»</span> Though the e-book says that these are
5733 permissions, they are not the sort of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span> that most
5734 of us deal with. When a teenager gets <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permission</span>»</span> to stay out
5735 till midnight, she knows (unless she's Cinderella) that she can stay out
5736 till 2 A.M., but will suffer a punishment if she's caught. But when the
5737 Adobe eBook Reader says I have the permission to make ten copies of the text
5738 into the computer's memory, that means that after I've made ten copies, the
5739 computer will not make any more. The same with the printing restrictions:
5740 After ten pages, the eBook Reader will not print any more pages.  It's the
5741 same with the silly restriction that says that you can't use the Read Aloud
5742 button to read my book aloud&#8212;it's not that the company will sue you if
5743 you do; instead, if you push the Read Aloud button with my book, the machine
5744 simply won't read aloud.
5745 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3016934"></a><p>
5746
5747
5748 These are <span class="emphasis"><em>controls</em></span>, not permissions. Imagine a world
5749 where the Marx Brothers sold word processing software that, when you tried
5750 to type <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Warner Brothers,</span>»</span> erased <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Brothers</span>»</span> from
5751 the sentence.
5752 </p><p>
5753 This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright
5754 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> as copyright <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span>. The
5755 controls over access to content will not be controls that are ratified by
5756 courts; the controls over access to content will be controls that are coded
5757 by programmers. And whereas the controls that are built into the law are
5758 always to be checked by a judge, the controls that are built into the
5759 technology have no similar built-in check.
5760 </p><p>
5761 How significant is this? Isn't it always possible to get around the controls
5762 built into the technology? Software used to be sold with technologies that
5763 limited the ability of users to copy the software, but those were trivial
5764 protections to defeat. Why won't it be trivial to defeat these protections
5765 as well?
5766 </p><p>
5767 We've only scratched the surface of this story. Return to the Adobe eBook
5768 Reader.
5769 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3017002"></a><p>
5770 Early in the life of the Adobe eBook Reader, Adobe suffered a public
5771 relations nightmare. Among the books that you could download for free on the
5772 Adobe site was a copy of <em class="citetitle">Alice's Adventures in
5773 Wonderland</em>.  This wonderful book is in the public domain. Yet
5774 when you clicked on Permissions for that book, you got the following report:
5775 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1641"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.17. Liste med tillatelser for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alice i Eventyrland</span>»</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1641.png" alt="Liste med tillatelser for Alice i Eventyrland."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5776 Here was a public domain children's book that you were not allowed to copy,
5777 not allowed to lend, not allowed to give, and, as the
5778 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span> indicated, not allowed to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">read
5779 aloud</span>»</span>!
5780 </p><p>
5781 The public relations nightmare attached to that final permission.  For the
5782 text did not say that you were not permitted to use the Read Aloud button;
5783 it said you did not have the permission to read the book aloud. That led
5784 some people to think that Adobe was restricting the right of parents, for
5785 example, to read the book to their children, which seemed, to say the least,
5786 absurd.
5787 </p><p>
5788 Adobe responded quickly that it was absurd to think that it was trying to
5789 restrict the right to read a book aloud. Obviously it was only restricting
5790 the ability to use the Read Aloud button to have the book read aloud. But
5791 the question Adobe never did answer is this: Would Adobe thus agree that a
5792 consumer was free to use software to hack around the restrictions built into
5793 the eBook Reader? If some company (call it Elcomsoft) developed a program to
5794 disable the technological protection built into an Adobe eBook so that a
5795 blind person, say, could use a computer to read the book aloud, would Adobe
5796 agree that such a use of an eBook Reader was fair? Adobe didn't answer
5797 because the answer, however absurd it might seem, is no.
5798 </p><p>
5799 The point is not to blame Adobe. Indeed, Adobe is among the most innovative
5800 companies developing strategies to balance open access to content with
5801 incentives for companies to innovate. But Adobe's technology enables
5802 control, and Adobe has an incentive to defend this control.  That incentive
5803 is understandable, yet what it creates is often crazy.
5804 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3017088"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3017096"></a><p>
5805 To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite story
5806 of mine that makes the same point.
5807 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo1"></a><p>
5808 Consider the robotic dog made by Sony named <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Aibo.</span>»</span> The Aibo
5809 learns tricks, cuddles, and follows you around. It eats only electricity and
5810 that doesn't leave that much of a mess (at least in your house).
5811 </p><p>
5812 The Aibo is expensive and popular. Fans from around the world have set up
5813 clubs to trade stories. One fan in particular set up a Web site to enable
5814 information about the Aibo dog to be shared. This fan set
5815
5816 up aibopet.com (and aibohack.com, but that resolves to the same site), and
5817 on that site he provided information about how to teach an Aibo to do tricks
5818 in addition to the ones Sony had taught it.
5819 </p><p>
5820 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Teach</span>»</span> here has a special meaning. Aibos are just cute
5821 computers.  You teach a computer how to do something by programming it
5822 differently.  So to say that aibopet.com was giving information about how to
5823 teach the dog to do new tricks is just to say that aibopet.com was giving
5824 information to users of the Aibo pet about how to hack their computer
5825 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">dog</span>»</span> to make it do new tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
5826 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3017183"></a><p>
5827 If you're not a programmer or don't know many programmers, the word
5828 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> has a particularly unfriendly
5829 connotation. Nonprogrammers hack bushes or weeds. Nonprogrammers in horror
5830 movies do even worse. But to programmers, or coders, as I call them,
5831 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> is a much more positive
5832 term. <em class="citetitle">Hack</em> just means code that enables the program
5833 to do something it wasn't originally intended or enabled to do. If you buy a
5834 new printer for an old computer, you might find the old computer doesn't
5835 run, or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">drive,</span>»</span> the printer. If you discovered that, you'd
5836 later be happy to discover a hack on the Net by someone who has written a
5837 driver to enable the computer to drive the printer you just bought.
5838 </p><p>
5839 Some hacks are easy. Some are unbelievably hard. Hackers as a community like
5840 to challenge themselves and others with increasingly difficult
5841 tasks. There's a certain respect that goes with the talent to hack
5842 well. There's a well-deserved respect that goes with the talent to hack
5843 ethically.
5844 </p><p>
5845 The Aibo fan was displaying a bit of both when he hacked the program and
5846 offered to the world a bit of code that would enable the Aibo to dance
5847 jazz. The dog wasn't programmed to dance jazz. It was a clever bit of
5848 tinkering that turned the dog into a more talented creature than Sony had
5849 built.
5850 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3017233"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3017241"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3017249"></a><p>
5851
5852 I've told this story in many contexts, both inside and outside the United
5853 States. Once I was asked by a puzzled member of the audience, is it
5854 permissible for a dog to dance jazz in the United States? We forget that
5855 stories about the backcountry still flow across much of the world. So let's
5856 just be clear before we continue: It's not a crime anywhere (anymore) to
5857 dance jazz. Nor is it a crime to teach your dog to dance jazz. Nor should it
5858 be a crime (though we don't have a lot to go on here) to teach your robot
5859 dog to dance jazz. Dancing jazz is a completely legal activity. One imagines
5860 that the owner of aibopet.com thought, <span class="emphasis"><em>What possible problem could
5861 there be with teaching a robot dog to dance?</em></span>
5862 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3017278"></a><p>
5863 Let's put the dog to sleep for a minute, and turn to a pony show&#8212; not
5864 literally a pony show, but rather a paper that a Princeton academic named Ed
5865 Felten prepared for a conference. This Princeton academic is well known and
5866 respected. He was hired by the government in the Microsoft case to test
5867 Microsoft's claims about what could and could not be done with its own
5868 code. In that trial, he demonstrated both his brilliance and his
5869 coolness. Under heavy badgering by Microsoft lawyers, Ed Felten stood his
5870 ground. He was not about to be bullied into being silent about something he
5871 knew very well.
5872 </p><p>
5873 But Felten's bravery was really tested in April 2001.<sup>[<a name="id3017303" href="#ftn.id3017303" class="footnote">139</a>]</sup> He and a group of colleagues were working on a
5874 paper to be submitted at conference.  The paper was intended to describe the
5875 weakness in an encryption system being developed by the Secure Digital Music
5876 Initiative as a technique to control the distribution of music.
5877 </p><p>
5878 The SDMI coalition had as its goal a technology to enable content owners to
5879 exercise much better control over their content than the Internet, as it
5880 originally stood, granted them. Using encryption, SDMI hoped to develop a
5881 standard that would allow the content owner to say <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">this music cannot
5882 be copied,</span>»</span> and have a computer respect that command.  The technology
5883 was to be part of a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trusted system</span>»</span> of control that would get
5884 content owners to trust the system of the Internet much more.
5885 </p><p>
5886 When SDMI thought it was close to a standard, it set up a competition.  In
5887 exchange for providing contestants with the code to an SDMI-encrypted bit of
5888 content, contestants were to try to crack it and, if they did, report the
5889 problems to the consortium.
5890 </p><p>
5891
5892
5893 Felten and his team figured out the encryption system quickly. He and the
5894 team saw the weakness of this system as a type: Many encryption systems
5895 would suffer the same weakness, and Felten and his team thought it
5896 worthwhile to point this out to those who study encryption.
5897 </p><p>
5898 Let's review just what Felten was doing. Again, this is the United
5899 States. We have a principle of free speech. We have this principle not just
5900 because it is the law, but also because it is a really great idea. A
5901 strongly protected tradition of free speech is likely to encourage a wide
5902 range of criticism. That criticism is likely, in turn, to improve the
5903 systems or people or ideas criticized.
5904 </p><p>
5905 What Felten and his colleagues were doing was publishing a paper describing
5906 the weakness in a technology. They were not spreading free music, or
5907 building and deploying this technology. The paper was an academic essay,
5908 unintelligible to most people. But it clearly showed the weakness in the
5909 SDMI system, and why SDMI would not, as presently constituted, succeed.
5910 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo2"></a><p>
5911 What links these two, aibopet.com and Felten, is the letters they then
5912 received. Aibopet.com received a letter from Sony about the aibopet.com
5913 hack. Though a jazz-dancing dog is perfectly legal, Sony wrote:
5914 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5915 Your site contains information providing the means to circumvent AIBO-ware's
5916 copy protection protocol constituting a violation of the anti-circumvention
5917 provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
5918 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3017479"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3017487"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3017496"></a><p>
5919 And though an academic paper describing the weakness in a system of
5920 encryption should also be perfectly legal, Felten received a letter from an
5921 RIAA lawyer that read:
5922 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5923
5924 Any disclosure of information gained from participating in the Public
5925 Challenge would be outside the scope of activities permitted by the
5926 Agreement and could subject you and your research team to actions under the
5927 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">DMCA</span>»</span>).
5928 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5929 In both cases, this weirdly Orwellian law was invoked to control the spread
5930 of information. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act made spreading such
5931 information an offense.
5932 </p><p>
5933 The DMCA was enacted as a response to copyright owners' first fear about
5934 cyberspace. The fear was that copyright control was effectively dead; the
5935 response was to find technologies that might compensate.  These new
5936 technologies would be copyright protection technologies&#8212; technologies
5937 to control the replication and distribution of copyrighted material. They
5938 were designed as <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> to modify the original
5939 <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> of the Internet, to reestablish some protection
5940 for copyright owners.
5941 </p><p>
5942 The DMCA was a bit of law intended to back up the protection of this code
5943 designed to protect copyrighted material. It was, we could say,
5944 <span class="emphasis"><em>legal code</em></span> intended to buttress <span class="emphasis"><em>software
5945 code</em></span> which itself was intended to support the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal
5946 code of copyright</em></span>.
5947 </p><p>
5948 But the DMCA was not designed merely to protect copyrighted works to the
5949 extent copyright law protected them. Its protection, that is, did not end at
5950 the line that copyright law drew. The DMCA regulated devices that were
5951 designed to circumvent copyright protection measures. It was designed to ban
5952 those devices, whether or not the use of the copyrighted material made
5953 possible by that circumvention would have been a copyright violation.
5954 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3017576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3017583"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3017589"></a><p>
5955
5956 Aibopet.com and Felten make the point. The Aibo hack circumvented a
5957 copyright protection system for the purpose of enabling the dog to dance
5958 jazz. That enablement no doubt involved the use of copyrighted material. But
5959 as aibopet.com's site was noncommercial, and the use did not enable
5960 subsequent copyright infringements, there's no doubt that aibopet.com's hack
5961 was fair use of Sony's copyrighted material. Yet fair use is not a defense
5962 to the DMCA. The question is not whether the use of the copyrighted material
5963 was a copyright violation. The question is whether a copyright protection
5964 system was circumvented.
5965 </p><p>
5966 The threat against Felten was more attenuated, but it followed the same line
5967 of reasoning. By publishing a paper describing how a copyright protection
5968 system could be circumvented, the RIAA lawyer suggested, Felten himself was
5969 distributing a circumvention technology.  Thus, even though he was not
5970 himself infringing anyone's copyright, his academic paper was enabling
5971 others to infringe others' copyright.
5972 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3017623"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcassettevcrs2"></a><p>
5973 The bizarreness of these arguments is captured in a cartoon drawn in 1981 by
5974 Paul Conrad. At that time, a court in California had held that the VCR could
5975 be banned because it was a copyright-infringing technology: It enabled
5976 consumers to copy films without the permission of the copyright owner. No
5977 doubt there were uses of the technology that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka
5978 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>,</span>»</span> for example, had testified
5979 in that case that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers'
5980 Neighborhood.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3017658"></a>
5981 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5982 Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
5983 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> at hours when some children cannot use it. I
5984 think that it's a real service to families to be able to record such
5985 programs and show them at appropriate times. I have always felt that with
5986 the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the
5987 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> off-the-air, and I'm speaking for the
5988 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> because that's what I produce, that they then
5989 become much more active in the programming of their family's television
5990 life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My
5991 whole approach in broadcasting has always been <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You are an important
5992 person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.</span>»</span> Maybe
5993 I'm going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to
5994 be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is
5995 important.<sup>[<a name="id3017697" href="#ftn.id3017697" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
5996 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5997
5998
5999 Even though there were uses that were legal, because there were some uses
6000 that were illegal, the court held the companies producing the VCR
6001 responsible.
6002 </p><p>
6003 This led Conrad to draw the cartoon below, which we can adopt to the DMCA.
6004 <a class="indexterm" name="id3017746"></a>
6005 </p><p>
6006 No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
6007 </p><p>
6008 The anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA target copyright circumvention
6009 technologies. Circumvention technologies can be used for different
6010 ends. They can be used, for example, to enable massive pirating of
6011 copyrighted material&#8212;a bad end. Or they can be used to enable the use
6012 of particular copyrighted materials in ways that would be considered fair
6013 use&#8212;a good end.
6014 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxhandguns"></a><p>
6015
6016 A handgun can be used to shoot a police officer or a child. Most would agree
6017 such a use is bad. Or a handgun can be used for target practice or to
6018 protect against an intruder. At least some would say that such a use would
6019 be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good and bad uses.
6020 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1711"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1711.png" alt="VCR/handgun cartoon."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="id3017803"></a><p>
6021 The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world where guns
6022 are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and circumvention
6023 technologies) are illegal. Flash: <span class="emphasis"><em>No one ever died from copyright
6024 circumvention</em></span>. Yet the law bans circumvention technologies
6025 absolutely, despite the potential that they might do some good, but permits
6026 guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do.
6027 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3017823"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3017831"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3017839"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3017845"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3017852"></a><p>
6028 The Aibo and RIAA examples demonstrate how copyright owners are changing the
6029 balance that copyright law grants. Using code, copyright owners restrict
6030 fair use; using the DMCA, they punish those who would attempt to evade the
6031 restrictions on fair use that they impose through code. Technology becomes a
6032 means by which fair use can be erased; the law of the DMCA backs up that
6033 erasing.
6034 </p><p>
6035 This is how <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> becomes <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span>. The
6036 controls built into the technology of copy and access protection become
6037 rules the violation of which is also a violation of the law. In this way,
6038 the code extends the law&#8212;increasing its regulation, even if the
6039 subject it regulates (activities that would otherwise plainly constitute
6040 fair use) is beyond the reach of the law. Code becomes law; code extends the
6041 law; code thus extends the control that copyright owners effect&#8212;at
6042 least for those copyright holders with the lawyers who can write the nasty
6043 letters that Felten and aibopet.com received.
6044 </p><p>
6045 There is one final aspect of the interaction between architecture and law
6046 that contributes to the force of copyright's regulation. This is the ease
6047 with which infringements of the law can be detected. For contrary to the
6048 rhetoric common at the birth of cyberspace that on the Internet, no one
6049 knows you're a dog, increasingly, given changing technologies deployed on
6050 the Internet, it is easy to find the dog who committed a legal wrong. The
6051 technologies of the Internet are open to snoops as well as sharers, and the
6052 snoops are increasingly good at tracking down the identity of those who
6053 violate the rules.
6054 </p><p>
6055
6056
6057 For example, imagine you were part of a <em class="citetitle">Star Trek</em> fan
6058 club. You gathered every month to share trivia, and maybe to enact a kind of
6059 fan fiction about the show. One person would play Spock, another, Captain
6060 Kirk. The characters would begin with a plot from a real story, then simply
6061 continue it.<sup>[<a name="id3017913" href="#ftn.id3017913" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
6062 </p><p>
6063 Before the Internet, this was, in effect, a totally unregulated activity.
6064 No matter what happened inside your club room, you would never be interfered
6065 with by the copyright police. You were free in that space to do as you
6066 wished with this part of our culture. You were allowed to build on it as you
6067 wished without fear of legal control.
6068 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3017940"></a><p>
6069 But if you moved your club onto the Internet, and made it generally
6070 available for others to join, the story would be very different. Bots
6071 scouring the Net for trademark and copyright infringement would quickly find
6072 your site. Your posting of fan fiction, depending upon the ownership of the
6073 series that you're depicting, could well inspire a lawyer's threat. And
6074 ignoring the lawyer's threat would be extremely costly indeed.  The law of
6075 copyright is extremely efficient. The penalties are severe, and the process
6076 is quick.
6077 </p><p>
6078 This change in the effective force of the law is caused by a change in the
6079 ease with which the law can be enforced. That change too shifts the law's
6080 balance radically. It is as if your car transmitted the speed at which you
6081 traveled at every moment that you drove; that would be just one step before
6082 the state started issuing tickets based upon the data you transmitted. That
6083 is, in effect, what is happening here.
6084 </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>
6085
6086 So copyright's duration has increased dramatically&#8212;tripled in the past
6087 thirty years. And copyright's scope has increased as well&#8212;from
6088 regulating only publishers to now regulating just about everyone. And
6089 copyright's reach has changed, as every action becomes a copy and hence
6090 presumptively regulated. And as technologists find better ways to control
6091 the use of content, and as copyright is increasingly enforced through
6092 technology, copyright's force changes, too. Misuse is easier to find and
6093 easier to control. This regulation of the creative process, which began as a
6094 tiny regulation governing a tiny part of the market for creative work, has
6095 become the single most important regulator of creativity there is. It is a
6096 massive expansion in the scope of the government's control over innovation
6097 and creativity; it would be totally unrecognizable to those who gave birth
6098 to copyright's control.
6099 </p><p>
6100 Still, in my view, all of these changes would not matter much if it weren't
6101 for one more change that we must also consider. This is a change that is in
6102 some sense the most familiar, though its significance and scope are not well
6103 understood. It is the one that creates precisely the reason to be concerned
6104 about all the other changes I have described.
6105 </p><p>
6106 This is the change in the concentration and integration of the media.  In
6107 the past twenty years, the nature of media ownership has undergone a radical
6108 alteration, caused by changes in legal rules governing the media.  Before
6109 this change happened, the different forms of media were owned by separate
6110 media companies. Now, the media is increasingly owned by only a few
6111 companies. Indeed, after the changes that the FCC announced in June 2003,
6112 most expect that within a few years, we will live in a world where just
6113 three companies control more than percent of the media.
6114 </p><p>
6115 Det er her to sorter endringer: omfanget av konsentrasjon, og dens natur.
6116 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3018040"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3018045"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3018052"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3018058"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3018064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3018070"></a><p>
6117 Changes in scope are the easier ones to describe. As Senator John McCain
6118 summarized the data produced in the FCC's review of media ownership,
6119 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five companies control 85 percent of our media
6120 sources.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3018084" href="#ftn.id3018084" class="footnote">142</a>]</sup> The five recording
6121 labels of Universal Music Group, BMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music
6122 Group, and EMI control 84.8 percent of the U.S. music market.<sup>[<a name="id3018097" href="#ftn.id3018097" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five largest cable companies pipe
6123 programming to 74 percent of the cable subscribers
6124 nationwide.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3018114" href="#ftn.id3018114" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup>
6125 </p><p>
6126
6127 The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation, the
6128 nation's largest radio broadcasting conglomerate owned fewer than
6129 seventy-five stations. Today <span class="emphasis"><em>one</em></span> company owns more than
6130 1,200 stations.  During that period of consolidation, the total number of
6131 radio owners dropped by 34 percent. Today, in most markets, the two largest
6132 broadcasters control 74 percent of that market's revenues. Overall, just
6133 four companies control 90 percent of the nation's radio advertising
6134 revenues.
6135 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3018146"></a><p>
6136 Newspaper ownership is becoming more concentrated as well.  Today, there are
6137 six hundred fewer daily newspapers in the United States than there were
6138 eighty years ago, and ten companies control half of the nation's
6139 circulation. There are twenty major newspaper publishers in the United
6140 States. The top ten film studios receive 99 percent of all film revenue. The
6141 ten largest cable companies account for 85 percent of all cable
6142 revenue. This is a market far from the free press the framers sought to
6143 protect. Indeed, it is a market that is quite well protected&#8212; by the
6144 market.
6145 </p><p>
6146 Concentration in size alone is one thing. The more invidious change is in
6147 the nature of that concentration. As author James Fallows put it in a recent
6148 article about Rupert Murdoch, <a class="indexterm" name="id3018160"></a>
6149 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6150 Murdoch's companies now constitute a production system unmatched in its
6151 integration. They supply content&#8212;Fox movies &#8230; Fox TV shows
6152 &#8230; Fox-controlled sports broadcasts, plus newspapers and books. They
6153 sell the content to the public and to advertisers&#8212;in newspapers, on
6154 the broadcast network, on the cable channels. And they operate the physical
6155 distribution system through which the content reaches the
6156 customers. Murdoch's satellite systems now distribute News Corp. content in
6157 Europe and Asia; if Murdoch becomes DirecTV's largest single owner, that
6158 system will serve the same function in the United States.<sup>[<a name="id3018184" href="#ftn.id3018184" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
6159 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6160 The pattern with Murdoch is the pattern of modern media. Not just large
6161 companies owning many radio stations, but a few companies owning as many
6162 outlets of media as possible. A picture describes this pattern better than a
6163 thousand words could do:
6164 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1761"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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>
6165
6166
6167 Betyr denne konsentrasjonen noe?  Påvirker det hva som blir laget, eller hva
6168 som blir distribuert?  Eller er det bare en mer effektiv måte å produsere og
6169 distribuere innhold?
6170 </p><p>
6171 Mitt syn var at konsentrasjonen ikke betød noe.  Jeg tenkte det ikke var noe
6172 mer enn en mer effektiv finansiell struktur.  Men nå, etter å ha lest og
6173 hørt på en haug av skapere prøve å overbevise meg om det motsatte, har jeg
6174 begynt å endre mening.
6175 </p><p>
6176 Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen
6177 er viktig.
6178 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3018267"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3018273"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3018279"></a><p>
6179 I 1969 laget Norman Lear en polit for <em class="citetitle">All in the
6180 Family</em>.  Han tok piloten til ABC, og nettverket likte det ikke.
6181 Da sa til Lear at det var for på kanten.  Gjør det om igjen. Lear lagde
6182 piloten på nytt, mer på kanten enn den første.  ABC ble fra seg.  Du får
6183 ikke med deg poenget, fortalte de Lear.  Vi vil ha det mindre på kanten,
6184 ikke mer.
6185 </p><p>
6186 I stedet for å føye seg, to Lear ganske enkelt serien sin til noen andre.
6187 CBS var glad for å ha seriene, og ABC kunne ikke stoppe Lear fra å gå til
6188 andre.  Opphavsretten som Lear hadde sikret uavhengighet fra
6189 nettverk-kontroll.<sup>[<a name="id3018312" href="#ftn.id3018312" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
6190 </p><p>
6191
6192
6193
6194 The network did not control those copyrights because the law forbade the
6195 networks from controlling the content they syndicated. The law required a
6196 separation between the networks and the content producers; that separation
6197 would guarantee Lear freedom. And as late as 1992, because of these rules,
6198 the vast majority of prime time television&#8212;75 percent of it&#8212;was
6199 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">independent</span>»</span> of the networks.
6200 </p><p>
6201 In 1994, the FCC abandoned the rules that required this independence.  After
6202 that change, the networks quickly changed the balance.  In 1985, there were
6203 twenty-five independent television production studios; in 2002, only five
6204 independent television studios remained. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In 1992, only 15 percent of
6205 new series were produced for a network by a company it controlled. Last
6206 year, the percentage of shows produced by controlled companies more than
6207 quintupled to 77 percent.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In 1992, 16 new series were
6208 produced independently of conglomerate control, last year there was
6209 one.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3018374" href="#ftn.id3018374" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of
6210 prime time television was owned by the networks that ran it. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the
6211 ten-year period between 1992 and 2002, the number of prime time television
6212 hours per week produced by network studios increased over 200%, whereas the
6213 number of prime time television hours per week produced by independent
6214 studios decreased 63%.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3018401" href="#ftn.id3018401" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
6215 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3018409"></a><p>
6216 Today, another Norman Lear with another <em class="citetitle">All in the
6217 Family</em> would find that he had the choice either to make the show
6218 less edgy or to be fired: The content of any show developed for a network is
6219 increasingly owned by the network.
6220 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3018425"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3018431"></a><p>
6221 Mens antall kanaler har økt dramatisk, har eierskapet til disse kanalene
6222 snevret inn fra få til stadig færre.  Som Barry Diller sa til Bill Moyers,
6223 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6224 Well, if you have companies that produce, that finance, that air on their
6225 channel and then distribute worldwide everything that goes through their
6226 controlled distribution system, then what you get is fewer and fewer actual
6227 voices participating in the process. [We u]sed to have dozens and dozens of
6228 thriving independent production companies producing television programs. Now
6229 you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="id3018457" href="#ftn.id3018457" class="footnote">149</a>]</sup>
6230 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6231 This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of such large
6232 and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous.  Increasingly
6233 safe. Increasingly sterile. The product of news shows from networks like
6234 this is increasingly tailored to the message the network wants to
6235 convey. This is not the communist party, though from the inside, it must
6236 feel a bit like the communist party. No one can question without risk of
6237 consequence&#8212;not necessarily banishment to Siberia, but punishment
6238 nonetheless. Independent, critical, different views are quashed. This is not
6239 the environment for a democracy.
6240 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3018484"></a><p>
6241 Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
6242 affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the
6243 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Innovator's Dilemma</span>»</span>: the fact that large traditional firms
6244 find it rational to ignore new, breakthrough technologies that compete with
6245 their core business.  The same analysis could help explain why large,
6246 traditional media companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural
6247 trends.<sup>[<a name="id3018515" href="#ftn.id3018515" class="footnote">150</a>]</sup> Lumbering giants not only
6248 don't, but should not, sprint. Yet if the field is only open to the giants,
6249 there will be far too little sprinting.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3018547"></a>
6250 </p><p>
6251 I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media market to say
6252 with certainty what concentration and integration will do. The efficiencies
6253 are important, and the effect on culture is hard to measure.
6254 </p><p>
6255 But there is a quintessentially obvious example that does strongly suggest
6256 the concern.
6257 </p><p>
6258 In addition to the copyright wars, we're in the middle of the drug
6259 wars. Government policy is strongly directed against the drug cartels;
6260 criminal and civil courts are filled with the consequences of this battle.
6261 </p><p>
6262
6263 Let me hereby disqualify myself from any possible appointment to any
6264 position in government by saying I believe this war is a profound mistake. I
6265 am not pro drugs. Indeed, I come from a family once wrecked by
6266 drugs&#8212;though the drugs that wrecked my family were all quite legal. I
6267 believe this war is a profound mistake because the collateral damage from it
6268 is so great as to make waging the war insane.  When you add together the
6269 burdens on the criminal justice system, the desperation of generations of
6270 kids whose only real economic opportunities are as drug warriors, the
6271 queering of constitutional protections because of the constant surveillance
6272 this war requires, and, most profoundly, the total destruction of the legal
6273 systems of many South American nations because of the power of the local
6274 drug cartels, I find it impossible to believe that the marginal benefit in
6275 reduced drug consumption by Americans could possibly outweigh these costs.
6276 </p><p>
6277 You may not be convinced. That's fine. We live in a democracy, and it is
6278 through votes that we are to choose policy. But to do that, we depend
6279 fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about these issues.
6280 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising3"></a><p>
6281 Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched a
6282 media campaign as part of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">war on drugs.</span>»</span> The campaign
6283 produced scores of short film clips about issues related to illegal
6284 drugs. In one series (the Nick and Norm series) two men are in a bar,
6285 discussing the idea of legalizing drugs as a way to avoid some of the
6286 collateral damage from the war. One advances an argument in favor of drug
6287 legalization. The other responds in a powerful and effective way against the
6288 argument of the first. In the end, the first guy changes his mind (hey, it's
6289 television). The plug at the end is a damning attack on the pro-legalization
6290 campaign.
6291 </p><p>
6292 Fair enough. It's a good ad. Not terribly misleading. It delivers its
6293 message well. It's a fair and reasonable message.
6294 </p><p>
6295 But let's say you think it is a wrong message, and you'd like to run a
6296 countercommercial. Say you want to run a series of ads that try to
6297 demonstrate the extraordinary collateral harm that comes from the drug
6298 war. Can you do it?
6299 </p><p>
6300
6301 Well, obviously, these ads cost lots of money. Assume you raise the
6302 money. Assume a group of concerned citizens donates all the money in the
6303 world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your message will be
6304 heard then?
6305 </p><p>
6306 No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
6307 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">controversial</span>»</span> ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
6308 uncontroversial; ads disagreeing with the government are controversial.
6309 This selectivity might be thought inconsistent with the First Amendment, but
6310 the Supreme Court has held that stations have the right to choose what they
6311 run. Thus, the major channels of commercial media will refuse one side of a
6312 crucial debate the opportunity to present its case.  And the courts will
6313 defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.<sup>[<a name="id3018667" href="#ftn.id3018667" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
6314 </p><p>
6315 I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well&#8212;if we lived in a
6316 media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the media throws
6317 that condition into doubt. If a handful of companies control access to the
6318 media, and that handful of companies gets to decide which political
6319 positions it will allow to be promoted on its channels, then in an obvious
6320 and important way, concentration matters. You might like the positions the
6321 handful of companies selects. But you should not like a world in which a
6322 mere few get to decide which issues the rest of us get to know about.
6323 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3018580"></a></div><div class="section" title="10.8. Sammen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="together"></a>10.8. Sammen</h2></div></div></div><p>
6324 There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the copyright
6325 warriors that the government should <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protect my property.</span>»</span> In
6326 the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No
6327 sane sort who is not an anarchist could disagree.
6328 </p><p>
6329
6330 But when we see how dramatically this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> has
6331 changed&#8212; when we recognize how it might now interact with both
6332 technology and markets to mean that the effective constraint on the liberty
6333 to cultivate our culture is dramatically different&#8212;the claim begins to
6334 seem less innocent and obvious. Given (1) the power of technology to
6335 supplement the law's control, and (2) the power of concentrated markets to
6336 weaken the opportunity for dissent, if strictly enforcing the massively
6337 expanded <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> rights granted by copyright fundamentally
6338 changes the freedom within this culture to cultivate and build upon our
6339 past, then we have to ask whether this property should be redefined.
6340 </p><p>
6341 Not starkly. Or absolutely. My point is not that we should abolish copyright
6342 or go back to the eighteenth century. That would be a total mistake,
6343 disastrous for the most important creative enterprises within our culture
6344 today.
6345 </p><p>
6346 But there is a space between zero and one, Internet culture
6347 notwithstanding.  And these massive shifts in the effective power of
6348 copyright regulation, tied to increased concentration of the content
6349 industry and resting in the hands of technology that will increasingly
6350 enable control over the use of culture, should drive us to consider whether
6351 another adjustment is called for. Not an adjustment that increases
6352 copyright's power. Not an adjustment that increases its term. Rather, an
6353 adjustment to restore the balance that has traditionally defined copyright's
6354 regulation&#8212;a weakening of that regulation, to strengthen creativity.
6355 </p><p>
6356 Copyright law has not been a rock of Gibraltar. It's not a set of constant
6357 commitments that, for some mysterious reason, teenagers and geeks now
6358 flout. Instead, copyright power has grown dramatically in a short period of
6359 time, as the technologies of distribution and creation have changed and as
6360 lobbyists have pushed for more control by copyright holders. Changes in the
6361 past in response to changes in technology suggest that we may well need
6362 similar changes in the future. And these changes have to be
6363 <span class="emphasis"><em>reductions</em></span> in the scope of copyright, in response to
6364 the extraordinary increase in control that technology and the market enable.
6365 </p><p>
6366
6367 For the single point that is lost in this war on pirates is a point that we
6368 see only after surveying the range of these changes. When you add together
6369 the effect of changing law, concentrated markets, and changing technology,
6370 together they produce an astonishing conclusion: <span class="emphasis"><em>Never in our
6371 history have fewer had a legal right to control more of the development of
6372 our culture than now</em></span>.
6373 </p><p>
6374 Not when copyrights were perpetual, for when copyrights were perpetual, they
6375 affected only that precise creative work. Not when only publishers had the
6376 tools to publish, for the market then was much more diverse. Not when there
6377 were only three television networks, for even then, newspapers, film
6378 studios, radio stations, and publishers were independent of the
6379 networks. <span class="emphasis"><em>Never</em></span> has copyright protected such a wide
6380 range of rights, against as broad a range of actors, for a term that was
6381 remotely as long. This form of regulation&#8212;a tiny regulation of a tiny
6382 part of the creative energy of a nation at the founding&#8212;is now a
6383 massive regulation of the overall creative process. Law plus technology plus
6384 the market now interact to turn this historically benign regulation into the
6385 most significant regulation of culture that our free society has
6386 known.<sup>[<a name="id3018911" href="#ftn.id3018911" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
6387 </p><p>
6388 <span class="strong"><strong>This has been</strong></span> a long chapter. Its point
6389 can now be briefly stated.
6390 </p><p>
6391 At the start of this book, I distinguished between commercial and
6392 noncommercial culture. In the course of this chapter, I have distinguished
6393 between copying a work and transforming it. We can now combine these two
6394 distinctions and draw a clear map of the changes that copyright law has
6395 undergone.  In 1790, the law looked like this:
6396 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t2"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left"> </th><th align="left">Publisere</th><th align="left">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Kommersiell</td><td align="left">©</td><td align="left">Fri</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="left">Fri</td><td align="left">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
6397
6398 The act of publishing a map, chart, and book was regulated by copyright
6399 law. Nothing else was. Transformations were free. And as copyright attached
6400 only with registration, and only those who intended to benefit commercially
6401 would register, copying through publishing of noncommercial work was also
6402 free.
6403 </p><p>
6404 På slutten av det nittende århundre hadde loven blitt endret til dette:
6405 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t3"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left"> </th><th align="left">Publisere</th><th align="left">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Kommersiell</td><td align="left">©</td><td align="left">©</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="left">Fri</td><td align="left">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
6406 Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law&#8212;if published,
6407 which again, given the economics of publishing at the time, means if offered
6408 commercially. But noncommercial publishing and transformation were still
6409 essentially free.
6410 </p><p>
6411 In 1909 the law changed to regulate copies, not publishing, and after this
6412 change, the scope of the law was tied to technology. As the technology of
6413 copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law expanded.  Thus by 1975,
6414 as photocopying machines became more common, we could say the law began to
6415 look like this:
6416 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t4"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left"> </th><th align="left">Kopiere</th><th align="left">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Kommersiell</td><td align="left">©</td><td align="left">©</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="left">©/Fri</td><td align="left">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
6417 The law was interpreted to reach noncommercial copying through, say, copy
6418 machines, but still much of copying outside of the commercial market
6419 remained free. But the consequence of the emergence of digital technologies,
6420 especially in the context of a digital network, means that the law now looks
6421 like this:
6422 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t5"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left"> </th><th align="left">Kopiere</th><th align="left">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Kommersiell</td><td align="left">©</td><td align="left">©</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="left">©</td><td align="left">©</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
6423
6424 Every realm is governed by copyright law, whereas before most creativity was
6425 not. The law now regulates the full range of creativity&#8212; commercial or
6426 not, transformative or not&#8212;with the same rules designed to regulate
6427 commercial publishers.
6428 </p><p>
6429 Obviously, copyright law is not the enemy. The enemy is regulation that does
6430 no good. So the question that we should be asking just now is whether
6431 extending the regulations of copyright law into each of these domains
6432 actually does any good.
6433 </p><p>
6434 I have no doubt that it does good in regulating commercial copying.  But I
6435 also have no doubt that it does more harm than good when regulating (as it
6436 regulates just now) noncommercial copying and, especially, noncommercial
6437 transformation. And increasingly, for the reasons sketched especially in
6438 chapters <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Chapter 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a> and
6439 <a class="xref" href="#transformers" title="Chapter 8. Kapittel åtte: Omformerne">8</a>, one might
6440 well wonder whether it does more harm than good for commercial
6441 transformation.  More commercial transformative work would be created if
6442 derivative rights were more sharply restricted.
6443 </p><p>
6444 The issue is therefore not simply whether copyright is property. Of course
6445 copyright is a kind of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property,</span>»</span> and of course, as with any
6446 property, the state ought to protect it. But first impressions
6447 notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all property
6448 rights<sup>[<a name="id3019272" href="#ftn.id3019272" class="footnote">153</a>]</sup>)  has been crafted to balance
6449 the important need to give authors and artists incentives with the equally
6450 important need to assure access to creative work. This balance has always
6451 been struck in light of new technologies.  And for almost half of our
6452 tradition, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> did not control <span class="emphasis"><em>at
6453 all</em></span> the freedom of others to build upon or transform a creative
6454 work. American culture was born free, and for almost 180 years our country
6455 consistently protected a vibrant and rich free culture.
6456 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3019312"></a><p>
6457
6458 We achieved that free culture because our law respected important limits on
6459 the scope of the interests protected by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> The very
6460 birth of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> as a statutory right recognized those
6461 limits, by granting copyright owners protection for a limited time only (the
6462 story of chapter 6). The tradition of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> is animated by
6463 a similar concern that is increasingly under strain as the costs of
6464 exercising any fair use right become unavoidably high (the story of chapter
6465 7). Adding statutory rights where markets might stifle innovation is another
6466 familiar limit on the property right that copyright is (chapter 8). And
6467 granting archives and libraries a broad freedom to collect, claims of
6468 property notwithstanding, is a crucial part of guaranteeing the soul of a
6469 culture (chapter 9). Free cultures, like free markets, are built with
6470 property. But the nature of the property that builds a free culture is very
6471 different from the extremist vision that dominates the debate today.
6472 </p><p>
6473 Free culture is increasingly the casualty in this war on piracy. In response
6474 to a real, if not yet quantified, threat that the technologies of the
6475 Internet present to twentieth-century business models for producing and
6476 distributing culture, the law and technology are being transformed in a way
6477 that will undermine our tradition of free culture. The property right that
6478 is copyright is no longer the balanced right that it was, or was intended to
6479 be. The property right that is copyright has become unbalanced, tilted
6480 toward an extreme. The opportunity to create and transform becomes weakened
6481 in a world in which creation requires permission and creativity must check
6482 with a lawyer.
6483 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3013910" href="#id3013910" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
6484
6485
6486 Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearings on H.R. 4783, H.R.  4794,
6487 H.R. 4808, H.R. 5250, H.R. 5488, and H.R. 5705 Before the Subcommittee on
6488 Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the Committee
6489 on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, 97th Cong., 2nd
6490 sess. (1982): 65 (testimony of Jack Valenti).
6491 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3013979" href="#id3013979" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
6492
6493
6494 Lawyers speak of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> not as an absolute thing, but as a
6495 bundle of rights that are sometimes associated with a particular
6496 object. Thus, my <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property right</span>»</span> to my car gives me the right
6497 to exclusive use, but not the right to drive at 150 miles an hour. For the
6498 best effort to connect the ordinary meaning of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> to
6499 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawyer talk,</span>»</span> see Bruce Ackerman, <em class="citetitle">Private Property
6500 and the Constitution</em> (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977),
6501 26&#8211;27.
6502 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3014406" href="#id3014406" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
6503
6504
6505 By describing the way law affects the other three modalities, I don't mean
6506 to suggest that the other three don't affect law. Obviously, they do. Law's
6507 only distinction is that it alone speaks as if it has a right
6508 self-consciously to change the other three. The right of the other three is
6509 more timidly expressed.  See Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other
6510 Laws of Cyberspace</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90&#8211;95;
6511 Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The New Chicago School,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal
6512 of Legal Studies</em>, June 1998.
6513 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3014481" href="#id3014481" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
6514
6515 Some people object to this way of talking about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">liberty.</span>»</span> They
6516 object because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at
6517 any particular moment are constraints imposed exclusively by the
6518 government. For instance, if a storm destroys a bridge, these people think
6519 it is meaningless to say that one's liberty has been restrained. A bridge
6520 has washed out, and it's harder to get from one place to another. To talk
6521 about this as a loss of freedom, they say, is to confuse the stuff of
6522 politics with the vagaries of ordinary life.  I don't mean to deny the value
6523 in this narrower view, which depends upon the context of the inquiry. I do,
6524 however, mean to argue against any insistence that this narrower view is the
6525 only proper view of liberty. As I argued in <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, we
6526 come from a long tradition of political thought with a broader focus than
6527 the narrow question of what the government did when.  John Stuart Mill
6528 defended freedom of speech, for example, from the tyranny of narrow minds,
6529 not from the fear of government prosecution; John Stuart Mill, <em class="citetitle">On
6530 Liberty</em> (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co., 1978), 19.  John
6531 R. Commons famously defended the economic freedom of labor from constraints
6532 imposed by the market; John R. Commons, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to Work,</span>»</span> in
6533 Malcom Rutherford and Warren J. Samuels, eds., <em class="citetitle">John R. Commons:
6534 Selected Essays</em> (London: Routledge: 1997), 62. The Americans
6535 with Disabilities Act increases the liberty of people with physical
6536 disabilities by changing the architecture of certain public places, thereby
6537 making access to those places easier; 42 <em class="citetitle">United States
6538 Code</em>, section 12101 (2000).  Each of these interventions to
6539 change existing conditions changes the liberty of a particular group. The
6540 effect of those interventions should be accounted for in order to understand
6541 the effective liberty that each of these groups might face.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3014535"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3014544"></a>
6542 <a class="indexterm" name="id3014550"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3014557"></a>
6543 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3014749" href="#id3014749" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
6544
6545
6546 See Geoffrey Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a
6547 Bridge?</span>»</span> BusinessWeek online, 2 August 1999, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #23</a>. For a more recent
6548 analysis of Kodak's place in the market, see Chana R. Schoenberger,
6549 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Can Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?</span>»</span> Forbes.com, 6 October
6550 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6551 #24</a>.
6552 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3014823" href="#id3014823" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
6553
6554
6555 Fred Warshofsky, <em class="citetitle">The Patent Wars</em> (New York: Wiley,
6556 1994), 170&#8211;71.
6557 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3014993" href="#id3014993" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
6558
6559
6560 Se for eksempel James Boyle, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Politics of Intellectual Property:
6561 Environmentalism for the Net?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Duke Law
6562 Journal</em> 47 (1997): 87.
6563 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3015224" href="#id3015224" class="para">125</a>] </sup>
6564
6565 William W. Crosskey, <em class="citetitle">Politics and the Constitution in the History
6566 of the United States</em> (London: Cambridge University Press, 1953),
6567 vol. 1, 485&#8211;86: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the
6568 supreme Law of the Land,' <span class="emphasis"><em>the perpetual rights which authors had,
6569 or were supposed by some to have, under the Common Law</em></span></span>»</span>
6570 (emphasis added).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3015242"></a>
6571 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3015292" href="#id3015292" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
6572
6573
6574 Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790 to
6575 1799, only 556 copyright registrations were filed; John Tebbel, <em class="citetitle">A
6576 History of Book Publishing in the United States</em>, vol. 1,
6577 <em class="citetitle">The Creation of an Industry, 1630&#8211;1865</em> (New
6578 York: Bowker, 1972), 141. Of the 21,000 imprints recorded before 1790, only
6579 twelve were copyrighted under the 1790 act; William J. Maher,
6580 <em class="citetitle">Copyright Term, Retrospective Extension and the Copyright Law of
6581 1790 in Historical Context</em>, 7&#8211;10 (2002), available at
6582 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #25</a>.  Thus, the
6583 overwhelming majority of works fell immediately into the public domain. Even
6584 those works that were copyrighted fell into the public domain quickly,
6585 because the term of copyright was short. The initial term of copyright was
6586 fourteen years, with the option of renewal for an additional fourteen
6587 years. Copyright Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3015359" href="#id3015359" class="para">127</a>] </sup>
6588
6589
6590 Few copyright holders ever chose to renew their copyrights. For instance, of
6591 the 25,006 copyrights registered in 1883, only 894 were renewed in 1910. For
6592 a year-by-year analysis of copyright renewal rates, see Barbara A. Ringer,
6593 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Studies on
6594 Copyright</em>, vol. 1 (New York: Practicing Law Institute, 1963),
6595 618. For a more recent and comprehensive analysis, see William M. Landes and
6596 Richard A.  Posner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span>
6597 <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 471,
6598 498&#8211;501, and accompanying figures.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3015412" href="#id3015412" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
6599
6600
6601 Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3015514" href="#id3015514" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
6602
6603
6604 These statistics are understated. Between the years 1910 and 1962 (the first
6605 year the renewal term was extended), the average term was never more than
6606 thirty-two years, and averaged thirty years. See Landes and Posner,
6607 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span> loc. cit.
6608 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3015667" href="#id3015667" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
6609
6610
6611 See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Poets, Pirates, and the
6612 Creation of American Literature,</span>»</span> 29 <em class="citetitle">New York University
6613 Journal of International Law and Politics</em> 255 (1997), and James
6614 Gilraeth, ed., Federal Copyright Records, 1790&#8211;1800 (U.S. G.P.O.,
6615 1987).
6616
6617 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3015762" href="#id3015762" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
6618
6619 Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Copyright Cage</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Legal
6620 Affairs</em>, julu/august 2003,tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #26</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3015791"></a>
6621 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3015810" href="#id3015810" class="para">132</a>] </sup>
6622
6623 Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument about
6624 the difference that copyright law should draw (from the perspective of the
6625 First Amendment) between mere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span> and derivative
6626 works. See Jed Rubenfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's
6627 Constitutionality,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 112
6628 (2002): 1&#8211;60 (see especially pp. 53&#8211;59).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3015828"></a>
6629 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3015876" href="#id3015876" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
6630
6631
6632 This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly
6633 regulates more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span>&#8212;a public performance of a
6634 copyrighted song, for example, is regulated even though performance per se
6635 doesn't make a copy; 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section
6636 106(4). And it certainly sometimes doesn't regulate a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy</span>»</span>;
6637 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 112(a). But the
6638 presumption under the existing law (which regulates <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies;</span>»</span>
6639 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 102) is that if there
6640 is a copy, there is a right.
6641 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3015954" href="#id3015954" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
6642
6643
6644 Thus, my argument is not that in each place that copyright law extends, we
6645 should repeal it. It is instead that we should have a good argument for its
6646 extending where it does, and should not determine its reach on the basis of
6647 arbitrary and automatic changes caused by technology.
6648 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3015885" href="#id3015885" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
6649
6650
6651 I don't mean <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nature</span>»</span> in the sense that it couldn't be
6652 different, but rather that its present instantiation entails a copy. Optical
6653 networks need not make copies of content they transmit, and a digital
6654 network could be designed to delete anything it copies so that the same
6655 number of copies remain.
6656 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3016570" href="#id3016570" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
6657
6658
6659 Se David Lange, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recognizing the Public Domain</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Law
6660 and Contemporary Problems</em> 44 (1981): 172&#8211;73.
6661 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3016598" href="#id3016598" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
6662
6663 Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
6664 Copywrongs</em>, 1&#8211;3.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3016585"></a>
6665 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3016889" href="#id3016889" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
6666
6667
6668 In principle, a contract might impose a requirement on me. I might, for
6669 example, buy a book from you that includes a contract that says I will read
6670 it only three times, or that I promise to read it three times. But that
6671 obligation (and the limits for creating that obligation) would come from the
6672 contract, not from copyright law, and the obligations of contract would not
6673 necessarily pass to anyone who subsequently acquired the book.
6674 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3017303" href="#id3017303" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
6675
6676 See Pamela Samuelson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to
6677 Science,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan
6678 I. Koerner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Play Dead: Sony Muzzles the Techies Who Teach a Robot Dog
6679 New Tricks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Prospect</em>, January 2002;
6680 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Court Dismisses Computer Scientists' Challenge to DMCA,</span>»</span>
6681 <em class="citetitle">Intellectual Property Litigation Reporter</em>, 11
6682 December 2001; Bill Holland, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright Act Raising Free-Speech
6683 Concerns,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Billboard</em>, May 2001; Janelle Brown,
6684 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is the RIAA Running Scared?</span>»</span> Salon.com, April 2001; Electronic
6685 Frontier Foundation, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Frequently Asked Questions about
6686 <em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
6687 Legal Case,</span>»</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #27</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3017359"></a>
6688 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3017697" href="#id3017697" class="para">140</a>] </sup>
6689
6690 <a class="indexterm" name="id3017700"></a> <em class="citetitle">Sony Corporation of
6691 America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>.,
6692 464 U.S. 417, 455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers never changed his view about the
6693 VCR. See James Lardner, <em class="citetitle">Fast Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese,
6694 and the Onslaught of the VCR</em> (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987),
6695 270&#8211;71.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3016605"></a>
6696 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3017913" href="#id3017913" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
6697
6698
6699 For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Legal
6700 Fictions, Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,</span>»</span>
6701 <em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17
6702 (1997): 651.
6703 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3018084" href="#id3018084" class="para">142</a>] </sup>
6704
6705
6706 FCC Oversight: Hearing Before the Senate Commerce, Science and
6707 Transportation Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (22 May 2003)  (statement
6708 of Senator John McCain).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3018097" href="#id3018097" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
6709
6710
6711 Lynette Holloway, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to
6712 Slide,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
6713 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3018114" href="#id3018114" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
6714
6715
6716 Molly Ivins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,</span>»</span>
6717 <em class="citetitle">Charleston Gazette</em>, 31 May 2003.
6718 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3018184" href="#id3018184" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
6719
6720 James Fallows, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Age of Murdoch</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Atlantic
6721 Monthly</em> (September 2003): 89.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3018203"></a>
6722 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3018312" href="#id3018312" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
6723
6724
6725 Leonard Hill, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Axis of Access,</span>»</span> remarks before Weidenbaum
6726 Center Forum, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry,</span>»</span>
6727 St. Louis, Missouri, 3 April 2003 (transcript of prepared remarks available
6728 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #28</a>; for the Lear
6729 story, not included in the prepared remarks, see <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #29</a>).
6730 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3018374" href="#id3018374" class="para">147</a>] </sup>
6731
6732
6733 NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media
6734 Ownership Before the Senate Commerce Committee, 108th Cong., 1st
6735 sess. (2003) (testimony of Gene Kimmelman on behalf of Consumers Union and
6736 the Consumer Federation of America), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #30</a>. Kimmelman quotes
6737 Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West, in her Remarks
6738 at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia, 27 February 2003.
6739 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3018401" href="#id3018401" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
6740
6741
6742 ibid.
6743 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3018457" href="#id3018457" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
6744
6745
6746 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Now with
6747 Bill Moyers</em>, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, redigert avskrift
6748 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6749 #31</a>.
6750 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3018515" href="#id3018515" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
6751
6752
6753 Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
6754 Revolutionary National Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do
6755 Business</em> (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press,
6756 1997). Christensen acknowledges that the idea was first suggested by Dean
6757 Kim Clark. See Kim B. Clark, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Interaction of Design Hierarchies
6758 and Market Concepts in Technological Evolution,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Research
6759 Policy</em> 14 (1985): 235&#8211;51. For a more recent study, see
6760 Richard Foster and Sarah Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">Creative Destruction: Why
6761 Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market&#8212;and How to
6762 Successfully Transform Them</em> (New York: Currency/Doubleday,
6763 2001).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3018667" href="#id3018667" class="para">151</a>] </sup>
6764
6765 The Marijuana Policy Project, in February 2003, sought to place ads that
6766 directly responded to the Nick and Norm series on stations within the
6767 Washington, D.C., area. Comcast rejected the ads as <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">against [their]
6768 policy.</span>»</span> The local NBC affiliate, WRC, rejected the ads without
6769 reviewing them. The local ABC affiliate, WJOA, originally agreed to run the
6770 ads and accepted payment to do so, but later decided not to run the ads and
6771 returned the collected fees. Interview with Neal Levine, 15 October 2003.
6772 These restrictions are, of course, not limited to drug policy. See, for
6773 example, Nat Ives, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">On the Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet
6774 with Rejection from TV Networks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
6775 Times</em>, 13 March 2003, C4.  Outside of election-related air time
6776 there is very little that the FCC or the courts are willing to do to even
6777 the playing field. For a general overview, see Rhonda Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ad Hoc
6778 Access: The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
6779 Radio,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law and Policy Review</em> 6 (1988):
6780 449&#8211;79, and for a more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the
6781 courts, see <em class="citetitle">Radio-Television News Directors
6782 Association</em> v. <em class="citetitle">FCC</em>, 184 F. 3d 872
6783 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as the
6784 networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San Francisco transit
6785 authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni diesel buses. Phillip
6786 Matier and Andrew Ross, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni Rejects
6787 Ad,</span>»</span> SFGate.com, 16 June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #32</a>. The ground was that
6788 the criticism was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">too controversial.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id3018730"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3018739"></a>
6789 <a class="indexterm" name="id3018745"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3018751"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3018757"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3018764"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3018770"></a>
6790 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3018911" href="#id3018911" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
6791
6792 Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende poeng i hans <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fire
6793 kapitulasjoner</span>»</span> for opphavsrettsloven i den digitale tidsalder. Se
6794 Vaidhyanathan, 159&#8211;60.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3018702"></a>
6795 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3019272" href="#id3019272" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
6796
6797 It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist movement
6798 to demonstrate that all property rights are always crafted to balance public
6799 and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Disintegration of
6800 Property,</span>»</span> in <em class="citetitle">Nomos XXII: Property</em>, J. Roland
6801 Pennock and John W.  Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press,
6802 1980).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3019287"></a>
6803 </p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Part III. Nøtter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-puzzles"></a>Part III. Nøtter</h1></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 11. Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>Chapter 11. Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxchimera"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwells"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtcotb"></a><p>
6804 <span class="strong"><strong>In a well-known</strong></span> short story by
6805 H. G. Wells, a mountain climber named Nunez trips (literally, down an ice
6806 slope) into an unknown and isolated valley in the Peruvian
6807 Andes.<sup>[<a name="id3019432" href="#ftn.id3019432" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is extraordinarily
6808 beautiful, with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sweet water, pasture, an even climate, slopes of rich
6809 brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an excellent fruit.</span>»</span> But
6810 the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this as an opportunity. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In
6811 the Country of the Blind,</span>»</span> he tells himself, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the One-Eyed Man
6812 is King.</span>»</span> So he resolves to live with the villagers to explore life
6813 as a king.
6814 </p><p>
6815 Things don't go quite as he planned. He tries to explain the idea of sight
6816 to the villagers. They don't understand. He tells them they are
6817 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">blind.</span>»</span> They don't have the word
6818 <em class="citetitle">blind</em>. They think he's just thick.  Indeed, as they
6819 increasingly notice the things he can't do (hear the sound of grass being
6820 stepped on, for example), they increasingly try to control him. He, in turn,
6821 becomes increasingly frustrated. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">`You don't understand,' he cried, in
6822 a voice that was meant to be great and resolute, and which broke. `You are
6823 blind and I can see. Leave me alone!'</span>»</span>
6824 </p><p>
6825
6826
6827 The villagers don't leave him alone. Nor do they see (so to speak) the
6828 virtue of his special power. Not even the ultimate target of his affection,
6829 a young woman who to him seems <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the most beautiful thing in the whole
6830 of creation,</span>»</span> understands the beauty of sight. Nunez's description of
6831 what he sees <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">seemed to her the most poetical of fancies, and she
6832 listened to his description of the stars and the mountains and her own sweet
6833 white-lit beauty as though it was a guilty indulgence.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">She
6834 did not believe,</span>»</span> Wells tells us, and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">she could only half
6835 understand, but she was mysteriously delighted.</span>»</span>
6836 </p><p>
6837 When Nunez announces his desire to marry his <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mysteriously
6838 delighted</span>»</span> love, the father and the village object. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You see,
6839 my dear,</span>»</span> her father instructs, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">he's an idiot. He has
6840 delusions. He can't do anything right.</span>»</span> They take Nunez to the
6841 village doctor.
6842 </p><p>
6843 After a careful examination, the doctor gives his opinion. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">His brain
6844 is affected,</span>»</span> he reports.
6845 </p><p>
6846 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What affects it?</span>»</span> the father asks.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Those queer things
6847 that are called the eyes &#8230; are diseased &#8230; in such a way as to
6848 affect his brain.</span>»</span>
6849 </p><p>
6850 The doctor continues: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I think I may say with reasonable certainty
6851 that in order to cure him completely, all that we need to do is a simple and
6852 easy surgical operation&#8212;namely, to remove these irritant bodies [the
6853 eyes].</span>»</span>
6854 </p><p>
6855 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Thank Heaven for science!</span>»</span> says the father to the doctor. They
6856 inform Nunez of this condition necessary for him to be allowed his bride.
6857 (You'll have to read the original to learn what happens in the end. I
6858 believe in free culture, but never in giving away the end of a story.)
6859 </p><p>
6860
6861 <span class="strong"><strong>It sometimes</strong></span> happens that the eggs of
6862 twins fuse in the mother's womb. That fusion produces a
6863 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">chimera.</span>»</span> A chimera is a single creature with two sets of
6864 DNA. The DNA in the blood, for example, might be different from the DNA of
6865 the skin. This possibility is an underused plot for murder
6866 mysteries. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But the DNA shows with 100 percent certainty that she was
6867 not the person whose blood was at the scene. &#8230;</span>»</span>
6868 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3019594"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3019603"></a><p>
6869 Before I had read about chimeras, I would have said they were impossible.  A
6870 single person can't have two sets of DNA. The very idea of DNA is that it is
6871 the code of an individual. Yet in fact, not only can two individuals have
6872 the same set of DNA (identical twins), but one person can have two different
6873 sets of DNA (a chimera). Our understanding of a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">person</span>»</span> should
6874 reflect this reality.
6875 </p><p>
6876 The more I work to understand the current struggle over copyright and
6877 culture, which I've sometimes called unfairly, and sometimes not unfairly
6878 enough, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the copyright wars,</span>»</span> the more I think we're dealing
6879 with a chimera. For example, in the battle over the question <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What is
6880 p2p file sharing?</span>»</span> both sides have it right, and both sides have it
6881 wrong.  One side says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">File sharing is just like two kids taping each
6882 others' records&#8212;the sort of thing we've been doing for the last thirty
6883 years without any question at all.</span>»</span> That's true, at least in
6884 part. When I tell my best friend to try out a new CD that I've bought, but
6885 rather than just send the CD, I point him to my p2p server, that is, in all
6886 relevant respects, just like what every executive in every recording company
6887 no doubt did as a kid: sharing music.
6888 </p><p>
6889 But the description is also false in part. For when my p2p server is on a
6890 p2p network through which anyone can get access to my music, then sure, my
6891 friends can get access, but it stretches the meaning of
6892 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friends</span>»</span> beyond recognition to say <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">my ten thousand best
6893 friends</span>»</span> can get access. Whether or not sharing my music with my best
6894 friend is what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">we have always been allowed to do,</span>»</span> we have not
6895 always been allowed to share music with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">our ten thousand best
6896 friends.</span>»</span>
6897 </p><p>
6898 Likewise, when the other side says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">File sharing is just like walking
6899 into a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out with
6900 it,</span>»</span> that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett (finally)
6901 releases a new album, rather than buying it, I go to Kazaa and find a free
6902 copy to take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower.
6903 <a class="indexterm" name="id3019692"></a>
6904 </p><p>
6905
6906
6907
6908 But it is not quite stealing from Tower. After all, when I take a CD from
6909 Tower Records, Tower has one less CD to sell. And when I take a CD from
6910 Tower Records, I get a bit of plastic and a cover, and something to show on
6911 my shelves. (And, while we're at it, we could also note that when I take a
6912 CD from Tower Records, the maximum fine that might be imposed on me, under
6913 California law, at least, is $1,000.  According to the RIAA, by contrast, if
6914 I download a ten-song CD, I'm liable for $1,500,000 in damages.)
6915 </p><p>
6916 The point is not that it is as neither side describes. The point is that it
6917 is both&#8212;both as the RIAA describes it and as Kazaa describes it. It is
6918 a chimera. And rather than simply denying what the other side asserts, we
6919 need to begin to think about how we should respond to this chimera. What
6920 rules should govern it?
6921 </p><p>
6922 We could respond by simply pretending that it is not a chimera. We could,
6923 with the RIAA, decide that every act of file sharing should be a felony. We
6924 could prosecute families for millions of dollars in damages just because
6925 file sharing occurred on a family computer. And we can get universities to
6926 monitor all computer traffic to make sure that no computer is used to commit
6927 this crime. These responses might be extreme, but each of them has either
6928 been proposed or actually implemented.<sup>[<a name="id3019733" href="#ftn.id3019733" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
6929
6930 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3019839"></a><p>
6931 Alternatively, we could respond to file sharing the way many kids act as
6932 though we've responded. We could totally legalize it. Let there be no
6933 copyright liability, either civil or criminal, for making copyrighted
6934 content available on the Net. Make file sharing like gossip: regulated, if
6935 at all, by social norms but not by law.
6936 </p><p>
6937 Either response is possible. I think either would be a mistake.  Rather than
6938 embrace one of these two extremes, we should embrace something that
6939 recognizes the truth in both. And while I end this book with a sketch of a
6940 system that does just that, my aim in the next chapter is to show just how
6941 awful it would be for us to adopt the zero-tolerance extreme. I believe
6942 <span class="emphasis"><em>either</em></span> extreme would be worse than a reasonable
6943 alternative.  But I believe the zero-tolerance solution would be the worse
6944 of the two extremes.
6945 </p><p>
6946
6947
6948
6949 Yet zero tolerance is increasingly our government's policy. In the middle of
6950 the chaos that the Internet has created, an extraordinary land grab is
6951 occurring. The law and technology are being shifted to give content holders
6952 a kind of control over our culture that they have never had before. And in
6953 this extremism, many an opportunity for new innovation and new creativity
6954 will be lost.
6955 </p><p>
6956 I'm not talking about the opportunities for kids to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">steal</span>»</span>
6957 music. My focus instead is the commercial and cultural innovation that this
6958 war will also kill. We have never seen the power to innovate spread so
6959 broadly among our citizens, and we have just begun to see the innovation
6960 that this power will unleash. Yet the Internet has already seen the passing
6961 of one cycle of innovation around technologies to distribute content. The
6962 law is responsible for this passing. As the vice president for global public
6963 policy at one of these new innovators, eMusic.com, put it when criticizing
6964 the DMCA's added protection for copyrighted material,
6965 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6966 eMusic opposes music piracy. We are a distributor of copyrighted material,
6967 and we want to protect those rights.
6968 </p><p>
6969 But building a technology fortress that locks in the clout of the major
6970 labels is by no means the only way to protect copyright interests, nor is it
6971 necessarily the best. It is simply too early to answer that question. Market
6972 forces operating naturally may very well produce a totally different
6973 industry model.
6974 </p><p>
6975 This is a critical point. The choices that industry sectors make with
6976 respect to these systems will in many ways directly shape the market for
6977 digital media and the manner in which digital media are distributed. This in
6978 turn will directly influence the options that are available to consumers,
6979 both in terms of the ease with which they will be able to access digital
6980 media and the equipment that they will require to do so. Poor choices made
6981 this early in the game will retard the growth of this market, hurting
6982 everyone's interests.<sup>[<a name="id3019928" href="#ftn.id3019928" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
6983 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6984 In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of
6985 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the major labels.</span>»</span> Its position on these matters has now
6986 changed.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3019953"></a>
6987 </p><p>
6988 Reversing our tradition of tolerance now will not merely quash piracy. It
6989 will sacrifice values that are important to this culture, and will kill
6990 opportunities that could be extraordinarily valuable.
6991 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3019432" href="#id3019432" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
6992
6993
6994 H. G. Wells, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Country of the Blind</span>»</span> (1904, 1911). Se
6995 H. G. Wells, <em class="citetitle">The Country of the Blind and Other
6996 Stories</em>, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New York: Oxford University
6997 Press, 1996).
6998 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3019733" href="#id3019733" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
6999
7000 <a class="indexterm" name="id3019736"></a> For an excellent summary, see the
7001 report prepared by GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society
7002 at Harvard Law School, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster
7003 World,</span>»</span> 27 June 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #33</a>. Reps. John Conyers
7004 Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) have introduced a bill that
7005 would treat unauthorized on-line copying as a felony offense with
7006 punishments ranging as high as five years imprisonment; see Jon Healey,
7007 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">House Bill Aims to Up Stakes on Piracy,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los
7008 Angeles Times</em>, 17 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #34</a>. Civil penalties are
7009 currently set at $150,000 per copied song. For a recent (and unsuccessful)
7010 legal challenge to the RIAA's demand that an ISP reveal the identity of a
7011 user accused of sharing more than 600 songs through a family computer, see
7012 <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Verizon Internet Services (In
7013 re. Verizon Internet Services)</em>, 240 F.  Supp. 2d 24
7014 (D.D.C. 2003). Such a user could face liability ranging as high as $90
7015 million. Such astronomical figures furnish the RIAA with a powerful arsenal
7016 in its prosecution of file sharers. Settlements ranging from $12,000 to
7017 $17,500 for four students accused of heavy file sharing on university
7018 networks must have seemed a mere pittance next to the $98 billion the RIAA
7019 could seek should the matter proceed to court. See Elizabeth Young,
7020 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Downloading Could Lead to Fines,</span>»</span> redandblack.com, August
7021 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7022 #35</a>. For an example of the RIAA's targeting of student file sharing,
7023 and of the subpoenas issued to universities to reveal student file-sharer
7024 identities, see James Collins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to
7025 Name Students,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 8 August 2003,
7026 D3, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7027 #36</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3019825"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3019831"></a>
7028 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3019928" href="#id3019928" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
7029
7030
7031 WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
7032 Entertainment on the Internet and Other Media: Hearing Before the
7033 Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, House
7034 Committee on Commerce, 106th Cong. 29 (1999) (statement of Peter Harter,
7035 vice president, Global Public Policy and Standards, EMusic.com), available
7036 in LEXIS, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony File.  </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 12. Kapittel tolv: Skader"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="harms"></a>Chapter 12. Kapittel tolv: Skader</h2></div></div></div><p>
7037 <span class="strong"><strong>To fight</strong></span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> to
7038 protect <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property,</span>»</span> the content industry has launched a
7039 war. Lobbying and lots of campaign contributions have now brought the
7040 government into this war. As with any war, this one will have both direct
7041 and collateral damage. As with any war of prohibition, these damages will be
7042 suffered most by our own people.
7043 </p><p>
7044 My aim so far has been to describe the consequences of this war, in
7045 particular, the consequences for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free culture.</span>»</span> But my aim now
7046 is to extend this description of consequences into an argument. Is this war
7047 justified?
7048 </p><p>
7049 In my view, it is not. There is no good reason why this time, for the first
7050 time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the power of
7051 the property called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>»</span> is at its greatest
7052 in our history.
7053 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3020020"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3020026"></a><p>
7054 Yet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">common sense</span>»</span> does not see it this way. Common sense is
7055 still on the side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme
7056 claims of control in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical
7057 rejection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> still has play.
7058 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3020046"></a><p>
7059
7060
7061 There will be many consequences of continuing this war. I want to describe
7062 just three. All three might be said to be unintended. I am quite confident
7063 the third is unintended. I'm less sure about the first two. The first two
7064 protect modern RCAs, but there is no Howard Armstrong in the wings to fight
7065 today's monopolists of culture.
7066 </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>
7067 In the next ten years we will see an explosion of digital technologies.
7068 These technologies will enable almost anyone to capture and share
7069 content. Capturing and sharing content, of course, is what humans have done
7070 since the dawn of man. It is how we learn and communicate. But capturing and
7071 sharing through digital technology is different. The fidelity and power are
7072 different. You could send an e-mail telling someone about a joke you saw on
7073 Comedy Central, or you could send the clip. You could write an essay about
7074 the inconsistencies in the arguments of the politician you most love to
7075 hate, or you could make a short film that puts statement against
7076 statement. You could write a poem to express your love, or you could weave
7077 together a string&#8212;a mash-up&#8212; of songs from your favorite artists
7078 in a collage and make it available on the Net.
7079 </p><p>
7080 This digital <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>»</span> is in part an extension of
7081 the capturing and sharing that has always been integral to our culture, and
7082 in part it is something new. It is continuous with the Kodak, but it
7083 explodes the boundaries of Kodak-like technologies. The technology of
7084 digital <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>»</span> promises a world of
7085 extraordinarily diverse creativity that can be easily and broadly
7086 shared. And as that creativity is applied to democracy, it will enable a
7087 broad range of citizens to use technology to express and criticize and
7088 contribute to the culture all around.
7089 </p><p>
7090
7091 Teknologien har dermed gitt oss en mulighet til å gjøre noe med kultur som
7092 bare har vært mulig for enkeltpersoner i små grupper, isolert fra andre
7093 grupper. Forestill deg en gammel mann som forteller en historie til en
7094 samling med naboer i en liten landsby.  Forestill deg så den samme
7095 historiefortellingen utvidet til å nå over hele verden.
7096 </p><p>
7097 Yet all this is possible only if the activity is presumptively legal. In the
7098 current regime of legal regulation, it is not. Forget file sharing for a
7099 moment. Think about your favorite amazing sites on the Net. Web sites that
7100 offer plot summaries from forgotten television shows; sites that catalog
7101 cartoons from the 1960s; sites that mix images and sound to criticize
7102 politicians or businesses; sites that gather newspaper articles on remote
7103 topics of science or culture. There is a vast amount of creative work spread
7104 across the Internet. But as the law is currently crafted, this work is
7105 presumptively illegal.
7106 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3020138"></a><p>
7107 That presumption will increasingly chill creativity, as the examples of
7108 extreme penalties for vague infringements continue to proliferate. It is
7109 impossible to get a clear sense of what's allowed and what's not, and at the
7110 same time, the penalties for crossing the line are astonishingly harsh.  The
7111 four students who were threatened by the RIAA ( Jesse Jordan of chapter 3
7112 was just one) were threatened with a $98 billion lawsuit for building search
7113 engines that permitted songs to be copied. Yet World-Com&#8212;which
7114 defrauded investors of $11 billion, resulting in a loss to investors in
7115 market capitalization of over $200 billion&#8212;received a fine of a mere
7116 $750 million.<sup>[<a name="id3020155" href="#ftn.id3020155" class="footnote">157</a>]</sup> And under legislation
7117 being pushed in Congress right now, a doctor who negligently removes the
7118 wrong leg in an operation would be liable for no more than $250,000 in
7119 damages for pain and suffering.<sup>[<a name="id3020193" href="#ftn.id3020193" class="footnote">158</a>]</sup> Can
7120 common sense recognize the absurdity in a world where the maximum fine for
7121 downloading two songs off the Internet is more than the fine for a doctor's
7122 negligently butchering a patient?
7123 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3020237"></a><p>
7124 The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high
7125 penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never
7126 be exercised, or never be exercised in the open. We drive this creative
7127 process underground by branding the modern-day Walt Disneys
7128 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates.</span>»</span> We make it impossible for businesses to rely upon a
7129 public domain, because the boundaries of the public domain are designed to
7130 be unclear. It never pays to do anything except pay for the right to create,
7131 and hence only those who can pay are allowed to create. As was the case in
7132 the Soviet Union, though for very different reasons, we will begin to see a
7133 world of underground art&#8212;not because the message is necessarily
7134 political, or because the subject is controversial, but because the very act
7135 of creating the art is legally fraught. Already, exhibits of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegal
7136 art</span>»</span> tour the United States.<sup>[<a name="id3020256" href="#ftn.id3020256" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In
7137 what does their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegality</span>»</span> consist? In the act of mixing the
7138 culture around us with an expression that is critical or reflective.
7139 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3020302"></a><p>
7140 Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the changing
7141 law. I described that change in detail in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>. But an even bigger part has to do with
7142 the increasing ease with which infractions can be tracked. As users of
7143 file-sharing systems discovered in 2002, it is a trivial matter for
7144 copyright owners to get courts to order Internet service providers to reveal
7145 who has what content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a
7146 list of the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that
7147 anyone could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
7148 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3020330"></a><p>
7149 Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether his painting
7150 infringed on someone else's work; but the modern-day painter, using the
7151 tools of Photoshop, sharing content on the Web, must worry all the
7152 time. Images are all around, but the only safe images to use in the act of
7153 creation are those purchased from Corbis or another image farm. And in
7154 purchasing, censoring happens. There is a free market in pencils; we needn't
7155 worry about its effect on creativity. But there is a highly regulated,
7156 monopolized market in cultural icons; the right to cultivate and transform
7157 them is not similarly free.
7158 </p><p>
7159 Lawyers rarely see this because lawyers are rarely empirical. As I described
7160 in chapter <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Chapter 7. Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, in
7161 response to the story about documentary filmmaker Jon Else, I have been
7162 lectured again and again by lawyers who insist Else's use was fair use, and
7163 hence I am wrong to say that the law regulates such a use.
7164 </p><p>
7165
7166
7167
7168 But fair use in America simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend
7169 your right to create. And as lawyers love to forget, our system for
7170 defending rights such as fair use is astonishingly bad&#8212;in practically
7171 every context, but especially here. It costs too much, it delivers too
7172 slowly, and what it delivers often has little connection to the justice
7173 underlying the claim. The legal system may be tolerable for the very rich.
7174 For everyone else, it is an embarrassment to a tradition that prides itself
7175 on the rule of law.
7176 </p><p>
7177 Judges and lawyers can tell themselves that fair use provides adequate
7178 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">breathing room</span>»</span> between regulation by the law and the access
7179 the law should allow. But it is a measure of how out of touch our legal
7180 system has become that anyone actually believes this. The rules that
7181 publishers impose upon writers, the rules that film distributors impose upon
7182 filmmakers, the rules that newspapers impose upon journalists&#8212; these
7183 are the real laws governing creativity. And these rules have little
7184 relationship to the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">law</span>»</span> with which judges comfort themselves.
7185 </p><p>
7186 For in a world that threatens $150,000 for a single willful infringement of
7187 a copyright, and which demands tens of thousands of dollars to even defend
7188 against a copyright infringement claim, and which would never return to the
7189 wrongfully accused defendant anything of the costs she suffered to defend
7190 her right to speak&#8212;in that world, the astonishingly broad regulations
7191 that pass under the name <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> silence speech and
7192 creativity. And in that world, it takes a studied blindness for people to
7193 continue to believe they live in a culture that is free.
7194 </p><p>
7195 As Jed Horovitz, the businessman behind Video Pipeline, said to me,
7196 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7197
7198 We're losing [creative] opportunities right and left. Creative people are
7199 being forced not to express themselves. Thoughts are not being
7200 expressed. And while a lot of stuff may [still] be created, it still won't
7201 get distributed. Even if the stuff gets made &#8230; you're not going to
7202 get it distributed in the mainstream media unless you've got a little note
7203 from a lawyer saying, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This has been cleared.</span>»</span> You're not even
7204 going to get it on PBS without that kind of permission. That's the point at
7205 which they control it.
7206 </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>
7207 The story of the last section was a crunchy-lefty story&#8212;creativity
7208 quashed, artists who can't speak, yada yada yada. Maybe that doesn't get you
7209 going. Maybe you think there's enough weird art out there, and enough
7210 expression that is critical of what seems to be just about everything.  And
7211 if you think that, you might think there's little in this story to worry
7212 you.
7213 </p><p>
7214 But there's an aspect of this story that is not lefty in any sense.  Indeed,
7215 it is an aspect that could be written by the most extreme promarket
7216 ideologue. And if you're one of these sorts (and a special one at that, 188
7217 pages into a book like this), then you can see this other aspect by
7218 substituting <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free market</span>»</span> every place I've spoken of
7219 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free culture.</span>»</span> The point is the same, even if the interests
7220 affecting culture are more fundamental.
7221 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3020474"></a><p>
7222 The charge I've been making about the regulation of culture is the same
7223 charge free marketers make about regulating markets. Everyone, of course,
7224 concedes that some regulation of markets is necessary&#8212;at a minimum, we
7225 need rules of property and contract, and courts to enforce both. Likewise,
7226 in this culture debate, everyone concedes that at least some framework of
7227 copyright is also required. But both perspectives vehemently insist that
7228 just because some regulation is good, it doesn't follow that more regulation
7229 is better. And both perspectives are constantly attuned to the ways in which
7230 regulation simply enables the powerful industries of today to protect
7231 themselves against the competitors of tomorrow.
7232 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3020483"></a><p>
7233
7234 This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy
7235 that I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>. The consequence of this massive threat of liability
7236 tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is that innovators who want to
7237 innovate in this space can safely innovate only if they have the sign-off
7238 from last generation's dominant industries.  That lesson has been taught
7239 through a series of cases that were designed and executed to teach venture
7240 capitalists a lesson. That lesson&#8212;what former Napster CEO Hank Barry
7241 calls a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nuclear pall</span>»</span> that has fallen over the
7242 Valley&#8212;has been learned.
7243 </p><p>
7244 Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in
7245 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> and which has progressed in a way
7246 that even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
7247 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3020538"></a><p>
7248 In 1997, Michael Roberts launched a company called MP3.com.  MP3.com was
7249 keen to remake the music business. Their goal was not just to facilitate new
7250 ways to get access to content. Their goal was also to facilitate new ways to
7251 create content. Unlike the major labels, MP3.com offered creators a venue to
7252 distribute their creativity, without demanding an exclusive engagement from
7253 the creators.
7254 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3020554"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsprefdata"></a><p>
7255 To make this system work, however, MP3.com needed a reliable way to
7256 recommend music to its users. The idea behind this alternative was to
7257 leverage the revealed preferences of music listeners to recommend new
7258 artists. If you like Lyle Lovett, you're likely to enjoy Bonnie Raitt. And
7259 so on.
7260 </p><p>
7261 This idea required a simple way to gather data about user preferences.
7262 MP3.com came up with an extraordinarily clever way to gather this preference
7263 data. In January 2000, the company launched a service called
7264 my.mp3.com. Using software provided by MP3.com, a user would sign into an
7265 account and then insert into her computer a CD. The software would identify
7266 the CD, and then give the user access to that content.  So, for example, if
7267 you inserted a CD by Jill Sobule, then wherever you were&#8212;at work or at
7268 home&#8212;you could get access to that music once you signed into your
7269 account. The system was therefore a kind of music-lockbox.
7270 </p><p>
7271
7272 No doubt some could use this system to illegally copy content. But that
7273 opportunity existed with or without MP3.com. The aim of the my.mp3.com
7274 service was to give users access to their own content, and as a by-product,
7275 by seeing the content they already owned, to discover the kind of content
7276 the users liked.
7277 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3020589"></a><p>
7278 To make this system function, however, MP3.com needed to copy 50,000 CDs to
7279 a server. (In principle, it could have been the user who uploaded the music,
7280 but that would have taken a great deal of time, and would have produced a
7281 product of questionable quality.) It therefore purchased 50,000 CDs from a
7282 store, and started the process of making copies of those CDs. Again, it
7283 would not serve the content from those copies to anyone except those who
7284 authenticated that they had a copy of the CD they wanted to access. So while
7285 this was 50,000 copies, it was 50,000 copies directed at giving customers
7286 something they had already bought.
7287 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxvivendiuniversal"></a><p>
7288 Nine days after MP3.com launched its service, the five major labels, headed
7289 by the RIAA, brought a lawsuit against MP3.com. MP3.com settled with four of
7290 the five. Nine months later, a federal judge found MP3.com to have been
7291 guilty of willful infringement with respect to the fifth. Applying the law
7292 as it is, the judge imposed a fine against MP3.com of $118 million. MP3.com
7293 then settled with the remaining plaintiff, Vivendi Universal, paying over
7294 $54 million. Vivendi purchased MP3.com just about a year later.
7295 </p><p>
7296 Den delen av historien har jeg fortalt før.  Nå kommer konklusjonen.
7297 </p><p>
7298 After Vivendi purchased MP3.com, Vivendi turned around and filed a
7299 malpractice lawsuit against the lawyers who had advised it that they had a
7300 good faith claim that the service they wanted to offer would be considered
7301 legal under copyright law. This lawsuit alleged that it should have been
7302 obvious that the courts would find this behavior illegal; therefore, this
7303 lawsuit sought to punish any lawyer who had dared to suggest that the law
7304 was less restrictive than the labels demanded.
7305 </p><p>
7306
7307 Den åpenbare hensikten med dette søksmålet (som ble avsluttet med et forlik
7308 for et uspesifisert beløp like etter at saken ikke lenger fikk
7309 pressedekning), var å sende en melding som ikke kan misforstås til advokater
7310 som gir råd til klienter på dette området: Det er ikke bare dine klienter
7311 som får lide hvis innholdsindustrien retter sine våpen mot dem.  Det får
7312 også du.  Så de av dere som tror loven burde være mindre restriktiv bør
7313 innse at et slikt syn på loven vil koste deg og ditt firma dyrt.
7314 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3020692"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3020700"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3020707"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3020713"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3020719"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3020726"></a><p>
7315 This strategy is not just limited to the lawyers. In April 2003, Universal
7316 and EMI brought a lawsuit against Hummer Winblad, the venture capital firm
7317 (VC) that had funded Napster at a certain stage of its development, its
7318 cofounder ( John Hummer), and general partner (Hank Barry).<sup>[<a name="id3020739" href="#ftn.id3020739" class="footnote">160</a>]</sup> The claim here, as well, was that the VC should
7319 have recognized the right of the content industry to control how the
7320 industry should develop. They should be held personally liable for funding a
7321 company whose business turned out to be beyond the law. Here again, the aim
7322 of the lawsuit is transparent: Any VC now recognizes that if you fund a
7323 company whose business is not approved of by the dinosaurs, you are at risk
7324 not just in the marketplace, but in the courtroom as well.  Your investment
7325 buys you not only a company, it also buys you a lawsuit.  So extreme has the
7326 environment become that even car manufacturers are afraid of technologies
7327 that touch content. In an article in <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>,
7328 Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW:
7329 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id3020790"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3020796"></a><p>
7330 I asked why, with all the storage capacity and computer power in the car,
7331 there was no way to play MP3 files. I was told that BMW engineers in Germany
7332 had rigged a new vehicle to play MP3s via the car's built-in sound system,
7333 but that the company's marketing and legal departments weren't comfortable
7334 with pushing this forward for release stateside. Even today, no new cars are
7335 sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. &#8230; <sup>[<a name="id3020430" href="#ftn.id3020430" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
7336 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7337 Dette er verden til mafiaen&#8212;fylt med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">penger eller
7338 livet</span>»</span>-trusler, som ikke er regulert av domstolene men av trusler som
7339 loven gir rettighetsinnehaver mulighet til å komme med. Det er et system som
7340 åpenbart og nødvendigvis vil kvele ny innovasjon. Det er vanskelig nok å
7341 starte et selskap. Det blir helt umulig hvis selskapet er stadig truet av
7342 søksmål.
7343 </p><p>
7344
7345
7346
7347 The point is not that businesses should have a right to start illegal
7348 enterprises. The point is the definition of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegal.</span>»</span> The law
7349 is a mess of uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply to
7350 new technologies. Yet by reversing our tradition of judicial deference, and
7351 by embracing the astonishingly high penalties that copyright law imposes,
7352 that uncertainty now yields a reality which is far more conservative than is
7353 right. If the law imposed the death penalty for parking tickets, we'd not
7354 only have fewer parking tickets, we'd also have much less driving. The same
7355 principle applies to innovation. If innovation is constantly checked by this
7356 uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation
7357 and much less creativity.
7358 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3020882"></a><p>
7359 The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
7360 use. Whatever the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">real</span>»</span> law is, realism about the effect of
7361 law in both contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation
7362 will systematically stifle creativity and innovation. It will protect some
7363 industries and some creators, but it will harm industry and creativity
7364 generally. Free market and free culture depend upon vibrant competition.
7365 Yet the effect of the law today is to stifle just this kind of competition.
7366 The effect is to produce an overregulated culture, just as the effect of too
7367 much control in the market is to produce an overregulatedregulated market.
7368 </p><p>
7369
7370 The building of a permission culture, rather than a free culture, is the
7371 first important way in which the changes I have described will burden
7372 innovation. A permission culture means a lawyer's culture&#8212;a culture in
7373 which the ability to create requires a call to your lawyer. Again, I am not
7374 antilawyer, at least when they're kept in their proper place. I am certainly
7375 not antilaw. But our profession has lost the sense of its limits. And
7376 leaders in our profession have lost an appreciation of the high costs that
7377 our profession imposes upon others. The inefficiency of the law is an
7378 embarrassment to our tradition. And while I believe our profession should
7379 therefore do everything it can to make the law more efficient, it should at
7380 least do everything it can to limit the reach of the law where the law is
7381 not doing any good. The transaction costs buried within a permission culture
7382 are enough to bury a wide range of creativity.  Someone needs to do a lot of
7383 justifying to justify that result.
7384 </p><p>
7385 <span class="strong"><strong>The uncertainty</strong></span> of the law is one burden
7386 on innovation. There is a second burden that operates more directly. This is
7387 the effort by many in the content industry to use the law to directly
7388 regulate the technology of the Internet so that it better protects their
7389 content.
7390 </p><p>
7391 The motivation for this response is obvious. The Internet enables the
7392 efficient spread of content. That efficiency is a feature of the Internet's
7393 design. But from the perspective of the content industry, this feature is a
7394 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bug.</span>»</span> The efficient spread of content means that content
7395 distributors have a harder time controlling the distribution of content.
7396 One obvious response to this efficiency is thus to make the Internet less
7397 efficient. If the Internet enables <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> then, this
7398 response says, we should break the kneecaps of the Internet.
7399 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3020960"></a><p>
7400 The examples of this form of legislation are many. At the urging of the
7401 content industry, some in Congress have threatened legislation that would
7402 require computers to determine whether the content they access is protected
7403 or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<sup>[<a name="id3020973" href="#ftn.id3020973" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
7404 explore a mandatory <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>»</span> that would be required on
7405 any device capable of transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and
7406 that would disable the copying of any content that is marked with a
7407 broadcast flag. Other members of Congress have proposed immunizing content
7408 providers from liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt
7409 down copyright violators and disable their machines.<sup>[<a name="id3021002" href="#ftn.id3021002" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
7410 </p><p>
7411
7412 In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the code, why
7413 not regulate the code to remove the problem. But any regulation of technical
7414 infrastructure will always be tuned to the particular technology of the
7415 day. It will impose significant burdens and costs on the technology, but
7416 will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly those requirements.
7417 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3021021"></a><p>
7418 In March 2002, a broad coalition of technology companies, led by Intel,
7419 tried to get Congress to see the harm that such legislation would
7420 impose.<sup>[<a name="id3021032" href="#ftn.id3021032" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
7421 not that copyright should not be protected. Instead, they argued, any
7422 protection should not do more harm than good.
7423 </p><p>
7424 <span class="strong"><strong>There is one</strong></span> more obvious way in which
7425 this war has harmed innovation&#8212;again, a story that will be quite
7426 familiar to the free market crowd.
7427 </p><p>
7428 Copyright may be property, but like all property, it is also a form of
7429 regulation. It is a regulation that benefits some and harms others.  When
7430 done right, it benefits creators and harms leeches. When done wrong, it is
7431 regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
7432 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3021065"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3021073"></a><p>
7433 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, despite this feature of copyright as regulation, and
7434 subject to important qualifications outlined by Jessica Litman in her book
7435 <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em>,<sup>[<a name="id3021093" href="#ftn.id3021093" class="footnote">165</a>]</sup> overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10
7436 details, when new technologies have come along, Congress has struck a
7437 balance to assure that the new is protected from the old. Compulsory, or
7438 statutory, licenses have been one part of that strategy. Free use (as in the
7439 case of the VCR) has been another.
7440 </p><p>
7441 But that pattern of deference to new technologies has now changed with the
7442 rise of the Internet. Rather than striking a balance between the claims of a
7443 new technology and the legitimate rights of content creators, both the
7444 courts and Congress have imposed legal restrictions that will have the
7445 effect of smothering the new to benefit the old.
7446 </p><p>
7447 The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<sup>[<a name="id3021129" href="#ftn.id3021129" class="footnote">166</a>]</sup> It has been mirrored in the responses threatened
7448 and actually implemented by Congress. I won't catalog all of those responses
7449 here.<sup>[<a name="id3021170" href="#ftn.id3021170" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
7450 captures the flavor of them all. This is the story of the demise of Internet
7451 radio.
7452 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3021231"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3021240"></a><p>
7453
7454
7455
7456 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Chapter 4. Kapittel fire: «Pirater»">4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording artist
7457 doesn't get paid for that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radio performance</span>»</span> unless he or she
7458 is also the composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had recorded a
7459 version of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span>&#8212;to memorialize her famous
7460 performance before President Kennedy at Madison Square Garden&#8212; then
7461 whenever that recording was played on the radio, the current copyright
7462 owners of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> would get some money, whereas
7463 Marilyn Monroe would not.
7464 </p><p>
7465 The reasoning behind this balance struck by Congress makes some sense. The
7466 justification was that radio was a kind of advertising. The recording artist
7467 thus benefited because by playing her music, the radio station was making it
7468 more likely that her records would be purchased.  Thus, the recording artist
7469 got something, even if only indirectly.  Probably this reasoning had less to
7470 do with the result than with the power of radio stations: Their lobbyists
7471 were quite good at stopping any efforts to get Congress to require
7472 compensation to the recording artists.
7473 </p><p>
7474 Enter Internet radio. Like regular radio, Internet radio is a technology to
7475 stream content from a broadcaster to a listener. The broadcast travels
7476 across the Internet, not across the ether of radio spectrum.  Thus, I can
7477 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tune in</span>»</span> to an Internet radio station in Berlin while sitting
7478 in San Francisco, even though there's no way for me to tune in to a regular
7479 radio station much beyond the San Francisco metropolitan area.
7480 </p><p>
7481 This feature of the architecture of Internet radio means that there are
7482 potentially an unlimited number of radio stations that a user could tune in
7483 to using her computer, whereas under the existing architecture for broadcast
7484 radio, there is an obvious limit to the number of broadcasters and clear
7485 broadcast frequencies. Internet radio could therefore be more competitive
7486 than regular radio; it could provide a wider range of selections. And
7487 because the potential audience for Internet radio is the whole world, niche
7488 stations could easily develop and market their content to a relatively large
7489 number of users worldwide. According to some estimates, more than eighty
7490 million users worldwide have tuned in to this new form of radio.
7491 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3021327"></a><p>
7492
7493
7494
7495 Internet radio is thus to radio what FM was to AM. It is an improvement
7496 potentially vastly more significant than the FM improvement over AM, since
7497 not only is the technology better, so, too, is the competition. Indeed,
7498 there is a direct parallel between the fight to establish FM radio and the
7499 fight to protect Internet radio. As one author describes Howard Armstrong's
7500 struggle to enable FM radio,
7501 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7502 An almost unlimited number of FM stations was possible in the shortwaves,
7503 thus ending the unnatural restrictions imposed on radio in the crowded
7504 longwaves. If FM were freely developed, the number of stations would be
7505 limited only by economics and competition rather than by technical
7506 restrictions. &#8230; Armstrong likened the situation that had grown up in
7507 radio to that following the invention of the printing press, when
7508 governments and ruling interests attempted to control this new instrument of
7509 mass communications by imposing restrictive licenses on it. This tyranny was
7510 broken only when it became possible for men freely to acquire printing
7511 presses and freely to run them. FM in this sense was as great an invention
7512 as the printing presses, for it gave radio the opportunity to strike off its
7513 shackles.<sup>[<a name="id3020812" href="#ftn.id3020812" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
7514 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7515 This potential for FM radio was never realized&#8212;not because Armstrong
7516 was wrong about the technology, but because he underestimated the power of
7517 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vested interests, habits, customs and legislation</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3021381" href="#ftn.id3021381" class="footnote">169</a>]</sup> to retard the growth of this competing technology.
7518 </p><p>
7519 Now the very same claim could be made about Internet radio. For again, there
7520 is no technical limitation that could restrict the number of Internet radio
7521 stations. The only restrictions on Internet radio are those imposed by the
7522 law. Copyright law is one such law. So the first question we should ask is,
7523 what copyright rules would govern Internet radio?
7524 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments2"></a><p>
7525
7526 But here the power of the lobbyists is reversed. Internet radio is a new
7527 industry. The recording artists, on the other hand, have a very powerful
7528 lobby, the RIAA. Thus when Congress considered the phenomenon of Internet
7529 radio in 1995, the lobbyists had primed Congress to adopt a different rule
7530 for Internet radio than the rule that applies to terrestrial radio. While
7531 terrestrial radio does not have to pay our hypothetical Marilyn Monroe when
7532 it plays her hypothetical recording of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> on the
7533 air, <span class="emphasis"><em>Internet radio does</em></span>. Not only is the law not
7534 neutral toward Internet radio&#8212;the law actually burdens Internet radio
7535 more than it burdens terrestrial radio.
7536 </p><p>
7537 This financial burden is not slight. As Harvard law professor William Fisher
7538 estimates, if an Internet radio station distributed adfree popular music to
7539 (on average) ten thousand listeners, twenty-four hours a day, the total
7540 artist fees that radio station would owe would be over $1 million a
7541 year.<sup>[<a name="id3021449" href="#ftn.id3021449" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
7542 broadcasting the same content would pay no equivalent fee.
7543 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3021505"></a><p>
7544 The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were
7545 proposed, an Internet radio station (but not a terrestrial radio station)
7546 would have to collect the following data from <span class="emphasis"><em>every listening
7547 transaction</em></span>:
7548 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
7549 navn på tjenesten,
7550 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7551 kanalen til programmet (AM/FM-stasjoner bruker stasjons-ID);
7552 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7553 type program (fra arkivet/i løkke/direkte);
7554 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7555 dato for sending;
7556 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7557 tidspunkt for sending;
7558 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7559 tidssone til opprinnelsen for sending;
7560 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7561 numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program;
7562 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7563 varigheten av sending (til nærmeste sekund):
7564 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7565 lydinnspilling-tittel;
7566 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7567 ISRC-kode for opptaket;
7568 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7569 release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of
7570 compilation albums, the release year of the album and copy- right date of
7571 the track;
7572 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7573 spillende plateartist;
7574 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7575 tittel på album i butikker;
7576 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7577 plateselskap;
7578 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7579 UPC-koden for albumet i butikker;
7580 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7581 katalognummer;
7582 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7583 informasjon om opphavsrettsinnehaver;
7584 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7585 musikksjanger for kanal eller programmet (stasjonsformat);
7586 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7587 navn på tjenesten eller selskap;
7588 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7589 kanal eller program;
7590 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7591 date and time that the user logged in (in the user's time zone);
7592 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7593 date and time that the user logged out (in the user's time zone);
7594 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7595 time zone where the signal was received (user);
7596 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7597 unik bruker-identifikator;
7598 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7599 landet til brukeren som mottok sendingene.
7600 </p></li></ol></div><p>
7601 The Librarian of Congress eventually suspended these reporting requirements,
7602 pending further study. And he also changed the original rates set by the
7603 arbitration panel charged with setting rates. But the basic difference
7604 between Internet radio and terrestrial radio remains: Internet radio has to
7605 pay a <span class="emphasis"><em>type of copyright fee</em></span> that terrestrial radio does
7606 not.
7607 </p><p>
7608 Why? What justifies this difference? Was there any study of the economic
7609 consequences from Internet radio that would justify these differences? Was
7610 the motive to protect artists against piracy?
7611 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3021680"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex2"></a><p>
7612 In a rare bit of candor, one RIAA expert admitted what seemed obvious to
7613 everyone at the time. As Alex Alben, vice president for Public Policy at
7614 Real Networks, told me,
7615 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7616
7617 The RIAA, which was representing the record labels, presented some testimony
7618 about what they thought a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, and
7619 it was much higher. It was ten times higher than what radio stations pay to
7620 perform the same songs for the same period of time. And so the attorneys
7621 representing the webcasters asked the RIAA, &#8230; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How do you come
7622 up with a rate that's so much higher? Why is it worth more than radio?
7623 Because here we have hundreds of thousands of webcasters who want to pay,
7624 and that should establish the market rate, and if you set the rate so high,
7625 you're going to drive the small webcasters out of business. &#8230;</span>»</span>
7626 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3021712"></a><p>
7627 And the RIAA experts said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, we don't really model this as an
7628 industry with thousands of webcasters, <span class="emphasis"><em>we think it should be an
7629 industry with, you know, five or seven big players who can pay a high rate
7630 and it's a stable, predictable market</em></span>.</span>»</span> (Emphasis added.)
7631 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3021749"></a><p>
7632 Translation: The aim is to use the law to eliminate competition, so that
7633 this platform of potentially immense competition, which would cause the
7634 diversity and range of content available to explode, would not cause pain to
7635 the dinosaurs of old. There is no one, on either the right or the left, who
7636 should endorse this use of the law. And yet there is practically no one, on
7637 either the right or the left, who is doing anything effective to prevent it.
7638 </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>
7639 Overregulation stifles creativity. It smothers innovation. It gives
7640 dinosaurs a veto over the future. It wastes the extraordinary opportunity
7641 for a democratic creativity that digital technology enables.
7642 </p><p>
7643 In addition to these important harms, there is one more that was important
7644 to our forebears, but seems forgotten today. Overregulation corrupts
7645 citizens and weakens the rule of law.
7646 </p><p>
7647
7648 The war that is being waged today is a war of prohibition. As with every war
7649 of prohibition, it is targeted against the behavior of a very large number
7650 of citizens. According to <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, 43
7651 million Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<sup>[<a name="id3021801" href="#ftn.id3021801" class="footnote">171</a>]</sup> According to the RIAA, the behavior of those 43 million Americans
7652 is a felony. We thus have a set of rules that transform 20 percent of
7653 America into criminals. As the RIAA launches lawsuits against not only the
7654 Napsters and Kazaas of the world, but against students building search
7655 engines, and increasingly against ordinary users downloading content, the
7656 technologies for sharing will advance to further protect and hide illegal
7657 use. It is an arms race or a civil war, with the extremes of one side
7658 inviting a more extreme response by the other.
7659 </p><p>
7660 The content industry's tactics exploit the failings of the American legal
7661 system. When the RIAA brought suit against Jesse Jordan, it knew that in
7662 Jordan it had found a scapegoat, not a defendant. The threat of having to
7663 pay either all the money in the world in damages ($15,000,000) or almost all
7664 the money in the world to defend against paying all the money in the world
7665 in damages ($250,000 in legal fees)  led Jordan to choose to pay all the
7666 money he had in the world ($12,000) to make the suit go away. The same
7667 strategy animates the RIAA's suits against individual users. In September
7668 2003, the RIAA sued 261 individuals&#8212;including a twelve-year-old girl
7669 living in public housing and a seventy-year-old man who had no idea what
7670 file sharing was.<sup>[<a name="id3021439" href="#ftn.id3021439" class="footnote">172</a>]</sup> As these scapegoats
7671 discovered, it will always cost more to defend against these suits than it
7672 would cost to simply settle. (The twelve year old, for example, like Jesse
7673 Jordan, paid her life savings of $2,000 to settle the case.) Our law is an
7674 awful system for defending rights. It is an embarrassment to our
7675 tradition. And the consequence of our law as it is, is that those with the
7676 power can use the law to quash any rights they oppose.
7677 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3021871"></a><p>
7678 Wars of prohibition are nothing new in America. This one is just something
7679 more extreme than anything we've seen before. We experimented with alcohol
7680 prohibition, at a time when the per capita consumption of alcohol was 1.5
7681 gallons per capita per year. The war against drinking initially reduced that
7682 consumption to just 30 percent of its preprohibition levels, but by the end
7683 of prohibition, consumption was up to 70 percent of the preprohibition
7684 level. Americans were drinking just about as much, but now, a vast number
7685 were criminals.<sup>[<a name="id3021888" href="#ftn.id3021888" class="footnote">173</a>]</sup> We have launched a war
7686 on drugs aimed at reducing the consumption of regulated narcotics that 7
7687 percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.<sup>[<a name="id3021905" href="#ftn.id3021905" class="footnote">174</a>]</sup> That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in 1979 of 14 percent of
7688 the population. We regulate automobiles to the point where the vast majority
7689 of Americans violate the law every day. We run such a complex tax system
7690 that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.<sup>[<a name="id3021922" href="#ftn.id3021922" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free
7691 society,</span>»</span> but an endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated
7692 within our society. And as a result, a huge proportion of Americans
7693 regularly violate at least some law.
7694 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3021944"></a><p>
7695 This state of affairs is not without consequence. It is a particularly
7696 salient issue for teachers like me, whose job it is to teach law students
7697 about the importance of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ethics.</span>»</span> As my colleague Charlie
7698 Nesson told a class at Stanford, each year law schools admit thousands of
7699 students who have illegally downloaded music, illegally consumed alcohol and
7700 sometimes drugs, illegally worked without paying taxes, illegally driven
7701 cars. These are kids for whom behaving illegally is increasingly the
7702 norm. And then we, as law professors, are supposed to teach them how to
7703 behave ethically&#8212;how to say no to bribes, or keep client funds
7704 separate, or honor a demand to disclose a document that will mean that your
7705 case is over. Generations of Americans&#8212;more significantly in some
7706 parts of America than in others, but still, everywhere in America
7707 today&#8212;can't live their lives both normally and legally, since
7708 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">normally</span>»</span> entails a certain degree of illegality.
7709 </p><p>
7710 The response to this general illegality is either to enforce the law more
7711 severely or to change the law. We, as a society, have to learn how to make
7712 that choice more rationally. Whether a law makes sense depends, in part, at
7713 least, upon whether the costs of the law, both intended and collateral,
7714 outweigh the benefits. If the costs, intended and collateral, do outweigh
7715 the benefits, then the law ought to be changed.  Alternatively, if the costs
7716 of the existing system are much greater than the costs of an alternative,
7717 then we have a good reason to consider the alternative.
7718 </p><p>
7719
7720
7721
7722 My point is not the idiotic one: Just because people violate a law, we
7723 should therefore repeal it. Obviously, we could reduce murder statistics
7724 dramatically by legalizing murder on Wednesdays and Fridays. But that
7725 wouldn't make any sense, since murder is wrong every day of the week. A
7726 society is right to ban murder always and everywhere.
7727 </p><p>
7728 My point is instead one that democracies understood for generations, but
7729 that we recently have learned to forget. The rule of law depends upon people
7730 obeying the law. The more often, and more repeatedly, we as citizens
7731 experience violating the law, the less we respect the law. Obviously, in
7732 most cases, the important issue is the law, not respect for the law. I don't
7733 care whether the rapist respects the law or not; I want to catch and
7734 incarcerate the rapist. But I do care whether my students respect the
7735 law. And I do care if the rules of law sow increasing disrespect because of
7736 the extreme of regulation they impose.  Twenty million Americans have come
7737 of age since the Internet introduced this different idea of
7738 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sharing.</span>»</span> We need to be able to call these twenty million
7739 Americans <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">citizens,</span>»</span> not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">felons.</span>»</span>
7740 </p><p>
7741 When at least forty-three million citizens download content from the
7742 Internet, and when they use tools to combine that content in ways
7743 unauthorized by copyright holders, the first question we should be asking is
7744 not how best to involve the FBI. The first question should be whether this
7745 particular prohibition is really necessary in order to achieve the proper
7746 ends that copyright law serves. Is there another way to assure that artists
7747 get paid without transforming forty-three million Americans into felons?
7748 Does it make sense if there are other ways to assure that artists get paid
7749 without transforming America into a nation of felons?
7750 </p><p>
7751 This abstract point can be made more clear with a particular example.
7752 </p><p>
7753
7754 We all own CDs. Many of us still own phonograph records. These pieces of
7755 plastic encode music that in a certain sense we have bought.  The law
7756 protects our right to buy and sell that plastic: It is not a copyright
7757 infringement for me to sell all my classical records at a used record store
7758 and buy jazz records to replace them. That <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> of the
7759 recordings is free.
7760 </p><p>
7761 But as the MP3 craze has demonstrated, there is another use of phonograph
7762 records that is effectively free. Because these recordings were made without
7763 copy-protection technologies, I am <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> to copy, or
7764 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rip,</span>»</span> music from my records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed,
7765 Apple Corporation went so far as to suggest that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> was
7766 a right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rip, Mix,
7767 Burn</span>»</span> capacities of digital technologies.
7768 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3022083"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxcdsmix"></a><p>
7769 This <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a
7770 large process at home of ripping all of my and my wife's CDs, and storing
7771 them in one archive. Then, using Apple's iTunes, or a wonderful program
7772 called Andromeda, we can build different play lists of our music: Bach,
7773 Baroque, Love Songs, Love Songs of Significant Others&#8212;the potential is
7774 endless. And by reducing the costs of mixing play lists, these technologies
7775 help build a creativity with play lists that is itself independently
7776 valuable. Compilations of songs are creative and meaningful in their own
7777 right.
7778 </p><p>
7779 This use is enabled by unprotected media&#8212;either CDs or records.  But
7780 unprotected media also enable file sharing. File sharing threatens (or so
7781 the content industry believes) the ability of creators to earn a fair return
7782 from their creativity. And thus, many are beginning to experiment with
7783 technologies to eliminate unprotected media. These technologies, for
7784 example, would enable CDs that could not be ripped. Or they might enable spy
7785 programs to identify ripped content on people's machines.
7786 </p><p>
7787
7788 If these technologies took off, then the building of large archives of your
7789 own music would become quite difficult. You might hang in hacker circles,
7790 and get technology to disable the technologies that protect the
7791 content. Trading in those technologies is illegal, but maybe that doesn't
7792 bother you much. In any case, for the vast majority of people, these
7793 protection technologies would effectively destroy the archiving use of
7794 CDs. The technology, in other words, would force us all back to the world
7795 where we either listened to music by manipulating pieces of plastic or were
7796 part of a massively complex <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">digital rights management</span>»</span> system.
7797 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3022149"></a><p>
7798 If the only way to assure that artists get paid were the elimination of the
7799 ability to freely move content, then these technologies to interfere with
7800 the freedom to move content would be justifiable. But what if there were
7801 another way to assure that artists are paid, without locking down any
7802 content? What if, in other words, a different system could assure
7803 compensation to artists while also preserving the freedom to move content
7804 easily?
7805 </p><p>
7806 My point just now is not to prove that there is such a system. I offer a
7807 version of such a system in the last chapter of this book. For now, the only
7808 point is the relatively uncontroversial one: If a different system achieved
7809 the same legitimate objectives that the existing copyright system achieved,
7810 but left consumers and creators much more free, then we'd have a very good
7811 reason to pursue this alternative&#8212;namely, freedom.  The choice, in
7812 other words, would not be between property and piracy; the choice would be
7813 between different property systems and the freedoms each allowed.
7814 </p><p>
7815 I believe there is a way to assure that artists are paid without turning
7816 forty-three million Americans into felons. But the salient feature of this
7817 alternative is that it would lead to a very different market for producing
7818 and distributing creativity. The dominant few, who today control the vast
7819 majority of the distribution of content in the world, would no longer
7820 exercise this extreme of control. Rather, they would go the way of the
7821 horse-drawn buggy.
7822 </p><p>
7823 Except that this generation's buggy manufacturers have already saddled
7824 Congress, and are riding the law to protect themselves against this new form
7825 of competition. For them the choice is between fortythree million Americans
7826 as criminals and their own survival.
7827 </p><p>
7828
7829 It is understandable why they choose as they do. It is not understandable
7830 why we as a democracy continue to choose as we do. Jack Valenti is charming;
7831 but not so charming as to justify giving up a tradition as deep and
7832 important as our tradition of free culture.
7833 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3022210"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxisps"></a><p>
7834 <span class="strong"><strong>There's one more</strong></span> aspect to this
7835 corruption that is particularly important to civil liberties, and follows
7836 directly from any war of prohibition.  As Electronic Frontier Foundation
7837 attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">collateral
7838 damage</span>»</span> that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">arises whenever you turn a very large percentage
7839 of the population into criminals.</span>»</span> This is the collateral damage to
7840 civil liberties generally.
7841 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3022250"></a><p>
7842 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis du kan behandle noen som en antatt lovbryter</span>»</span>, forklarer
7843 von Lohmann,
7844 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7845 then all of a sudden a lot of basic civil liberty protections evaporate to
7846 one degree or another. &#8230; If you're a copyright infringer, how can you
7847 hope to have any privacy rights? If you're a copyright infringer, how can
7848 you hope to be secure against seizures of your computer? How can you hope to
7849 continue to receive Internet access? &#8230; Our sensibilities change as
7850 soon as we think, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh, well, but that person's a criminal, a
7851 lawbreaker.</span>»</span> Well, what this campaign against file sharing has done
7852 is turn a remarkable percentage of the American Internet-using population
7853 into <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawbreakers.</span>»</span>
7854 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7855 And the consequence of this transformation of the American public into
7856 criminals is that it becomes trivial, as a matter of due process, to
7857 effectively erase much of the privacy most would presume.
7858 </p><p>
7859 Users of the Internet began to see this generally in 2003 as the RIAA
7860 launched its campaign to force Internet service providers to turn over the
7861 names of customers who the RIAA believed were violating copyright
7862 law. Verizon fought that demand and lost. With a simple request to a judge,
7863 and without any notice to the customer at all, the identity of an Internet
7864 user is revealed.
7865 </p><p>
7866
7867 The RIAA then expanded this campaign, by announcing a general strategy to
7868 sue individual users of the Internet who are alleged to have downloaded
7869 copyrighted music from file-sharing systems. But as we've seen, the
7870 potential damages from these suits are astronomical: If a family's computer
7871 is used to download a single CD's worth of music, the family could be liable
7872 for $2 million in damages. That didn't stop the RIAA from suing a number of
7873 these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.<sup>[<a name="id3022314" href="#ftn.id3022314" class="footnote">176</a>]</sup>
7874
7875 </p><p>
7876 Even this understates the espionage that is being waged by the RIAA. A
7877 report from CNN late last summer described a strategy the RIAA had adopted
7878 to track Napster users.<sup>[<a name="id3022370" href="#ftn.id3022370" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> Using a
7879 sophisticated hashing algorithm, the RIAA took what is in effect a
7880 fingerprint of every song in the Napster catalog. Any copy of one of those
7881 MP3s will have the same <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fingerprint.</span>»</span>
7882 </p><p>
7883 So imagine the following not-implausible scenario: Imagine a friend gives a
7884 CD to your daughter&#8212;a collection of songs just like the cassettes you
7885 used to make as a kid. You don't know, and neither does your daughter, where
7886 these songs came from. But she copies these songs onto her computer. She
7887 then takes her computer to college and connects it to a college network, and
7888 if the college network is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cooperating</span>»</span> with the RIAA's
7889 espionage, and she hasn't properly protected her content from the network
7890 (do you know how to do that yourself ?), then the RIAA will be able to
7891 identify your daughter as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminal.</span>»</span> And under the rules
7892 that universities are beginning to deploy,<sup>[<a name="id3022414" href="#ftn.id3022414" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer
7893 network.  She can, in some cases, be expelled.
7894 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3022487"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3022495"></a><p>
7895
7896 Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire a
7897 lawyer for her (at $300 per hour, if you're lucky), and she can plead that
7898 she didn't know anything about the source of the songs or that they came
7899 from Napster. And it may well be that the university believes her. But the
7900 university might not believe her. It might treat this
7901 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">contraband</span>»</span> as presumptive of guilt. And as any number of
7902 college students have already learned, our presumptions about innocence
7903 disappear in the middle of wars of prohibition. This war is no different.
7904 Says von Lohmann,
7905 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7906 So when we're talking about numbers like forty to sixty million Americans
7907 that are essentially copyright infringers, you create a situation where the
7908 civil liberties of those people are very much in peril in a general
7909 matter. [I don't] think [there is any] analog where you could randomly
7910 choose any person off the street and be confident that they were committing
7911 an unlawful act that could put them on the hook for potential felony
7912 liability or hundreds of millions of dollars of civil liability. Certainly
7913 we all speed, but speeding isn't the kind of an act for which we routinely
7914 forfeit civil liberties. Some people use drugs, and I think that's the
7915 closest analog, [but] many have noted that the war against drugs has eroded
7916 all of our civil liberties because it's treated so many Americans as
7917 criminals. Well, I think it's fair to say that file sharing is an order of
7918 magnitude larger number of Americans than drug use. &#8230; If forty to
7919 sixty million Americans have become lawbreakers, then we're really on a
7920 slippery slope to lose a lot of civil liberties for all forty to sixty
7921 million of them.
7922 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7923 When forty to sixty million Americans are considered
7924 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminals</span>»</span> under the law, and when the law could achieve the
7925 same objective&#8212; securing rights to authors&#8212;without these
7926 millions being considered <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminals,</span>»</span> who is the villain?
7927 Americans or the law? Which is American, a constant war on our own people or
7928 a concerted effort through our democracy to change our law?
7929 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3020155" href="#id3020155" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
7930
7931 Se Lynne W. Jeter, <em class="citetitle">Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at
7932 WorldCom</em> (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley &amp; Sons, 2003), 176, 204;
7933 for detaljer om dette forliket, se pressemelding fra MCI, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">MCI Wins
7934 U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement</span>»</span> (7. juli 2003),
7935 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7936 #37</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3020180"></a>
7937 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3020193" href="#id3020193" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
7938  The bill, modeled after California's tort reform model, was passed in the
7939 House of Representatives but defeated in a Senate vote in July 2003. For an
7940 overview, see Tanya Albert, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be
7941 Back,' Say Tort Reformers,</span>»</span> amednews.com, 28 July 2003, available at
7942 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #38</a>, and
7943 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Senate Turns Back Malpractice Caps,</span>»</span> CBSNews.com, 9 July 2003,
7944 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7945 #39</a>. President Bush has continued to urge tort reform in recent
7946 months.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3020224"></a>
7947 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3020256" href="#id3020256" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
7948
7949
7950
7951 Se Danit Lidor, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Artists Just Wanna Be Free</span>»</span>,
7952 <em class="citetitle">Wired</em>, 7. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #40</a>. For en oversikt over
7953 utstillingen, se <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7954 #41</a>.
7955 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3020739" href="#id3020739" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
7956
7957
7958 See Joseph Menn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,</span>»</span>
7959 <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 23 April 2003. For a parallel
7960 argument about the effects on innovation in the distribution of music, see
7961 Janelle Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Music Revolution Will Not Be Digitized,</span>»</span>
7962 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,
7963 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Online Music Services Besieged,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
7964 Times</em>, 28 May 2001.
7965 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3020430" href="#id3020430" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
7966
7967 Rafe Needleman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Driving in Cars with MP3s</span>»</span>,
7968 <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>, 16. juni 2003, tilgjengelig via <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #43</a>. Jeg er Dr. Mohammad
7969 Al-Ubaydli takknemlig mot for dette eksemplet.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3020831"></a>
7970 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3020973" href="#id3020973" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
7971
7972 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span>
7973 GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law
7974 School (2003), 33&#8211;35, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.
7975 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3021002" href="#id3021002" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
7976
7977
7978 GartnerG2, 26&#8211;27.
7979 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3021032" href="#id3021032" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
7980
7981
7982 See David McGuire, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy,</span>»</span>
7983 Newsbytes, February 2002 (Entertainment).
7984 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3021093" href="#id3021093" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
7985
7986 Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
7987 Prometheus Books, 2001).  <a class="indexterm" name="id3021100"></a>
7988 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3021129" href="#id3021129" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
7989
7990 <a class="indexterm" name="id3021132"></a> The only circuit court exception is
7991 found in <em class="citetitle">Recording Industry Association of America
7992 (RIAA)</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Diamond Multimedia Systems</em>, 180
7993 F. 3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999). There the court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit
7994 reasoned that makers of a portable MP3 player were not liable for
7995 contributory copyright infringement for a device that is unable to record or
7996 redistribute music (a device whose only copying function is to render
7997 portable a music file already stored on a user's hard drive).  At the
7998 district court level, the only exception is found in
7999 <em class="citetitle">Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,
8000 Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Grokster, Ltd</em>., 259 F. Supp. 2d
8001 1029 (C.D.  Cal., 2003), where the court found the link between the
8002 distributor and any given user's conduct too attenuated to make the
8003 distributor liable for contributory or vicarious infringement liability.
8004 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3021170" href="#id3021170" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
8005
8006 <a class="indexterm" name="id3021173"></a> For example, in July 2002,
8007 Representative Howard Berman introduced the Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention
8008 Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize copyright holders from liability for
8009 damage done to computers when the copyright holders use technology to stop
8010 copyright infringement. In August 2002, Representative Billy Tauzin
8011 introduced a bill to mandate that technologies capable of rebroadcasting
8012 digital copies of films broadcast on TV (i.e., computers) respect a
8013 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>»</span> that would disable copying of that
8014 content. And in March of the same year, Senator Fritz Hollings introduced
8015 the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, which mandated
8016 copyright protection technology in all digital media devices. See GartnerG2,
8017 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span> 27 June
8018 2003, 33&#8211;34, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3021208"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3021215"></a>
8019 <a class="indexterm" name="id3021221"></a>
8020 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3020812" href="#id3020812" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
8021
8022
8023 Lessing, 239.
8024 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3021381" href="#id3021381" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
8025
8026
8027 Ibid., 229.
8028 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3021449" href="#id3021449" class="para">170</a>] </sup>
8029
8030 This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright Arbitration
8031 Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an example offered by
8032 Professor William Fisher. Conference Proceedings, iLaw (Stanford), 3 July
8033 2003, on file with author. Professors Fisher and Zittrain submitted
8034 testimony in the CARP proceeding that was ultimately rejected.  See Jonathan
8035 Zittrain, Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral
8036 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
8037 analysis making a similar point, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright as
8038 Entry Policy: The Case of Digital Distribution,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Antitrust
8039 Bulletin</em> (Summer/Fall 2002): 461: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This was not confusion,
8040 these are just old-fashioned entry barriers. Analog radio stations are
8041 protected from digital entrants, reducing entry in radio and diversity. Yes,
8042 this is done in the name of getting royalties to copyright holders, but,
8043 absent the play of powerful interests, that could have been done in a
8044 media-neutral way.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id3021486"></a>
8045 <a class="indexterm" name="id3021495"></a>
8046 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3021801" href="#id3021801" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
8047
8048 Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Music Downloading Deluge,</span>»</span>
8049 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
8050 American Life Project reported that 37 million Americans had downloaded
8051 music files from the Internet by early 2001.
8052 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3021439" href="#id3021439" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
8053
8054
8055 Alex Pham, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA
8056 Case,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 10 September 2003,
8057 Business.
8058 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3021888" href="#id3021888" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
8059
8060
8061 Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alcohol Consumption During
8062 Prohibition,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81,
8063 no. 2 (1991): 242.
8064 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3021905" href="#id3021905" class="para">174</a>] </sup>
8065
8066
8067 National Drug Control Policy: Hearing Before the House Government Reform
8068 Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (5 March 2003) (statement of John
8069 P. Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy).
8070 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3021922" href="#id3021922" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
8071
8072
8073 See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tax
8074 Compliance,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature</em> 36
8075 (1998): 818 (survey of compliance literature).
8076 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3022314" href="#id3022314" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
8077
8078
8079 See Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single
8080 Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>»</span>
8081 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10 September 2003, E1; Chris Cobbs,
8082 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Worried Parents Pull Plug on File `Stealing'; With the Music Industry
8083 Cracking Down on File Swapping, Parents are Yanking Software from Home PCs
8084 to Avoid Being Sued,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel
8085 Tribune</em>, 30 August 2003, C1; Jefferson Graham, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recording
8086 Industry Sues Parents,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 15
8087 September 2003, 4D; John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">She Says She's No Music Pirate. No
8088 Snoop Fan, Either,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 25
8089 September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is Brianna a Criminal?</span>»</span>
8090 <em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
8091 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3022370" href="#id3022370" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
8092
8093
8094 Se Nick Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
8095 Age</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #49</a>.
8096 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3022414" href="#id3022414" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
8097
8098
8099 See Jeff Adler, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not
8100 Penitent,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 18 May 2003, City
8101 Weekly, 1; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Four Students Sued over Music Sites;
8102 Industry Group Targets File Sharing at Colleges,</span>»</span>
8103 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 4 April 2003, E1; Elizabeth
8104 Armstrong, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Students `Rip, Mix, Burn' at Their Own Risk,</span>»</span>
8105 <em class="citetitle">Christian Science Monitor</em>, 2 September 2003, 20;
8106 Robert Becker and Angela Rozas, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Pirate Hunt Turns to Loyola;
8107 Two Students Names Are Handed Over; Lawsuit Possible,</span>»</span>
8108 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 16 July 2003, 1C; Beth Cox,
8109 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Trains Antipiracy Guns on Universities,</span>»</span>
8110 <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,
8111 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Download Warning 101: Freshman Orientation This Fall to Include
8112 Record Industry Warnings Against File Sharing,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San
8113 Francisco Chronicle</em>, 11 August 2003, E11; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Raid, Letters
8114 Are Weapons at Universities,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 26
8115 September 2000, 3D.
8116 </p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Part IV. Maktfordeling"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-balances"></a>Part IV. Maktfordeling</h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="Maktfordeling"><div></div><p>
8117 <span class="strong"><strong>Så her</strong></span> er bildet: Du står på siden av
8118 veien. Bilen din er på brann. Du er sint og opprørt fordi du delvis bidro
8119 til å starte brannen. Nå vet du ikke hvordan du slokker den.  Ved siden av
8120 deg er en bøtte, fylt med bensin. Bensin vil åpenbart ikke slukke brannen.
8121 </p><p>
8122 Mens du tenker over situasjonen, kommer noen andre forbi.  I panikk griper
8123 hun bøtta, og før du har hatt sjansen til å be henne stoppe&#8212;eller før
8124 hun forstår hvorfor hun bør stoppe&#8212;er bøtten i svevet.  Bensinen er på
8125 tur mot den brennende bilen.  Og brannen som bensinen kommer til å fyre opp
8126 vil straks sette fyr på alt i omgivelsene.
8127 </p><p>
8128 <span class="strong"><strong>En krig</strong></span> om opphavsrett pågår over
8129 alt&#8212; og vi fokuserer alle på feil ting.  Det er ingen tvil om at
8130 dagens teknologier truer eksisterende virksomheter.  Uten tvil kan de true
8131 artister.  Men teknologier endrer seg.  Industrien og teknologer har en
8132 rekke måter å bruke teknologi til å beskytte dem selv mot dagens trusler på
8133 Internet.  Dette er en brann som overlatt til seg selv vil brenne ut.
8134 </p><p>
8135
8136
8137 Likevel er ikke besluttningstagere villig til å la denne brannen i fred.
8138 Ladet med masse penger fra lobbyister er de lystne på å gå i mellom for å
8139 fjerne problemet slik de oppfatter det.  Men problemet slik de oppfatter det
8140 er ikke den reelle trusselen som denne kulturen står med ansiktet mot.  For
8141 mens vi ser på denne lille brannen i hjørnet er det en massiv endring i
8142 hvordan kultur blir skapt som pågår over alt.
8143 </p><p>
8144 På en eller annen måte må vi klare å snu oppmerksomheten mot dette mer
8145 viktige og fundametale problemet.  Vi må finne en måte å unngå å helle
8146 bensin på denne brannen.
8147 </p><p>
8148 Vi har ikke funne denne måten ennå.  Istedet synes vi å være fanget i en
8149 enklere og sort-hvit tenkning.  Uansett hvor mange folk som presser på for å
8150 gjøre rammen for debatten litt bredere, er det dette enkle sort-hvit-synet
8151 som består.  Vi kjører sakte forbi og stirrer på brannen når vi i stedet
8152 burde holde øynene på veien.
8153 </p><p>
8154 Denne utfordringen har vært livet mitt de siste årene.  Det har også vært
8155 min falitt.  I de to neste kapittlene, beskriver jeg en liten innsats, så
8156 langt uten suksess, på å finne en måte å endre fokus på denne debatten.  Vi
8157 må forstå disse mislyktede forsøkene hvis vi skal forstå hva som kreves for
8158 å lykkes.
8159 </p></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred"></a>Chapter 13. Kapittel tretten: Eldred</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxhawthornenathaniel"></a><p>
8160 <span class="strong"><strong>In 1995</strong></span>, a father was frustrated that his
8161 daughters didn't seem to like Hawthorne. No doubt there was more than one
8162 such father, but at least one did something about it. Eric Eldred, a retired
8163 computer programmer living in New Hampshire, decided to put Hawthorne on the
8164 Web. An electronic version, Eldred thought, with links to pictures and
8165 explanatory text, would make this nineteenth-century author's work come
8166 alive.
8167 </p><p>
8168 It didn't work&#8212;at least for his daughters. They didn't find Hawthorne
8169 any more interesting than before. But Eldred's experiment gave birth to a
8170 hobby, and his hobby begat a cause: Eldred would build a library of public
8171 domain works by scanning these works and making them available for free.
8172 </p><p>
8173
8174 Eldred's library was not simply a copy of certain public domain works,
8175 though even a copy would have been of great value to people across the world
8176 who can't get access to printed versions of these works. Instead, Eldred was
8177 producing derivative works from these public domain works. Just as Disney
8178 turned Grimm into stories more accessible to the twentieth century, Eldred
8179 transformed Hawthorne, and many others, into a form more
8180 accessible&#8212;technically accessible&#8212;today.
8181 </p><p>
8182 Eldred's freedom to do this with Hawthorne's work grew from the same source
8183 as Disney's. Hawthorne's <em class="citetitle">Scarlet Letter</em> had passed
8184 into the public domain in 1907. It was free for anyone to take without the
8185 permission of the Hawthorne estate or anyone else. Some, such as Dover Press
8186 and Penguin Classics, take works from the public domain and produce printed
8187 editions, which they sell in bookstores across the country. Others, such as
8188 Disney, take these stories and turn them into animated cartoons, sometimes
8189 successfully (<em class="citetitle">Cinderella</em>), sometimes not
8190 (<em class="citetitle">The Hunchback of Notre Dame</em>, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
8191 Planet</em>). These are all commercial publications of public domain
8192 works.
8193 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3022774"></a><p>
8194 The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of public
8195 domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally thousands of
8196 others. Hundreds of thousands from across the world have discovered this
8197 platform of expression and now use it to share works that are, by law, free
8198 for the taking. This has produced what we might call the
8199 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">noncommercial publishing industry,</span>»</span> which before the Internet
8200 was limited to people with large egos or with political or social
8201 causes. But with the Internet, it includes a wide range of individuals and
8202 groups dedicated to spreading culture generally.<sup>[<a name="id3022797" href="#ftn.id3022797" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
8203 </p><p>
8204 As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In 1998, Robert Frost's collection
8205 of poems <em class="citetitle">New Hampshire</em> was slated to pass into the
8206 public domain. Eldred wanted to post that collection in his free public
8207 library.  But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, in 1998, for the
8208 eleventh time in forty years, Congress extended the terms of existing
8209 copyrights&#8212;this time by twenty years. Eldred would not be free to add
8210 any works more recent than 1923 to his collection until 2019.  Indeed, no
8211 copyrighted work would pass into the public domain until that year (and not
8212 even then, if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, in the same
8213 period, more than 1 million patents will pass into the public domain.
8214 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3022852"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3022868"></a><p>
8215
8216
8217 This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), enacted in
8218 memory of the congressman and former musician Sonny Bono, who, his widow,
8219 Mary Bono, says, believed that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrights should be
8220 forever.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3022882" href="#ftn.id3022882" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
8221
8222 </p><p>
8223 Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
8224 civil disobedience. In a series of interviews, Eldred announced that he
8225 would publish as planned, CTEA notwithstanding. But because of a second law
8226 passed in 1998, the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act, his act of publishing
8227 would make Eldred a felon&#8212;whether or not anyone complained. This was a
8228 dangerous strategy for a disabled programmer to undertake.
8229 </p><p>
8230 It was here that I became involved in Eldred's battle. I was a
8231 constitutional scholar whose first passion was constitutional
8232 interpretation.  And though constitutional law courses never focus upon the
8233 Progress Clause of the Constitution, it had always struck me as importantly
8234 different. As you know, the Constitution says,
8235 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
8236 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science &#8230; by
8237 securing for limited Times to Authors &#8230; exclusive Right to their
8238 &#8230; Writings. &#8230;
8239 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8240 As I've described, this clause is unique within the power-granting clause of
8241 Article I, section 8 of our Constitution. Every other clause granting power
8242 to Congress simply says Congress has the power to do something&#8212;for
8243 example, to regulate <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>»</span> or
8244 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">declare War.</span>»</span> But here, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">something</span>»</span> is
8245 something quite specific&#8212;to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">promote &#8230;
8246 Progress</span>»</span>&#8212;through means that are also specific&#8212; by
8247 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">securing</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive Rights</span>»</span> (i.e., copyrights)
8248 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for limited Times.</span>»</span>
8249 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3022976"></a><p>
8250
8251 In the past forty years, Congress has gotten into the practice of extending
8252 existing terms of copyright protection. What puzzled me about this was, if
8253 Congress has the power to extend existing terms, then the Constitution's
8254 requirement that terms be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited</span>»</span> will have no practical
8255 effect. If every time a copyright is about to expire, Congress has the power
8256 to extend its term, then Congress can achieve what the Constitution plainly
8257 forbids&#8212;perpetual terms <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">on the installment plan,</span>»</span> as
8258 Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it.
8259 </p><p>
8260 As an academic, my first response was to hit the books. I remember sitting
8261 late at the office, scouring on-line databases for any serious consideration
8262 of the question. No one had ever challenged Congress's practice of extending
8263 existing terms. That failure may in part be why Congress seemed so
8264 untroubled in its habit. That, and the fact that the practice had become so
8265 lucrative for Congress. Congress knows that copyright owners will be willing
8266 to pay a great deal of money to see their copyright terms extended. And so
8267 Congress is quite happy to keep this gravy train going.
8268 </p><p>
8269 For this is the core of the corruption in our present system of
8270 government. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Corruption</span>»</span> not in the sense that representatives
8271 are bribed.  Rather, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">corruption</span>»</span> in the sense that the system
8272 induces the beneficiaries of Congress's acts to raise and give money to
8273 Congress to induce it to act. There's only so much time; there's only so
8274 much Congress can do. Why not limit its actions to those things it must
8275 do&#8212;and those things that pay? Extending copyright terms pays.
8276 </p><p>
8277 If that's not obvious to you, consider the following: Say you're one of the
8278 very few lucky copyright owners whose copyright continues to make money one
8279 hundred years after it was created. The Estate of Robert Frost is a good
8280 example. Frost died in 1963. His poetry continues to be extraordinarily
8281 valuable. Thus the Robert Frost estate benefits greatly from any extension
8282 of copyright, since no publisher would pay the estate any money if the poems
8283 Frost wrote could be published by anyone for free.
8284 </p><p>
8285 So imagine the Robert Frost estate is earning $100,000 a year from three of
8286 Frost's poems. And imagine the copyright for those poems is about to
8287 expire. You sit on the board of the Robert Frost estate.  Your financial
8288 adviser comes to your board meeting with a very grim report:
8289 </p><p>
8290
8291 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Next year,</span>»</span> the adviser announces, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">our copyrights in
8292 works A, B, and C will expire. That means that after next year, we will no
8293 longer be receiving the annual royalty check of $100,000 from the publishers
8294 of those works.</span>»</span>
8295 </p><p>
8296 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">There's a proposal in Congress, however,</span>»</span> she continues,
8297 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">that could change this. A few congressmen are floating a bill to
8298 extend the terms of copyright by twenty years. That bill would be
8299 extraordinarily valuable to us. So we should hope this bill passes.</span>»</span>
8300 </p><p>
8301 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hope?</span>»</span> a fellow board member says. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Can't we be doing
8302 something about it?</span>»</span>
8303 </p><p>
8304 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, obviously, yes,</span>»</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We could
8305 contribute to the campaigns of a number of representatives to try to assure
8306 that they support the bill.</span>»</span>
8307 </p><p>
8308 You hate politics. You hate contributing to campaigns. So you want to know
8309 whether this disgusting practice is worth it. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much would we get
8310 if this extension were passed?</span>»</span> you ask the adviser. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much
8311 is it worth?</span>»</span>
8312 </p><p>
8313 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well,</span>»</span> the adviser says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">if you're confident that you
8314 will continue to get at least $100,000 a year from these copyrights, and you
8315 use the `discount rate' that we use to evaluate estate investments (6
8316 percent), then this law would be worth $1,146,000 to the estate.</span>»</span>
8317 </p><p>
8318 You're a bit shocked by the number, but you quickly come to the correct
8319 conclusion:
8320 </p><p>
8321 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">So you're saying it would be worth it for us to pay more than
8322 $1,000,000 in campaign contributions if we were confident those
8323 contributions would assure that the bill was passed?</span>»</span>
8324 </p><p>
8325 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Absolutely,</span>»</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">It is worth it to
8326 you to contribute up to the `present value' of the income you expect from
8327 these copyrights. Which for us means over $1,000,000.</span>»</span>
8328 </p><p>
8329
8330 You quickly get the point&#8212;you as the member of the board and, I trust,
8331 you the reader. Each time copyrights are about to expire, every beneficiary
8332 in the position of the Robert Frost estate faces the same choice: If they
8333 can contribute to get a law passed to extend copyrights, they will benefit
8334 greatly from that extension. And so each time copyrights are about to
8335 expire, there is a massive amount of lobbying to get the copyright term
8336 extended.
8337 </p><p>
8338 Thus a congressional perpetual motion machine: So long as legislation can be
8339 bought (albeit indirectly), there will be all the incentive in the world to
8340 buy further extensions of copyright.
8341 </p><p>
8342 In the lobbying that led to the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term
8343 Extension Act, this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theory</span>»</span> about incentives was proved
8344 real. Ten of the thirteen original sponsors of the act in the House received
8345 the maximum contribution from Disney's political action committee; in the
8346 Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received contributions.<sup>[<a name="id3023188" href="#ftn.id3023188" class="footnote">181</a>]</sup> The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent
8347 over $1.5 million lobbying in the 1998 election cycle. They paid out more
8348 than $200,000 in campaign contributions.<sup>[<a name="id3023206" href="#ftn.id3023206" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to
8349 reelection campaigns in the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id3023224" href="#ftn.id3023224" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
8350
8351 </p><p>
8352 <span class="strong"><strong>Constitutional law</strong></span> is not oblivious to
8353 the obvious. Or at least, it need not be. So when I was considering Eldred's
8354 complaint, this reality about the never-ending incentives to increase the
8355 copyright term was central to my thinking. In my view, a pragmatic court
8356 committed to interpreting and applying the Constitution of our framers would
8357 see that if Congress has the power to extend existing terms, then there
8358 would be no effective constitutional requirement that terms be
8359 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> If they could extend it once, they would extend it
8360 again and again and again.
8361 </p><p>
8362
8363 It was also my judgment that <span class="emphasis"><em>this</em></span> Supreme Court would
8364 not allow Congress to extend existing terms. As anyone close to the Supreme
8365 Court's work knows, this Court has increasingly restricted the power of
8366 Congress when it has viewed Congress's actions as exceeding the power
8367 granted to it by the Constitution. Among constitutional scholars, the most
8368 famous example of this trend was the Supreme Court's decision in 1995 to
8369 strike down a law that banned the possession of guns near schools.
8370 </p><p>
8371 Since 1937, the Supreme Court had interpreted Congress's granted powers very
8372 broadly; so, while the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate
8373 only <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>»</span> (aka <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">interstate
8374 commerce</span>»</span>), the Supreme Court had interpreted that power to include
8375 the power to regulate any activity that merely affected interstate commerce.
8376 </p><p>
8377 As the economy grew, this standard increasingly meant that there was no
8378 limit to Congress's power to regulate, since just about every activity, when
8379 considered on a national scale, affects interstate commerce.  A Constitution
8380 designed to limit Congress's power was instead interpreted to impose no
8381 limit.
8382 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3023312"></a><p>
8383 The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed that in
8384 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The
8385 government had argued that possessing guns near schools affected interstate
8386 commerce. Guns near schools increase crime, crime lowers property values,
8387 and so on. In the oral argument, the Chief Justice asked the government
8388 whether there was any activity that would not affect interstate commerce
8389 under the reasoning the government advanced. The government said there was
8390 not; if Congress says an activity affects interstate commerce, then that
8391 activity affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court, the government
8392 said, was not in the position to second-guess Congress.
8393 </p><p>
8394 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We pause to consider the implications of the government's
8395 arguments,</span>»</span> the Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id3023346" href="#ftn.id3023346" class="footnote">184</a>]</sup> If anything Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be
8396 considered interstate commerce, then there would be no limit to Congress's
8397 power. The decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> was reaffirmed five
8398 years later in <em class="citetitle">United States</em>
8399 v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<sup>[<a name="id3023373" href="#ftn.id3023373" class="footnote">185</a>]</sup>
8400 </p><p>
8401
8402 If a principle were at work here, then it should apply to the Progress
8403 Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<sup>[<a name="id3023393" href="#ftn.id3023393" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
8404 And if it is applied to the Progress Clause, the principle should yield the
8405 conclusion that Congress can't extend an existing term. If Congress could
8406 extend an existing term, then there would be no <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stopping
8407 point</span>»</span> to Congress's power over terms, though the Constitution
8408 expressly states that there is such a limit. Thus, the same principle
8409 applied to the power to grant copyrights should entail that Congress is not
8410 allowed to extend the term of existing copyrights.
8411 </p><p>
8412 <span class="emphasis"><em>If</em></span>, that is, the principle announced in
8413 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for a principle.  Many believed the
8414 decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for politics&#8212;a
8415 conservative Supreme Court, which believed in states' rights, using its
8416 power over Congress to advance its own personal political preferences. But I
8417 rejected that view of the Supreme Court's decision. Indeed, shortly after
8418 the decision, I wrote an article demonstrating the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fidelity</span>»</span>
8419 in such an interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that the Supreme
8420 Court decides cases based upon its politics struck me as extraordinarily
8421 boring.  I was not going to devote my life to teaching constitutional law if
8422 these nine Justices were going to be petty politicians.
8423 </p><p>
8424 <span class="strong"><strong>Now let's pause</strong></span> for a moment to make sure
8425 we understand what the argument in <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was not
8426 about. By insisting on the Constitution's limits to copyright, obviously
8427 Eldred was not endorsing piracy.  Indeed, in an obvious sense, he was
8428 fighting a kind of piracy&#8212;piracy of the public domain. When Robert
8429 Frost wrote his work and when Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse, the maximum
8430 copyright term was just fifty-six years. Because of interim changes, Frost
8431 and Disney had already enjoyed a seventy-five-year monopoly for their
8432 work. They had gotten the benefit of the bargain that the Constitution
8433 envisions: In exchange for a monopoly protected for fifty-six years, they
8434 created new work. But now these entities were using their
8435 power&#8212;expressed through the power of lobbyists' money&#8212;to get
8436 another twenty-year dollop of monopoly. That twenty-year dollop would be
8437 taken from the public domain. Eric Eldred was fighting a piracy that affects
8438 us all.
8439 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3023464"></a><p>
8440 Some people view the public domain with contempt. In their brief before the
8441 Supreme Court, the Nashville Songwriters Association wrote that the public
8442 domain is nothing more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3023494" href="#ftn.id3023494" class="footnote">187</a>]</sup> But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in
8443 our constitutional system, our law requires it. Some may not like the
8444 Constitution's requirements, but that doesn't make the Constitution a
8445 pirate's charter.
8446 </p><p>
8447 As we've seen, our constitutional system requires limits on copyright as a
8448 way to assure that copyright holders do not too heavily influence the
8449 development and distribution of our culture. Yet, as Eric Eldred discovered,
8450 we have set up a system that assures that copyright terms will be repeatedly
8451 extended, and extended, and extended. We have created the perfect storm for
8452 the public domain. Copyrights have not expired, and will not expire, so long
8453 as Congress is free to be bought to extend them again.
8454 </p><p>
8455 <span class="strong"><strong>It is valuable</strong></span> copyrights that are
8456 responsible for terms being extended.  Mickey Mouse and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rhapsody in
8457 Blue.</span>»</span> These works are too valuable for copyright owners to
8458 ignore. But the real harm to our society from copyright extensions is not
8459 that Mickey Mouse remains Disney's.  Forget Mickey Mouse. Forget Robert
8460 Frost. Forget all the works from the 1920s and 1930s that have continuing
8461 commercial value. The real harm of term extension comes not from these
8462 famous works. The real harm is to the works that are not famous, not
8463 commercially exploited, and no longer available as a result.
8464 </p><p>
8465 If you look at the work created in the first twenty years (1923 to 1942)
8466 affected by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 2 percent of that
8467 work has any continuing commercial value. It was the copyright holders for
8468 that 2 percent who pushed the CTEA through.  But the law and its effect were
8469 not limited to that 2 percent. The law extended the terms of copyright
8470 generally.<sup>[<a name="id3023563" href="#ftn.id3023563" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
8471
8472 </p><p>
8473
8474 Think practically about the consequence of this extension&#8212;practically,
8475 as a businessperson, and not as a lawyer eager for more legal work. In 1930,
8476 10,047 books were published. In 2000, 174 of those books were still in
8477 print. Let's say you were Brewster Kahle, and you wanted to make available
8478 to the world in your iArchive project the remaining 9,873. What would you
8479 have to do?
8480 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3023590"></a><p>
8481 Well, first, you'd have to determine which of the 9,873 books were still
8482 under copyright. That requires going to a library (these data are not
8483 on-line) and paging through tomes of books, cross-checking the titles and
8484 authors of the 9,873 books with the copyright registration and renewal
8485 records for works published in 1930. That will produce a list of books still
8486 under copyright.
8487 </p><p>
8488 Then for the books still under copyright, you would need to locate the
8489 current copyright owners. How would you do that?
8490 </p><p>
8491 Most people think that there must be a list of these copyright owners
8492 somewhere. Practical people think this way. How could there be thousands and
8493 thousands of government monopolies without there being at least a list?
8494 </p><p>
8495 But there is no list. There may be a name from 1930, and then in 1959, of
8496 the person who registered the copyright. But just think practically about
8497 how impossibly difficult it would be to track down thousands of such
8498 records&#8212;especially since the person who registered is not necessarily
8499 the current owner. And we're just talking about 1930!
8500 </p><p>
8501 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But there isn't a list of who owns property generally,</span>»</span> the
8502 apologists for the system respond. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Why should there be a list of
8503 copyright owners?</span>»</span>
8504 </p><p>
8505 Well, actually, if you think about it, there <span class="emphasis"><em>are</em></span> plenty
8506 of lists of who owns what property. Think about deeds on houses, or titles
8507 to cars.  And where there isn't a list, the code of real space is pretty
8508 good at suggesting who the owner of a bit of property is. (A swing set in
8509 your backyard is probably yours.) So formally or informally, we have a
8510 pretty good way to know who owns what tangible property.
8511 </p><p>
8512
8513 So: You walk down a street and see a house. You can know who owns the house
8514 by looking it up in the courthouse registry. If you see a car, there is
8515 ordinarily a license plate that will link the owner to the car. If you see a
8516 bunch of children's toys sitting on the front lawn of a house, it's fairly
8517 easy to determine who owns the toys. And if you happen to see a baseball
8518 lying in a gutter on the side of the road, look around for a second for some
8519 kids playing ball. If you don't see any kids, then okay: Here's a bit of
8520 property whose owner we can't easily determine. It is the exception that
8521 proves the rule: that we ordinarily know quite well who owns what property.
8522 </p><p>
8523 Compare this story to intangible property. You go into a library.  The
8524 library owns the books. But who owns the copyrights? As I've already
8525 described, there's no list of copyright owners. There are authors' names, of
8526 course, but their copyrights could have been assigned, or passed down in an
8527 estate like Grandma's old jewelry. To know who owns what, you would have to
8528 hire a private detective. The bottom line: The owner cannot easily be
8529 located. And in a regime like ours, in which it is a felony to use such
8530 property without the property owner's permission, the property isn't going
8531 to be used.
8532 </p><p>
8533 The consequence with respect to old books is that they won't be digitized,
8534 and hence will simply rot away on shelves. But the consequence for other
8535 creative works is much more dire.
8536 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3023709"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3023715"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3023721"></a><p>
8537 Consider the story of Michael Agee, chairman of Hal Roach Studios, which
8538 owns the copyrights for the Laurel and Hardy films. Agee is a direct
8539 beneficiary of the Bono Act. The Laurel and Hardy films were made between
8540 1921 and 1951. Only one of these films, <em class="citetitle">The Lucky
8541 Dog</em>, is currently out of copyright. But for the CTEA, films made
8542 after 1923 would have begun entering the public domain. Because Agee
8543 controls the exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal
8544 of money. According to one estimate, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Roach has sold about 60,000
8545 videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent
8546 films.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3023745" href="#ftn.id3023745" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup>
8547 </p><p>
8548 Yet Agee opposed the CTEA. His reasons demonstrate a rare virtue in this
8549 culture: selflessness. He argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that
8550 the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act will, if left standing, destroy
8551 a whole generation of American film.
8552 </p><p>
8553
8554 His argument is straightforward. A tiny fraction of this work has any
8555 continuing commercial value. The rest&#8212;to the extent it survives at
8556 all&#8212;sits in vaults gathering dust. It may be that some of this work
8557 not now commercially valuable will be deemed to be valuable by the owners of
8558 the vaults. For this to occur, however, the commercial benefit from the work
8559 must exceed the costs of making the work available for distribution.
8560 </p><p>
8561 We can't know the benefits, but we do know a lot about the costs.  For most
8562 of the history of film, the costs of restoring film were very high; digital
8563 technology has lowered these costs substantially. While it cost more than
8564 $10,000 to restore a ninety-minute black-and-white film in 1993, it can now
8565 cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.<sup>[<a name="id3023799" href="#ftn.id3023799" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
8566
8567 </p><p>
8568 Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most important.
8569 Lawyers, too, are a cost, and increasingly, a very important one. In
8570 addition to preserving the film, a distributor needs to secure the rights.
8571 And to secure the rights for a film that is under copyright, you need to
8572 locate the copyright owner.
8573 </p><p>
8574 Or more accurately, <span class="emphasis"><em>owners</em></span>. As we've seen, there isn't
8575 only a single copyright associated with a film; there are many. There isn't
8576 a single person whom you can contact about those copyrights; there are as
8577 many as can hold the rights, which turns out to be an extremely large
8578 number. Thus the costs of clearing the rights to these films is
8579 exceptionally high.
8580 </p><p>
8581 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But can't you just restore the film, distribute it, and then pay the
8582 copyright owner when she shows up?</span>»</span> Sure, if you want to commit a
8583 felony. And even if you're not worried about committing a felony, when she
8584 does show up, she'll have the right to sue you for all the profits you have
8585 made. So, if you're successful, you can be fairly confident you'll be
8586 getting a call from someone's lawyer. And if you're not successful, you
8587 won't make enough to cover the costs of your own lawyer. Either way, you
8588 have to talk to a lawyer. And as is too often the case, saying you have to
8589 talk to a lawyer is the same as saying you won't make any money.
8590 </p><p>
8591
8592 For some films, the benefit of releasing the film may well exceed these
8593 costs. But for the vast majority of them, there is no way the benefit would
8594 outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old films, Agee
8595 argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until the copyright
8596 expires.
8597 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3023876"></a><p>
8598 But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will have
8599 expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and nitrate stock
8600 dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal canisters in which
8601 they are now stored will be filled with nothing more than dust.
8602 </p><p>
8603 <span class="strong"><strong>Of all the</strong></span> creative work produced by
8604 humans anywhere, a tiny fraction has continuing commercial value. For that
8605 tiny fraction, the copyright is a crucially important legal device. For that
8606 tiny fraction, the copyright creates incentives to produce and distribute
8607 the creative work. For that tiny fraction, the copyright acts as an
8608 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">engine of free expression.</span>»</span>
8609 </p><p>
8610 But even for that tiny fraction, the actual time during which the creative
8611 work has a commercial life is extremely short. As I've indicated, most books
8612 go out of print within one year. The same is true of music and
8613 film. Commercial culture is sharklike. It must keep moving.  And when a
8614 creative work falls out of favor with the commercial distributors, the
8615 commercial life ends.
8616 </p><p>
8617 Yet that doesn't mean the life of the creative work ends. We don't keep
8618 libraries of books in order to compete with Barnes &amp; Noble, and we don't
8619 have archives of films because we expect people to choose between spending
8620 Friday night watching new movies and spending Friday night watching a 1930
8621 news documentary. The noncommercial life of culture is important and
8622 valuable&#8212;for entertainment but also, and more importantly, for
8623 knowledge. To understand who we are, and where we came from, and how we have
8624 made the mistakes that we have, we need to have access to this history.
8625 </p><p>
8626
8627 Copyrights in this context do not drive an engine of free expression.  In
8628 this context, there is no need for an exclusive right. Copyrights in this
8629 context do no good.
8630 </p><p>
8631 Yet, for most of our history, they also did little harm. For most of our
8632 history, when a work ended its commercial life, there was no
8633 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright-related use</em></span> that would be inhibited by an
8634 exclusive right.  When a book went out of print, you could not buy it from a
8635 publisher.  But you could still buy it from a used book store, and when a
8636 used book store sells it, in America, at least, there is no need to pay the
8637 copyright owner anything. Thus, the ordinary use of a book after its
8638 commercial life ended was a use that was independent of copyright law.
8639 </p><p>
8640 The same was effectively true of film. Because the costs of restoring a
8641 film&#8212;the real economic costs, not the lawyer costs&#8212;were so high,
8642 it was never at all feasible to preserve or restore film. Like the remains
8643 of a great dinner, when it's over, it's over. Once a film passed out of its
8644 commercial life, it may have been archived for a bit, but that was the end
8645 of its life so long as the market didn't have more to offer.
8646 </p><p>
8647 In other words, though copyright has been relatively short for most of our
8648 history, long copyrights wouldn't have mattered for the works that lost
8649 their commercial value. Long copyrights for these works would not have
8650 interfered with anything.
8651 </p><p>
8652 But this situation has now changed.
8653 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital2"></a><p>
8654 One crucially important consequence of the emergence of digital technologies
8655 is to enable the archive that Brewster Kahle dreams of.  Digital
8656 technologies now make it possible to preserve and give access to all sorts
8657 of knowledge. Once a book goes out of print, we can now imagine digitizing
8658 it and making it available to everyone, forever. Once a film goes out of
8659 distribution, we could digitize it and make it available to everyone,
8660 forever. Digital technologies give new life to copyrighted material after it
8661 passes out of its commercial life. It is now possible to preserve and assure
8662 universal access to this knowledge and culture, whereas before it was not.
8663 </p><p>
8664
8665
8666 And now copyright law does get in the way. Every step of producing this
8667 digital archive of our culture infringes on the exclusive right of
8668 copyright. To digitize a book is to copy it. To do that requires permission
8669 of the copyright owner. The same with music, film, or any other aspect of
8670 our culture protected by copyright. The effort to make these things
8671 available to history, or to researchers, or to those who just want to
8672 explore, is now inhibited by a set of rules that were written for a
8673 radically different context.
8674 </p><p>
8675 Here is the core of the harm that comes from extending terms: Now that
8676 technology enables us to rebuild the library of Alexandria, the law gets in
8677 the way. And it doesn't get in the way for any useful
8678 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span> purpose, for the purpose of copyright is to
8679 enable the commercial market that spreads culture. No, we are talking about
8680 culture after it has lived its commercial life. In this context, copyright
8681 is serving no purpose <span class="emphasis"><em>at all</em></span> related to the spread of
8682 knowledge. In this context, copyright is not an engine of free
8683 expression. Copyright is a brake.
8684 </p><p>
8685 You may well ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But if digital technologies lower the costs for
8686 Brewster Kahle, then they will lower the costs for Random House, too.  So
8687 won't Random House do as well as Brewster Kahle in spreading culture
8688 widely?</span>»</span>
8689 </p><p>
8690 Maybe. Someday. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that
8691 publishers would be as complete as libraries. If Barnes &amp; Noble offered
8692 to lend books from its stores for a low price, would that eliminate the need
8693 for libraries? Only if you think that the only role of a library is to serve
8694 what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the market</span>»</span> would demand. But if you think the role of a
8695 library is bigger than this&#8212;if you think its role is to archive
8696 culture, whether there's a demand for any particular bit of that culture or
8697 not&#8212;then we can't count on the commercial market to do our library
8698 work for us.
8699 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3024066"></a><p>
8700 I would be the first to agree that it should do as much as it can: We should
8701 rely upon the market as much as possible to spread and enable culture. My
8702 message is absolutely not antimarket. But where we see the market is not
8703 doing the job, then we should allow nonmarket forces the freedom to fill the
8704 gaps. As one researcher calculated for American culture, 94 percent of the
8705 films, books, and music produced between and 1946 is not commercially
8706 available. However much you love the commercial market, if access is a
8707 value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.<sup>[<a name="id3024092" href="#ftn.id3024092" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
8708
8709 </p><p>
8710 <span class="strong"><strong>In January 1999</strong></span>, we filed a lawsuit on
8711 Eric Eldred's behalf in federal district court in Washington, D.C., asking
8712 the court to declare the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
8713 unconstitutional. The two central claims that we made were (1)  that
8714 extending existing terms violated the Constitution's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited
8715 Times</span>»</span> requirement, and (2) that extending terms by another twenty
8716 years violated the First Amendment.
8717 </p><p>
8718 The district court dismissed our claims without even hearing an argument.  A
8719 panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also dismissed our
8720 claims, though after hearing an extensive argument. But that decision at
8721 least had a dissent, by one of the most conservative judges on that
8722 court. That dissent gave our claims life.
8723 </p><p>
8724 Judge David Sentelle said the CTEA violated the requirement that copyrights
8725 be for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited Times</span>»</span> only. His argument was as elegant as it
8726 was simple: If Congress can extend existing terms, then there is no
8727 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stopping point</span>»</span> to Congress's power under the Copyright
8728 Clause. The power to extend existing terms means Congress is not required to
8729 grant terms that are <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> Thus, Judge Sentelle argued,
8730 the court had to interpret the term <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited Times</span>»</span> to give it
8731 meaning. And the best interpretation, Judge Sentelle argued, would be to
8732 deny Congress the power to extend existing terms.
8733 </p><p>
8734 We asked the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as a whole to hear the
8735 case. Cases are ordinarily heard in panels of three, except for important
8736 cases or cases that raise issues specific to the circuit as a whole, where
8737 the court will sit <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en banc</span>»</span> to hear the case.
8738 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3024176"></a><p>
8739
8740 The Court of Appeals rejected our request to hear the case en banc.  This
8741 time, Judge Sentelle was joined by the most liberal member of the
8742 D.C. Circuit, Judge David Tatel. Both the most conservative and the most
8743 liberal judges in the D.C. Circuit believed Congress had overstepped its
8744 bounds.
8745 </p><p>
8746 It was here that most expected Eldred v. Ashcroft would die, for the Supreme
8747 Court rarely reviews any decision by a court of appeals. (It hears about one
8748 hundred cases a year, out of more than five thousand appeals.) And it
8749 practically never reviews a decision that upholds a statute when no other
8750 court has yet reviewed the statute.
8751 </p><p>
8752 But in February 2002, the Supreme Court surprised the world by granting our
8753 petition to review the D.C. Circuit opinion. Argument was set for October of
8754 2002. The summer would be spent writing briefs and preparing for argument.
8755 </p><p>
8756 <span class="strong"><strong>It is over</strong></span> a year later as I write these
8757 words. It is still astonishingly hard. If you know anything at all about
8758 this story, you know that we lost the appeal. And if you know something more
8759 than just the minimum, you probably think there was no way this case could
8760 have been won. After our defeat, I received literally thousands of missives
8761 by well-wishers and supporters, thanking me for my work on behalf of this
8762 noble but doomed cause. And none from this pile was more significant to me
8763 than the e-mail from my client, Eric Eldred.
8764 </p><p>
8765 Men min klient og disse vennene tok feil. Denne saken kunne vært vunnet. Det
8766 burde ha vært vunnet.  Og uansett hvor hardt jeg prøver å fortelle den
8767 historien til meg selv, kan jeg aldri unnslippe troen på at det er min feil
8768 at vi ikke vant.
8769 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3024238"></a><p>
8770
8771 <span class="strong"><strong>Feil</strong></span> ble gjort tidlig, skjønt den ble
8772 først åpenbart på slutten. Vår sak hadde støtte hos en ekstraordinær
8773 advokat, Geoffrey Stewart, helt fra starten, og hos advokatfirmaet hadde han
8774 flyttet til, Jones, Day, Reavis og Pogue. Jones Day mottok mye press fra
8775 sine opphavsrettsbeskyttende klienter på grunn av sin støtte til oss.  De
8776 ignorert dette presset (noe veldig få advokatfirmaer noen sinne ville
8777 gjøre), og ga alt de hadde gjennom hele saken.
8778 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3024265"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3024272"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3024278"></a><p>
8779 Det var tre viktige advokater på saken fra Jones DaY. Geoff Stewart var den
8780 først, men siden ble Dan Bromberg og Don Ayer ganske involvert. Bromberg og
8781 Ayer spesielt hadde en felles oppfatning om hvordan denne saken ville bli
8782 vunnet: vi ville bare vinne, fortalte de gjentatte ganger til meg, hvis vi
8783 få problemet til å virke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">viktig</span>»</span> for Høyesterett. Det måtte
8784 synes som om dramatisk skade ble gjort til ytringsfriheten og fri kultur,
8785 ellers ville de aldri stemt mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">de mektigste mediaselskapene i
8786 verden</span>»</span>.
8787 </p><p>
8788 I hate this view of the law. Of course I thought the Sonny Bono Act was a
8789 dramatic harm to free speech and free culture. Of course I still think it
8790 is. But the idea that the Supreme Court decides the law based on how
8791 important they believe the issues are is just wrong. It might be
8792 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span> as in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">true,</span>»</span> I thought, but it is
8793 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">wrong</span>»</span> as in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">it just shouldn't be that way.</span>»</span> As
8794 I believed that any faithful interpretation of what the framers of our
8795 Constitution did would yield the conclusion that the CTEA was
8796 unconstitutional, and as I believed that any faithful interpretation of what
8797 the First Amendment means would yield the conclusion that the power to
8798 extend existing copyright terms is unconstitutional, I was not persuaded
8799 that we had to sell our case like soap.  Just as a law that bans the
8800 swastika is unconstitutional not because the Court likes Nazis but because
8801 such a law would violate the Constitution, so too, in my view, would the
8802 Court decide whether Congress's law was constitutional based on the
8803 Constitution, not based on whether they liked the values that the framers
8804 put in the Constitution.
8805 </p><p>
8806 In any case, I thought, the Court must already see the danger and the harm
8807 caused by this sort of law. Why else would they grant review? There was no
8808 reason to hear the case in the Supreme Court if they weren't convinced that
8809 this regulation was harmful. So in my view, we didn't need to persuade them
8810 that this law was bad, we needed to show why it was unconstitutional.
8811 </p><p>
8812
8813 There was one way, however, in which I felt politics would matter and in
8814 which I thought a response was appropriate. I was convinced that the Court
8815 would not hear our arguments if it thought these were just the arguments of
8816 a group of lefty loons. This Supreme Court was not about to launch into a
8817 new field of judicial review if it seemed that this field of review was
8818 simply the preference of a small political minority.  Although my focus in
8819 the case was not to demonstrate how bad the Sonny Bono Act was but to
8820 demonstrate that it was unconstitutional, my hope was to make this argument
8821 against a background of briefs that covered the full range of political
8822 views. To show that this claim against the CTEA was grounded in
8823 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> and not politics, then, we tried to gather the
8824 widest range of credible critics&#8212;credible not because they were rich
8825 and famous, but because they, in the aggregate, demonstrated that this law
8826 was unconstitutional regardless of one's politics.
8827 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3024374"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3024386"></a><p>
8828 The first step happened all by itself. Phyllis Schlafly's organization,
8829 Eagle Forum, had been an opponent of the CTEA from the very beginning.
8830 Mrs. Schlafly viewed the CTEA as a sellout by Congress. In November 1998,
8831 she wrote a stinging editorial attacking the Republican Congress for
8832 allowing the law to pass. As she wrote, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Do you sometimes wonder why
8833 bills that create a financial windfall to narrow special interests slide
8834 easily through the intricate legislative process, while bills that benefit
8835 the general public seem to get bogged down?</span>»</span> The answer, as the
8836 editorial documented, was the power of money.  Schlafly enumerated Disney's
8837 contributions to the key players on the committees. It was money, not
8838 justice, that gave Mickey Mouse twenty more years in Disney's control,
8839 Schlafly argued.
8840 </p><p>
8841 In the Court of Appeals, Eagle Forum was eager to file a brief supporting
8842 our position. Their brief made the argument that became the core claim in
8843 the Supreme Court: If Congress can extend the term of existing copyrights,
8844 there is no limit to Congress's power to set terms.  That strong
8845 conservative argument persuaded a strong conservative judge, Judge Sentelle.
8846 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3024422"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3024428"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3024434"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3024440"></a><p>
8847
8848 In the Supreme Court, the briefs on our side were about as diverse as it
8849 gets. They included an extraordinary historical brief by the Free Software
8850 Foundation (home of the GNU project that made GNU/ Linux possible). They
8851 included a powerful brief about the costs of uncertainty by Intel. There
8852 were two law professors' briefs, one by copyright scholars and one by First
8853 Amendment scholars. There was an exhaustive and uncontroverted brief by the
8854 world's experts in the history of the Progress Clause. And of course, there
8855 was a new brief by Eagle Forum, repeating and strengthening its arguments.
8856 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3024462"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3024469"></a><p>
8857 Those briefs framed a legal argument. Then to support the legal argument,
8858 there were a number of powerful briefs by libraries and archives, including
8859 the Internet Archive, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the
8860 National Writers Union.
8861 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3024483"></a><p>
8862 But two briefs captured the policy argument best. One made the argument I've
8863 already described: A brief by Hal Roach Studios argued that unless the law
8864 was struck, a whole generation of American film would disappear. The other
8865 made the economic argument absolutely clear.
8866 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3024497"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3024503"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3024510"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3024516"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3024522"></a><p>
8867 This economists' brief was signed by seventeen economists, including five
8868 Nobel Prize winners, including Ronald Coase, James Buchanan, Milton
8869 Friedman, Kenneth Arrow, and George Akerlof. The economists, as the list of
8870 Nobel winners demonstrates, spanned the political spectrum. Their
8871 conclusions were powerful: There was no plausible claim that extending the
8872 terms of existing copyrights would do anything to increase incentives to
8873 create. Such extensions were nothing more than
8874 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rent-seeking</span>»</span>&#8212;the fancy term economists use to describe
8875 special-interest legislation gone wild.
8876 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3024545"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3024551"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3024557"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3024563"></a><p>
8877
8878 The same effort at balance was reflected in the legal team we gathered to
8879 write our briefs in the case. The Jones Day lawyers had been with us from
8880 the start. But when the case got to the Supreme Court, we added three
8881 lawyers to help us frame this argument to this Court: Alan Morrison, a
8882 lawyer from Public Citizen, a Washington group that had made constitutional
8883 history with a series of seminal victories in the Supreme Court defending
8884 individual rights; my colleague and dean, Kathleen Sullivan, who had argued
8885 many cases in the Court, and who had advised us early on about a First
8886 Amendment strategy; and finally, former solicitor general Charles Fried.
8887 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3024586"></a><p>
8888 Fried was a special victory for our side. Every other former solicitor
8889 general was hired by the other side to defend Congress's power to give media
8890 companies the special favor of extended copyright terms. Fried was the only
8891 one who turned down that lucrative assignment to stand up for something he
8892 believed in. He had been Ronald Reagan's chief lawyer in the Supreme
8893 Court. He had helped craft the line of cases that limited Congress's power
8894 in the context of the Commerce Clause. And while he had argued many
8895 positions in the Supreme Court that I personally disagreed with, his joining
8896 the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument.
8897 </p><p>
8898 The government, in defending the statute, had its collection of friends, as
8899 well. Significantly, however, none of these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friends</span>»</span> included
8900 historians or economists. The briefs on the other side of the case were
8901 written exclusively by major media companies, congressmen, and copyright
8902 holders.
8903 </p><p>
8904 The media companies were not surprising. They had the most to gain from the
8905 law. The congressmen were not surprising either&#8212;they were defending
8906 their power and, indirectly, the gravy train of contributions such power
8907 induced. And of course it was not surprising that the copyright holders
8908 would defend the idea that they should continue to have the right to control
8909 who did what with content they wanted to control.
8910 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3024620"></a><p>
8911
8912 Dr. Seuss's representatives, for example, argued that it was better for the
8913 Dr. Seuss estate to control what happened to Dr. Seuss's work&#8212; better
8914 than allowing it to fall into the public domain&#8212;because if this
8915 creativity were in the public domain, then people could use it to
8916 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">glorify drugs or to create pornography.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3024647" href="#ftn.id3024647" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate,
8917 which defended its <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protection</span>»</span> of the work of George
8918 Gershwin. They refuse, for example, to license <em class="citetitle">Porgy and
8919 Bess</em> to anyone who refuses to use African Americans in the
8920 cast.<sup>[<a name="id3024672" href="#ftn.id3024672" class="footnote">193</a>]</sup> That's their view of how this
8921 part of American culture should be controlled, and they wanted this law to
8922 help them effect that control.
8923 </p><p>
8924 This argument made clear a theme that is rarely noticed in this debate.
8925 When Congress decides to extend the term of existing copyrights, Congress is
8926 making a choice about which speakers it will favor.  Famous and beloved
8927 copyright owners, such as the Gershwin estate and Dr. Seuss, come to
8928 Congress and say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Give us twenty years to control the speech about
8929 these icons of American culture. We'll do better with them than anyone
8930 else.</span>»</span> Congress of course likes to reward the popular and famous by
8931 giving them what they want. But when Congress gives people an exclusive
8932 right to speak in a certain way, that's just what the First Amendment is
8933 traditionally meant to block.
8934 </p><p>
8935 We argued as much in a final brief. Not only would upholding the CTEA mean
8936 that there was no limit to the power of Congress to extend
8937 copyrights&#8212;extensions that would further concentrate the market; it
8938 would also mean that there was no limit to Congress's power to play
8939 favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak.
8940 </p><p>
8941 <span class="strong"><strong>Between February</strong></span> and October, there was
8942 little I did beyond preparing for this case. Early on, as I said, I set the
8943 strategy.
8944 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3024728"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3024734"></a><p>
8945 The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we called
8946 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conservatives.</span>»</span> The other we called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
8947 Rest.</span>»</span> The Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice
8948 O'Connor, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas. These five
8949 had been the most consistent in limiting Congress's power. They were the
8950 five who had supported the <em class="citetitle">Lopez/Morrison</em> line of
8951 cases that said that an enumerated power had to be interpreted to assure
8952 that Congress's powers had limits.
8953 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3024762"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxginsburg"></a><p>
8954
8955 The Rest were the four Justices who had strongly opposed limits on
8956 Congress's power. These four&#8212;Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice
8957 Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer&#8212;had repeatedly argued that the
8958 Constitution gives Congress broad discretion to decide how best to implement
8959 its powers. In case after case, these justices had argued that the Court's
8960 role should be one of deference. Though the votes of these four justices
8961 were the votes that I personally had most consistently agreed with, they
8962 were also the votes that we were least likely to get.
8963 </p><p>
8964 In particular, the least likely was Justice Ginsburg's. In addition to her
8965 general view about deference to Congress (except where issues of gender are
8966 involved), she had been particularly deferential in the context of
8967 intellectual property protections. She and her daughter (an excellent and
8968 well-known intellectual property scholar) were cut from the same
8969 intellectual property cloth. We expected she would agree with the writings
8970 of her daughter: that Congress had the power in this context to do as it
8971 wished, even if what Congress wished made little sense.
8972 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3024811"></a><p>
8973 Close behind Justice Ginsburg were two justices whom we also viewed as
8974 unlikely allies, though possible surprises. Justice Souter strongly favored
8975 deference to Congress, as did Justice Breyer. But both were also very
8976 sensitive to free speech concerns. And as we strongly believed, there was a
8977 very important free speech argument against these retrospective extensions.
8978 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3024827"></a><p>
8979 The only vote we could be confident about was that of Justice
8980 Stevens. History will record Justice Stevens as one of the greatest judges
8981 on this Court. His votes are consistently eclectic, which just means that no
8982 simple ideology explains where he will stand. But he had consistently argued
8983 for limits in the context of intellectual property generally. We were fairly
8984 confident he would recognize limits here.
8985 </p><p>
8986 This analysis of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Rest</span>»</span> showed most clearly where our focus
8987 had to be: on the Conservatives. To win this case, we had to crack open
8988 these five and get at least a majority to go our way. Thus, the single
8989 overriding argument that animated our claim rested on the Conservatives'
8990 most important jurisprudential innovation&#8212;the argument that Judge
8991 Sentelle had relied upon in the Court of Appeals, that Congress's power must
8992 be interpreted so that its enumerated powers have limits.
8993 </p><p>
8994
8995 This then was the core of our strategy&#8212;a strategy for which I am
8996 responsible. We would get the Court to see that just as with the
8997 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, under the government's argument here,
8998 Congress would always have unlimited power to extend existing terms. If
8999 anything was plain about Congress's power under the Progress Clause, it was
9000 that this power was supposed to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> Our aim would be
9001 to get the Court to reconcile <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> with
9002 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>: If Congress's power to regulate commerce was
9003 limited, then so, too, must Congress's power to regulate copyright be
9004 limited.
9005 </p><p>
9006 <span class="strong"><strong>The argument</strong></span> on the government's side
9007 came down to this: Congress has done it before. It should be allowed to do
9008 it again. The government claimed that from the very beginning, Congress has
9009 been extending the term of existing copyrights. So, the government argued,
9010 the Court should not now say that practice is unconstitutional.
9011 </p><p>
9012 There was some truth to the government's claim, but not much. We certainly
9013 agreed that Congress had extended existing terms in 1831 and in 1909. And of
9014 course, in 1962, Congress began extending existing terms
9015 regularly&#8212;eleven times in forty years.
9016 </p><p>
9017 But this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">consistency</span>»</span> should be kept in perspective. Congress
9018 extended existing terms once in the first hundred years of the Republic.  It
9019 then extended existing terms once again in the next fifty. Those rare
9020 extensions are in contrast to the now regular practice of extending existing
9021 terms. Whatever restraint Congress had had in the past, that restraint was
9022 now gone. Congress was now in a cycle of extensions; there was no reason to
9023 expect that cycle would end. This Court had not hesitated to intervene where
9024 Congress was in a similar cycle of extension.  There was no reason it
9025 couldn't intervene here.
9026 </p><p>
9027
9028 <span class="strong"><strong>Oral argument</strong></span> was scheduled for the first
9029 week in October. I arrived in D.C. two weeks before the argument. During
9030 those two weeks, I was repeatedly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mooted</span>»</span> by lawyers who had
9031 volunteered to help in the case. Such <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">moots</span>»</span> are basically
9032 practice rounds, where wannabe justices fire questions at wannabe winners.
9033 </p><p>
9034 I was convinced that to win, I had to keep the Court focused on a single
9035 point: that if this extension is permitted, then there is no limit to the
9036 power to set terms. Going with the government would mean that terms would be
9037 effectively unlimited; going with us would give Congress a clear line to
9038 follow: Don't extend existing terms. The moots were an effective practice; I
9039 found ways to take every question back to this central idea.
9040 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3024965"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3024972"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3024979"></a><p>
9041 One moot was before the lawyers at Jones Day. Don Ayer was the skeptic. He
9042 had served in the Reagan Justice Department with Solicitor General Charles
9043 Fried. He had argued many cases before the Supreme Court. And in his review
9044 of the moot, he let his concern speak:
9045 </p><p>
9046 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I'm just afraid that unless they really see the harm, they won't be
9047 willing to upset this practice that the government says has been a
9048 consistent practice for two hundred years. You have to make them see the
9049 harm&#8212;passionately get them to see the harm. For if they don't see
9050 that, then we haven't any chance of winning.</span>»</span>
9051 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3024999"></a><p>
9052 He may have argued many cases before this Court, I thought, but he didn't
9053 understand its soul. As a clerk, I had seen the Justices do the right
9054 thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it was right. As a law
9055 professor, I had spent my life teaching my students that this Court does the
9056 right thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it is right. As I
9057 listened to Ayer's plea for passion in pressing politics, I understood his
9058 point, and I rejected it. Our argument was right. That was enough.  Let the
9059 politicians learn to see that it was also good.
9060 </p><p>
9061
9062 <span class="strong"><strong>The night before</strong></span> the argument, a line of
9063 people began to form in front of the Supreme Court. The case had become a
9064 focus of the press and of the movement to free culture. Hundreds stood in
9065 line for the chance to see the proceedings. Scores spent the night on the
9066 Supreme Court steps so that they would be assured a seat.
9067 </p><p>
9068 Not everyone has to wait in line. People who know the Justices can ask for
9069 seats they control. (I asked Justice Scalia's chambers for seats for my
9070 parents, for example.) Members of the Supreme Court bar can get a seat in a
9071 special section reserved for them. And senators and congressmen have a
9072 special place where they get to sit, too. And finally, of course, the press
9073 has a gallery, as do clerks working for the Justices on the Court. As we
9074 entered that morning, there was no place that was not taken. This was an
9075 argument about intellectual property law, yet the halls were filled. As I
9076 walked in to take my seat at the front of the Court, I saw my parents
9077 sitting on the left. As I sat down at the table, I saw Jack Valenti sitting
9078 in the special section ordinarily reserved for family of the Justices.
9079 </p><p>
9080 When the Chief Justice called me to begin my argument, I began where I
9081 intended to stay: on the question of the limits on Congress's power. This
9082 was a case about enumerated powers, I said, and whether those enumerated
9083 powers had any limit.
9084 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3025079"></a><p>
9085 Justice O'Connor stopped me within one minute of my opening.  The history
9086 was bothering her.
9087 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9088 justice o'connor: Congress has extended the term so often through the years,
9089 and if you are right, don't we run the risk of upsetting previous extensions
9090 of time? I mean, this seems to be a practice that began with the very first
9091 act.
9092 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9093 She was quite willing to concede <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">that this flies directly in the face
9094 of what the framers had in mind.</span>»</span> But my response again and again was
9095 to emphasize limits on Congress's power.
9096 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9097
9098 mr. lessig: Well, if it flies in the face of what the framers had in mind,
9099 then the question is, is there a way of interpreting their words that gives
9100 effect to what they had in mind, and the answer is yes.
9101 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9102 There were two points in this argument when I should have seen where the
9103 Court was going. The first was a question by Justice Kennedy, who observed,
9104 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9105 justice kennedy: Well, I suppose implicit in the argument that the '76 act,
9106 too, should have been declared void, and that we might leave it alone
9107 because of the disruption, is that for all these years the act has impeded
9108 progress in science and the useful arts.  I just don't see any empirical
9109 evidence for that.
9110 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9111 Here follows my clear mistake. Like a professor correcting a student, I
9112 answered,
9113 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9114 mr. lessig: Justice, we are not making an empirical claim at all.  Nothing
9115 in our Copyright Clause claim hangs upon the empirical assertion about
9116 impeding progress. Our only argument is this is a structural limit necessary
9117 to assure that what would be an effectively perpetual term not be permitted
9118 under the copyright laws.
9119 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3025159"></a><p>
9120 That was a correct answer, but it wasn't the right answer. The right answer
9121 was instead that there was an obvious and profound harm. Any number of
9122 briefs had been written about it. He wanted to hear it. And here was the
9123 place Don Ayer's advice should have mattered. This was a softball; my answer
9124 was a swing and a miss.
9125 </p><p>
9126 The second came from the Chief, for whom the whole case had been
9127 crafted. For the Chief Justice had crafted the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
9128 ruling, and we hoped that he would see this case as its second cousin.
9129 </p><p>
9130
9131 It was clear a second into his question that he wasn't at all sympathetic.
9132 To him, we were a bunch of anarchists. As he asked:
9133
9134
9135 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9136 chief justice: Well, but you want more than that. You want the right to copy
9137 verbatim other people's books, don't you?
9138 </p><p>
9139 mr. lessig: We want the right to copy verbatim works that should be in the
9140 public domain and would be in the public domain but for a statute that
9141 cannot be justified under ordinary First Amendment analysis or under a
9142 proper reading of the limits built into the Copyright Clause.
9143 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3025209"></a><p>
9144 Things went better for us when the government gave its argument; for now the
9145 Court picked up on the core of our claim. As Justice Scalia asked Solicitor
9146 General Olson,
9147 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9148 justice scalia: You say that the functional equivalent of an unlimited time
9149 would be a violation [of the Constitution], but that's precisely the
9150 argument that's being made by petitioners here, that a limited time which is
9151 extendable is the functional equivalent of an unlimited time.
9152 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9153 When Olson was finished, it was my turn to give a closing rebuttal.  Olson's
9154 flailing had revived my anger. But my anger still was directed to the
9155 academic, not the practical. The government was arguing as if this were the
9156 first case ever to consider limits on Congress's Copyright and Patent Clause
9157 power. Ever the professor and not the advocate, I closed by pointing out the
9158 long history of the Court imposing limits on Congress's power in the name of
9159 the Copyright and Patent Clause&#8212; indeed, the very first case striking
9160 a law of Congress as exceeding a specific enumerated power was based upon
9161 the Copyright and Patent Clause. All true. But it wasn't going to move the
9162 Court to my side.
9163 </p><p>
9164
9165 <span class="strong"><strong>As I left</strong></span> the court that day, I knew
9166 there were a hundred points I wished I could remake. There were a hundred
9167 questions I wished I had answered differently. But one way of thinking about
9168 this case left me optimistic.
9169 </p><p>
9170 The government had been asked over and over again, what is the limit? Over
9171 and over again, it had answered there is no limit. This was precisely the
9172 answer I wanted the Court to hear. For I could not imagine how the Court
9173 could understand that the government believed Congress's power was unlimited
9174 under the terms of the Copyright Clause, and sustain the government's
9175 argument. The solicitor general had made my argument for me. No matter how
9176 often I tried, I could not understand how the Court could find that
9177 Congress's power under the Commerce Clause was limited, but under the
9178 Copyright Clause, unlimited. In those rare moments when I let myself believe
9179 that we may have prevailed, it was because I felt this Court&#8212;in
9180 particular, the Conservatives&#8212;would feel itself constrained by the
9181 rule of law that it had established elsewhere.
9182 </p><p>
9183 <span class="strong"><strong>The morning</strong></span> of January 15, 2003, I was
9184 five minutes late to the office and missed the 7:00 A.M. call from the
9185 Supreme Court clerk. Listening to the message, I could tell in an instant
9186 that she had bad news to report.The Supreme Court had affirmed the decision
9187 of the Court of Appeals. Seven justices had voted in the majority. There
9188 were two dissents.
9189 </p><p>
9190 A few seconds later, the opinions arrived by e-mail. I took the phone off
9191 the hook, posted an announcement to our blog, and sat down to see where I
9192 had been wrong in my reasoning.
9193 </p><p>
9194 My <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. Here was a case that pitted all the money
9195 in the world against <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. And here was the last
9196 naïve law professor, scouring the pages, looking for reasoning.
9197 </p><p>
9198 I first scoured the opinion, looking for how the Court would distinguish the
9199 principle in this case from the principle in
9200 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The argument was nowhere to be found. The case
9201 was not even cited. The argument that was the core argument of our case did
9202 not even appear in the Court's opinion.
9203 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3025334"></a><p>
9204
9205
9206
9207 Justice Ginsburg simply ignored the enumerated powers argument.  Consistent
9208 with her view that Congress's power was not limited generally, she had found
9209 Congress's power not limited here.
9210 </p><p>
9211 Her opinion was perfectly reasonable&#8212;for her, and for Justice
9212 Souter. Neither believes in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. It would be too
9213 much to expect them to write an opinion that recognized, much less
9214 explained, the doctrine they had worked so hard to defeat.
9215 </p><p>
9216 But as I realized what had happened, I couldn't quite believe what I was
9217 reading. I had said there was no way this Court could reconcile limited
9218 powers with the Commerce Clause and unlimited powers with the Progress
9219 Clause. It had never even occurred to me that they could reconcile the two
9220 simply <span class="emphasis"><em>by not addressing the argument</em></span>. There was no
9221 inconsistency because they would not talk about the two together.  There was
9222 therefore no principle that followed from the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
9223 case: In that context, Congress's power would be limited, but in this
9224 context it would not.
9225 </p><p>
9226 Yet by what right did they get to choose which of the framers' values they
9227 would respect? By what right did they&#8212;the silent five&#8212;get to
9228 select the part of the Constitution they would enforce based on the values
9229 they thought important? We were right back to the argument that I said I
9230 hated at the start: I had failed to convince them that the issue here was
9231 important, and I had failed to recognize that however much I might hate a
9232 system in which the Court gets to pick the constitutional values that it
9233 will respect, that is the system we have.
9234 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3025384"></a><p>
9235 Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote very strong dissents. Stevens's opinion
9236 was crafted internal to the law: He argued that the tradition of
9237 intellectual property law should not support this unjustified extension of
9238 terms. He based his argument on a parallel analysis that had governed in the
9239 context of patents (so had we). But the rest of the Court discounted the
9240 parallel&#8212;without explaining how the very same words in the Progress
9241 Clause could come to mean totally different things depending upon whether
9242 the words were about patents or copyrights.  The Court let Justice Stevens's
9243 charge go unanswered.
9244 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3025353"></a><p>
9245
9246
9247 Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever written, was
9248 external to the Constitution. He argued that the term of copyrights has
9249 become so long as to be effectively unlimited. We had said that under the
9250 current term, a copyright gave an author 99.8 percent of the value of a
9251 perpetual term. Breyer said we were wrong, that the actual number was
9252 99.9997 percent of a perpetual term. Either way, the point was clear: If the
9253 Constitution said a term had to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited,</span>»</span> and the existing
9254 term was so long as to be effectively unlimited, then it was
9255 unconstitutional.
9256 </p><p>
9257 These two justices understood all the arguments we had made. But because
9258 neither believed in the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, neither was
9259 willing to push it as a reason to reject this extension. The case was
9260 decided without anyone having addressed the argument that we had carried
9261 from Judge Sentelle. It was <em class="citetitle">Hamlet</em> without the
9262 Prince.
9263 </p><p>
9264 <span class="strong"><strong>Defeat brings depression</strong></span>. They say it is
9265 a sign of health when depression gives way to anger. My anger came quickly,
9266 but it didn't cure the depression. This anger was of two sorts.
9267 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3025468"></a><p>
9268 It was first anger with the five <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Conservatives.</span>»</span> It would have
9269 been one thing for them to have explained why the principle of
9270 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> didn't apply in this case. That wouldn't have
9271 been a very convincing argument, I don't believe, having read it made by
9272 others, and having tried to make it myself. But it at least would have been
9273 an act of integrity.  These justices in particular have repeatedly said that
9274 the proper mode of interpreting the Constitution is
9275 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalism</span>»</span>&#8212;to first understand the framers' text,
9276 interpreted in their context, in light of the structure of the
9277 Constitution. That method had produced <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> and many
9278 other <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalist</span>»</span> rulings. Where was their
9279 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalism</span>»</span> now?
9280 </p><p>
9281
9282 Here, they had joined an opinion that never once tried to explain what the
9283 framers had meant by crafting the Progress Clause as they did; they joined
9284 an opinion that never once tried to explain how the structure of that clause
9285 would affect the interpretation of Congress's power. And they joined an
9286 opinion that didn't even try to explain why this grant of power could be
9287 unlimited, whereas the Commerce Clause would be limited. In short, they had
9288 joined an opinion that did not apply to, and was inconsistent with, their
9289 own method for interpreting the Constitution. This opinion may well have
9290 yielded a result that they liked. It did not produce a reason that was
9291 consistent with their own principles.
9292 </p><p>
9293 My anger with the Conservatives quickly yielded to anger with myself.  For I
9294 had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with a view of the law as
9295 it is.
9296 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3025546"></a><p>
9297 Most lawyers, and most law professors, have little patience for idealism
9298 about courts in general and this Supreme Court in particular.  Most have a
9299 much more pragmatic view. When Don Ayer said that this case would be won
9300 based on whether I could convince the Justices that the framers' values were
9301 important, I fought the idea, because I didn't want to believe that that is
9302 how this Court decides. I insisted on arguing this case as if it were a
9303 simple application of a set of principles.  I had an argument that followed
9304 in logic. I didn't need to waste my time showing it should also follow in
9305 popularity.
9306 </p><p>
9307
9308 As I read back over the transcript from that argument in October, I can see
9309 a hundred places where the answers could have taken the conversation in
9310 different directions, where the truth about the harm that this unchecked
9311 power will cause could have been made clear to this Court. Justice Kennedy
9312 in good faith wanted to be shown. I, idiotically, corrected his
9313 question. Justice Souter in good faith wanted to be shown the First
9314 Amendment harms. I, like a math teacher, reframed the question to make the
9315 logical point. I had shown them how they could strike this law of Congress
9316 if they wanted to. There were a hundred places where I could have helped
9317 them want to, yet my stubbornness, my refusal to give in, stopped me. I have
9318 stood before hundreds of audiences trying to persuade; I have used passion
9319 in that effort to persuade; but I refused to stand before this audience and
9320 try to persuade with the passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis
9321 on which a court should decide the issue.
9322 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3025589"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3025596"></a><p>
9323 Would it have been different if I had argued it differently? Would it have
9324 been different if Don Ayer had argued it? Or Charles Fried? Or Kathleen
9325 Sullivan?
9326 </p><p>
9327 My friends huddled around me to insist it would not. The Court was not
9328 ready, my friends insisted. This was a loss that was destined. It would take
9329 a great deal more to show our society why our framers were right. And when
9330 we do that, we will be able to show that Court.
9331 </p><p>
9332 Maybe, but I doubt it. These Justices have no financial interest in doing
9333 anything except the right thing. They are not lobbied. They have little
9334 reason to resist doing right. I can't help but think that if I had stepped
9335 down from this pretty picture of dispassionate justice, I could have
9336 persuaded.
9337 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3025625"></a><p>
9338 And even if I couldn't, then that doesn't excuse what happened in
9339 January. For at the start of this case, one of America's leading
9340 intellectual property professors stated publicly that my bringing this case
9341 was a mistake. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Court is not ready,</span>»</span> Peter Jaszi said; this
9342 issue should not be raised until it is.
9343 </p><p>
9344 After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly,
9345 that he was wrong. But if indeed that Court could not have been persuaded,
9346 then that is all the evidence that's needed to know that here again Peter
9347 was right. Either I was not ready to argue this case in a way that would do
9348 some good or they were not ready to hear this case in a way that would do
9349 some good. Either way, the decision to bring this case&#8212;a decision I
9350 had made four years before&#8212;was wrong.
9351 </p><p>
9352
9353 <span class="strong"><strong>While the reaction</strong></span> to the Sonny Bono Act
9354 itself was almost unanimously negative, the reaction to the Court's decision
9355 was mixed.  No one, at least in the press, tried to say that extending the
9356 term of copyright was a good idea. We had won that battle over ideas. Where
9357 the decision was praised, it was praised by papers that had been skeptical
9358 of the Court's activism in other cases. Deference was a good thing, even if
9359 it left standing a silly law. But where the decision was attacked, it was
9360 attacked because it left standing a silly and harmful law. <em class="citetitle">The
9361 New York Times</em> wrote in its editorial,
9362 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9363 In effect, the Supreme Court's decision makes it likely that we are seeing
9364 the beginning of the end of public domain and the birth of copyright
9365 perpetuity. The public domain has been a grand experiment, one that should
9366 not be allowed to die. The ability to draw freely on the entire creative
9367 output of humanity is one of the reasons we live in a time of such fruitful
9368 creative ferment.
9369 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9370 The best responses were in the cartoons. There was a gaggle of hilarious
9371 images&#8212;of Mickey in jail and the like. The best, from my view of the
9372 case, was Ruben Bolling's, reproduced on the next page (<a class="xref" href="#fig-18" title="Figure 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon">Figure 13.1, &#8220;Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon&#8221;</a>). The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">powerful and wealthy</span>»</span> line is a bit
9373 unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3025710"></a>
9374 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-18"></a><p class="title"><b>Figure 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="id3025735"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
9375 The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the quote from
9376 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>. That <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grand
9377 experiment</span>»</span> we call the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public domain</span>»</span> is over? When I
9378 can make light of it, I think, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Honey, I shrunk the
9379 Constitution.</span>»</span> But I can rarely make light of it. We had in our
9380 Constitution a commitment to free culture. In the case that I fathered, the
9381 Supreme Court effectively renounced that commitment. A better lawyer would
9382 have made them see differently.
9383 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3022797" href="#id3022797" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
9384
9385
9386 There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to describe, but
9387 it's a strong one. One phenomenon that the Internet created was a world of
9388 noncommercial pornographers&#8212;people who were distributing porn but were
9389 not making money directly or indirectly from that distribution.  Such a
9390 class didn't exist before the Internet came into being because the costs of
9391 distributing porn were so high. Yet this new class of distributors got
9392 special attention in the Supreme Court, when the Court struck down the
9393 Communications Decency Act of 1996. It was partly because of the burden on
9394 noncommercial speakers that the statute was found to exceed Congress's
9395 power. The same point could have been made about noncommercial publishers
9396 after the advent of the Internet. The Eric Eldreds of the world before the
9397 Internet were extremely few. Yet one would think it at least as important to
9398 protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3022882" href="#id3022882" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
9399
9400 <a class="indexterm" name="id3022887"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3022896"></a> The full text is: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
9401 protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would
9402 violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen
9403 our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is
9404 also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last forever less one
9405 day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress,</span>»</span> 144
9406 Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
9407 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3023188" href="#id3023188" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
9408
9409 Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey
9410 Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years</span>»</span>,
9411 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17. oktober 1998, 22.
9412 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3023206" href="#id3023206" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
9413
9414 Se Nick Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
9415 Age</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #49</a>.
9416 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3023224" href="#id3023224" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
9417
9418
9419 Alan K. Ota, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars</span>»</span>,
9420 <em class="citetitle">Congressional Quarterly This Week</em>, 8. august 1990,
9421 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
9422 #50</a>.
9423 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3023346" href="#id3023346" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
9424
9425 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>, 514
9426 U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
9427 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3023373" href="#id3023373" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
9428
9429
9430 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>, 529
9431 U.S. 598 (2000).
9432 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3023393" href="#id3023393" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
9433
9434
9435 If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle carries
9436 from one enumerated power to another. The animating point in the context of
9437 the Commerce Clause was that the interpretation offered by the government
9438 would allow the government unending power to regulate commerce&#8212;the
9439 limitation to interstate commerce notwithstanding. The same point is true in
9440 the context of the Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's
9441 interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate
9442 copyrights&#8212;the limitation to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited times</span>»</span>
9443 notwithstanding.
9444 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3023494" href="#id3023494" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
9445
9446
9447 Brief of the Nashville Songwriters Association,
9448 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.
9449 186 (2003) (No. 01-618), n.10, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #51</a>.
9450 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3023563" href="#id3023563" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
9451
9452 The figure of 2 percent is an extrapolation from the study by the
9453 Congressional Research Service, in light of the estimated renewal
9454 ranges. See Brief of Petitioners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9455 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 7, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #52</a>.
9456 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3023745" href="#id3023745" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
9457
9458
9459 See David G. Savage, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright
9460 Law,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 6 October 2002; David
9461 Streitfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court
9462 Hears Arguments Today on Striking Down Copyright Extension,</span>»</span>
9463 <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 9 October 2002.
9464 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3023799" href="#id3023799" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
9465
9466
9467 Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae Supporting the
9468 Petitoners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9469 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01- 618),
9470 12. See also Brief of Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of Petitioners by the
9471 Internet Archive, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9472 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #53</a>.
9473 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3024092" href="#id3024092" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
9474
9475
9476 Jason Schultz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory</span>»</span>,
9477 20 December 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #54</a>.
9478 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3024647" href="#id3024647" class="para">192</a>] </sup>
9479
9480
9481 Brief of Amici Dr. Seuss Enterprise et al., <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9482 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.  (2003) (No. 01-618), 19.
9483 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3024672" href="#id3024672" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
9484
9485
9486 Dinitia Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse
9487 Joins the Fray,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March
9488 1998, B7.
9489 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred-ii"></a>Chapter 14. Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</h2></div></div></div><p>
9490 <span class="strong"><strong>The day</strong></span> <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was
9491 decided, fate would have it that I was to travel to Washington, D.C. (The
9492 day the rehearing petition in <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was
9493 denied&#8212;meaning the case was really finally over&#8212;fate would have
9494 it that I was giving a speech to technologists at Disney World.)  This was a
9495 particularly long flight to my least favorite city. The drive into the city
9496 from Dulles was delayed because of traffic, so I opened up my computer and
9497 wrote an op-ed piece.
9498 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3025806"></a><p>
9499 It was an act of contrition. During the whole of the flight from San
9500 Francisco to Washington, I had heard over and over again in my head the same
9501 advice from Don Ayer: You need to make them see why it is important. And
9502 alternating with that command was the question of Justice Kennedy:
9503 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For all these years the act has impeded progress in science and the
9504 useful arts. I just don't see any empirical evidence for that.</span>»</span> And
9505 so, having failed in the argument of constitutional principle, finally, I
9506 turned to an argument of politics.
9507 </p><p>
9508
9509 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> published the piece. In it, I
9510 proposed a simple fix: Fifty years after a work has been published, the
9511 copyright owner would be required to register the work and pay a small
9512 fee. If he paid the fee, he got the benefit of the full term of
9513 copyright. If he did not, the work passed into the public domain.
9514 </p><p>
9515 We called this the Eldred Act, but that was just to give it a name.  Eric
9516 Eldred was kind enough to let his name be used once again, but as he said
9517 early on, it won't get passed unless it has another name.
9518 </p><p>
9519 Or another two names. For depending upon your perspective, this is either
9520 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Public Domain Enhancement Act</span>»</span> or the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright
9521 Term Deregulation Act.</span>»</span> Either way, the essence of the idea is clear
9522 and obvious: Remove copyright where it is doing nothing except blocking
9523 access and the spread of knowledge. Leave it for as long as Congress allows
9524 for those works where its worth is at least $1. But for everything else, let
9525 the content go.
9526 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3025872"></a><p>
9527 The reaction to this idea was amazingly strong. Steve Forbes endorsed it in
9528 an editorial. I received an avalanche of e-mail and letters expressing
9529 support. When you focus the issue on lost creativity, people can see the
9530 copyright system makes no sense. As a good Republican might say, here
9531 government regulation is simply getting in the way of innovation and
9532 creativity. And as a good Democrat might say, here the government is
9533 blocking access and the spread of knowledge for no good reason. Indeed,
9534 there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans on this
9535 issue. Anyone can recognize the stupid harm of the present system.
9536 </p><p>
9537 Indeed, many recognized the obvious benefit of the registration
9538 requirement.  For one of the hardest things about the current system for
9539 people who want to license content is that there is no obvious place to look
9540 for the current copyright owners. Since registration is not required, since
9541 marking content is not required, since no formality at all is required, it
9542 is often impossibly hard to locate copyright owners to ask permission to use
9543 or license their work. This system would lower these costs, by establishing
9544 at least one registry where copyright owners could be identified.
9545 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3025906"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3025913"></a><p>
9546
9547 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, formalities in copyright law were removed in 1976,
9548 when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal requirement
9549 before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id3025934" href="#ftn.id3025934" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The
9550 Europeans are said to view copyright as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natural right.</span>»</span>
9551 Natural rights don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the
9552 Anglo-American tradition that required copyright owners to follow form if
9553 their rights were to be protected, did not, the Europeans thought, properly
9554 respect the dignity of the author. My right as a creator turns on my
9555 creativity, not upon the special favor of the government.
9556 </p><p>
9557 That's great rhetoric. It sounds wonderfully romantic. But it is absurd
9558 copyright policy. It is absurd especially for authors, because a world
9559 without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt
9560 Disney creativity</span>»</span> is destroyed when there is no simple way to know
9561 what's protected and what's not.
9562 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3026004"></a><p>
9563 The fight against formalities achieved its first real victory in Berlin in
9564 1908. International copyright lawyers amended the Berne Convention in 1908,
9565 to require copyright terms of life plus fifty years, as well as the
9566 abolition of copyright formalities. The formalities were hated because the
9567 stories of inadvertent loss were increasingly common. It was as if a Charles
9568 Dickens character ran all copyright offices, and the failure to dot an
9569 <em class="citetitle">i</em> or cross a <em class="citetitle">t</em> resulted in the
9570 loss of widows' only income.
9571 </p><p>
9572 These complaints were real and sensible. And the strictness of the
9573 formalities, especially in the United States, was absurd. The law should
9574 always have ways of forgiving innocent mistakes. There is no reason
9575 copyright law couldn't, as well. Rather than abandoning formalities totally,
9576 the response in Berlin should have been to embrace a more equitable system
9577 of registration.
9578 </p><p>
9579 Even that would have been resisted, however, because registration in the
9580 nineteenth and twentieth centuries was still expensive. It was also a
9581 hassle. The abolishment of formalities promised not only to save the
9582 starving widows, but also to lighten an unnecessary regulatory burden
9583 imposed upon creators.
9584 </p><p>
9585
9586 In addition to the practical complaint of authors in 1908, there was a moral
9587 claim as well. There was no reason that creative property should be a
9588 second-class form of property. If a carpenter builds a table, his rights
9589 over the table don't depend upon filing a form with the government.  He has
9590 a property right over the table <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">naturally,</span>»</span> and he can assert
9591 that right against anyone who would steal the table, whether or not he has
9592 informed the government of his ownership of the table.
9593 </p><p>
9594 This argument is correct, but its implications are misleading. For the
9595 argument in favor of formalities does not depend upon creative property
9596 being second-class property. The argument in favor of formalities turns upon
9597 the special problems that creative property presents.  The law of
9598 formalities responds to the special physics of creative property, to assure
9599 that it can be efficiently and fairly spread.
9600 </p><p>
9601 No one thinks, for example, that land is second-class property just because
9602 you have to register a deed with a court if your sale of land is to be
9603 effective. And few would think a car is second-class property just because
9604 you must register the car with the state and tag it with a license.  In both
9605 of those cases, everyone sees that there is an important reason to secure
9606 registration&#8212;both because it makes the markets more efficient and
9607 because it better secures the rights of the owner. Without a registration
9608 system for land, landowners would perpetually have to guard their
9609 property. With registration, they can simply point the police to a
9610 deed. Without a registration system for cars, auto theft would be much
9611 easier. With a registration system, the thief has a high burden to sell a
9612 stolen car. A slight burden is placed on the property owner, but those
9613 burdens produce a much better system of protection for property generally.
9614 </p><p>
9615 It is similarly special physics that makes formalities important in
9616 copyright law. Unlike a carpenter's table, there's nothing in nature that
9617 makes it relatively obvious who might own a particular bit of creative
9618 property. A recording of Lyle Lovett's latest album can exist in a billion
9619 places without anything necessarily linking it back to a particular
9620 owner. And like a car, there's no way to buy and sell creative property with
9621 confidence unless there is some simple way to authenticate who is the author
9622 and what rights he has. Simple transactions are destroyed in a world without
9623 formalities. Complex, expensive, <span class="emphasis"><em>lawyer</em></span> transactions
9624 take their place.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3026113"></a>
9625 </p><p>
9626 This was the understanding of the problem with the Sonny Bono Act that we
9627 tried to demonstrate to the Court. This was the part it didn't
9628 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">get.</span>»</span> Because we live in a system without formalities, there
9629 is no way easily to build upon or use culture from our past. If copyright
9630 terms were, as Justice Story said they would be, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">short,</span>»</span> then
9631 this wouldn't matter much. For fourteen years, under the framers' system, a
9632 work would be presumptively controlled. After fourteen years, it would be
9633 presumptively uncontrolled.
9634 </p><p>
9635 But now that copyrights can be just about a century long, the inability to
9636 know what is protected and what is not protected becomes a huge and obvious
9637 burden on the creative process. If the only way a library can offer an
9638 Internet exhibit about the New Deal is to hire a lawyer to clear the rights
9639 to every image and sound, then the copyright system is burdening creativity
9640 in a way that has never been seen before <span class="emphasis"><em>because there are no
9641 formalities</em></span>.
9642 </p><p>
9643 The Eldred Act was designed to respond to exactly this problem. If it is
9644 worth $1 to you, then register your work and you can get the longer
9645 term. Others will know how to contact you and, therefore, how to get your
9646 permission if they want to use your work. And you will get the benefit of an
9647 extended copyright term.
9648 </p><p>
9649 If it isn't worth it to you to register to get the benefit of an extended
9650 term, then it shouldn't be worth it for the government to defend your
9651 monopoly over that work either. The work should pass into the public domain
9652 where anyone can copy it, or build archives with it, or create a movie based
9653 on it. It should become free if it is not worth $1 to you.
9654 </p><p>
9655 Noen bekymrer seg over byrden på forfattere. Gjør ikke byrden med å
9656 registrere verket at beløpet $1 egentlig er misvisende?  Er ikke
9657 ekstraarbeidet verdt mer enn $1? Er ikke dette det virkelige problemet med
9658 registrering?
9659 </p><p>
9660
9661 It is. The hassle is terrible. The system that exists now is awful. I
9662 completely agree that the Copyright Office has done a terrible job (no doubt
9663 because they are terribly funded) in enabling simple and cheap
9664 registrations. Any real solution to the problem of formalities must address
9665 the real problem of <span class="emphasis"><em>governments</em></span> standing at the core of
9666 any system of formalities. In this book, I offer such a solution. That
9667 solution essentially remakes the Copyright Office. For now, assume it was
9668 Amazon that ran the registration system. Assume it was one-click
9669 registration.  The Eldred Act would propose a simple, one-click registration
9670 fifty years after a work was published. Based upon historical data, that
9671 system would move up to 98 percent of commercial work, commercial work that
9672 no longer had a commercial life, into the public domain within fifty
9673 years. What do you think?
9674 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3026209"></a><p>
9675 <span class="strong"><strong>Da Steve Forbes</strong></span> støttet idéen, begynte
9676 enkelte i Washington å følge med. Mange kontaktet meg med tips til
9677 representanter som kan være villig til å introdusere en Eldred-lov. og jeg
9678 hadde noen få som foreslo direkte at de kan være villige til å ta det første
9679 skrittet.
9680 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3026233"></a><p>
9681 En representant, Zoe Lofgren fra California, gikk så langt som å få
9682 lovforslaget utarbeidet. Utkastet løste noen problemer med internasjonal
9683 lov. Det påla de enklest mulige forutsetninger på innehaverne av
9684 opphavsretter. I mai 2003 så det ut som om loven skulle være introdusert.
9685 16. mai, postet jeg på Eldred Act-bloggen, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vi er nære</span>»</span>.  Det
9686 oppstod en generell reaksjon i blogg-samfunnet om at noe godt kunne skje
9687 her.
9688 </p><p>
9689 But at this stage, the lobbyists began to intervene. Jack Valenti and the
9690 MPAA general counsel came to the congresswoman's office to give the view of
9691 the MPAA. Aided by his lawyer, as Valenti told me, Valenti informed the
9692 congresswoman that the MPAA would oppose the Eldred Act. The reasons are
9693 embarrassingly thin. More importantly, their thinness shows something clear
9694 about what this debate is really about.
9695 </p><p>
9696
9697 The MPAA argued first that Congress had <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">firmly rejected the central
9698 concept in the proposed bill</span>»</span>&#8212;that copyrights be renewed. That
9699 was true, but irrelevant, as Congress's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">firm rejection</span>»</span> had
9700 occurred long before the Internet made subsequent uses much more likely.
9701 Second, they argued that the proposal would harm poor copyright
9702 owners&#8212;apparently those who could not afford the $1 fee. Third, they
9703 argued that Congress had determined that extending a copyright term would
9704 encourage restoration work. Maybe in the case of the small percentage of
9705 work covered by copyright law that is still commercially valuable, but again
9706 this was irrelevant, as the proposal would not cut off the extended term
9707 unless the $1 fee was not paid. Fourth, the MPAA argued that the bill would
9708 impose <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">enormous</span>»</span> costs, since a registration system is not
9709 free. True enough, but those costs are certainly less than the costs of
9710 clearing the rights for a copyright whose owner is not known. Fifth, they
9711 worried about the risks if the copyright to a story underlying a film were
9712 to pass into the public domain. But what risk is that? If it is in the
9713 public domain, then the film is a valid derivative use.
9714 </p><p>
9715 Finally, the MPAA argued that existing law enabled copyright owners to do
9716 this if they wanted. But the whole point is that there are thousands of
9717 copyright owners who don't even know they have a copyright to give. Whether
9718 they are free to give away their copyright or not&#8212;a controversial
9719 claim in any case&#8212;unless they know about a copyright, they're not
9720 likely to.
9721 </p><p>
9722 <span class="strong"><strong>At the beginning</strong></span> of this book, I told two
9723 stories about the law reacting to changes in technology. In the one, common
9724 sense prevailed.  In the other, common sense was delayed. The difference
9725 between the two stories was the power of the opposition&#8212;the power of
9726 the side that fought to defend the status quo. In both cases, a new
9727 technology threatened old interests. But in only one case did those
9728 interest's have the power to protect themselves against this new competitive
9729 threat.
9730 </p><p>
9731 Jeg brukte disse to tilfellene som en måte å ramme inn krigen som denne
9732 boken har handlet om.  For her er det også en ny teknologi som tvinger loven
9733 til å reagere.  Og her bør vi også spørre, er loven i tråd med eller i strid
9734 med sunn fornuft.  Hvis sunn fornuft støtter loven, hva forklarer denne
9735 sunne fornuften?
9736 </p><p>
9737
9738
9739
9740 When the issue is piracy, it is right for the law to back the copyright
9741 owners. The commercial piracy that I described is wrong and harmful, and the
9742 law should work to eliminate it. When the issue is p2p sharing, it is easy
9743 to understand why the law backs the owners still: Much of this sharing is
9744 wrong, even if much is harmless. When the issue is copyright terms for the
9745 Mickey Mouses of the world, it is possible still to understand why the law
9746 favors Hollywood: Most people don't recognize the reasons for limiting
9747 copyright terms; it is thus still possible to see good faith within the
9748 resistance.
9749 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3026364"></a><p>
9750 But when the copyright owners oppose a proposal such as the Eldred Act,
9751 then, finally, there is an example that lays bare the naked selfinterest
9752 driving this war. This act would free an extraordinary range of content that
9753 is otherwise unused. It wouldn't interfere with any copyright owner's desire
9754 to exercise continued control over his content. It would simply liberate
9755 what Kevin Kelly calls the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dark Content</span>»</span> that fills archives
9756 around the world. So when the warriors oppose a change like this, we should
9757 ask one simple question:
9758 </p><p>
9759 Hva ønsker denne industrien egentlig?
9760 </p><p>
9761 With very little effort, the warriors could protect their content. So the
9762 effort to block something like the Eldred Act is not really about protecting
9763 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> content. The effort to block the Eldred Act is an
9764 effort to assure that nothing more passes into the public domain. It is
9765 another step to assure that the public domain will never compete, that there
9766 will be no use of content that is not commercially controlled, and that
9767 there will be no commercial use of content that doesn't require
9768 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> permission first.
9769 </p><p>
9770 The opposition to the Eldred Act reveals how extreme the other side is. The
9771 most powerful and sexy and well loved of lobbies really has as its aim not
9772 the protection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> but the rejection of a tradition.
9773 Their aim is not simply to protect what is theirs. <span class="emphasis"><em>Their aim is to
9774 assure that all there is is what is theirs</em></span>.
9775 </p><p>
9776
9777 It is not hard to understand why the warriors take this view. It is not hard
9778 to see why it would benefit them if the competition of the public domain
9779 tied to the Internet could somehow be quashed. Just as RCA feared the
9780 competition of FM, they fear the competition of a public domain connected to
9781 a public that now has the means to create with it and to share its own
9782 creation.
9783 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3026438"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3026444"></a><p>
9784 Det som er vanskelig å forstå er hvorfor folket innehar dette synet. Det er
9785 som om loven gjorde at flymaskiner tok seg inn på annen manns eiendom.  MPAA
9786 står side om side med Causbyene og krever at deres fjerne og ubrukelige
9787 eierrettigheter blir respektert, slik at disse fjerne og glemte
9788 opphavsrettsinnehaverne kan blokkere fremgangen til andre.
9789 </p><p>
9790 All this seems to follow easily from this untroubled acceptance of the
9791 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> in intellectual property. Common sense supports it,
9792 and so long as it does, the assaults will rain down upon the technologies of
9793 the Internet. The consequence will be an increasing <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permission
9794 society.</span>»</span> The past can be cultivated only if you can identify the
9795 owner and gain permission to build upon his work. The future will be
9796 controlled by this dead (and often unfindable) hand of the past.
9797 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3025934" href="#id3025934" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
9798
9799 <a class="indexterm" name="id3025940"></a> Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the
9800 Berne Convention, national copyright legislation sometimes made protection
9801 depend upon compliance with formalities such as registration, deposit, and
9802 affixation of notice of the author's claim of copyright. However, starting
9803 with the 1908 act, every text of the Convention has provided that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
9804 enjoyment and the exercise</span>»</span> of rights guaranteed by the Convention
9805 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">shall not be subject to any formality.</span>»</span> The prohibition
9806 against formalities is presently embodied in Article 5(2) of the Paris Text
9807 of the Berne Convention. Many countries continue to impose some form of
9808 deposit or registration requirement, albeit not as a condition of
9809 copyright. French law, for example, requires the deposit of copies of works
9810 in national repositories, principally the National Museum.  Copies of books
9811 published in the United Kingdom must be deposited in the British
9812 Library. The German Copyright Act provides for a Registrar of Authors where
9813 the author's true name can be filed in the case of anonymous or pseudonymous
9814 works. Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">International Intellectual Property Law,
9815 Cases and Materials</em> (New York: Foundation Press, 2001),
9816 153&#8211;54.  </p></div></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 15. Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>Chapter 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>
9817 <span class="strong"><strong>Det er mer</strong></span> enn trettifem millioner
9818 mennesker over hele verden med AIDS-viruset. Tjuefem millioner av dem bor i
9819 Afrika sør for Sahara.  Sytten millioner har allerede dødd.  Sytten
9820 millioner afrikanere er prosentvis proporsjonalt med syv millioner
9821 amerikanere.  Viktigere er det at dette er 17 millioner afrikanere.
9822 </p><p>
9823 Det finnes ingen kur for AIDS, men det finnes medisiner som kan hemme
9824 sykdommens utvikling.  Disse antiretrovirale terapiene er fortsatt
9825 eksperimentelle, men de har hatt en dramatisk effekt allerede.  I USA øker
9826 AIDS-pasienter som regelmessig tar en cocktail av disse medisinene sin
9827 levealder med ti til tjue år. For noen gjøre medisinene sykdommen nesten
9828 usynlig.
9829 </p><p>
9830 Disse medisinene er dyre.  Da de ble først introdusert i USA, kostet de
9831 mellom $10 000 og $15 000 pr. person hvert år.  I dag koster noen
9832 av dem $25 000 pr. år.  Med disse prisene har, selvfølgelig, ingen
9833 afrikansk stat  råd til medisinen for det store flertall av sine innbyggere:
9834 $15 000 er tredve ganger brutto nasjonalprodukt pr. innbygger i
9835 Zimbabwe.  Med slike priser er disse medisinene fullstendig
9836 utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id3026581" href="#ftn.id3026581" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
9837 </p><p>
9838
9839
9840 Disse prisene er ikke høye fordi ingrediensene til medisinene er dyre.
9841 Disse prisene er høye fordi medisinene er beskyttet av patenter.
9842 Farmasiselskapene som produserer disse livreddende blandingene nyter minst
9843 tjue års monopol på sine oppfinnelser.  De bruker denne monopolmakten til å
9844 hente ut så mye de kan fra markedet.  Ved hjelp av denne makten holder de
9845 prisene høye.
9846 </p><p>
9847 Det er mange som er skeptiske til patenter, spesielt patenter på
9848 medisiner. Det er ikke jeg. Faktisk av alle forskningsområder som kan være
9849 støttet av patenter, er forskning på medisiner, etter min mening, det
9850 klareste tilfelle der patenter er nødvendig. Patenter gir et farmasøytiske
9851 firma en viss forsikring om at hvis det lykkes i å finne opp et nytt
9852 medikament som kan behandle en sykdom, vil det kunne tjene tilbake
9853 investeringen og mer til. Dette ber sosialt et ekstremt verdifullt
9854 insentiv. Jeg er den siste personen som vil argumentere for at loven skal
9855 avskaffe dette, i det minste uten andre endringer.
9856 </p><p>
9857 Men det er én ting å støtte patenter, selv patenter på medisiner. Det er en
9858 annen ting å avgjøre hvordan en best skal håndtere en krise. Og i det
9859 afrikanske ledere begynte å erkjenne ødeleggelsen AIDS brakte, begynte de å
9860 se etter måter å importere HIV-medisiner til kostnader betydelig under
9861 markedspris.
9862 </p><p>
9863 I 1997 forsøkte Sør-Afrika seg på en tilnærming.  Landet vedtok en lov som
9864 tillot import av patenterte medisiner som hadde blitt produsert og solgt i
9865 en annen nasjons marked med godkjenning fra patenteieren.  For eksempel,
9866 hvis medisinen var solgt i India, så kunne den bli importert inn til Afrika
9867 fra India.  Dette kalles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">parallellimport</span>»</span> og er generelt
9868 tillatt i internasjonal handelslovgivning, og spesifikt tillatt i den
9869 europeiske union.<sup>[<a name="id3026674" href="#ftn.id3026674" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
9870 </p><p>
9871 Men USA var imot lovendringen.  Og de nøyde seg ikke med å være imot. Som
9872 International Intellectual Property Association karakteriserte det,
9873 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Myndighetene i USA presset Sør-Afrika &#8230; til å ikke tillate
9874 tvungen lisensiering eller parallellimport</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id3022963" href="#ftn.id3022963" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup> Gjennom kontoret til USAs handelsrepresentant
9875 (USTR), ba myndighetene Sør-Afrika om å endre loven&#8212;og for å legge
9876 press bak den forespørselen, listet USTR i 1998 opp Sør-Afrika som et land
9877 som burde vurderes for handelsrestriksjoner.  Samme år gikk mer enn førti
9878 farmasiselskaper til retten for å utfordre myndighetenes handlinger. USA
9879 fikk selskap av andre myndigheter fra EU.  Deres påstand, og påstanden til
9880 farmasiselskapene, var at Sør-Afrika brøt sine internasjonale forpliktelser
9881 ved å diskriminere mot en bestemt type patenter&#8212;farmasøytiske
9882 patenter.  Kravet fra disse myndighetene, med USA i spissen, var at
9883 Sør-Afrika skulle respektere disse patentene på samme måte som alle andre
9884 patenter, uavhengig av eventuell effekt på behandlingen av AIDS i
9885 Sør-Afrika.<sup>[<a name="id3026746" href="#ftn.id3026746" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
9886 </p><p>
9887 Vi bør sette intervensjonen til USA i sammenheng.  Det er ingen tvil om at
9888 patenter ikke er den viktigste årsaken til at Afrikanere ikke har tilgang
9889 til medisiner.  Fattigdom og den totale mangel på effektivt helsevesen betyr
9890 mer. Men uansett om patenter er en viktigste grunnen eller ikke, så har
9891 prisen på medisiner en effekt på etterspørselen, og patenter påvirker
9892 prisen. Så uansett, massiv eller marginal, så var det en effekt av våre
9893 myndigheters intervensjon for å stoppe flyten av medisiner inn til Afrika.
9894 </p><p>
9895 Ved å stoppe flyten av HIV-behandling til Afrika, sikret ikke myndighetene i
9896 USA medisiner til USA borgere. Dette er ikke som hvete (hvis de spise det så
9897 kan ikke vi spise det). Det som USA i effekt intervenerte for å stoppe, var
9898 flyten av kunnskap: Informasjon om hvordan en kan ta kjemikalier som finnes
9899 i Afrika og gjøre disse kjemikaliene om til medisiner som kan redde 15 til
9900 30 millioner liv.
9901 </p><p>
9902 Intervensjonen fra USA ville heller ikke beskytte fortjenesten til
9903 medisinselskapene i USA&#8212; i hvert fall ikke betydelig.  Det var jo ikke
9904 slik at disse landene hadde mulighet til å kjøpe medisinene til de prisene
9905 som medisinselskapene forlangte.  Igjen var afrikanerne for fattige til å ha
9906 råd til disse medisinene til de tilbudte prisene.  Å blokkere for
9907 parallellimport av disse medisinene ville ikke øke salget til de amerikanske
9908 selskapene betydelig.
9909 </p><p>
9910 I stedet var argumentet til fordel for restriksjoner på denne flyten av
9911 informasjon, som var nødvendig for å redde millioner av liv, et argument om
9912 eiendoms ukrenkelighet.<sup>[<a name="id3026840" href="#ftn.id3026840" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup>  Det var på
9913 grunn av at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span> ville bli krenket at disse
9914 medisinene ikke skulle flomme inn til Afrika.  Det var prinsippet om
9915 viktigheten av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span> som fikk disse
9916 myndighetsaktørene til å intervenere mot Sør-Afrikas mottiltak mot AIDS.
9917 </p><p>
9918 La oss ta et skritt tilbake for et øyeblikk.  En gang om tredve år vil våre
9919 barn se tilbake på oss og spørre, hvordan kunne vi la dette skje?  Hvordan
9920 kunne vi tillate å gjennomføre en politikk hvis direkte kostnad var få 15
9921 til 30 millioner afrikanere til å dø raskere, og hvis eneste virkelige
9922 fordel var å opprettholde <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ukrenkeligheten</span>»</span> til en idé?  Hva
9923 slags berettigelse kan noen sinne eksistere for en politikk som resulterer i
9924 så mange døde?  Hva slags galskap er det egentlig som tillater at så mange
9925 dør for slik en abstraksjon?
9926 </p><p>
9927 Noen skylder på farmasiselskapene.  Det gjør ikke jeg.  De er selskaper, og
9928 deres ledere er lovpålagt å tjene penger for selskapene.  De presser på for
9929 en bestemt patentpolitikk, ikke på grunn av idealer, men fordi det er dette
9930 som gjør at de tjener mest penger.  Og dette gjør kun at de tjener mest
9931 penger på grunn av en slags korrupsjon i vårt politiske system&#8212; en
9932 korrupsjon som farmasiselskapene helt klart ikke er ansvarlige for.
9933 </p><p>
9934 Denne korrupsjonen er våre egne politikeres manglende integritet.  For
9935 medisinprodusentene ville elske&#8212;sier de selv, og jeg tror dem &#8212;
9936 å selge sine medisiner så billig som de kan til land i Afrika og andre
9937 steder. Det er utfordringer de må løse å sikre at medisinene ikke kommer
9938 tilbake til USA, men dette er bare teknologiske utfordring. De kan bli
9939 overvunnet.
9940 </p><p>
9941
9942 Et annet problem kan derimot ikke løses. Det er frykten for at en politiker
9943 som skal vise seg og kaller inn lederne hos medisinprodusentene til høring i
9944 senatet eller representantenes hus og spør, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvordan har det seg at du
9945 kan selge HIV-medisinen i Afrika for bare $1 pr. pille, mens samme pille
9946 koster en amerikansker $1 500?</span>»</span> Da det ikke finnes et
9947 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kjapt svar</span>»</span> på det spørsmålet, ville effekten bli regulering
9948 av priser i Amerika.  Medisinprodusentene unngår dermed denne spiralen ved å
9949 sikre at det første steget ikke tas.  De forsterker idéen om at
9950 eierrettigheter skal være ukrenkelige.  De legger seg på en rasjonell
9951 strategi i en irrasjonell omgivelse, med den utilsiktede konsekvens at
9952 kanskje millioner dør.  Og den rasjonelle strategien rammes dermed inn ved
9953 hjel av dette ideal&#8212;helligheten til en idé som kalles
9954 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle rettigheter</span>»</span>.
9955 </p><p>
9956 Så når du konfronteres av ditt barns sunne fornuft, hva vil du si?  Når den
9957 sunne fornuften hos en generasjon endelig gjør opprør mot hva vi har gjort,
9958 hvordan vil vi rettferdiggjøre det?  Hva er argumentet?
9959 </p><p>
9960 En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk støtte til
9961 patentsystemet uten å måtte nå alle overalt på nøyaktig samme måte. På samme
9962 måte som en fornuftig opphavsrettspolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk
9963 støtte til et opphavsretts-system uten å måtte regulere spredningen av
9964 kultur perfekt og for alltid.  En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for
9965 og gi sterk støtte til et patentsystem uten å måtte blokkere spredning av
9966 medisiner til et land som uansett ikke er rikt nok til å ha råd til
9967 markedsprisen.  En fornuftig politikk kan en dermed si kunne være en
9968 balansert politikk.  For det meste av vår historie har både opphavsrett- og
9969 patentpolitikken i denne forstand vært balansert.
9970 </p><p>
9971 Men vi som kultur har mistet denne følelsen for balanse.  Vi har mistet det
9972 kritiske blikket som hjelper oss til å se forskjellen mellom sannhet og
9973 ekstremisme.  En slags eiendomsfundamentalisme, uten grunnlag i vår
9974 tradisjon, hersker nå i vår kultur&#8212;sært, og med konsekvenser mer
9975 alvorlig for spredningen av idéer og kultur enn nesten enhver annen politisk
9976 enkeltavgjørelse vi som demokrati kan fatte.
9977 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3026998"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3027076"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3027086"></a><p>
9978
9979 <span class="strong"><strong>En enkel idé</strong></span> blender oss, og under dekke
9980 av mørket skjer mye som de fleste av oss ville avvist hvis vi hadde fulgt
9981 med.  Så ukritisk aksepterer vi idéen om eierskap til idéer at vi ikke
9982 engang legger merke til hvor uhyrlig det er å nekte tilgang til idéer for et
9983 folk som dør uten dem.  Så ukritisk aksepterer vi idéen om eiendom til
9984 kulturen at vi ikke engang stiller spørsmål ved når kontrollen over denne
9985 eiendommen fjerner vår evne, som folk, til å utvikle vår kultur
9986 demokratisk.  Blindhet blir vår sunne fornuft, og utfordringen for enhver
9987 som vil gjenvinne retten til å dyrke vår kultur er å finne en måte å få
9988 denne sunne fornuften til å åpne sine øyne.
9989 </p><p>
9990 Så langt sover sunn fornuft.  Det er intet opprør.  Sunn fornuft ser ennå
9991 ikke hva det er å gjøre opprør mot.  Ekstremismen som nå dominerer denne
9992 debatten resonerer med idéer som virker naturlige, og resonansen er
9993 forsterket av våre moderne RCA-ene.  De fører en frenetisk krig for å
9994 bekjempe <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> og knuser kreativitetskultur.  De
9995 forsvarer idéen om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativt eierskap</span>»</span>, mens de endrer ekte
9996 skapere til moderne leilendinger.  De blir fornærmet av idéen om at
9997 rettigheter skulle være balanserte, selv om hver av hovedaktørene i denne
9998 innholdskrigen selv hadde fordeler av et mer balansert ideal.  Hykleriet
9999 rår.  Men i en by som Washington blir ikke hykleriet en gang lagt merke
10000 til.  Mektige lobbyister, kompliserte problemer og MTV-oppmerksomhetsspenn
10001 gir en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">perfekt storm</span>»</span> for fri kultur.
10002 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3027172"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3027182"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3027189"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3027196"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3027203"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3027210"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbiomedicalresearch"></a><p>
10003 <span class="strong"><strong>I august 2003</strong></span> brøt en kamp ut i USA om en
10004 avgjørelse fra World Intellectual Property Organiation om å avlyse et
10005 møte.<sup>[<a name="id3027242" href="#ftn.id3027242" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke
10006 med interressenter hadde WIPO bestemt å avholde et møte for å diskutere
10007 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape goder for
10008 felleskapet</span>»</span>.  Disse prosjektene som hadde lyktes i å produsere goder
10009 for fellesskapet uten å basere seg eksklusivt på bruken av proprietære
10010 immaterielle rettigheter.  Eksempler inkluderer internettet og verdensveven,
10011 begge som ble utviklet på grunnlag av protokoller i allemannseie.  Det hadde
10012 med en begynnende trend for å støtte åpne akademiske tidsskrifter, og
10013 inkluderte Public Library of Science-prosjektet som jeg beskriver i
10014 etterordet.  Det inkluderte et prosjekt for a utvikle
10015 enkeltnukleotidforskjeller (SNPs), som er antatt å få stor betydning i
10016 biomedisinsk forskning.  (Dette ideelle prosjektet besto av et konsortium av
10017 Wellcome Trust og farmasøytiske og teknologiske selskaper, inkludert
10018 Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb,
10019 Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola, Novartis, Pfizer, og
10020 Searle.)  Det inkluderte Globalt posisjonssystem (GPS) som Ronald Reagen
10021 frigjorde tidlig på 1980-tallet.  Og det inkluderte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og
10022 fri programvare</span>»</span>. <a class="indexterm" name="id3027339"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3027349"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3027356"></a>
10023 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3027364"></a><p>
10024 Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles
10025 perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell
10026 ekstremisme. I stedet, hos alle disse, ble immaterielle rettigheter
10027 balansert med avtaler om å holde tilgang åpen, eller for å legge
10028 begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
10029 </p><p>
10030 Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen
10031 ideell.<sup>[<a name="id3027392" href="#ftn.id3027392" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
10032 både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker.  De involverte i hovedsak
10033 vitenskapen, men fra mange perspektiver.  Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for
10034 denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som
10035 drev med immaterielle rettighetsspørsmål.
10036 </p><p>
10037
10038 Faktisk fikk jeg en gang offentlig kjeft for å ikke anerkjenne dette faktum
10039 om WIPO.  I februar 2003 leverte jeg et nøkkelforedrag på en forberedende
10040 konferanse for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).  På en
10041 pressekonferanse før innlegget, ble jeg spurt hva jeg skulle snakke om.  Jeg
10042 svarte at jeg skulle snakke litt om viktigheten av balanse rundt
10043 immaterielle verdier for utviklingen av informasjonssamfunnet.  Ordstyreren
10044 på arrangementet avbrøt meg da brått for å informere meg og journalistene
10045 tilstede at ingen spørsmål rundt immaterielle verdier ville bli diskutert av
10046 WSIS, da slike spørsmål kun skulle diskuteres i WIPO.  I innlegget jeg hadde
10047 forberedt var temaet om immaterielle verdier en forholdvis liten del av det
10048 hele.  Men etter denne forbløffende uttalelsen, gjorde jeg immaterielle
10049 verdier til hovedfokus for mitt innlegg.  Det var ikke mulig å snakke om et
10050 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">informasjonssamfunn</span>»</span> uten at en også snakket om andelen av
10051 informasjon og kultur som ikke er vernet av opphavsretten.  Mitt innlegg
10052 gjorde ikke min overivrige moderator veldig glad.  Og hun hadde uten tvil
10053 rett i at omfanget til vern av immaterielle rettigheter normalt hørte inn
10054 under WIPO.  Men etter mitt syn, kunne det ikke bli for mye diskusjon om
10055 hvor mye immaterielle rettigheter som trengs, siden etter mitt syn, hadde
10056 selve idéen om en balanse rundt immaterielle rettigheter hadde gått tapt.
10057 </p><p>
10058 Så uansett om WSIS kan diskutere balanse i intellektuell eiendom eller ikke,
10059 så hadde jeg trodd det var tatt for gitt at WIPO kunne og burde.  Og dermed
10060 møtet om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape
10061 fellesgoder</span>»</span> virker å passe perfekt for WIPOs agenda.
10062 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3027480"></a><p>
10063 Men det er ett prosjekt i listen som er svært kontroversielt, i hvert fall
10064 blant lobbyister. Dette prosjektet er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og fri
10065 programvare</span>»</span>. Microsoft spesielt er skeptisk til diskusjon om
10066 emnet. Fra deres perspektiv, ville en konferanse for å diskutere åpen
10067 kildekode og fri programvare være som en konferanse for å diskutere Apples
10068 operativsystem.  Både åpen kildekode og fri programvare konkurrerer med
10069 Microsofts programvare.  Og internasjonalt har mange myndigheter begynt å
10070 utforske krav om at de skal bruke åpen kildekode eller fri programvare, i
10071 stedet for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">proprietær programvare</span>»</span>, til sine egne interne
10072 behov.
10073 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3027516"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3027526"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3027532"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3027539"></a><p>
10074 Jeg mener ikke å gå inn i den debatten her.  Det er viktig kun for å gjøre
10075 det klart at skillet ikke er mellom kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell
10076 programvare.  Det er mange viktige selskaper som er fundamentalt avhengig av
10077 fri programvare, der IBM er den mest fremtredende.  IBM har i stadig større
10078 grad skiftet sitt fokus til GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, det mest berømte
10079 biten av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri programvare</span>»</span>&#8212;og IBM er helt klart en
10080 kommersiell aktør. Dermed er det å støtte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri programvare</span>»</span>
10081 ikke å motsette seg kommersielle aktører.  Det er i stedet å støtte en måte
10082 å drive programvareutvikling som er forskjellig fra Microsofts.<sup>[<a name="id3027574" href="#ftn.id3027574" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup>
10083 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3027635"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3027642"></a><p>
10084
10085 Mer viktig for våre formål, er at å støtte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og fri
10086 programvare</span>»</span> ikke er å motsette seg opphavsrett. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Åpen
10087 kildekode og fri programvare</span>»</span> er ikke programvare uten
10088 opphavsrettslig vern. Istedet, på samme måte som programvare fra Microsoft,
10089 insisterer opphavsrettsinnehaverne av fri programvare ganske sterkt at
10090 vilkårene i deres programvarelisens blir respektert av de som tar i bruk fri
10091 programvare.  Vilkårene i den lisensen er uten tvil forskjellig fra
10092 vilkårene i en proprietær programvarelisens.  For eksempel krever fri
10093 programvare lisensiert med den generelle offentlige lisensen (GPL), at
10094 kildekoden for programvare gjøres tilgjengelig for alle som endrer og
10095 videredistribuerer programvaren.  Men dette kravet er kun effektivt hvis
10096 opphavsrett råder over programvare.  Hvis opphavsretten ikke råder over
10097 programvare, så kunne ikke fri programvare pålegge slike krav på de som tar
10098 i bruk programvaren.  Den er dermed like avhengig av opphavsrettsloven som
10099 Microsoft.
10100 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3027697"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3027704"></a><p>
10101 Det er dermed forståelig at Microsoft, som utviklere av proprietær
10102 programvare, gikk imot et slikt WIPO-møte, og like fullt forståelig at de
10103 bruker sine lobbyister til å få USAs myndigheter til å gå imot møtet.  Og
10104 ganske riktig, det er akkurat dette som i følge rapporter hadde skjedd.  I
10105 følge Jonathan Krim i <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, lyktes
10106 Microsofts lobbyister i å få USAs myndigheter til å legge ned veto mot et
10107 slikt møte.<sup>[<a name="id3027733" href="#ftn.id3027733" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
10108 møtet avlyst.
10109 </p><p>
10110 Jeg klandrer ikke Microsoft for å gjøre det de kan for å fremme sine egne
10111 interesser i samsvar med loven. Og lobbyvirksomhet mot myndighetene er
10112 åpenbart i samsvar med loven. Det er ikke noe overraskende her med deres
10113 lobbyvirksomhet, og ikke veldig overraskende at den mektigste
10114 programvareprodusenten i USA har lyktes med sin lobbyvirksomhet.
10115 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3027768"></a><p>
10116 Det som var overraskende var USAs regjerings begrunnelse for å være imot
10117 møtet.  Igjen, sitert av Krim, forklarte Lois Boland, direktør for
10118 internasjonale forbindelser ved USAs patent og varemerkekontor, at
10119 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">programvare med åpen kildekode går imot til formålet til WIPO, som er
10120 å fremme immaterielle rettigheter.</span>»</span>.  Hun skal i følge sitatet ha
10121 sagt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Å holde et møte som har som formål å fraskrive seg eller
10122 frafalle slike rettigheter synes for oss å være i strid med formålene til
10123 WIPO.</span>»</span>
10124 </p><p>
10125 Disse utsagnene er forbløffende på flere nivåer.
10126 </p><p>
10127 For det første er de ganske enkelt ikke riktige.  Som jeg beskrev, er det
10128 meste av åpen kildekode og fri programvare fundamentalt avhengig av den
10129 immaterielle retten kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrett</span>»</span>.  Uten den vil
10130 begrensningene definert av disse lisensene ikke fungere. Dermed er det å si
10131 at de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">går imot</span>»</span> formålet om å fremme immaterielle rettigheter
10132 å avsløre en ekstraordinær mangel på forståelse&#8212;den type feil som er
10133 tilgivelig hos en førsteårs jusstudent, men pinlig fra en høyt plassert
10134 statstjenestemann som håndterer utfordringer rundt immaterielle rettigheter.
10135 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3027826"></a><p>
10136 For det andre, hvem har noen gang hevdet at WIPOs eksklusive mål var å
10137 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fremme</span>»</span> immaterielle rettigheter maksimalt?  Som jeg fikk
10138 kjeft om på den forberedende konferansen til WSIS, skal WIPO vurdere ikke
10139 bare hvordan best beskytte immaterielle rettigheter, men også hva som er den
10140 beste balansen rundt immaterielle rettigheter.  Som enhver økonom og advokat
10141 vet, er det vanskelige spørsmålet i immaterielle rettighetsjuss å finne den
10142 balansen.  Men at det skulle være en grense, trodde jeg, var ubestridt.  Man
10143 ønsker å spørre Ms. Boland om generelle medisiner (medisiner basert på
10144 medisiner med patenter som er utløpt) i strid med WIPOs oppdrag?  Svekker
10145 allemannseie immaterielle rettigheter?  Ville det vært bedre om internettets
10146 protokoller hadde vært patentert?
10147 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3027865"></a><p>
10148 For det tredje, selv om en tror at formålet med WIPO var å maksimere
10149 immaterielle rettigheter, så innehas immaterielle rettigheter, i vår
10150 tradisjon, av individer og selskaper.  De får bestemme hva som skal gjøres
10151 med disse rettighetene, igjen fordi det er <span class="emphasis"><em>de</em></span> som eier
10152 rettighetene. Hvis de ønsker å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frafalle</span>»</span> eller
10153 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frasi</span>»</span> seg sine rettigheter, så er det helt etter boka i vår
10154 tradisjon.  Når Bill Gates gir bort mer enn $20 milliarder til gode formål,
10155 så er ikke det uforenelig med målene til eiendomssystemet.  Det er heller
10156 tvert i mot, akkurat hva eiendomssysstemet er ment å oppnå, at individer har
10157 retten til å bestemme hva de vil gjøre med <span class="emphasis"><em>sin</em></span> eiendom.
10158 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxboland"></a><p>
10159
10160 Når Ms. Boland sier at det er noe galt med et møte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">som har som sitt
10161 formål å fraskrive eller frafalle slike rettigheter</span>»</span>, så sier hun at
10162 WIPO har en interesse i å påvirke valgene til enkeltpersoner som eier
10163 immaterielle rettigheter.  At på en eller annen WIPOs oppdrag bør være å
10164 stoppe individer fra å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fraskrive</span>»</span> eller
10165 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frafalle</span>»</span> seg sine immaterielle rettigheter.  At interessen
10166 til WIPO ikke bare er  maksimale immaterielle rettigheter, men også at de
10167 skal utøves på den mest ekstreme og restriktive mulig måten.
10168 </p><p>
10169 Det er en historie om akkurat et slikt eierskapssystem som er velkjent i den
10170 anglo-amerikansk tradisjon.  Det kalles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">føydalisme</span>»</span>. Under
10171 føydalismen var eiendommer ikke bare kontrollert av et relativt lite antall
10172 individer og aktører.  Men det føydale systemet hadde en sterk interesse i å
10173 sikre at landeier i systemet ikke svekke føydalismen ved å frigjøre folkene
10174 og eiendomene som de kontrollerte til det frie markedet.  Føydalismen var
10175 avhengig av maksimal kontroll og konsentrasjon.  Det sloss mot enhver frihet
10176 som kunne forstyrre denne kontrollen.
10177 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3027977"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3027984"></a><p>
10178 Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
10179 vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id3027997" href="#ftn.id3027997" class="footnote">204</a>]</sup>
10180 Vi kommer til å få et informasjonssamfunn.  Så mye er sikkert.  Vårt eneste
10181 valg nå er hvorvidt dette informasjonssamfunnet skal være
10182 <span class="emphasis"><em>fritt</em></span> eller <span class="emphasis"><em>føydalt</em></span>.  Trenden er
10183 mot det føydale.
10184 </p><p>
10185 Da denne bataljen brøt ut, blogget jeg om dette.  En heftig debatt brøt ut i
10186 kommentarfeltet.  Ms. Boland hadde en rekke støttespillere som forsøkte å
10187 vise hvorfor hennes kommentarer ga mening.  Men det var spesielt en
10188 kommentar som gjorde meg trist.  En anonym kommentator skrev,
10189 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
10190
10191 George, du misforstår Lessig: Han snakker bare om verden slik den burde være
10192 (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">målet til WIPO, og målet til enhver regjering, bør være å fremme den
10193 riktige balansen for immaterielle rettigheter, ikke bare å fremme
10194 immaterielle rettigheter</span>»</span>), ikke som den er.  Hvis vi snakket om
10195 verden slik den er, så har naturligvis Boland ikke sagt noe galt.  Men i
10196 verden slik Lessig vil at den skal være, er det åpenbart at hun har sagt noe
10197 galt.  En må alltid være oppmerksom på forskjellen mellom Lessigs og vår
10198 verden.
10199 </p></blockquote></div><p>
10200 Jeg gikk glipp av ironien først gangen jeg leste den. Jeg lese den raskt og
10201 trodde forfatteren støttet idéen om at det våre myndigheter burde gjøre var
10202 å søke balanse. (Min kritikk av Ms Boland, selvfølgelig, var ikke om
10203 hvorvidt hun søkte balanse eller ikke; min kritikk var at hennes kommentarer
10204 avslørte en feil kun en førsteårs jusstudent burde kunne gjøre. Jeg har noen
10205 illusjon om ekstremismen hos våre myndigheter, uansett om de er
10206 republikanere eller demokrater. Min eneste tilsynelatende illusjon er
10207 hvorvidt våre myndigheter bør snakke sant eller ikke.)
10208 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3028088"></a><p>
10209 Det var derimot åpenbart at den som postet meldingen ikke støttet idéen.  I
10210 stedet latterliggjorde forfatteren selve idéen om at i den virkelig verden
10211 skulle <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">målet</span>»</span> til myndighetene være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">å fremme den
10212 riktige balanse</span>»</span> for immaterielle rettigheter.  Det var åpenbart
10213 tåpelig for ham.  Og det avslørte åpenbart, trodde han, min egen tåpelige
10214 utopisme.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Typisk for en akademiker</span>»</span>, kunne forfatteren like
10215 gjerne ha fortsatt.
10216 </p><p>
10217 Jeg forstår kritikken av akademisk utopisme.  Jeg mener også at utopisme er
10218 tåpelig, og jeg vil være blant de første til å gjøre narr av de absurde
10219 urealistiske idealer til akademikere gjennom historien (og ikke bare i vårt
10220 eget lands historie).
10221 </p><p>
10222 Men når det har blitt dumt å anta at rollen til våre myndigheter bør være å
10223 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">oppnå balanse</span>»</span>, da kan du regne meg blant de dumme, for det
10224 betyr at dette faktisk har blitt ganske seriøst.  Hvis det bør være åpenbart
10225 for alle at myndighetene ikke søker å oppnå balanse, at myndighetene ganske
10226 enkelt et verktøy for de mektigste lobbyistene, at idéen om å forvente bedre
10227 av myndighetene er absurd, at idéen om å kreve at myndighetene snakker sant
10228 og ikke lyver bare er naiv, hva har da vi, det mektigste demokratiet i
10229 verden, blitt?
10230 </p><p>
10231
10232 Det kan være galskap å forvente at en mektig myndigshetsperson skal si
10233 sannheten. Det kan være galskap å tro at myndighetenes politikk skal gjøre
10234 mer enn å tjene de mektigste interesser. Det kan være galskap å argumentere
10235 for å bevare en tradisjon som har vært en del av vår tradisjon for
10236 mesteparten av vår historie&#8212;fri kultur.
10237 </p><p>
10238 Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger.  Snart.
10239 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3028178"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3028185"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3028191"></a><p>
10240 <span class="strong"><strong>Det finnes øyeblikk</strong></span> av håp i denne
10241 kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte mindre strenge
10242 eierskapsregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere medieeierskap, dannet det
10243 seg en en ekstraordinær koalisjon på tvers av partiene for å bekjempe
10244 endringen. For kanskje første gang i historien organiserte interesser så
10245 forskjellige som NRA, ACLU, moveon.org, William Safire, Ted Turner og
10246 Codepink Women for Piece seg for å protestere på denne endringen i
10247 FCC-reglene.  Så mange som 700 000 brev ble sendt til FCC med krav om flere
10248 høringer og et annet resultat.
10249 </p><p>
10250 Disse protestene stoppet ikke FCC, men like etter stemte en bred koalisjon i
10251 senatet for å reversere avgjørelsen i FCC. De fiendtlige høringene som ledet
10252 til avstemmingen avslørte hvor mektig denne bevegelsen hadde blitt.  Det var
10253 ingen betydningsfull støtte for FCCs avgjørelse, mens det var bred og
10254 vedvarende støtte for å bekjempe ytterligere konsentrasjon i media.
10255 </p><p>
10256 Men selv denne bevegelsen går glipp av en viktig brikke i puslespillet.  Å
10257 være stor er ikke ille i seg selv. Frihet er ikke truet bare på grunn av at
10258 noen blir veldig rik, eller på grunn av at det bare er en håndfull store
10259 aktører.  Den dårlige kvaliteten til Big Macs eller Quartar Punders betyr
10260 ikke at du ikke kan få en god hamburger andre steder.
10261 </p><p>
10262 Faren med mediekonsentrasjon kommer ikke fra selve konsentrasjonen, men
10263 kommer fra føydalismen som denne konsentrasjonen fører til når den kobles
10264 til endringer i opphavsretten. Det er ikke kun at det er noen mektige
10265 selskaper som styrer en stadig voksende andel av mediene. Det er at denne
10266 konsentrasjonen kan påkalle en like oppsvulmet rekke
10267 rettigheter&#8212;eiendomsrettigheter i en historisk ekstrem form&#8212;som
10268 gjør størrelsen ille.
10269 </p><p>
10270 Det er derfor betydningsfullt at så mange vil kjempe for å kreve konkurranse
10271 og økt mangfold. Likevel, hvis kampanjen blir forstått til å kun gjelde
10272 størrelse, så er ikke det veldig overraskende. Vi amerikanere har en lang
10273 historie med å slåss mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stort</span>»</span>, klokt eller ikke. At vi kan
10274 være motivert til å slåss mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">store</span>»</span> igjen ikke noe nytt.
10275 </p><p>
10276 Det ville vært noe nytt, og noe veldig viktig, hvis like mange kan være med
10277 på en kampanje for å bekjempe økende ekstremisme bygget inn i idéen om
10278 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span>.  Ikke fordi balanse er fremmed for vår
10279 tradisjon. Jeg argumenterer for at balanse er vår tradisjon.  Men fordi
10280 evnen til å tenke kritisk på omfanget av alt som kalles
10281 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> ikke er lenger er godt trent i denne tradisjonen.
10282 </p><p>
10283 Hvis vi var Akilles, så ville dette være vår hæl. Dette ville være stedet
10284 for våre tragedie.
10285 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3028320"></a><p>
10286 <span class="strong"><strong>Mens jeg skriver</strong></span> disse avsluttende
10287 ordene, er nyhetene fylt med historier om at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre
10288 individer.<sup>[<a name="id3028338" href="#ftn.id3028338" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup>  Eminem har nettopp blitt
10289 saksøkt for å ha <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">samplet</span>»</span> noen andres musikk.<sup>[<a name="id3028407" href="#ftn.id3028407" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup>  Historien om hvordan Bob Dylan har
10290 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjålet</span>»</span> fra en japansk forfatter har nettopp gått verden
10291 over.<sup>[<a name="id3028433" href="#ftn.id3028433" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup>  En på innsiden i
10292 Hollywood&#8212;som insisterer på at han må forbli anonym&#8212;rapporterer
10293 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en utrolig samtale med disse studiofolkene.  De har fantastisk
10294 [gammelt] innhold som de ville elske å bruke, men det kan de ikke på grunn
10295 av at de først må klarere rettighetene.  De har hauger med ungdommer som
10296 kunne gjøre fantastiske ting med innholdet, men det vil først kreve hauger
10297 med advokater for å klarere det først</span>»</span>.  Kongressrepresentanter
10298 snakker om å gi datavirus politimyndighet for å ta ned datamaskiner som
10299 antas å bryte loven.  Universiteter truer med å utvise ungdommer som bruker
10300 en datamaskin for å dele innhold.
10301 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3028480"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3028486"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3028493"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3028500"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3028507"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3028514"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3028521"></a><p>
10302
10303 I mens på andre siden av Atlanteren har BBC nettopp annonsert at de vil
10304 bygge opp et <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativt arkiv</span>»</span> som britiske borgere kan laste
10305 ned BBC-innhold fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.<sup>[<a name="id3028544" href="#ftn.id3028544" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup> Og i Brasil har kulturministeren, Gilberto Gil, i
10306 seg selv en folkehelt i brasiliansk musikk, slått seg sammen med Creative
10307 Commons for å gi ut innhold og frie lisenser i dette latinamerikanske
10308 landet.<sup>[<a name="id3028568" href="#ftn.id3028568" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup>  Jeg har fortalt en mørk
10309 historie.  Sannheten er mer blandet.  En teknologi har gitt oss mer frihet.
10310 Sakte begynner noen å forstå at denne friheten trenger ikke å bety anarki.
10311 Vi kan få med oss fri kultur inn i det tjueførste århundre, uten at artister
10312 taper og uten at potensialet for digital teknologi blir knust.  Det vil
10313 kreve omtanke, og viktigere, det vil kreve at noen omformer RCA-ene av i dag
10314 til Causbyere.
10315 </p><p>
10316
10317 Sunn fornuft må gjøre opprør. Den må handle for å frigjøre kulturen. Og
10318 snart, hvis dette potensialet skal noen gang bli realisert.
10319
10320
10321
10322 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3026581" href="#id3026581" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
10323
10324 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Final Report: Integrating
10325 Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy</span>»</span> (London, 2002),
10326 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10327 #55</a>. I følge en pressemelding fra verdens helseorganisasjon sendt ut
10328 9. juli 2002, mottar kun 320 000 av de 6 millioner som trenger medisiner i
10329 utviklingsland dem de trenger&#8212;og halvparten av dem er i Brasil.
10330 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3026674" href="#id3026674" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
10331
10332 Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: <em class="citetitle">Who
10333 Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New Press, 2003),
10334 37.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3026684"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3026693"></a>
10335 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3022963" href="#id3022963" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
10336
10337
10338 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10339 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, a
10340 Report Prepared for the World Intellectual Property Organization</em>
10341 (Washington, D.C., 2000), 14, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #56</a>. For a firsthand
10342 account of the struggle over South Africa, see Hearing Before the
10343 Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, House
10344 Committee on Government Reform, H. Rep., 1st sess., Ser. No. 106-126 (22
10345 July 1999), 150&#8211;57 (statement of James Love).
10346 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3026746" href="#id3026746" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
10347
10348
10349 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10350 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, en
10351 rapport forberedt for the World Intellectual Property
10352 Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3026840" href="#id3026840" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
10353
10354
10355
10356 See Sabin Russell, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's
10357 Needs at Odds with Firms' Profit Motive,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
10358 Chronicle</em>, 24 May 1999, A1, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #57</a> (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">compulsory
10359 licenses and gray markets pose a threat to the entire system of intellectual
10360 property protection</span>»</span>); Robert Weissman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">AIDS and Developing
10361 Countries: Democratizing Access to Essential Medicines,</span>»</span>
10362 <em class="citetitle">Foreign Policy in Focus</em> 4:23 (August 1999), available
10363 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #58</a> (describing
10364 U.S. policy); John A. Harrelson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents, and
10365 the HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between Intellectual
10366 Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Widener Law
10367 Symposium Journal</em> (Spring 2001): 175.
10368
10369 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3027242" href="#id3027242" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
10370
10371 Jonathan Krim, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source</span>»</span>,
10372 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, august 2003, E1, tilgjengelig fra
10373 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #59</a>; William New,
10374 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Global Group's Shift on `Open Source' Meeting Spurs Stir</span>»</span>,
10375 <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19. august 2003,
10376 tilgjengelig  fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10377 #60</a>; William New, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks
10378 at WIPO</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>,
10379 19. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #61</a>.
10380 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3027392" href="#id3027392" class="para">201</a>] </sup>
10381
10382 Jeg bør nevne at jeg var en av folkene som ba WIPO om dette møtet.
10383 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3027574" href="#id3027574" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
10384
10385
10386 Microsofts posisjon om åpen kildekode og fri programvare er mer
10387 sofistikert.  De har flere ganger forklart at de har ikke noe problem med
10388 programvare som er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode</span>»</span> eller programvare som er
10389 allemannseie.  Microsofts prinsipielle motstand er mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri
10390 programvare</span>»</span> lisensiert med en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyleft</span>»</span>-lisens, som
10391 betyr at lisensen krever at de som lisensierer skal adoptere same vilkår for
10392 ethvert avledet verk.  Se Bradford L. Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Future of Software:
10393 Enabling the Marketplace to Decide</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Government Policy
10394 Toward Open Source Software</em> (Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings
10395 Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute for
10396 Public Policy Research, 2002), 69, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #62</a>. Se også Craig Mundie,
10397 Microsoft senior vice president, <em class="citetitle">The Commercial Software
10398 Model</em>, diskusjon ved New York University Stern School of
10399 Business (3. mai 2001), tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #63</a>.
10400 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3027733" href="#id3027733" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
10401
10402
10403 Krim, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #64</a>.
10404 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3027997" href="#id3027997" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
10405
10406 Se Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
10407 210&#8211;20.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3026740"></a>
10408 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3028338" href="#id3028338" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
10409
10410
10411 John Borland, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers</span>»</span>, CNET News.com,
10412 september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #65</a>; Paul R. La Monica,
10413 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Industry Sues Swappers</span>»</span>, CNN/Money, 8 september 2003,
10414 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10415 #66</a>; Soni Sangha og Phyllis Furman sammen med Robert Gearty,
10416 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sued for a Song, N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old Among 261 Cited as Sharers</span>»</span>,
10417 <em class="citetitle">New York Daily News</em>, 9. september 2003, 3; Frank
10418 Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in
10419 Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants</span>»</span>,
10420 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10. september 2003, E1; Katie Dean,
10421 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Wired
10422 News</em>, 10. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #67</a>.
10423 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3028407" href="#id3028407" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
10424
10425
10426 Jon Wiederhorn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eminem Gets Sued &#8230; by a Little Old
10427 Lady</span>»</span>, mtv.com, 17. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #68</a>.
10428 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3028433" href="#id3028433" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
10429
10430
10431
10432 Kenji Hall, Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for
10433 Dylan Songs</span>»</span>, Kansascity.com, 9. juli 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #69</a>.
10434
10435 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3028544" href="#id3028544" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
10436
10437 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public</span>»</span>, pressemelding
10438 fra BBC, 24. august 2003, tilgjengelig  fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #70</a>.
10439 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3028568" href="#id3028568" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
10440
10441
10442 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative Commons and Brazil</span>»</span>, Creative Commons Weblog,
10443 6. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #71</a>.
10444 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 16. Etterord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-afterword"></a>Chapter 16. Etterord</h2></div></div></div><p>
10445
10446
10447
10448 <span class="strong"><strong>I hvert fall</strong></span> noen av de som har lest helt
10449 hit vil være enig med meg om at noe må gjøres for å endre retningen vi
10450 holder.  Balansen i denne boken kartlegger hva som kan gjøres.
10451 </p><p>
10452 Jeg deler dette kartet i to deler: det som enhver kan gjøre nå, og det som
10453 krever hjelp fra lovgiverne.  Hvis det er en lærdom vi kan trekke fra
10454 historien om å endre på sunn fornuft, så er det at det krever å endre
10455 hvordan mange mennesker tenker på den aktuelle saken.
10456 </p><p>
10457 Det betyr at denne bevegelsen må starte i gatene.  Det må rekrutteres et
10458 signifikant antall foreldre, lærere, bibliotekarer, skapere, forfattere,
10459 musikere, filmskapere, forskere&#8212;som alle må fortelle denne historien
10460 med sine egne ord, og som kan fortelle sine naboer hvorfor denne kampen er
10461 så viktig.
10462 </p><p>
10463 Når denne bevegelsen har hatt sin effekt i gatene, så er det et visst håp om
10464 at det kan ha effekt i Washington.  Vi er fortsatt et demokrati. Hva folk
10465 mener betyr noe.  Ikke så mye som det burde, i hvert fall når en RCA står
10466 imot, men likevel, det betyr noe.  Og dermed vil jeg skissere, i den andre
10467 delen som følger, endringer som kongressen kunne gjøre for å bedre sikre en
10468 fri kultur.
10469 </p><div class="section" title="16.1. Oss, nå"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a name="usnow"></a>16.1. Oss, nå</h2></div></div></div><p>
10470 <span class="strong"><strong>Common sense</strong></span> is with the copyright
10471 warriors because the debate so far has been framed at the extremes&#8212;as
10472 a grand either/or: either property or anarchy, either total control or
10473 artists won't be paid. If that really is the choice, then the warriors
10474 should win.
10475 </p><p>
10476 The mistake here is the error of the excluded middle. There are extremes in
10477 this debate, but the extremes are not all that there is. There are those who
10478 believe in maximal copyright&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span>&#8212;
10479 and those who reject copyright&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved.</span>»</span> The
10480 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts believe that you should ask
10481 permission before you <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> a copyrighted work in any way. The
10482 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts believe you should be able to do
10483 with content as you wish, regardless of whether you have permission or not.
10484 </p><p>
10485
10486 When the Internet was first born, its initial architecture effectively
10487 tilted in the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>»</span> direction. Content could be
10488 copied perfectly and cheaply; rights could not easily be controlled. Thus,
10489 regardless of anyone's desire, the effective regime of copyright under the
10490 original design of the Internet was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved.</span>»</span>
10491 Content was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taken</span>»</span> regardless of the rights. Any rights were
10492 effectively unprotected.
10493 </p><p>
10494 This initial character produced a reaction (opposite, but not quite equal)
10495 by copyright owners. That reaction has been the topic of this book. Through
10496 legislation, litigation, and changes to the network's design, copyright
10497 holders have been able to change the essential character of the environment
10498 of the original Internet. If the original architecture made the effective
10499 default <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved,</span>»</span> the future architecture will make
10500 the effective default <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">all rights reserved.</span>»</span> The architecture
10501 and law that surround the Internet's design will increasingly produce an
10502 environment where all use of content requires permission.  The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut
10503 and paste</span>»</span> world that defines the Internet today will become a
10504 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">get permission to cut and paste</span>»</span> world that is a creator's
10505 nightmare.
10506 </p><p>
10507 What's needed is a way to say something in the middle&#8212;neither
10508 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">all rights reserved</span>»</span> nor <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>»</span> but
10509 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">some rights reserved</span>»</span>&#8212; and thus a way to respect
10510 copyrights but enable creators to free content as they see fit. In other
10511 words, we need a way to restore a set of freedoms that we could just take
10512 for granted before.
10513 </p><div class="section" title="16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="examples"></a>16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="browsing"></a><p>
10514 If you step back from the battle I've been describing here, you will
10515 recognize this problem from other contexts. Think about privacy. Before the
10516 Internet, most of us didn't have to worry much about data about our lives
10517 that we broadcast to the world. If you walked into a bookstore and browsed
10518 through some of the works of Karl Marx, you didn't need to worry about
10519 explaining your browsing habits to your neighbors or boss. The
10520 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> of your browsing habits was assured.
10521 </p><p>
10522 Hva gjorde at det var sikret?
10523 </p><p>
10524 Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, your privacy was
10525 assured because of an inefficient architecture for gathering data and hence
10526 a market constraint (cost) on anyone who wanted to gather that data. If you
10527 were a suspected spy for North Korea, working for the CIA, no doubt your
10528 privacy would not be assured.  But that's because the CIA would (we hope)
10529 find it valuable enough to spend the thousands required to track you. But
10530 for most of us (again, we can hope), spying doesn't pay. The highly
10531 inefficient architecture of real space means we all enjoy a fairly robust
10532 amount of privacy. That privacy is guaranteed to us by friction. Not by law
10533 (there is no law protecting <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> in public places), and in
10534 many places, not by norms (snooping and gossip are just fun), but instead,
10535 by the costs that friction imposes on anyone who would want to spy.
10536 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3028879"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3028886"></a><p>
10537 Enter the Internet, where the cost of tracking browsing in particular has
10538 become quite tiny. If you're a customer at Amazon, then as you browse the
10539 pages, Amazon collects the data about what you've looked at. You know this
10540 because at the side of the page, there's a list of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">recently
10541 viewed</span>»</span> pages. Now, because of the architecture of the Net and the
10542 function of cookies on the Net, it is easier to collect the data than
10543 not. The friction has disappeared, and hence any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span>
10544 protected by the friction disappears, too.
10545 </p><p>
10546 Amazon, of course, is not the problem. But we might begin to worry about
10547 libraries. If you're one of those crazy lefties who thinks that people
10548 should have the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span> to browse in a library without the
10549 government knowing which books you look at (I'm one of those lefties, too),
10550 then this change in the technology of monitoring might concern you. If it
10551 becomes simple to gather and sort who does what in electronic spaces, then
10552 the friction-induced privacy of yesterday disappears.
10553 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3028927"></a><p>
10554
10555 It is this reality that explains the push of many to define
10556 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> on the Internet. It is the recognition that
10557 technology can remove what friction before gave us that leads many to push
10558 for laws to do what friction did.<sup>[<a name="id3028950" href="#ftn.id3028950" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup> And
10559 whether you're in favor of those laws or not, it is the pattern that is
10560 important here. We must take affirmative steps to secure a kind of freedom
10561 that was passively provided before. A change in technology now forces those
10562 who believe in privacy to affirmatively act where, before, privacy was given
10563 by default.
10564 </p><p>
10565 A similar story could be told about the birth of the free software
10566 movement. When computers with software were first made available
10567 commercially, the software&#8212;both the source code and the
10568 binaries&#8212; was free. You couldn't run a program written for a Data
10569 General machine on an IBM machine, so Data General and IBM didn't care much
10570 about controlling their software.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3028992"></a>
10571 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3029004"></a><p>
10572 Dette var verden Richard Stallman ble født inn i, og mens han var forsker
10573 ved MIT, lærte han til å elske samfunnet som utviklet seg når en var fri til
10574 å utforske og fikle med programvaren som kjørte på datamaskiner. Av den
10575 smarte sorten selv, og en talentfull programmerer, begynte Stallman å basere
10576 seg frihet til å legge til eller endre på andre personers arbeid.
10577 </p><p>
10578 In an academic setting, at least, that's not a terribly radical idea. In a
10579 math department, anyone would be free to tinker with a proof that someone
10580 offered. If you thought you had a better way to prove a theorem, you could
10581 take what someone else did and change it. In a classics department, if you
10582 believed a colleague's translation of a recently discovered text was flawed,
10583 you were free to improve it. Thus, to Stallman, it seemed obvious that you
10584 should be free to tinker with and improve the code that ran a machine. This,
10585 too, was knowledge. Why shouldn't it be open for criticism like anything
10586 else?
10587 </p><p>
10588 No one answered that question. Instead, the architecture of revenue for
10589 computing changed. As it became possible to import programs from one system
10590 to another, it became economically attractive (at least in the view of some)
10591 to hide the code of your program. So, too, as companies started selling
10592 peripherals for mainframe systems. If I could just take your printer driver
10593 and copy it, then that would make it easier for me to sell a printer to the
10594 market than it was for you.
10595 </p><p>
10596
10597 Thus, the practice of proprietary code began to spread, and by the early
10598 1980s, Stallman found himself surrounded by proprietary code.  The world of
10599 free software had been erased by a change in the economics of computing. And
10600 as he believed, if he did nothing about it, then the freedom to change and
10601 share software would be fundamentally weakened.
10602 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3029062"></a><p>
10603 Derfor, i 1984, startet Stallmann på et prosjekt for å bygge et fritt
10604 operativsystem, slik i hvert fall en flik av fri programvare skulle
10605 overleve.  Dette var starten på GNU-prosjektet, som
10606 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Linux</span>»</span>-kjernen til Linus Torvalds senere ble lagt til i for å
10607 produsere GNU/Linux-operativsystemet. <a class="indexterm" name="id3029084"></a>
10608 <a class="indexterm" name="id3029091"></a>
10609 </p><p>
10610 Stallman's technique was to use copyright law to build a world of software
10611 that must be kept free. Software licensed under the Free Software
10612 Foundation's GPL cannot be modified and distributed unless the source code
10613 for that software is made available as well. Thus, anyone building upon
10614 GPL'd software would have to make their buildings free as well. This would
10615 assure, Stallman believed, that an ecology of code would develop that
10616 remained free for others to build upon. His fundamental goal was freedom;
10617 innovative creative code was a byproduct.
10618 </p><p>
10619 Stallman was thus doing for software what privacy advocates now do for
10620 privacy. He was seeking a way to rebuild a kind of freedom that was taken
10621 for granted before. Through the affirmative use of licenses that bind
10622 copyrighted code, Stallman was affirmatively reclaiming a space where free
10623 software would survive. He was actively protecting what before had been
10624 passively guaranteed.
10625 </p><p>
10626 Finally, consider a very recent example that more directly resonates with
10627 the story of this book. This is the shift in the way academic and scientific
10628 journals are produced.
10629 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxacademocjournals"></a><p>
10630
10631 As digital technologies develop, it is becoming obvious to many that
10632 printing thousands of copies of journals every month and sending them to
10633 libraries is perhaps not the most efficient way to distribute
10634 knowledge. Instead, journals are increasingly becoming electronic, and
10635 libraries and their users are given access to these electronic journals
10636 through password-protected sites. Something similar to this has been
10637 happening in law for almost thirty years: Lexis and Westlaw have had
10638 electronic versions of case reports available to subscribers to their
10639 service.  Although a Supreme Court opinion is not copyrighted, and anyone is
10640 free to go to a library and read it, Lexis and Westlaw are also free to
10641 charge users for the privilege of gaining access to that Supreme Court
10642 opinion through their respective services.
10643 </p><p>
10644 There's nothing wrong in general with this, and indeed, the ability to
10645 charge for access to even public domain materials is a good incentive for
10646 people to develop new and innovative ways to spread knowledge.  The law has
10647 agreed, which is why Lexis and Westlaw have been allowed to flourish. And if
10648 there's nothing wrong with selling the public domain, then there could be
10649 nothing wrong, in principle, with selling access to material that is not in
10650 the public domain.
10651 </p><p>
10652 But what if the only way to get access to social and scientific data was
10653 through proprietary services? What if no one had the ability to browse this
10654 data except by paying for a subscription?
10655 </p><p>
10656 As many are beginning to notice, this is increasingly the reality with
10657 scientific journals. When these journals were distributed in paper form,
10658 libraries could make the journals available to anyone who had access to the
10659 library. Thus, patients with cancer could become cancer experts because the
10660 library gave them access. Or patients trying to understand the risks of a
10661 certain treatment could research those risks by reading all available
10662 articles about that treatment. This freedom was therefore a function of the
10663 institution of libraries (norms) and the technology of paper journals
10664 (architecture)&#8212;namely, that it was very hard to control access to a
10665 paper journal.
10666 </p><p>
10667 As journals become electronic, however, the publishers are demanding that
10668 libraries not give the general public access to the journals. This means
10669 that the freedoms provided by print journals in public libraries begin to
10670 disappear. Thus, as with privacy and with software, a changing technology
10671 and market shrink a freedom taken for granted before.
10672 </p><p>
10673 This shrinking freedom has led many to take affirmative steps to restore the
10674 freedom that has been lost. The Public Library of Science (PLoS), for
10675 example, is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making scientific research
10676 available to anyone with a Web connection. Authors of scientific work submit
10677 that work to the Public Library of Science.  That work is then subject to
10678 peer review. If accepted, the work is then deposited in a public, electronic
10679 archive and made permanently available for free. PLoS also sells a print
10680 version of its work, but the copyright for the print journal does not
10681 inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3029228"></a>
10682 </p><p>
10683 This is one of many such efforts to restore a freedom taken for granted
10684 before, but now threatened by changing technology and markets.  There's no
10685 doubt that this alternative competes with the traditional publishers and
10686 their efforts to make money from the exclusive distribution of content. But
10687 competition in our tradition is presumptively a good&#8212;especially when
10688 it helps spread knowledge and science.
10689 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3029240"></a></div><div class="section" title="16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="oneidea"></a>16.1.2. Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxcc"></a><p>
10690 Den samme strategien kan brukes på kultur, som et svar på den økende
10691 kontrollen som gjennomføres gjennom lov og teknologi.
10692 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3029290"></a><p>
10693 Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation
10694 established in Massachusetts, but with its home at Stanford University. Its
10695 aim is to build a layer of <span class="emphasis"><em>reasonable</em></span> copyright on top
10696 of the extremes that now reign. It does this by making it easy for people to
10697 build upon other people's work, by making it simple for creators to express
10698 the freedom for others to take and build upon their work. Simple tags, tied
10699 to human-readable descriptions, tied to bulletproof licenses, make this
10700 possible.
10701 </p><p>
10702
10703 <span class="emphasis"><em>Simple</em></span>&#8212;which means without a middleman, or
10704 without a lawyer.  By developing a free set of licenses that people can
10705 attach to their content, Creative Commons aims to mark a range of content
10706 that can easily, and reliably, be built upon. These tags are then linked to
10707 machine-readable versions of the license that enable computers automatically
10708 to identify content that can easily be shared. These three expressions
10709 together&#8212;a legal license, a human-readable description, and
10710 machine-readable tags&#8212;constitute a Creative Commons license. A
10711 Creative Commons license constitutes a grant of freedom to anyone who
10712 accesses the license, and more importantly, an expression of the ideal that
10713 the person associated with the license believes in something different than
10714 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All</span>»</span> or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No</span>»</span> extremes. Content is marked with
10715 the CC mark, which does not mean that copyright is waived, but that certain
10716 freedoms are given.
10717 </p><p>
10718 These freedoms are beyond the freedoms promised by fair use. Their precise
10719 contours depend upon the choices the creator makes. The creator can choose a
10720 license that permits any use, so long as attribution is given. She can
10721 choose a license that permits only noncommercial use.  She can choose a
10722 license that permits any use so long as the same freedoms are given to other
10723 uses (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">share and share alike</span>»</span>). Or any use so long as no
10724 derivative use is made. Or any use at all within developing nations. Or any
10725 sampling use, so long as full copies are not made. Or lastly, any
10726 educational use.
10727 </p><p>
10728 These choices thus establish a range of freedoms beyond the default of
10729 copyright law. They also enable freedoms that go beyond traditional fair
10730 use. And most importantly, they express these freedoms in a way that
10731 subsequent users can use and rely upon without the need to hire a
10732 lawyer. Creative Commons thus aims to build a layer of content, governed by
10733 a layer of reasonable copyright law, that others can build upon. Voluntary
10734 choice of individuals and creators will make this content available. And
10735 that content will in turn enable us to rebuild a public domain.
10736 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3029383"></a><p>
10737
10738 This is just one project among many within the Creative Commons.  And of
10739 course, Creative Commons is not the only organization pursuing such
10740 freedoms. But the point that distinguishes the Creative Commons from many is
10741 that we are not interested only in talking about a public domain or in
10742 getting legislators to help build a public domain. Our aim is to build a
10743 movement of consumers and producers of content (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">content
10744 conducers,</span>»</span> as attorney Mia Garlick calls them)  who help build the
10745 public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the importance of the public
10746 domain to other creativity.
10747 </p><p>
10748 The aim is not to fight the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts. The
10749 aim is to complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a
10750 culture are produced by insane and unintended consequences of laws written
10751 centuries ago, applied to a technology that only Jefferson could have
10752 imagined. The rules may well have made sense against a background of
10753 technologies from centuries ago, but they do not make sense against the
10754 background of digital technologies. New rules&#8212;with different freedoms,
10755 expressed in ways so that humans without lawyers can use them&#8212;are
10756 needed. Creative Commons gives people a way effectively to begin to build
10757 those rules.
10758 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxbooksfreeonline2"></a><p>
10759 Why would creators participate in giving up total control? Some participate
10760 to better spread their content. Cory Doctorow, for example, is a science
10761 fiction author. His first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
10762 Kingdom</em>, was released on-line and for free, under a Creative
10763 Commons license, on the same day that it went on sale in bookstores.
10764 </p><p>
10765 Why would a publisher ever agree to this? I suspect his publisher reasoned
10766 like this: There are two groups of people out there: (1)  those who will buy
10767 Cory's book whether or not it's on the Internet, and (2) those who may never
10768 hear of Cory's book, if it isn't made available for free on the
10769 Internet. Some part of (1) will download Cory's book instead of buying
10770 it. Call them bad-(1)s. Some part of (2)  will download Cory's book, like
10771 it, and then decide to buy it. Call them (2)-goods.  If there are more
10772 (2)-goods than bad-(1)s, the strategy of releasing Cory's book free on-line
10773 will probably <span class="emphasis"><em>increase</em></span> sales of Cory's book.
10774 </p><p>
10775 Indeed, the experience of his publisher clearly supports that conclusion.
10776 The book's first printing was exhausted months before the publisher had
10777 expected. This first novel of a science fiction author was a total success.
10778 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3029479"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3029486"></a><p>
10779
10780 The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content was
10781 confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner, who wrote a
10782 book about the free software movement titled <em class="citetitle">Free for
10783 All</em>, made an electronic version of his book free on-line under a
10784 Creative Commons license after the book went out of print. He then monitored
10785 used book store prices for the book. As predicted, as the number of
10786 downloads increased, the used book price for his book increased, as well.
10787 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3029511"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3029522"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3029528"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3029535"></a><p>
10788 These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary
10789 content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the Commons. There
10790 are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other reasons. Many who use
10791 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sampling license</span>»</span> do so because anything else would be
10792 hypocritical. The sampling license says that others are free, for commercial
10793 or noncommercial purposes, to sample content from the licensed work; they
10794 are just not free to make full copies of the licensed work available to
10795 others. This is consistent with their own art&#8212;they, too, sample from
10796 others. Because the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal</em></span> costs of sampling are so high
10797 (Walter Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born
10798 sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not
10799 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allow</span>»</span> Public Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs
10800 are so high<sup>[<a name="id3029569" href="#ftn.id3029569" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), these artists release
10801 into the creative environment content that others can build upon, so that
10802 their form of creativity might grow.
10803 </p><p>
10804 Finally, there are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons
10805 license just because they want to express to others the importance of
10806 balance in this debate. If you just go along with the system as it is, you
10807 are effectively saying you believe in the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span>
10808 model. Good for you, but many do not. Many believe that however appropriate
10809 that rule is for Hollywood and freaks, it is not an appropriate description
10810 of how most creators view the rights associated with their content. The
10811 Creative Commons license expresses this notion of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Some Rights
10812 Reserved,</span>»</span> and gives many the chance to say it to others.
10813 </p><p>
10814
10815 In the first six months of the Creative Commons experiment, over 1 million
10816 objects were licensed with these free-culture licenses. The next step is
10817 partnerships with middleware content providers to help them build into their
10818 technologies simple ways for users to mark their content with Creative
10819 Commons freedoms. Then the next step is to watch and celebrate creators who
10820 build content based upon content set free.
10821 </p><p>
10822 These are first steps to rebuilding a public domain. They are not mere
10823 arguments; they are action. Building a public domain is the first step to
10824 showing people how important that domain is to creativity and
10825 innovation. Creative Commons relies upon voluntary steps to achieve this
10826 rebuilding. They will lead to a world in which more than voluntary steps are
10827 possible.
10828 </p><p>
10829 Creative Commons is just one example of voluntary efforts by individuals and
10830 creators to change the mix of rights that now govern the creative field. The
10831 project does not compete with copyright; it complements it. Its aim is not
10832 to defeat the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and
10833 creators to exercise their rights more flexibly and cheaply. That
10834 difference, we believe, will enable creativity to spread more easily.
10835 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3029646"></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>
10836 <span class="strong"><strong>We will</strong></span> not reclaim a free culture by
10837 individual action alone. It will also take important reforms of laws. We
10838 have a long way to go before the politicians will listen to these ideas and
10839 implement these reforms.  But that also means that we have time to build
10840 awareness around the changes that we need.
10841 </p><p>
10842 In this chapter, I outline five kinds of changes: four that are general, and
10843 one that's specific to the most heated battle of the day, music. Each is a
10844 step, not an end. But any of these steps would carry us a long way to our
10845 end.
10846 </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>
10847 If you buy a house, you have to record the sale in a deed. If you buy land
10848 upon which to build a house, you have to record the purchase in a deed.  If
10849 you buy a car, you get a bill of sale and register the car. If you buy an
10850 airplane ticket, it has your name on it.
10851 </p><p>
10852
10853
10854 These are all formalities associated with property. They are requirements
10855 that we all must bear if we want our property to be protected.
10856 </p><p>
10857 In contrast, under current copyright law, you automatically get a copyright,
10858 regardless of whether you comply with any formality. You don't have to
10859 register. You don't even have to mark your content. The default is control,
10860 and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">formalities</span>»</span> are banished.
10861 </p><p>
10862 Why?
10863 </p><p>
10864 As I suggested in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Chapter 10. Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, the motivation to abolish formalities was a good
10865 one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities imposed a burden
10866 on copyright holders without much benefit. Thus, it was progress when the
10867 law relaxed the formal requirements that a copyright owner must bear to
10868 protect and secure his work. Those formalities were getting in the way.
10869 </p><p>
10870 But the Internet changes all this. Formalities today need not be a
10871 burden. Rather, the world without formalities is the world that burdens
10872 creativity. Today, there is no simple way to know who owns what, or with
10873 whom one must deal in order to use or build upon the creative work of
10874 others. There are no records, there is no system to trace&#8212; there is no
10875 simple way to know how to get permission. Yet given the massive increase in
10876 the scope of copyright's rule, getting permission is a necessary step for
10877 any work that builds upon our past. And thus, the <span class="emphasis"><em>lack</em></span>
10878 of formalities forces many into silence where they otherwise could speak.
10879 </p><p>
10880 The law should therefore change this requirement<sup>[<a name="id3029771" href="#ftn.id3029771" class="footnote">212</a>]</sup>&#8212;but it should not change it by going back to the old, broken
10881 system. We should require formalities, but we should establish a system that
10882 will create the incentives to minimize the burden of these formalities.
10883 </p><p>
10884 The important formalities are three: marking copyrighted work, registering
10885 copyrights, and renewing the claim to copyright. Traditionally, the first of
10886 these three was something the copyright owner did; the second two were
10887 something the government did. But a revised system of formalities would
10888 banish the government from the process, except for the sole purpose of
10889 approving standards developed by others.
10890 </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>
10891 Under the old system, a copyright owner had to file a registration with the
10892 Copyright Office to register or renew a copyright. When filing that
10893 registration, the copyright owner paid a fee. As with most government
10894 agencies, the Copyright Office had little incentive to minimize the burden
10895 of registration; it also had little incentive to minimize the fee.  And as
10896 the Copyright Office is not a main target of government policymaking, the
10897 office has historically been terribly underfunded. Thus, when people who
10898 know something about the process hear this idea about formalities, their
10899 first reaction is panic&#8212;nothing could be worse than forcing people to
10900 deal with the mess that is the Copyright Office.
10901 </p><p>
10902 Yet it is always astonishing to me that we, who come from a tradition of
10903 extraordinary innovation in governmental design, can no longer think
10904 innovatively about how governmental functions can be designed.  Just because
10905 there is a public purpose to a government role, it doesn't follow that the
10906 government must actually administer the role. Instead, we should be creating
10907 incentives for private parties to serve the public, subject to standards
10908 that the government sets.
10909 </p><p>
10910 In the context of registration, one obvious model is the Internet.  There
10911 are at least 32 million Web sites registered around the world.  Domain name
10912 owners for these Web sites have to pay a fee to keep their registration
10913 alive. In the main top-level domains (.com, .org, .net), there is a central
10914 registry. The actual registrations are, however, performed by many competing
10915 registrars. That competition drives the cost of registering down, and more
10916 importantly, it drives the ease with which registration occurs up.
10917 </p><p>
10918
10919 We should adopt a similar model for the registration and renewal of
10920 copyrights. The Copyright Office may well serve as the central registry, but
10921 it should not be in the registrar business. Instead, it should establish a
10922 database, and a set of standards for registrars. It should approve
10923 registrars that meet its standards. Those registrars would then compete with
10924 one another to deliver the cheapest and simplest systems for registering and
10925 renewing copyrights. That competition would substantially lower the burden
10926 of this formality&#8212;while producing a database of registrations that
10927 would facilitate the licensing of content.
10928 </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>
10929 It used to be that the failure to include a copyright notice on a creative
10930 work meant that the copyright was forfeited. That was a harsh punishment for
10931 failing to comply with a regulatory rule&#8212;akin to imposing the death
10932 penalty for a parking ticket in the world of creative rights.  Here again,
10933 there is no reason that a marking requirement needs to be enforced in this
10934 way. And more importantly, there is no reason a marking requirement needs to
10935 be enforced uniformly across all media.
10936 </p><p>
10937 The aim of marking is to signal to the public that this work is copyrighted
10938 and that the author wants to enforce his rights. The mark also makes it easy
10939 to locate a copyright owner to secure permission to use the work.
10940 </p><p>
10941 One of the problems the copyright system confronted early on was that
10942 different copyrighted works had to be differently marked. It wasn't clear
10943 how or where a statue was to be marked, or a record, or a film. A new
10944 marking requirement could solve these problems by recognizing the
10945 differences in media, and by allowing the system of marking to evolve as
10946 technologies enable it to. The system could enable a special signal from the
10947 failure to mark&#8212;not the loss of the copyright, but the loss of the
10948 right to punish someone for failing to get permission first.
10949 </p><p>
10950
10951 Let's start with the last point. If a copyright owner allows his work to be
10952 published without a copyright notice, the consequence of that failure need
10953 not be that the copyright is lost. The consequence could instead be that
10954 anyone has the right to use this work, until the copyright owner complains
10955 and demonstrates that it is his work and he doesn't give
10956 permission.<sup>[<a name="id3029907" href="#ftn.id3029907" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
10957 work would therefore be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use unless someone complains.</span>»</span> If
10958 someone does complain, then the obligation would be to stop using the work
10959 in any new work from then on though no penalty would attach for existing
10960 uses.  This would create a strong incentive for copyright owners to mark
10961 their work.
10962 </p><p>
10963 That in turn raises the question about how work should best be marked. Here
10964 again, the system needs to adjust as the technologies evolve. The best way
10965 to ensure that the system evolves is to limit the Copyright Office's role to
10966 that of approving standards for marking content that have been crafted
10967 elsewhere.
10968 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3029954"></a><p>
10969 For example, if a recording industry association devises a method for
10970 marking CDs, it would propose that to the Copyright Office. The Copyright
10971 Office would hold a hearing, at which other proposals could be made. The
10972 Copyright Office would then select the proposal that it judged preferable,
10973 and it would base that choice <span class="emphasis"><em>solely</em></span> upon the
10974 consideration of which method could best be integrated into the registration
10975 and renewal system. We would not count on the government to innovate; but we
10976 would count on the government to keep the product of innovation in line with
10977 its other important functions.
10978 </p><p>
10979 Finally, marking content clearly would simplify registration requirements.
10980 If photographs were marked by author and year, there would be little reason
10981 not to allow a photographer to reregister, for example, all photographs
10982 taken in a particular year in one quick step. The aim of the formality is
10983 not to burden the creator; the system itself should be kept as simple as
10984 possible.
10985 </p><p>
10986 The objective of formalities is to make things clear. The existing system
10987 does nothing to make things clear. Indeed, it seems designed to make things
10988 unclear.
10989 </p><p>
10990 If formalities such as registration were reinstated, one of the most
10991 difficult aspects of relying upon the public domain would be removed.  It
10992 would be simple to identify what content is presumptively free; it would be
10993 simple to identify who controls the rights for a particular kind of content;
10994 it would be simple to assert those rights, and to renew that assertion at
10995 the appropriate time.
10996 </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>
10997 Vernetiden i opphavsretten har gått fra fjorten år til nittifem år der
10998 selskap har forfatterskapet , og livstiden til forfatteren pluss sytti år
10999 for individuelle forfattere.
11000 </p><p>
11001 In <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>, I proposed a
11002 seventy-five-year term, granted in five-year increments with a requirement
11003 of renewal every five years.  That seemed radical enough at the time. But
11004 after we lost <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
11005 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, the proposals became even more
11006 radical. <em class="citetitle">The Economist</em> endorsed a proposal for a
11007 fourteen-year copyright term.<sup>[<a name="id3030049" href="#ftn.id3030049" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup> Others
11008 have proposed tying the term to the term for patents.
11009 </p><p>
11010 I agree with those who believe that we need a radical change in copyright's
11011 term. But whether fourteen years or seventy-five, there are four principles
11012 that are important to keep in mind about copyright terms.
11013 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
11014
11015
11016 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it short:</em></span> The term should be as long as necessary
11017 to give incentives to create, but no longer. If it were tied to very strong
11018 protections for authors (so authors were able to reclaim rights from
11019 publishers), rights to the same work (not derivative works) might be
11020 extended further. The key is not to tie the work up with legal regulations
11021 when it no longer benefits an author.
11022 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11023
11024
11025
11026 <span class="emphasis"><em>Gjør det enkelt:</em></span> Skillelinjen mellom verker uten
11027 opphavsrettslig vern og innhold som er beskyttet må forbli klart.  Advokater
11028 liker uklarheten som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> og forskjellen mellom
11029 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">idéer</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">uttrykk</span>»</span> har.  Denne type lovverk gir
11030 dem en masse arbeid.  Men de som skrev grunnloven hadde en enklere idé:
11031 vernet versus ikke vernet. Verdien av korte vernetider er at det er lite
11032 behov for å bygge inn unntak i opphavsretten når vernetiden holdes kort.  En
11033 klar og aktiv <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">advokat-fri sone</span>»</span> gjør komplesiteten av
11034 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">idé/uttrykk</span>»</span> mindre nødvendig å
11035 håndtere.
11036
11037 </p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="id3030159"></a><p>
11038
11039 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it alive:</em></span> Copyright should have to be renewed.
11040 Especially if the maximum term is long, the copyright owner should be
11041 required to signal periodically that he wants the protection continued. This
11042 need not be an onerous burden, but there is no reason this monopoly
11043 protection has to be granted for free. On average, it takes ninety minutes
11044 for a veteran to apply for a pension.<sup>[<a name="id3030178" href="#ftn.id3030178" class="footnote">215</a>]</sup>
11045 If we make veterans suffer that burden, I don't see why we couldn't require
11046 authors to spend ten minutes every fifty years to file a single form.
11047 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11048
11049
11050 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it prospective:</em></span> Whatever the term of copyright
11051 should be, the clearest lesson that economists teach is that a term once
11052 given should not be extended. It might have been a mistake in 1923 for the
11053 law to offer authors only a fifty-six-year term. I don't think so, but it's
11054 possible. If it was a mistake, then the consequence was that we got fewer
11055 authors to create in 1923 than we otherwise would have. But we can't correct
11056 that mistake today by increasing the term. No matter what we do today, we
11057 will not increase the number of authors who wrote in 1923. Of course, we can
11058 increase the reward that those who write now get (or alternatively, increase
11059 the copyright burden that smothers many works that are today invisible). But
11060 increasing their reward will not increase their creativity in 1923.  What's
11061 not done is not done, and there's nothing we can do about that now.  </p></li></ol></div><p>
11062 Disse endringene vil sammen gi en <span class="emphasis"><em>gjennomsnittlig</em></span>
11063 opphavsrettslig vernetid som er mye kortere enn den gjeldende vernetiden.
11064 Frem til 1976 var gjennomsnittlig vernetid kun 32.2 år.  Vårt mål bør være
11065 det samme.
11066 </p><p>
11067 Uten tvil vil ekstremistene kalle disse idéene
11068 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikale</span>»</span>. (Tross alt, så kaller jeg dem
11069 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ekstremister</span>»</span>.) Men igjen, vernetiden jeg anbefalte var lengre
11070 enn vernetiden under Richard Nixon. hvor <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikalt</span>»</span> kan det
11071 være å be om en mer sjenerøs opphavsrettighet enn da Richard Nixon var
11072 president?
11073 </p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="freefairuse"></a>16.2.3. 3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</h3></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3030275"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3030282"></a><p>
11074 As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally granted
11075 property owners the right to control their property from the ground to the
11076 heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property rights quickly
11077 changed. There was no fuss, no constitutional challenge.  It made no sense
11078 anymore to grant that much control, given the emergence of that new
11079 technology.
11080 </p><p>
11081 Our Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive
11082 right</span>»</span> to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">their writings.</span>»</span> Congress has given authors
11083 an exclusive right to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">their writings</span>»</span> plus any derivative
11084 writings (made by others) that are sufficiently close to the author's
11085 original work. Thus, if I write a book, and you base a movie on that book, I
11086 have the power to deny you the right to release that movie, even though that
11087 movie is not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">my writing.</span>»</span>
11088 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3030325"></a><p>
11089 Congress granted the beginnings of this right in 1870, when it expanded the
11090 exclusive right of copyright to include a right to control translations and
11091 dramatizations of a work.<sup>[<a name="id3030337" href="#ftn.id3030337" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> The courts
11092 have expanded it slowly through judicial interpretation ever since. This
11093 expansion has been commented upon by one of the law's greatest judges, Judge
11094 Benjamin Kaplan.
11095 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
11096 So inured have we become to the extension of the monopoly to a large range
11097 of so-called derivative works, that we no longer sense the oddity of
11098 accepting such an enlargement of copyright while yet intoning the
11099 abracadabra of idea and expression.<sup>[<a name="id3030362" href="#ftn.id3030362" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
11100 </p></blockquote></div><p>
11101 I think it's time to recognize that there are airplanes in this field and
11102 the expansiveness of these rights of derivative use no longer make
11103 sense. More precisely, they don't make sense for the period of time that a
11104 copyright runs. And they don't make sense as an amorphous grant.  Consider
11105 each limitation in turn.
11106 </p><p>
11107 <span class="emphasis"><em>Term:</em></span> If Congress wants to grant a derivative right,
11108 then that right should be for a much shorter term. It makes sense to protect
11109 John Grisham's right to sell the movie rights to his latest novel (or at
11110 least I'm willing to assume it does); but it does not make sense for that
11111 right to run for the same term as the underlying copyright. The derivative
11112 right could be important in inducing creativity; it is not important long
11113 after the creative work is done.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3030394"></a>
11114 </p><p>
11115 <span class="emphasis"><em>Scope:</em></span> Likewise should the scope of derivative rights
11116 be narrowed.  Again, there are some cases in which derivative rights are
11117 important.  Those should be specified. But the law should draw clear lines
11118 around regulated and unregulated uses of copyrighted material. When all
11119 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">reuse</span>»</span> of creative material was within the control of
11120 businesses, perhaps it made sense to require lawyers to negotiate the
11121 lines. It no longer makes sense for lawyers to negotiate the lines. Think
11122 about all the creative possibilities that digital technologies enable; now
11123 imagine pouring molasses into the machines. That's what this general
11124 requirement of permission does to the creative process. Smothers it.
11125 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3030426"></a><p>
11126 This was the point that Alben made when describing the making of the Clint
11127 Eastwood CD. While it makes sense to require negotiation for foreseeable
11128 derivative rights&#8212;turning a book into a movie, or a poem into a
11129 musical score&#8212;it doesn't make sense to require negotiation for the
11130 unforeseeable. Here, a statutory right would make much more sense.
11131 </p><p>
11132 In each of these cases, the law should mark the uses that are protected, and
11133 the presumption should be that other uses are not protected.  This is the
11134 reverse of the recommendation of my colleague Paul Goldstein.<sup>[<a name="id3030449" href="#ftn.id3030449" class="footnote">218</a>]</sup> His view is that the law should be written so that
11135 expanded protections follow expanded uses.
11136 </p><p>
11137 Goldstein's analysis would make perfect sense if the cost of the legal
11138 system were small. But as we are currently seeing in the context of the
11139 Internet, the uncertainty about the scope of protection, and the incentives
11140 to protect existing architectures of revenue, combined with a strong
11141 copyright, weaken the process of innovation.
11142 </p><p>
11143
11144 The law could remedy this problem either by removing protection beyond the
11145 part explicitly drawn or by granting reuse rights upon certain statutory
11146 conditions. Either way, the effect would be to free a great deal of culture
11147 to others to cultivate. And under a statutory rights regime, that reuse
11148 would earn artists more income.
11149 </p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.4. 4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="liberatemusic"></a>16.2.4. 4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</h3></div></div></div><p>
11150 The battle that got this whole war going was about music, so it wouldn't be
11151 fair to end this book without addressing the issue that is, to most people,
11152 most pressing&#8212;music. There is no other policy issue that better
11153 teaches the lessons of this book than the battles around the sharing of
11154 music.
11155 </p><p>
11156 The appeal of file-sharing music was the crack cocaine of the Internet's
11157 growth. It drove demand for access to the Internet more powerfully than any
11158 other single application. It was the Internet's killer app&#8212;possibly in
11159 two senses of that word. It no doubt was the application that drove demand
11160 for bandwidth. It may well be the application that drives demand for
11161 regulations that in the end kill innovation on the network.
11162 </p><p>
11163 The aim of copyright, with respect to content in general and music in
11164 particular, is to create the incentives for music to be composed, performed,
11165 and, most importantly, spread. The law does this by giving an exclusive
11166 right to a composer to control public performances of his work, and to a
11167 performing artist to control copies of her performance.
11168 </p><p>
11169 File-sharing networks complicate this model by enabling the spread of
11170 content for which the performer has not been paid. But of course, that's not
11171 all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Chapter 5. Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»">5</a>, they enable four
11172 different kinds of sharing:
11173 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
11174
11175
11176 Det er noen som bruker delingsnettverk som erstatninger for å kjøpe CDer.
11177 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11178
11179
11180 There are also some who are using sharing networks to sample, on the way to
11181 purchasing CDs.
11182 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11183
11184
11185
11186
11187 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk til å få tilgang til innhold som
11188 ikke lenger er i salg, men fortsatt er vernet av opphavsrett eller som ville
11189 ha vært altfor vanskelig å få kjøpt via nettet.
11190 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11191
11192
11193 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk for å få tilgang til innhold som
11194 ikke er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, eller for å få tilgang som
11195 opphavsrettsinnehaveren åpenbart går god for.
11196 </p></li></ol></div><a class="indexterm" name="id3030606"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3030614"></a><p>
11197 Any reform of the law needs to keep these different uses in focus. It must
11198 avoid burdening type D even if it aims to eliminate type A. The eagerness
11199 with which the law aims to eliminate type A, moreover, should depend upon
11200 the magnitude of type B. As with VCRs, if the net effect of sharing is
11201 actually not very harmful, the need for regulation is significantly
11202 weakened.
11203 </p><p>
11204 As I said in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Chapter 5. Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»">5</a>, the actual harm caused by sharing is controversial.  For
11205 the purposes of this chapter, however, I assume the harm is real. I assume,
11206 in other words, that type A sharing is significantly greater than type B,
11207 and is the dominant use of sharing networks.
11208 </p><p>
11209 Uansett, det er et avgjørende faktum om den gjeldende teknologiske
11210 omgivelsen som vi må huske på hvis vi skal forstå hvordan loven bør reagere.
11211 </p><p>
11212 Today, file sharing is addictive. In ten years, it won't be. It is addictive
11213 today because it is the easiest way to gain access to a broad range of
11214 content.  It won't be the easiest way to get access to a broad range of
11215 content in ten years. Today, access to the Internet is cumbersome and
11216 slow&#8212;we in the United States are lucky to have broadband service at
11217 1.5 MBs, and very rarely do we get service at that speed both up and
11218 down. Although wireless access is growing, most of us still get access
11219 across wires. Most only gain access through a machine with a keyboard. The
11220 idea of the always on, always connected Internet is mainly just an idea.
11221 </p><p>
11222
11223 But it will become a reality, and that means the way we get access to the
11224 Internet today is a technology in transition. Policy makers should not make
11225 policy on the basis of technology in transition. They should make policy on
11226 the basis of where the technology is going. The question should not be, how
11227 should the law regulate sharing in this world? The question should be, what
11228 law will we require when the network becomes the network it is clearly
11229 becoming? That network is one in which every machine with electricity is
11230 essentially on the Net; where everywhere you are&#8212;except maybe the
11231 desert or the Rockies&#8212;you can instantaneously be connected to the
11232 Internet. Imagine the Internet as ubiquitous as the best cell-phone service,
11233 where with the flip of a device, you are connected.
11234 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3030675"></a><p>
11235 In that world, it will be extremely easy to connect to services that give
11236 you access to content on the fly&#8212;such as Internet radio, content that
11237 is streamed to the user when the user demands. Here, then, is the critical
11238 point: When it is <span class="emphasis"><em>extremely</em></span> easy to connect to services
11239 that give access to content, it will be <span class="emphasis"><em>easier</em></span> to
11240 connect to services that give you access to content than it will be to
11241 download and store content <span class="emphasis"><em>on the many devices you will have for
11242 playing content</em></span>. It will be easier, in other words, to subscribe
11243 than it will be to be a database manager, as everyone in the
11244 download-sharing world of Napster-like technologies essentially is. Content
11245 services will compete with content sharing, even if the services charge
11246 money for the content they give access to. Already cell-phone services in
11247 Japan offer music (for a fee) streamed over cell phones (enhanced with plugs
11248 for headphones). The Japanese are paying for this content even though
11249 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> content is available in the form of MP3s across the
11250 Web.<sup>[<a name="id3030730" href="#ftn.id3030730" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
11251
11252 </p><p>
11253
11254 This point about the future is meant to suggest a perspective on the
11255 present: It is emphatically temporary. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem</span>»</span> with file
11256 sharing&#8212;to the extent there is a real problem&#8212;is a problem that
11257 will increasingly disappear as it becomes easier to connect to the
11258 Internet.  And thus it is an extraordinary mistake for policy makers today
11259 to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">solving</span>»</span> this problem in light of a technology that will
11260 be gone tomorrow.  The question should not be how to regulate the Internet
11261 to eliminate file sharing (the Net will evolve that problem away). The
11262 question instead should be how to assure that artists get paid, during this
11263 transition between twentieth-century models for doing business and
11264 twenty-first-century technologies.
11265 </p><p>
11266 The answer begins with recognizing that there are different
11267 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problems</span>»</span> here to solve. Let's start with type D
11268 content&#8212;uncopyrighted content or copyrighted content that the artist
11269 wants shared. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem</span>»</span> with this content is to make sure
11270 that the technology that would enable this kind of sharing is not rendered
11271 illegal. You can think of it this way: Pay phones are used to deliver ransom
11272 demands, no doubt.  But there are many who need to use pay phones who have
11273 nothing to do with ransoms. It would be wrong to ban pay phones in order to
11274 eliminate kidnapping.
11275 </p><p>
11276 Type C content raises a different <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem.</span>»</span> This is content
11277 that was, at one time, published and is no longer available. It may be
11278 unavailable because the artist is no longer valuable enough for the record
11279 label he signed with to carry his work. Or it may be unavailable because the
11280 work is forgotten. Either way, the aim of the law should be to facilitate
11281 the access to this content, ideally in a way that returns something to the
11282 artist.
11283 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3030809"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3030817"></a><p>
11284 Again, the model here is the used book store. Once a book goes out of print,
11285 it may still be available in libraries and used book stores. But libraries
11286 and used book stores don't pay the copyright owner when someone reads or
11287 buys an out-of-print book. That makes total sense, of course, since any
11288 other system would be so burdensome as to eliminate the possibility of used
11289 book stores' existing. But from the author's perspective, this
11290 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sharing</span>»</span> of his content without his being compensated is less
11291 than ideal.
11292 </p><p>
11293 The model of used book stores suggests that the law could simply deem
11294 out-of-print music fair game. If the publisher does not make copies of the
11295 music available for sale, then commercial and noncommercial providers would
11296 be free, under this rule, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">share</span>»</span> that content, even though
11297 the sharing involved making a copy. The copy here would be incidental to the
11298 trade; in a context where commercial publishing has ended, trading music
11299 should be as free as trading books.
11300 </p><p>
11301
11302
11303
11304 Alternatively, the law could create a statutory license that would ensure
11305 that artists get something from the trade of their work. For example, if the
11306 law set a low statutory rate for the commercial sharing of content that was
11307 not offered for sale by a commercial publisher, and if that rate were
11308 automatically transferred to a trust for the benefit of the artist, then
11309 businesses could develop around the idea of trading this content, and
11310 artists would benefit from this trade.
11311 </p><p>
11312 This system would also create an incentive for publishers to keep works
11313 available commercially. Works that are available commercially would not be
11314 subject to this license. Thus, publishers could protect the right to charge
11315 whatever they want for content if they kept the work commercially
11316 available. But if they don't keep it available, and instead, the computer
11317 hard disks of fans around the world keep it alive, then any royalty owed for
11318 such copying should be much less than the amount owed a commercial
11319 publisher.
11320 </p><p>
11321 The hard case is content of types A and B, and again, this case is hard only
11322 because the extent of the problem will change over time, as the technologies
11323 for gaining access to content change. The law's solution should be as
11324 flexible as the problem is, understanding that we are in the middle of a
11325 radical transformation in the technology for delivering and accessing
11326 content.
11327 </p><p>
11328 Så her er en løsning som i første omgang kan virke veldig undelig for begge
11329 sider i denne krigen, men som jeg tror vil gi mer mening når en får tenkt
11330 seg om.
11331 </p><p>
11332 Stripped of the rhetoric about the sanctity of property, the basic claim of
11333 the content industry is this: A new technology (the Internet)  has harmed a
11334 set of rights that secure copyright. If those rights are to be protected,
11335 then the content industry should be compensated for that harm. Just as the
11336 technology of tobacco harmed the health of millions of Americans, or the
11337 technology of asbestos caused grave illness to thousands of miners, so, too,
11338 has the technology of digital networks harmed the interests of the content
11339 industry.
11340 </p><p>
11341
11342
11343 Jeg elsker internett, så jeg liker ikke å sammenligne det med tobakk eller
11344 asbest.  Men analogien er rimelig når en ser det fra lovens perspektiv. Og
11345 det foreslår en rimelig respons: I stedet for å forsøke å ødelegge internett
11346 eller p2p-teknologien som i dag skader innholdsleverandører på internett, så
11347 bør vi finne en relativt enkel måte å kompensere de som blir skadelidende.
11348 </p><p>
11349 The idea would be a modification of a proposal that has been floated by
11350 Harvard law professor William Fisher.<sup>[<a name="id3030935" href="#ftn.id3030935" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
11351 Fisher suggests a very clever way around the current impasse of the
11352 Internet. Under his plan, all content capable of digital transmission would
11353 (1) be marked with a digital watermark (don't worry about how easy it is to
11354 evade these marks; as you'll see, there's no incentive to evade them). Once
11355 the content is marked, then entrepreneurs would develop (2) systems to
11356 monitor how many items of each content were distributed. On the basis of
11357 those numbers, then (3) artists would be compensated. The compensation would
11358 be paid for by (4) an appropriate tax.
11359 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3031132"></a><p>
11360 Fisher's proposal is careful and comprehensive. It raises a million
11361 questions, most of which he answers well in his upcoming book,
11362 <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep</em>. The modification that I would make
11363 is relatively simple: Fisher imagines his proposal replacing the existing
11364 copyright system.  I imagine it complementing the existing system. The aim
11365 of the proposal would be to facilitate compensation to the extent that harm
11366 could be shown. This compensation would be temporary, aimed at facilitating
11367 a transition between regimes. And it would require renewal after a period of
11368 years. If it continues to make sense to facilitate free exchange of content,
11369 supported through a taxation system, then it can be continued. If this form
11370 of protection is no longer necessary, then the system could lapse into the
11371 old system of controlling access.
11372 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3031160"></a><p>
11373
11374 Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim is
11375 not just to ensure that artists are paid, but also to ensure that the system
11376 supports the widest range of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">semiotic democracy</span>»</span> possible. But
11377 the aims of semiotic democracy would be satisfied if the other changes I
11378 described were accomplished&#8212;in particular, the limits on derivative
11379 uses. A system that simply charges for access would not greatly burden
11380 semiotic democracy if there were few limitations on what one was allowed to
11381 do with the content itself.
11382 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3031181"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3031195"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3031202"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3031208"></a><p>
11383 No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of
11384 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">harm</span>»</span> to an industry. But the difficulty of making that
11385 calculation would be outweighed by the benefit of facilitating
11386 innovation. This background system to compensate would also not need to
11387 interfere with innovative proposals such as Apple's MusicStore. As experts
11388 predicted when Apple launched the MusicStore, it could beat
11389 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> by being easier than free is. This has proven correct:
11390 Apple has sold millions of songs at even the very high price of 99 cents a
11391 song. (At 99 cents, the cost is the equivalent of a per-song CD price,
11392 though the labels have none of the costs of a CD to pay.) Apple's move was
11393 countered by Real Networks, offering music at just 79 cents a song. And no
11394 doubt there will be a great deal of competition to offer and sell music
11395 on-line.
11396 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3031242"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3031249"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3031258"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3031265"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3031275"></a><p>
11397 This competition has already occurred against the background of
11398 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> music from p2p systems. As the sellers of cable
11399 television have known for thirty years, and the sellers of bottled water for
11400 much more than that, there is nothing impossible at all about
11401 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">competing with free.</span>»</span> Indeed, if anything, the competition
11402 spurs the competitors to offer new and better products. This is precisely
11403 what the competitive market was to be about. Thus in Singapore, though
11404 piracy is rampant, movie theaters are often luxurious&#8212;with
11405 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">first class</span>»</span> seats, and meals served while you watch a
11406 movie&#8212;as they struggle and succeed in finding ways to compete with
11407 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free.</span>»</span>
11408 </p><p>
11409 Dette konkurranseregimet, med en sikringsmekanisme for å sikre at kunstnere
11410 ikke taper, ville bidra mye til nyskapning innen levering av
11411 innhold. Konkurransen ville fortsette å redusere type-A-deling.  Det ville
11412 inspirere en ekstraordinær rekke av nye innovatører&#8212;som ville ha
11413 retten til a bruke innhold, og ikke lenger frykte usikre og barbarisk
11414 strenge straffer fra loven.
11415 </p><p>
11416 Oppsummert, så er dette mitt forslag:
11417 </p><p>
11418
11419
11420
11421 Internett er i endring. Vi bør ikke regulere en teknologi i endring. Vi bør
11422 i stedet regulere for å minimere skaden påført interesser som er berørt av
11423 denne teknologiske endringen, samtidig vi muliggjør, og oppmuntrer, den mest
11424 effektive teknologien vi kan lage.
11425 </p><p>
11426 Vi kan minimere skaden og samtidig maksimere fordelen med innovasjon ved å
11427 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
11428
11429
11430 garantere retten til å engasjere seg i type-D-deling;
11431 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11432
11433
11434 tillate ikke-kommersiell type-C-deling uten erstatningsansvar, og
11435 kommersiell type-C-deling med en lav og fast rate fastsatt ved lov.
11436 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11437
11438
11439 mens denne overgangen pågår, skattlegge og kompensere for type-A-deling, i
11440 den grad faktiske skade kan påvises.
11441 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11442 Men hva om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>»</span> ikke forsvinner?  Hva om det
11443 finnes et konkurranseutsatt marked som tilbyr innhold til en lav kostnad,
11444 men et signifikant antall av forbrukere fortsetter å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span>
11445 innhold uten å betale?  Burde loven gjøre noe da?
11446 </p><p>
11447 Ja, det bør den.  Men, nok en gang, hva den bør gjøre avhenger hvordan
11448 realitetene utvikler seg. Disse endringene fjerner kanskje ikke all
11449 type-A-deling. Men det virkelige spørmålet er ikke om de eliminerer deling i
11450 abstrakt betydning.  Det virkelige spørsmålet er hvilken effekt det har på
11451 markedet.  Er det bedre (a) å ha en teknologi som er 95 prosent sikker og
11452 gir et marked av størrelse <em class="citetitle">x</em>, eller (b) å ha en
11453 teknologi som er 50 prosent sikker, og som gir et marked som er fem ganger
11454 større enn <em class="citetitle">x</em>?  Mindre sikker kan gi mer uautorisert
11455 deling, men det vil sannsynligvis også gi et mye større marked for
11456 autorisert deling. Det viktigste er å sikre kunstneres kompensasjon uten å
11457 ødelegge internettet.  Når det er på plass, kan det hende det er riktig å
11458 finne måter å spore opp de smålige piratene.
11459 </p><p>
11460
11461 Men vi er langt unna å spikke problemet ned til dette delsettet av
11462 type-A-delere.  Og vårt fokus inntil er der bør ikke være å finne måter å
11463 ødelegge internettet.  Var fokus inntil vi er der bør være hvordan sikre at
11464 artister får betalt, mens vi beskytter rommet for nyskapning og kreativitet
11465 som internettet er.
11466 </p></div><div class="section" title="16.2.5. 5. Spark en masse advokater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="firelawyers"></a>16.2.5. 5. Spark en masse advokater</h3></div></div></div><p>
11467 Jeg er en advokat. Jeg lever av å utdanne advokater. Jeg tror på loven. Jeg
11468 tror på opphavsrettsloven. Jeg har faktisk viet livet til å jobbe med loven,
11469 ikke fordi det er mye penger å tjene, men fordi det innebærer idealer som
11470 jeg elsker å leve opp til.
11471 </p><p>
11472 Likevel har mye av denne boken vært kritikk av advokater, eller rollen
11473 advokater har spilt i denne debatten.  Loven taler om idealer, mens det er
11474 min oppfatning av vår yrkesgruppe er blitt for knyttet til klienten.  Og i
11475 en verden der rike klienter har sterke synspunkter vil uviljen hos vår
11476 yrkesgruppe til å stille spørsmål med eller protestere mot dette sterke
11477 synet ødelegge loven.
11478 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3031494"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id3031500"></a><p>
11479 Indisiene for slik bøyning er overbevisene.  Jeg er angrepet som en
11480 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikal</span>»</span> av mange innenfor yrket, og likevel er meningene jeg
11481 argumenterer for nøyaktig de meningene til mange av de mest moderate og
11482 betydningsfulle personene i historien til denne delen av loven. Mange trodde
11483 for eksempel at vår utfordring til lovforslaget om å utvide opphavsrettens
11484 vernetid var galskap.  Mens bare tredve år siden mente den dominerende
11485 foreleser og utøver i opphavsrettsfeltet, Melville Nimmer, at den var
11486 åpenbar.<sup>[<a name="id3031531" href="#ftn.id3031531" class="footnote">221</a>]</sup>
11487
11488 </p><p>
11489 Min kritikk av rollen som advokater har spilt i denne debatten handler
11490 imidlertid ikke bare om en profesjonell skjevhet. Det handler enda viktigere
11491 om vår manglende evne til å faktisk ta inn over oss hva loven koster.
11492 </p><p>
11493 Økonomer er forventet å være gode til å forstå utgifter og inntekter.  Men
11494 som oftest antar økonomene uten peiling på hvordan det juridiske systemet
11495 egentlig fungerer, at transaksjonskostnaden i det juridiske systemet er
11496 lav.<sup>[<a name="id3031570" href="#ftn.id3031570" class="footnote">222</a>]</sup>  De ser et system som har
11497 eksistert i hundrevis av år, og de antar at det fungerer slik grunnskolens
11498 samfunnsfagsundervisning lærte dem at det fungerer.
11499 </p><p>
11500
11501
11502 Men det juridiske systemet fungerer ikke. Eller for å være mer nøyaktig, det
11503 fungerer kun for de med mest ressurser.  Det er ikke fordi systemet er
11504 korrupt. Jeg tror overhodet ikke vårt juridisk system (på føderalt nivå, i
11505 hvert fall) er korrupt. Jeg mener ganske enkelt at på grunn av at kostnadene
11506 med vårt juridiske systemet er så hårreisende høyt vil en praktisk talt
11507 aldri oppnå rettferdighet.
11508 </p><p>
11509 Disse kostnadene forstyrrer fri kultur på mange vis.  En advokats tid
11510 faktureres hos de største firmaene for mer enn $400 pr. time. Hvor mye tid
11511 bør en slik advokat bruke på å lese sakene nøye, eller undersøke obskure
11512 rettskilder.  Svaret er i økende grad: svært lite. Jussen er avhengig av
11513 nøye formulering og utvikling av doktrine, men nøye formulering og utvikling
11514 av doktrine er avhengig av nøyaktig arbeid.  Men nøyaktig arbeid koster for
11515 mye, bortsett fra i de mest høyprofilerte og kostbare sakene.
11516 </p><p>
11517 Kostbarheten, klomsetheten og tilfeldigheten til dette systemet håner vår
11518 tradisjon. Og advokater, såvel som akademikere, bør se det som sin plikt å
11519 endre hvordan loven praktiseres&#8212; eller bedre, endre loven slik at den
11520 fungerer. Det er galt at systemet fungerer godt bare for den øverste
11521 1-prosenten av klientene.  Det kan gjøres radikalt mer effektivt, og billig,
11522 og dermed radikalt mer rettferdig.
11523 </p><p>
11524 Men inntil en slik reform er gjennomført, bør vi som samfunn holde lover
11525 unna områder der vi vet den bare vil skade.  Og det er nettopp det loven
11526 altfor ofte vil gjøre hvis for mye av vår kultur er lovregulert.
11527 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3031671"></a><p>
11528 Tenk på de fantastiske tingene ditt barn kan gjøre eller lage med digital
11529 teknologi&#8212;filmen, musikken, web-siden, bloggen. Eller tenk på de
11530 fantastiske tingene ditt fellesskap kunne få til med digital
11531 teknologi&#8212;en wiki, oppsetting av låve, kampanje til å endre noe. Tenk
11532 på alle de kreative tingene, og tenk deretter på kald sirup helt inn i
11533 maskinene. Dette er hva et hvert regime som krever tillatelser fører
11534 til. Dette er virkeligheten slik den var i Brezhnevs Russland.
11535 </p><p>
11536
11537 Loven bør regulere i visse områder av kulturen&#8212;men det bør regulere
11538 kultur bare der reguleringen bidrar positivt. Likevel tester advokater
11539 sjeldent sin kraft, eller kraften som de fremmer, mot dette enkle pragmatisk
11540 spørsmålet: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vil det bidra positivt?</span>»</span>.  Når de blir utfordret
11541 om det utvidede rekkevidden til loven, er advokat-svaret, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvorfor
11542 ikke?</span>»</span>
11543 </p><p>
11544 Vi burde spørre: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvorfor?</span>»</span>. Vis meg hvorfor din regulering av
11545 kultur er nødvendig og vis meg hvordan reguleringen bidrar positivt.  Før du
11546 kan vise meg begge, holde advokatene din unna.
11547 </p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3028950" href="#id3028950" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
11548
11549
11550
11551 See, for example, Marc Rotenberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Information Practices and the
11552 Architecture of Privacy (What Larry Doesn't Get),</span>»</span>
11553 <em class="citetitle">Stanford Technology Law Review</em> 1 (2001):
11554 par. 6&#8211;18, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a> (describing examples in
11555 which technology defines privacy policy). See also Jeffrey Rosen,
11556 <em class="citetitle">The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious
11557 Age</em> (New York: Random House, 2004) (mapping tradeoffs between
11558 technology and privacy).</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3029569" href="#id3029569" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
11559
11560
11561 <em class="citetitle">Willful Infringement: A Report from the Front Lines of the Real
11562 Culture Wars</em> (2003), produced by Jed Horovitz, directed by Greg
11563 Hittelman, a Fiat Lucre production, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a>.
11564 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3029771" href="#id3029771" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
11565
11566
11567 The proposal I am advancing here would apply to American works only.
11568 Obviously, I believe it would be beneficial for the same idea to be adopted
11569 by other countries as well.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3029907" href="#id3029907" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
11570
11571
11572 There would be a complication with derivative works that I have not solved
11573 here. In my view, the law of derivatives creates a more complicated system
11574 than is justified by the marginal incentive it creates.
11575 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3030049" href="#id3030049" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
11576
11577
11578
11579 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Radical Rethink</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 366:8308
11580 (25. januar 2003): 15, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #74</a>.
11581 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3030178" href="#id3030178" class="para">215</a>] </sup>
11582
11583
11584 Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation
11585 and/or Pension, VA Form 21-526 (OMB Approved No. 2900-0001), tilgjengelig
11586 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #75</a>.
11587 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3030337" href="#id3030337" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
11588
11589
11590 Benjamin Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">An Unhurried View of Copyright</em> (New
11591 York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 32.
11592 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3030362" href="#id3030362" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
11593
11594 Ibid., 56.
11595 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3030449" href="#id3030449" class="para">218</a>] </sup>
11596
11597 Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the
11598 Celestial Jukebox</em> (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003),
11599 187&#8211;216.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3028966"></a>
11600 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3030730" href="#id3030730" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
11601
11602
11603 For eksempel, se, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Media Watch</span>»</span>, The J@pan
11604 Inc. Newsletter, 3 April 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #76</a>.
11605 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3030935" href="#id3030935" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
11606
11607 <a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments3"></a> William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital
11608 Music: Problems and Possibilities</em> (sist revidert: 10. oktober
11609 2000), tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11610 #77</a>; William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep: Technology, Law,
11611 and the Future of Entertainment</em> (kommer) (Stanford: Stanford
11612 University Press, 2004), kap. 6, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #78</a>. Professor Netanel har
11613 foreslått en relatert idé som ville gjøre at opphavsretten ikke gjelder
11614 ikke-kommersiell deling fra og ville etablere kompenasjon til kunstnere for
11615 å balansere eventuelle tap. Se Neil Weinstock Netanel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Impose a
11616 Noncommercial Use Levy to Allow Free P2P File Sharing</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig
11617 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #79</a>. For andre
11618 forslag, se Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Who's Holding Back Broadband?</span>»</span>
11619 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 8. january 2002, A17; Philip
11620 S. Corwin på vegne av Sharman Networks, Et brev til Senator Joseph R. Biden,
11621 Jr., leder i the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 26. februar. 2002,
11622 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11623 #80</a>; Serguei Osokine, <em class="citetitle">A Quick Case for Intellectual
11624 Property Use Fee (IPUF)</em>, 3. mars 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #81</a>; Jefferson Graham,
11625 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kazaa, Verizon Propose to Pay Artists Directly</span>»</span>,
11626 <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 13. mai 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #82</a>; Steven M. Cherry,
11627 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Getting Copyright Right</span>»</span>, IEEE Spectrum Online, 1. juli 2002,
11628 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11629 #83</a>; Declan McCullagh, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Verizon's Copyright Campaign</span>»</span>,
11630 CNET News.com, 27. august 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #84</a>.  Forslaget fra Fisher
11631 er ganske likt forslaget til Richard Stallman når det gjelder DAT.  I
11632 motsetning til Fishers forslag, ville Stallmanns forslag ikke betale
11633 kunstnere proposjonalt, selv om mer populære artister ville få mer betalt
11634 enn mindre populære.  Slik det er typisk med Stallman, la han fram sitt
11635 forslag omtrent ti år før dagens debatt. Se <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #85</a>. <a class="indexterm" name="id3031088"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id3031095"></a>
11636 <a class="indexterm" name="id3031102"></a>
11637 <a class="indexterm" name="id3031110"></a>
11638 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3031531" href="#id3031531" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
11639
11640
11641 Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright's First Amendment</span>»</span> (Melville
11642 B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture), <em class="citetitle">UCLA law Review</em> 48
11643 (2001): 1057, 1069&#8211;70.
11644 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id3031570" href="#id3031570" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
11645
11646 Et godt eksempel er arbeidet til professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz bør få
11647 ros for sin nøye gjennomgang av data om opphavsrettsbrudd, som fikk ham til
11648 å stille spørsmål med sin egen uttalte posisjon&#8212;to ganger.  I starten
11649 predicated han at nedlasting ville påføre industrien vesentlig skade.  Han
11650 endret så sitt syn etter i lys av dataene, og han har siden endret sitt syn
11651 på nytt.  Sammenlign Stan J. Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network
11652 Economy: The True Forces That Drive the Digital Marketplace</em> (New
11653 York: Amacom, 2002), (gikk igjennom hans originale syn men uttrykte skepsis)
11654 med Stan J.  Liebowitz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Will MP3s Annihilate the Record
11655 Industry?</span>»</span> artikkelutkast, juni 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #86</a>.  Den nøye analysen til
11656 Liebowitz er ekstremt verdifull i sin estimering av effekten av
11657 fildelingsteknologi.  Etter mitt syn underestimerer han forøvrig kostnaden
11658 til det juridiske system.  Se, for eksempel,
11659 <em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174&#8211;76.  <a class="indexterm" name="id3031546"></a>
11660 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 17. Notater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>Chapter 17. Notater</h2></div></div></div><p>
11661 I denne teksten er det referanser til lenker på verdensveven.  Og som alle
11662 som har forsøkt å bruke nettet vet, så vil disse lenkene være svært
11663 ustabile.  Jeg har forsøkt å motvirke denne ustabiliteten ved å omdirigere
11664 lesere til den originale kilden gjennom en nettside som hører til denne
11665 boken.  For hver lenke under, så kan du gå til http://free-culture.cc/notes
11666 og finne den originale kilden ved å klikke på nummeret etter #-tegnet.  Hvis
11667 den originale lenken fortsatt er i live, så vil du bli omdirigert til den
11668 lenken.  Hvis den originale lenken har forsvunnet, så vil du bli omdirigert
11669 til en passende referanse til materialet.
11670 </p></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 18. Takk til"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>Chapter 18. Takk til</h2></div></div></div><p>
11671 Denne boken er produktet av en lang og så langt mislykket kamp som begynte
11672 da jeg leste om Eric Eldreds krig for å sørge for at bøker forble
11673 frie. Eldreds innsats bidro til å lansere en bevegelse, fri
11674 kultur-bevegelsen, og denne boken er tilegnet ham.
11675 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id3031823"></a><p>
11676 Jeg fikk veiledning på ulike steder fra venner og akademikere, inkludert
11677 Glenn Brown, Peter DiCola, Jennifer Mnookin, Richard Posner, Mark Rose og
11678 Kathleen Sullivan. Og jeg fikk korreksjoner og veiledning fra mange
11679 fantastiske studenter ved Stanford Law School og Stanford University. Det
11680 inkluderer Andrew B. Coan, John Eden, James P. Fellers, Christopher
11681 Guzelian, Erica Goldberg, Robert Hallman, Andrew Harris, Matthew Kahn,
11682 Brian-Link, Ohad Mayblum, Alina Ng og Erica Platt. Jeg er særlig takknemlig
11683 overfor Catherine Crump og Harry Surden, som hjalp til med å styre deres
11684 forskning og til Laura Lynch, som briljant håndterte hæren de samlet, samt
11685 bidro med sitt egen kritisk blikk på mye av dette.
11686 </p><p>
11687
11688 Yuko Noguchi hjalp meg å forstå lovene i Japan, så vel som Japans
11689 kultur. Jeg er henne takknemlig, og til de mange i Japan som hjalp meg med
11690 forundersøkelsene til denne boken: Joi Ito, Takayuki Matsutani, Naoto
11691 Misaki, Michihiro Sasaki, Hiromichi Tanaka, Hiroo Yamagata og Yoshihiro
11692 Yonezawa.  Jeg er også takknemlig til professor Nobuhiro Nakayama og Tokyo
11693 University Business Law Center, som ga meg muligheten til å bruke tid i
11694 Japan, og Tadashi Shiraishi og Kiyokazu Yamagami for deres generøse hjelp
11695 mens jeg var der.
11696 </p><p>
11697 Dette er de tradisjonelle former for hjelp som akademikere regelmessig
11698 trekker på. Men i tillegg til dem, har Internett gjort det mulig å motta råd
11699 og korrigering fra mange som jeg har aldri møtt.  Blant de som har svart med
11700 svært nyttig råd etter forespørsler om boken på bloggen min er Dr. Muhammed
11701 Al-Ubaydli, David Gerstein og Peter Dimauro, I tillegg en lang liste med de
11702 som hadde spesifikke idéer om måter å utvikle mine argumenter på.  De
11703 inkluderte Richard Bondi, Steven Cherry, David Coe, Nik Cubrilovic, Bob
11704 Devine, Charles Eicher, Thomas Guida, Elihu M. Gerson, Jeremy Hunsinger,
11705 Vaughn Iverson, John Karabaic, Jeff Keltner, James Lindenschmidt,
11706 K. L. Mann, Mark Manning, Nora McCauley, Jeffrey McHugh, Evan McMullen, Fred
11707 Norton, John Pormann, Pedro A. D.  Rezende, Shabbir Safdar, Saul Schleimer,
11708 Clay Shirky, Adam Shostack, Kragen Sitaker, Chris Smith, Bruce Steinberg,
11709 Andrzej Jan Taramina, Sean Walsh, Matt Wasserman, Miljenko Williams,
11710 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Wink,</span>»</span> Roger Wood, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ximmbo da Jazz,</span>»</span> og Richard
11711 Yanco. (jeg beklager hvis jeg gikk glipp av noen, med datamaskiner kommer
11712 feil og en krasj i e-postsystemet mitt gjorde at jeg mistet en haug med
11713 flotte svar.)
11714 </p><p>
11715 Richard Stallman og Michael Carroll har begge lest hele boken i utkast, og
11716 hver av dem har bidratt med svært nyttige korreksjoner og råd. Michael hjalp
11717 meg å se mer tydelig betydningen av regulering for avledede verker . Og
11718 Richard korrigerte en pinlig stor mengde feil.  Selv om mitt arbeid er
11719 delvis inspirert av Stallmans, er han ikke enig med meg på vesentlige steder
11720 i denne boken.
11721 </p><p>
11722 Til slutt, og for evig, er jeg Bettina takknemlig, som alltid har insistert
11723 på at det ville være endeløs lykke utenfor disse kampene, og som alltid har
11724 hatt rett.  Denne trege eleven er som alltid takknemlig for hennes
11725 evigvarende tålmodighet og kjærlighet.
11726 </p></div><div class="index" title="Index"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id3031955"></a>Index</h2></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Symbols</h3><dl><dt>60 Minutes, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>A</h3><dl><dt>ABC, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Adobe eBook Reader, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Africa, medications for HIV patients in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Aibo robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>akademiske tidsskrifter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>alcohol prohibition, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>All in the Family, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>allemannseie (public domain)</dt><dd><dl><dt>public projects in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Andromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>animasjonsfilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>antiretroviral drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Apple Corporation, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>archive.org, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(see also Internett-arkivet)</dt></dl></dd><dt>Aristoteles, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>arkitektur, begrensninger med opphav i, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>arkiver, digitale, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Armstrong, Edwin Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>artister</dt><dd><dl><dt>musikkindustriens betaling til, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>retrospective compilations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3001909">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Asia, kommersiell piratvirksomhet i, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>AT&amp;T, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Ayer, Don, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>B</h3><dl><dt>Bacon, Francis, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Barish, Stephanie, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Barlow, Joel, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Barnes &amp; Noble, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt><dt>Barry, Hank, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>BBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Beatles, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Beckett, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Bell, Alexander Graham, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Berlin Act (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Berman, Howard L., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bern-konvensjonen (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>bilder, eierskap til, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>biler, MP3-lydsystem i, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>biomedisinsk forskning, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Bitiske parlamentet, det, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>blogger (Web-logger), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>bøker</dt><dd><dl><dt>Engelsk opphavsrettslov utviklet for, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>gratis online-utgivelser av, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>out of print, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>på internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>selge på nytt, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>totalt antall, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>tre typer bruk av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>bokselgere, Engelske, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Boland, Lois, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Bolling, Ruben, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Mary, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bono, Sonny, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Boswell, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>bot-er, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Boyle, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Braithwaite, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Branagh, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Brandeis, Louis D., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Brasil, fri kultur i, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Breyer, Stephen, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brezhnev, Leonid, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Bromberg, Dan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Brown, John Seely, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>browsing, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>CD-ROMer, filmklipp brukt i, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>CDer</dt><dd><dl><dt>mix technology and, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>opphavsrettsmerking av, <a class="indexterm" href="#marking">Merking</a></dt><dt>preference data on, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>priser på, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>salgsnivå for, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>utenlands piratvirksomhet mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Clark, Kim B., <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>CNN, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Coase, Ronald, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>CodePink Women in Peace, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Coe, Brian, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Comcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Commons, John R., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Conrad, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Conyers, John, Jr., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>copyleft licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></dt><dt>Creative Commons, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Crichton, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Crosskey, William W., <a class="indexterm" href="#lawduration">Loven: Varighet</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>D</h3><dl><dt>Daguerre, Louis, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Daley, Elizabeth, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>dataspill, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Day After Trinity, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>DDT, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Dean, Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Diller, Barry, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Disney, Inc., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Drahos, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Dreyfuss, Rochelle, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3001909">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>Dryden, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Duck and Cover film, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>e-mail, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>eiendomsrettigheter</dt><dd><dl><dt>lufttrafikk mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Elektronisk forpost-stiftelsen (EFF), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>enkeltnukleotidforskjeller (SNPs), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>ephemeral films, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>fantasifoster/chimera, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>filmer</dt><dd><dl><dt>arkiv av, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>filmindustri</dt><dd><dl><dt>luxury theatres vs. video piracy in, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3001909">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>fotografering, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>free software/open-source software (FS/OSS), <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>fri kultur</dt><dd><dl><dt> permission culture vs., <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Fried, Charles, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Friedman, Milton, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>G</h3><dl><dt>Garlick, Mia, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Gates, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>General Film Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>General Public License (GPL), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>generiske medisiner, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Globalt posisjoneringssystem, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>GPL (General Public License), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Grokster, Ltd., <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>hacks, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>handguns, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, Konge av England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Herrera, Rebecca, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>history, records of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS therapies, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>hvis verdi, så rettighet-teorien, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3001909">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3001909">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#pirates">Kapittel fire: «Pirater»</a></dt><dt>Hyde, Rosel H., <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>I</h3><dl><dt>IBM, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>innovasjon, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Intel, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Internet Exporer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Internett-arkivet, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Irak-krigen, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>ISPer (Internet-tilbydere), brukeridentiteter avslørt av, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Iwerks, Ub, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>J</h3><dl><dt>Jaszi, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Jentespeidere, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3001909">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>jernbaneindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Lyndon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Johnson, Samuel, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Jonson, Ben, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>jury system, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>kabel-TV, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>kamerateknologi, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>kassettopptak, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Videospillere/opptakere, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>kjørehastighet, begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Krim, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>kringkastingsflagg, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>kunst, undergrunns, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>L</h3><dl><dt>landeierskap, lufttrafikk og, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Laurel and Hardy Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>law schools, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Leaphart, Walter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Lear, Norman, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>legal realist movement, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>Lessing, Lawrence, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>libraries</dt><dd><dl><dt>arkiveringsfunksjon for, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Library of Congress, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Licensing Act (1662), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Liebowitz, Stan, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Litman, Jessica, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Lofgren, Zoe, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lott, Trent, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>lovbestemte skader, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Lovett, Lyle, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucas, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>lufttrafikk, landeierskap mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>M</h3><dl><dt>Madonna, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>makt, konsentrasjon av, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3001909">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3001909">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Marijuana Policy Project, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>markedsføring, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawreach">Lov og arkitektur: Rekkevidde</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>markedskonsentrasjon, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Marx Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>McCain, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>MGM, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Michigan Technical University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Microsoft, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>competitive strategies of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>government case against, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>international software piracy of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>WIPO meeting opposed by, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>mobiltelefoner, musikk streamet via, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Morrison, Alan, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Movie Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Moyers, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Müller, Paul Hermann, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>MusicStore, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</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>newspapers</dt><dd><dl><dt>arkiver av, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, Melville, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt><dt>normer, reguleringspåvirkning fra, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>næringsmiddelpatenter, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>O</h3><dl><dt>O'Connor, Sandra Day, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Olafson, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Olson, Theodore B., <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Oppenheimer, Matt, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>originalism, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Orwell, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>P</h3><dl><dt>Paramount Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>permission culture</dt><dd><dl><dt> fri kultur mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Picker, Randal C., <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>piratvirksomhet</dt><dd><dl><dt>i Asia, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Politikk, (Aristotles), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Prelinger, Rick, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Princeton University, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a></dt><dt>Promises to Keep (Fisher), <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></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="#id3001909">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></dt><dt>RPI (see 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>September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks of, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</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>Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) (1998)</dt><dd><dl><dt>Supreme Court challenge of, <a class="indexterm" href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robothund produsert av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Sousa, John Philip, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>stålindustri, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Stallman, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Stanford University, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Star Wars, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Statute of Monopolies (1656), <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Stevens, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Steward, Geoffrey, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Supermann-tegneserier, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Sutherland, Donald, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>T</h3><dl><dt>Talbot, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Tatel, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Tauzin, Billy, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Taylor, Robert, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>tegnefilmer, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>Television Archive, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>televisjon</dt><dd><dl><dt>cable vs. broadcast, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Thurmond, Strom, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Tocqueville, Alexis de, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Torvalds, Linus, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Turner, Ted, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Twentieth Century Fox, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Tysk opphavsrettslov, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>United Kingdom</dt><dd><dl><dt>public creative archive in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>Valenti, Jack</dt><dd><dl><dt> on creative property rights, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Vanderbilt University, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>veteranpensjoner, <a class="indexterm" href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></dt><dt>Videospillere/opptakere, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Way Back Machine, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Wellcome Trust, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Fantasifoster</a></dt><dt>White House press releases, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dt>Windows, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Winer, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Winick, Judd, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a></dt><dt>WJOA, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>World Trade Center, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>World Wide Web, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Worldcom, <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt><dt>WRC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Wright-brødrene, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Y</h3><dl><dt>Yanofsky, Dave, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>Z</h3><dl><dt>Zimmerman, Edwin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Zittrain, Jonathan, <a class="indexterm" href="#id3001909">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div></body></html>