archive/freeculture.nb.html

   1 <html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"><title>Fri kultur</title><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.76.1"><meta name="description" content="Om forfatteren Lawrense Lessig (http://www.lessig.org), professor i juss og en John A. Wilson Distinguished Faculty Scholar ved Stanford Law School, er stifteren av Stanford Center for Internet and Society og styreleder i Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org). Forfatteren har gitt ut The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001) og Code: And other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999), og er medlem av styrene i Public Library of Science, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, og Public Knowledge. Han har vunnet Free Software Foundation's Award for the Advancement of Free Software, to ganger vært oppført i BusinessWeek's e.biz 25, og omtalt som en av Scientific American's 50 visjonærer. Etter utdanning ved University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, og Yale Law School, assisterte Lessig dommer Richard Posner ved U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals."></head><body bgcolor="white" text="black" link="#0000FF" vlink="#840084" alink="#0000FF"><div lang="nb" class="book" title="Fri kultur"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="index"></a>Fri kultur</h1></div><div><h2 class="subtitle">Hvordan store medieaktører bruker teknologi og loven til å låse ned kulturen
   2 og kontrollere kreativiteten</h2></div><div><div class="authorgroup"><div class="author"><h3 class="author"><span class="firstname">Lawrence</span> <span class="surname">Lessig</span></h3></div></div></div><div><p class="releaseinfo">Versjon 2004-02-10</p></div><div><p class="copyright">Opphavsrett © 2004 Lawrence Lessig</p></div><div><div class="legalnotice" title="Rettslig merknad"><a name="id2853537"></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="id2823771"></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: Omformere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">9. <a href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">10. <a href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">«<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: Chimera</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">12. <a href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">12.1. <a href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.2. <a href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">12.3. <a href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="part">IV. <a href="#c-balances">Maktfordeling</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="chapter">13. <a href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">14. <a href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">15. <a href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">16. <a href="#c-afterword">Etterord</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1. <a href="#usnow">Oss, nå</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.1.1. <a href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.1.2. <a href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2. <a href="#themsoon">Dem, snart</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1. <a href="#formalities">1. Flere formaliteter</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.1. <a href="#registration">Registrering og fornying</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.1.2. <a href="#marking">Merking</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section">16.2.2. <a href="#shortterms">2. Kortere vernetid</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.3. <a href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.4. <a href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section">16.2.5. <a href="#firelawyers">5. Spark en masse advokater</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></dd><dt><span class="chapter">17. <a href="#c-notes">Notater</a></span></dt><dt><span class="chapter">18. <a href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></span></dt><dt><span class="index"><a href="#id2909651">Indeks</a></span></dt></dl></div><div class="colophon" title="Kolofon"><h2 class="title"><a name="id2823637"></a>Kolofon</h2><p>
  36 THE PENGUIN PRESS, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.  375 Hudson Street
  37 New York, New York
  38 </p><p>
  39 Opphavsrettbeskyttet © Lawrence Lessig.  Alle rettigheter reservert.
  40 </p><p>
  41 Excerpt from an editorial titled <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Coming of Copyright
  42 Perpetuity,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, January 16,
  43 2003. Copyright © 2003 by The New York Times Co.  Reprinted with
  44 permission.
  45 </p><p>
  46 Cartoon in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1711" title="Figur 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.">Figur 10.18, &#8220;VCR/handgun cartoon.&#8221;</a> by Paul Conrad, copyright Tribune
  47 Media Services, Inc.  All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
  48 </p><p>
  49 Diagram in <a class="xref" href="#fig-1761" title="Figur 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.">Figur 10.19, &#8220;Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.&#8221;</a> courtesy of the office of FCC
  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="id2823460"></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="id2824109" href="#ftn.id2824109" 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="id2824190"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2824197"></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 <a class="indexterm" name="id2824226"></a>
 165 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 166 Høres dette ikke-konservativt ut?  Ikke for meg.  Denne konsentrasjonen av
 167 makt&#8212;politisk, selskapsmessig, pressemessig, kulturelt&#8212;bør være
 168 bannlyst av konservative.  Spredningen av makt gjennom lokal kontroll, og
 169 derigjennom oppmuntre til individuell deltagelse, er essensen i føderalismen
 170 og det største uttrykk for demokrati.<sup>[<a name="id2824249" href="#ftn.id2824249" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
 171 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 172 Denne idéen er et element i argumentet til <em class="citetitle">Fri
 173 Kultur</em>, selv om min fokus ikke bare er på konsentrasjonen av
 174 makt som følger av konsentrasjonen i eierskap, men mer viktig, og fordi det
 175 er mindre synlig, på konsentrasjonen av makt som er resultat av en radikal
 176 endring i det effektive virkeområdet til loven.  Loven er i endring, og
 177 endringen forandrer på hvordan vår kultur blir skapt. Den endringen bør
 178 bekymre deg&#8212;Uansett om du bryr deg om internett eller ikke, og uansett
 179 om du er til venstre for Safires eller til høyre. Inspirasjonen til tittelen
 180 og mye av argumentet i denne boken kommer fra arbeidet til Richard Stallman
 181 og Free Software Foundation. Faktisk, da jeg leste Stallmans egne tekster på
 182 nytt, spesielt essyene i <em class="citetitle">Free Software, Free Society</em>,
 183 innser jeg at alle de teoretiske innsiktene jeg utvikler her er innsikter
 184 som Stallman beskrev for tiår siden.  Man kan dermed godt argumentere for at
 185 dette verket <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kun</span>»</span> er et avledet verk.
 186 </p><p>
 187
 188 Jeg godtar kritikken, hvis det faktisk er kritikk.  Arbeidet til en advokat
 189 er alltid avledede verker, og jeg mener ikke å gjøre noe mer i denne boken
 190 enn å minne en kultur om en tradisjon som alltid har vært deres egen. Som
 191 Stallman forsvarer jeg denne tradisjonen på grunnlag av verdier. Som
 192 Stallman tror jeg dette er verdiene til frihet.  Og som Stallman, tror jeg
 193 dette er verdier fra vår fortid som må forsvares i vår fremtid.  En fri
 194 kultur har vært vår fortid, men vil bare være vår fremtid hvis vi endrer
 195 retningen vi følger akkurat nå.  På samme måte som Stallmans argumenter for
 196 fri programvare, treffer argumenter for en fri kultur på forvirring som er
 197 vanskelig å unngå, og enda vanskeligere å forstå.  En fri kultur er ikke en
 198 kultur uten eierskap. Det er ikke en kultur der kunstnere ikke får
 199 betalt. En kultur uten eierskap eller en der skaperne ikke kan få betalt, er
 200 anarki, ikke frihet.  Anarki er ikke hva jeg fremmer her.
 201 </p><p>
 202 I stedet er den frie kulturen som jeg forsvarer i denne boken en balanse
 203 mellom anarki og kontroll.  En fri kultur, i likhet med et fritt marked, er
 204 fylt med eierskap.  Den er fylt med regler for eierskap og kontrakter som
 205 blir håndhevet av staten.  Men på samme måte som det frie markedet blir
 206 pervertert hvis dets eierskap blir føydalt, så kan en fri kultur bli ødelagt
 207 av ekstremisme i eierskapsrettighetene som definerer den.  Det er dette jeg
 208 frykter om vår kultur i dag.  Det er som motpol til denne ekstremismen at
 209 denne boken er skrevet.
 210 </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>
 211 David Pogue, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Don't Just Chat, Do Something,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
 212 York Times</em>, 30. januar 2000
 213 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2824109" href="#id2824109" class="para">2</a>] </sup>
 214 Richard M. Stallman, <em class="citetitle">Fri programvare, Frie samfunn</em> 57
 215 (Joshua Gay, red. 2002).
 216 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2824249" href="#id2824249" class="para">3</a>] </sup> William Safire, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Great Media Gulp,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
 217 Times</em>, 22. mai 2003.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2824260"></a>
 218 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Introduksjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-introduction"></a>Introduksjon</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxairtraffic"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxlandownership"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxproprigtair"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2879709"></a><p>
 219 17. desember 1903, på en vindfylt strand i Nord-Carolina i såvidt under
 220 hundre sekunder, demonstrerte Wright-brødrene at et selvdrevet fartøy tyngre
 221 enn luft kunne fly.  Øyeblikket var elektrisk, og dens betydning ble alment
 222 forstått. Nesten umiddelbart, eksploderte interessen for denne nye
 223 teknologien som muliggjorde bemannet luftfart og en hærskare av oppfinnere
 224 begynte å bygge videre på den.
 225 </p><p>
 226 Da Wright-brødrene fant opp flymaskinen, hevdet loven i USA at en grunneier
 227 ble antatt å eie ikke bare overflaten på området sitt, men også alt landet
 228 under bakken, helt ned til senterpunktet i jorda, og alt volumet over
 229 bakken, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2879743" href="#ftn.id2879743" class="footnote">4</a>]</sup> I mange år undret lærde over hvordan en best skulle tolke idéen om
 230 at eiendomsretten gikk helt til himmelen. Betød dette at du eide stjernene?
 231 Kunne en dømme gjess for at de regelmessig og med vilje tok seg inn på annen
 232 manns eiendom?
 233 </p><p>
 234 Så kom flymaskiner, og for første gang hadde dette prinsippet i lovverket i
 235 USA&#8212;dypt nede i grunnlaget for vår tradisjon og akseptert av de
 236 viktigste juridiske tenkerne i vår fortid&#8212;en betydning. Hvis min
 237 eiendom rekker til himmelen, hva skjer når United flyr over mitt område?
 238 Har jeg rett til å nekte dem å bruke min eiendom?  Har jeg mulighet til å
 239 inngå en eksklusiv avtale med Delta Airlines?  Kan vi gjennomføre en auksjon
 240 for å finne ut hvor mye disse rettighetene er verdt?
 241 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2879763"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2879788"></a><p>
 242 I 1945 ble disse spørsmålene en føderal sak. Da bøndene Thomas Lee og Tinie
 243 Causby i Nord Carolina begynte å miste kyllinger på grunn av lavtflygende
 244 militære fly (vettskremte kyllinger fløy tilsynelatende i låveveggene og
 245 døde), saksøkte Causbyene regjeringen for å trenge seg inn på deres
 246 eiendom. Flyene rørte selvfølgelig aldri overflaten på Causbys' eiendom. Men
 247 hvis det stemte som Blackstone, Kent, og Cola hadde sagt, at deres eiendom
 248 strakk seg <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">i ubestemt grad, oppover,</span>»</span> så hadde regjeringen
 249 trengt seg inn på deres eiendom, og Causbys ønsket å sette en stopper for
 250 dette.
 251 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2879814"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2879821"></a><p>
 252 Høyesterett gikk med på å ta opp Causbys sak. Kongressen hadde vedtatt at
 253 luftfartsveiene var tilgjengelig for alle, men hvis ens eiendom virkelig
 254 rakk til himmelen, da kunne muligens kongressens vedtak ha vært i strid med
 255 grunnlovens forbud mot å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> eiendom uten kompensasjon.
 256 Retten erkjente at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er gammel doktrine etter sedvane at en eiendom
 257 rakk til utkanten av universet.</span>»</span>, men dommer Douglas hadde ikke
 258 tålmodighet for forhistoriske doktriner.  I et enkelt avsnitt, ble hundrevis
 259 av år med eiendomslovgivningen strøket. Som han skrev på vegne av retten,
 260 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 261 [Denne] doktrinen har ingen plass i den moderne verden.  Luften er en
 262 offentlig motorvei, slik kongressen har erklært.  Hvis det ikke var
 263 tilfelle, ville hver eneste transkontinentale flyrute utsette operatørene
 264 for utallige søksmål om inntrenging på annen manns eiendom.  Idéen er i
 265 strid med sunn fornuft.  Å anerkjenne slike private krav til luftrommet
 266 ville blokkere disse motorveiene, seriøst forstyrre muligheten til kontroll
 267 og utvikling av dem i fellesskapets interesse og overføre til privat
 268 eierskap det som kun fellesskapet har et rimelig krav til.<sup>[<a name="id2879872" href="#ftn.id2879872" class="footnote">5</a>]</sup>
 269 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 270 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>»</span>
 271 </p><p>
 272
 273 Det er hvordan loven vanligvis fungerer.  Ikke ofte like brått eller
 274 utålmodig, men til slutt er dette hvordan loven fungerer.  Det var ikke
 275 stilen til Douglas å utbrodere.  Andre dommere ville ha skrevet mange flere
 276 sider før de nådde sin konklusjon, men for Douglas holdt det med en enkel
 277 linje: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Idéen er i strid med sunn fornuft.</span>»</span>.  Men uansett om
 278 det tar flere sider eller kun noen få ord, så er det en genial egenskap med
 279 et rettspraksis-system, slik som vårt er, at loven tilpasser seg til
 280 aktuelle teknologiene.  Og mens den tilpasser seg, så endres den.  Idéer som
 281 var solide som fjell i en tidsalder knuses i en annen.
 282 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2879958"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2879965"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2879972"></a><p>
 283 Eller, det er hvordan ting skjer når det ikke er noen mektige på andre siden
 284 av endringen.  Causbyene var bare bønder.  Og selv om det uten tvil var
 285 mange som dem som var lei av den økende trafikken i luften (og en håper ikke
 286 for mange kyllinger flakset seg inn i vegger), ville Causbyene i verden
 287 finne det svært hardt å samles for å stoppe idéen, og teknologien, som
 288 Wright-brødrene hadde ført til verden.  Wright-brødrene spyttet flymaskiner
 289 inn i den teknologiske meme-dammen. Idéen spredte seg deretter som et virus
 290 i en kyllingfarm. Causbyene i verden fant seg selv omringet av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det
 291 synes rimelig</span>»</span> gitt teknologien som Wright-brødrene hadde produsert.
 292 De kunne stå på sine gårder, med døde kyllinger i hendene, og heve
 293 knyttneven mot disse nye teknologiene så mye de ville.  De kunne ringe sine
 294 representanter eller til og med saksøke.  Men når alt kom til alt, ville
 295 kraften i det som virket <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpenbart</span>»</span> for alle andre&#8212;makten
 296 til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>»</span>&#8212;ville vinne frem.  Deres
 297 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">personlige interesser</span>»</span> ville ikke få lov til å nedkjempe en
 298 åpenbar fordel for fellesskapet.
 299 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2880021"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2880032"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2880042"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxarmstrongedwin"></a><p>
 300 <span class="strong"><strong>Edwin Howard Armstrong</strong></span> er en av USAs
 301 glemte oppfinnergenier. Han dukket opp på oppfinnerscenen etter titaner som
 302 Thomas Edison og Alexander Graham Bell.  Alle hans bidrag på området
 303 radioteknologi gjør han til kanskje den viktigste av alle enkeltoppfinnere i
 304 de første femti årene av radio.  Han var bedre utdannet enn Michael Faraday,
 305 som var bokbinderlærling da han oppdaget elektrisk induksjon i 1831.  Men
 306 han hadde like god intuisjon om hvordan radioverden virket, og ved minst tre
 307 anledninger, fant Armstrong opp svært viktig teknologier som brakte vår
 308 forståelse av radio et hopp videre.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2880086"></a>
 309 <a class="indexterm" name="id2880097"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2880103"></a>
 310 </p><p>
 311 Dagen etter julaften i 1933, ble fire patenter utstedt til Armstrong for
 312 hans mest signifikante oppfinnelse&#8212;FM-radio.  Inntil da hadde
 313 forbrukerradioer vært amplitude-modulert (AM) radio.  Tidens teoretikere
 314 hadde sagt at frekvens-modulert (FM) radio.  De hadde rett når det gjelder
 315 et smalt bånd av spektrumet.  Men Armstrong oppdaget at frekvens-modulert
 316 radio i et vidt bånd i spektrumet leverte en forbløffende gjengivelse av
 317 lyd, med mye mindre senderstyrke og støy.
 318 </p><p>
 319 Den 5. november 1935 demonstrerte han teknologien på et møte hos institutt
 320 for radioingeniører ved Empire State-bygningen i New York City.  Han vred
 321 radiosøkeren over en rekke AM-stasjoner, inntil radioen låste seg mot en
 322 kringkasting som han hadde satt opp 27 kilometer unna.  Radioen ble helt
 323 stille, som om den var død, og så, med en klarhet ingen andre i rommet noen
 324 gang hadde hørt fra et elektrisk apparat, produserte det lyden av en
 325 opplesers stemme: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dette er amatørstasjon W2AG ved Yonkers, New York,
 326 som opererer på frekvensmodulering ved to og en halv meter.</span>»</span>
 327 </p><p>
 328 Publikum hørte noe ingen hadde trodd var mulig:
 329 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 330 Et glass vann ble fylt opp foran mikrofonen i Yonkers, og det hørtes ut som
 331 et glass som ble fylt opp. &#8230; Et papir ble krøllet og revet opp, og
 332 det hørtes ut som papir og ikke som en sprakende skogbrann. &#8230;
 333 Sousa-marsjer ble spilt av fra plater og en pianosolo og et gitarnummer ble
 334 utført. &#8230; Musikken ble presentert med en livaktighet som sjeldent om
 335 noen gang før hadde vært hørt fra en
 336 radio-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">musikk-boks</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2880179" href="#ftn.id2880179" class="footnote">6</a>]</sup>
 337 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 338
 339 Som vår egen sunn fornuft forteller oss, hadde Armstrong oppdaget en mye
 340 bedre radioteknologi.  Men på tidspunktet for hans oppfinnelse, jobbet
 341 Armstrong for RCA. RCA var den dominerende aktøren i det da dominerende
 342 AM-radiomarkedet. I 1935 var det tusen radiostasjoner over hele USA, men
 343 stasjonene i de store byene var alle eid av en liten håndfull selskaper.
 344
 345 </p><p>
 346 Presidenten i RCA, David Sarnoff, en venn av Armstrong, var ivrig etter å få
 347 Armstrong til å oppdage en måte å fjerne støyen fra AM-radio. Så Sarnoff var
 348 ganske spent da Armstrong fortalte ham at han hadde en enhet som fjernet
 349 støy fra <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radio.</span>»</span>.   Men da Armstrong demonstrerte sin
 350 oppfinnelse, var ikke Sarnoff fornøyd.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2880223"></a>
 351 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 352 Jeg trodde Armstrong ville finne opp et slags filter for å fjerne skurring
 353 fra AM-radioen vår. Jeg trodde ikke han skulle starte en revolusjon &#8212;
 354 starte en hel forbannet ny industri i konkurranse med RCA.<sup>[<a name="id2880115" href="#ftn.id2880115" class="footnote">7</a>]</sup>
 355 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxlessing"></a><p>
 356 Armstrongs oppfinnelse truet RCAs AM-herredømme, så selskapet lanserte en
 357 kampanje for å knuse FM-radio. Mens FM kan ha vært en overlegen teknologi,
 358 var Sarnoff en overlegen taktiker. En forfatter beskrev det slik,
 359 <a class="indexterm" name="id2880283"></a>
 360 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 361 Kreftene til fordel for FM, i hovedsak ingeniørfaglige, kunne ikke overvinne
 362 tyngden til strategien utviklet av avdelingene for salg, patenter og juss
 363 for å undertrykke denne trusselen til selskapets posisjon.  For FM utgjorde,
 364 hvis det fikk utvikle seg uten begrensninger &#8230; en komplett endring i
 365 maktforholdene rundt radio &#8230; og muligens fjerningen av det nøye
 366 begrensede AM-systemet som var grunnlaget for RCA stigning til
 367 makt.<sup>[<a name="id2880310" href="#ftn.id2880310" class="footnote">8</a>]</sup>
 368 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 369 RCA holdt først teknologien innomhus, og insistere på at det var nødvendig
 370 med ytterligere tester. Da Armstrong, etter to år med testing, ble
 371 utålmodig, begynte RCA å bruke sin makt hos myndighetene til holde tilbake
 372 den generelle spredningen av FM-radio. I 1936, ansatte RCA den tidligere
 373 lederen av FCC og ga ham oppgaven med å sikre at FCC tilordnet
 374 radiospekteret på en måte som ville kastrere FM&#8212;hovedsakelig ved å
 375 flytte FM-radio til et annet band i spekteret. I første omgang lyktes ikke
 376 disse forsøkene.  Men mens Armstrong og nasjonen var distrahert av andre
 377 verdenskrig, begynte RCAs arbeid å bære frukter.  Like etter at krigen var
 378 over, annonserte FCC et sett med avgjørelser som ville ha en klar effekt:
 379 FM-radio ville bli forkrøplet.Lawrence lessing beskrevet det slik,
 380 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 381 Serien med slag mot kroppen som FM-radio mottok rett etter krigen, i en
 382 serie med avgjørelser manipulert gjennom FCC av de store radiointeressene,
 383 var nesten utrolige i deres kraft og underfundighet.<sup>[<a name="id2880324" href="#ftn.id2880324" class="footnote">9</a>]</sup>
 384 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2880367"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2880375"></a><p>
 385 For å gjøre plass i spektrumet for RCAs nyeste satsingsområde, televisjon,
 386 skulle FM-radioens brukere flyttes til et helt nytt band i spektrumet.
 387 Sendestyrken til FM-radioene ble også redusert, og gjorde at FM ikke lenger
 388 kunne brukes for å sende programmer fra en del av landet til en annen.
 389 (Denne endringen ble sterkt støttet av AT&amp;T, på grunn av at fjerningen
 390 av FM-videresendingsstasjoner ville bety at radiostasjonene ville bli nødt
 391 til å kjøpe kablede linker fra AT&amp;T.)  Spredningen av FM-radio var
 392 dermed kvalt, i hvert fall midlertidig.
 393 </p><p>
 394 Armstrong sto imot RCAs innsats. Som svar motsto RCA Armstrongs patenter.
 395 Etter å ha bakt FM-teknologi inn i den nye standarden for TV, erklærte RCS
 396 patentene ugyldige&#8212;uten grunn og nesten femten år etter at de ble
 397 utstedet.  De nektet dermed å betale ham for bruken av patentene.  I seks år
 398 kjempet Armstrong en dyr søksmålskrig for å forsvare patentene sine.  Til
 399 slutt, samtidig som patentene utløp, tilbød RCA et forlik så lavt at det
 400 ikke engang dekket Armstrongs advokatregning.  Beseiret, knust og nå blakk,
 401 skrev Armstrong i 1954 en kort beskjed til sin kone, før han gikk ut av et
 402 vindu i trettende etasje og falt i døden.
 403 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2880397"></a><p>
 404
 405 Dette er slik loven virker noen ganger.  Ikke ofte like tragisk, og sjelden
 406 med heltemodig drama, men noen ganger er det slik det virker. Fra starten
 407 har myndigheter og myndighetsorganer blitt tatt til fange. Det er mer
 408 sannsynlig at de blir fanget når en mektig interesse er truet av enten en
 409 juridisk eller teknologisk endring.  Denne mektige interessen utøver for
 410 ofte sin innflytelse hos myndighetene til å få myndighetene til å beskytte
 411 den.  Retorikken for denne beskyttelsen er naturligvis alltid med fokus på
 412 fellesskapets beste.  Realiteten er noe annet.  Idéer som kan være solide
 413 som fjell i en tidsalder, men som overlatt til seg selv, vil falle sammen i
 414 en annen, er videreført gjennom denne subtile korrupsjonen i vår politiske
 415 prosess.  RCA hadde hva Causby-ene ikke hadde: Makten til å undertrykke
 416 effekten av en teknologisk endring.
 417 </p><p>
 418 Det er ingen enkeltoppfinner av Internet.  Ei heller er det en god dato som
 419 kan brukes til å markere når det ble født.  Likevel har internettet i løpet
 420 av svært kort tid blitt en del av vanlige amerikaneres liv.  I følge the Pew
 421 Internet and American Life-prosjektet, har 58 prosent av amerikanerne hatt
 422 tilgang til internettet i 2002, opp fra 49 prosent to år
 423 tidligere.<sup>[<a name="id2880465" href="#ftn.id2880465" class="footnote">10</a>]</sup> Det tallet kan uten
 424 problemer passere to tredjedeler av nasjonen ved utgangen av 2004.
 425 </p><p>
 426 Etter hvert som internett er blitt integrert inn i det vanlige liv har ting
 427 blitt endret.  Noen av disse endringene er teknisk&#8212;internettet har
 428 gjort kommunikasjon raskere, det har redusert kostnaden med å samle inn
 429 data, og så videre.  Disse tekniske endringene er ikke fokus for denne
 430 boken.  De er viktige.  De er ikke godt forstått.  Men de er den type ting
 431 som ganske enkelt ville blir borte hvis vi alle bare slo av internettet.  De
 432 påvirker ikke folk som ikke bruker internettet, eller i det miste påvirker
 433 det ikke dem direkte.  De er et godt tema for en bok om internettet.  Men
 434 dette er ikke en bok om internettet.
 435 </p><p>
 436 I stedet er denne boken om effekten av internettet ut over internettet i seg
 437 selv.  En effekt på hvordan kultur blir skapt.  Min påstand er at
 438 internettet har ført til en viktig og ukjent endring i denne prosessen.
 439 Denne endringen vil forandre en tradisjon som er like gammel som republikken
 440 selv.  De fleste, hvis de la merke til denne endringen, ville avvise den.
 441 Men de fleste legger ikke engang merke til denne endringen som internettet
 442 har introdusert.
 443 </p><p>
 444 Vi kan få en følelse av denne endringen ved å skille mellom kommersiell og
 445 ikke-kommersiell kultur, ved å knytte lovens reguleringer til hver av dem.
 446 Med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kommersiell kultur</span>»</span> mener jeg den delen av vår kultur som
 447 er produsert og solgt eller produsert for å bli solgt.  Med
 448 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke-kommersiell kultur</span>»</span> mener jeg alt det andre. Da gamle
 449 menn satt rundt i parker eller på gatehjørner og fortalte historier som
 450 unger og andre lyttet til, så var det ikke-kommersiell kultur.  Da Noah
 451 Webster publiserte sin <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Reader</span>»</span>, eller Joel Barlow sin poesi,
 452 så var det kommersiell kultur.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2880550"></a>
 453 <a class="indexterm" name="id2880558"></a>
 454 </p><p>
 455 Fra historisk tid, og for omtrent hele vår tradisjon, har ikke-kommersiell
 456 kultur i hovedsak ikke vært regulert.  Selvfølgelig, hvis din historie var
 457 utuktig, eller hvis dine sanger forstyrret freden, kunne loven gripe inn.
 458 Men loven var aldri direkte interessert i skapingen eller spredningen av
 459 denne form for kultur, og lot denne kulturen være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri</span>»</span>.  Den
 460 vanlige måten som vanlige individer delte og formet deres
 461 kultur&#8212;historiefortelling, formidling av scener fra teater eller TV,
 462 delta i fan-klubber, deling av musikk, laging av kassetter&#8212;ble ikke
 463 styrt av lovverket.
 464 </p><p>
 465 Fokuset på loven var kommersiell kreativitet.  I starten forsiktig, etter
 466 hvert betraktelig, beskytter loven insentivet til skaperne ved å tildele dem
 467 en eksklusiv rett til deres kreative verker, slik at de kan selge disse
 468 eksklusive rettighetene på en kommersiell markedsplass.<sup>[<a name="id2880600" href="#ftn.id2880600" class="footnote">11</a>]</sup> Dette er også, naturligvis, en viktig del av
 469 kreativitet og kultur, og det har blitt en viktigere og viktigere del i
 470 USA.  Men det var på ingen måte dominerende i vår tradisjon.  Det var i
 471 stedet bare en del, en kontrollert del, balansert mot det frie.
 472 </p><p>
 473 Denne grove inndelingen mellom den frie og den kontrollerte har nå blitt
 474 fjernet.<sup>[<a name="id2880642" href="#ftn.id2880642" class="footnote">12</a>]</sup> Internettet har satt scenen
 475 for denne fjerningen, og pressen frem av store medieaktører har loven nå
 476 påvirket det.  For første gang i vår tradisjon, har de vanlige måtene som
 477 individer skaper og deler kultur havnet innen rekekvidde for reguleringene
 478 til loven, som har blitt utvidet til å dra inn i sitt kontrollområde den
 479 enorme mengden kultur og kreativitet som den aldri tidligere har nådd over.
 480 Teknologien som tok vare på den historiske balansen&#8212;mellom bruken av
 481 den delen av kulturen vår som var fri og bruken av vår kultur som krevde
 482 tillatelse&#8212;har blitt borte.  Konsekvensen er at vi er mindre og mindre
 483 en fri kultur, og mer og mer en tillatelseskultur.
 484 </p><p>
 485 Denne endringen blir rettferdiggjort som nødvendig for å beskytte
 486 kommersiell kreativitet.  Og ganske riktig, proteksjonisme er nøyaktig det
 487 som motiverer endringen.  Men proteksjonismen som rettferdiggjør endringene
 488 som jeg skal beskrive lenger ned er ikke den begrensede og balanserte typen
 489 som har definert loven tidligere.  Dette er ikke en proteksjonisme for å
 490 beskytte artister.  Det er i stedet en proteksjonisme for å beskytte
 491 bestemte forretningsformer.  Selskaper som er truet av potensialet til
 492 internettet for å endre måten både kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell kultur
 493 blir skapt og delt, har samlet seg for å få lovgiverne til å bruke loven for
 494 å beskytte selskapene.  Dette er historien om RCA og Armstrong, og det er
 495 drømmen til Causbyene.
 496 </p><p>
 497 For internettet har sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mulighet for mange til å
 498 delta i prosessen med å bygge og kultivere en kultur som rekker lagt utenfor
 499 lokale grenselinjer.  Den makten har endret markedsplassen for å lage og
 500 kultivere kultur generelt, og den endringen truer i neste omgang etablerte
 501 innholdsindustrier. Internettet er dermed for industriene som bygget og
 502 distribuerte innhold i det tjuende århundret hva FM-radio var for AM-radio,
 503 eller hva traileren var for jernbaneindustrien i det nittende århundret:
 504 begynnelsen på slutten, eller i hvert fall en markant endring. Digitale
 505 teknologier, knyttet til internettet, kunne produsere et mye mer
 506 konkurransedyktig og levende marked for å bygge og kultivere kultur.  Dette
 507 markedet kunne inneholde en mye videre og mer variert utvalg av skapere.
 508 Disse skaperne kunne produsere og distribuere et mye mer levende utvalg av
 509 kreativitet. Og avhengig av noen få viktige faktorer, så kunne disse
 510 skaperne tjenere mer i snitt fra dette systemet enn skaperne gjør i
 511 dag&#8212;så lenge RCA-ene av i dag ikke bruker loven til å beskytte dem
 512 selv mot denne konkurransen.
 513 </p><p>
 514 Likevel, som jeg argumenterer for i sidene som følger, er dette nøyaktig det
 515 som skjer i vår kultur i dag.  Dette som er dagens ekvivalenter til tidlig
 516 tjuende århundres radio og nittende århundres jernbaner bruker deres makt
 517 til å få loven til å beskytte dem mot dette nye, mer effektive, mer levende
 518 teknologi for å bygge kultur. De lykkes i deres plan om å gjøre om
 519 internettet før internettet gjør om på dem.
 520 </p><p>
 521 Det ser ikke slik ut for mange.  Kamphandlingene over opphavsrett og
 522 internettet er fjernt for de fleste.  For de få som følger dem, virker de i
 523 hovedsak å handle om et enklere sett med spørsmål&#8212;hvorvidt
 524 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> vil bli akseptert, og hvorvidt
 525 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>»</span> vil bli beskyttet.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Krigen</span>»</span> som
 526 har blitt erklært mot teknologiene til internettet&#8212;det presidenten for
 527 Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) Jack Valenti kaller sin
 528 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">egen terroristkrig</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2822752" href="#ftn.id2822752" class="footnote">13</a>]</sup>&#8212;har blitt rammet inn som en kamp om å følge loven og
 529 respektere eiendomsretten.  For å vite hvilken side vi bør ta i denne
 530 krigen, de fleste tenker at vi kun trenger å bestemme om hvorvidt vi er for
 531 eiendomsrett eller mot den.
 532 </p><p>
 533 Hvis dette virkelig var alternativene, så ville jeg være enig med Jack
 534 Valenti og innholdsindustrien.  Jeg tror også på eiendomsretten, og spesielt
 535 på viktigheten av hva Mr. Valenti så pent kaller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativ
 536 eiendomsrett</span>»</span>.  Jeg tror at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> er galt,
 537 og at loven, riktig innstilt, bør straffe <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>,
 538 både på og utenfor internettet.
 539 </p><p>
 540 Men disse enkle trosoppfatninger maskerer et mye mer grunnleggende spørsmål
 541 og en mye mer dramatisk endring. Min frykt er at med mindre vi begynner å
 542 legge merke til denne endringen, så vil krigen for å befri verden fra
 543 internettets <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span> også fjerne verdier fra vår kultur som
 544 har vært integrert til vår tradisjon helt fra starten.
 545 </p><p>
 546 Disse verdiene bygget en tradisjon som, for i hvert fall de første 180 årene
 547 av vår republikk, garanterte skaperne rettigheten til å bygge fritt på deres
 548 fortid, og beskyttet skaperne og innovatørene fra både statlig og privat
 549 kontroll.  Det første grunnlovstillegget beskyttet skaperne fra statlig
 550 kontroll.  Og som professor Neil Netanel kraftfylt argumenterer,<sup>[<a name="id2881003" href="#ftn.id2881003" class="footnote">14</a>]</sup> opphavsrettslov, skikkelig balansert, beskyttet
 551 skaperne mot privat kontroll.  Vår tradisjon var dermed hverken Sovjet eller
 552 tradisjonen til velgjørere.  I stedet skar det ut en bred manøvreringsrom
 553 hvor skapere kunne kultivere og utvide vår kultur.
 554 </p><p>
 555 Likevel har lovens respons til internettet, når det knyttes sammen til
 556 endringer i teknologien i internettet selv, ført til massiv økting av den
 557 effektive reguleringen av kreativitet i USA.  For å bygge på eller kritisere
 558 kulturen rundt oss må en spørre, som Oliver Twist, om tillatelse først.
 559 Tillatelse er, naturligvis, ofte innvilget&#8212;men det er ikke ofte
 560 innvilget til den kritiske eller den uavhengige.  Vi har bygget en slags
 561 kulturell adel.  De innen dette adelskapet har et enkelt liv, mens de på
 562 utsiden har det ikke.  Men det er adelskap i alle former som er fremmed for
 563 vår tradisjon.
 564 </p><p>
 565 Historien som følger er om denne krigen.  Er det ikke om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">betydningen
 566 av teknologi</span>»</span> i vanlig liv.  Jeg tror ikke på guder, hverken digitale
 567 eller andre typer.  Det er heller ikke et forsøk på å demonisere noen
 568 individer eller gruppe, jeg tro heller ikke i en djevel, selskapsmessig
 569 eller på annen måte.  Det er ikke en moralsk historie.  Ei heller er det et
 570 rop om hellig krig mot en industri.
 571 </p><p>
 572 Det er i stedet et forsøk på å forstå en håpløst ødeleggende krig som er
 573 inspirert av teknologiene til internettet, men som rekker lang utenfor dens
 574 kode.  Og ved å forstå denne kampen er den en innsats for å finne veien til
 575 fred.  Det er ingen god grunn for å fortsette dagens batalje rundt
 576 internett-teknologiene.  Det vil være til stor skade for vår tradisjon og
 577 kultur hvis den får lov til å fortsette ukontrollert. Vi må forstå kilden
 578 til denne krigen.  Vi må finne en løsning snart.
 579 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2881090"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2881095"></a><p>
 580 Lik Causbyenes kamp er denne krigen, delvis, om
 581 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>»</span>. Eiendommen i denne krigen er ikke like håndfast
 582 som den til Causbyene, og ingen uskyldige kyllinger har så langt mistet
 583 livet.  Likevel er idéene rundt denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsretten</span>»</span> like
 584 åpenbare for de fleste som Causbyenes krav om ukrenkeligheten til deres
 585 bondegård var for dem. De fleste av oss tar for gitt de uvanlig mektige krav
 586 som eierne av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle rettigheter</span>»</span> nå hevder.  De fleste
 587 av oss, som Causbyene, behandler disse kravene som åpenbare.  Og dermed
 588 protesterer vi, som Causbyene,, når ny teknologi griper inn i denne
 589 eiendomsretten.  Det er så klart for oss som det var fro dem at de nye
 590 teknologiene til internettet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tar seg til rette</span>»</span> mot legitime
 591 krav til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendomsrett</span>»</span>.  Det er like klart for oss som det var
 592 for dem at loven skulle ta affære for å stoppe denne inntrengingen i annen
 593 manns eiendom.
 594 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2881147"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2881153"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2881159"></a><p>
 595
 596 Og dermed, når nerder og teknologer forsvarer sin tids Armstrong og
 597 Wright-brødenes teknologi, får de lite sympati fra de fleste av oss. Sunn
 598 fornuft gjør ikke opprør.  I motsetning til saken til de uheldige Causbyene,
 599 er sunn fornuft på samme side som eiendomseierne i denne krigen.  I
 600 motsetning til hos de heldige Wright-brødrene, har internettet ikke
 601 inspirert en revolusjon til fordel for seg.
 602 </p><p>
 603 Mitt håp er å skyve denne sunne fornuften videre.  Jeg har blitt stadig mer
 604 overrasket over kraften til denne idéen om immaterielle rettigheter og, mer
 605 viktig, dets evne til å slå av kritisk tanke hos lovmakere og innbyggere.
 606 Det har aldri før i vår historie vært så mye av vår <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kultur</span>»</span>
 607 som har vært <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eid</span>»</span> enn det er nå.  Og likevel har aldri før
 608 konsentrasjonen av makt til å kontrollere <span class="emphasis"><em>bruken</em></span> av
 609 kulturen vært mer akseptert uten spørsmål enn det er nå.
 610 </p><p>
 611 Gåten er, hvorfor det?  Er det fordi vi fått en innsikt i sannheten om
 612 verdien og betydningen av absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur? Er det
 613 fordi vi har oppdaget at vår tradisjon med å avvise slike absolutte krav var
 614 feil?
 615 </p><p>
 616 Eller er det på grunn av at idéer om absolutt eierskap over idéer og kultur
 617 gir fordeler til RCA-ene i vår tid, og passer med vår ureflekterte
 618 intuisjon?
 619 </p><p>
 620 Er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår tradisjon om fri kultur en
 621 forekomst av USA som korrigerer en feil fra sin fortid, slik vi gjorde det
 622 etter en blodig krig mot slaveri, og slik vi sakte gjør det mot
 623 forskjellsbehandling?  Eller er denne radikale endringen vekk fra vår
 624 tradisjon med fri kultur nok et eksempel på at vårt politiske system er
 625 fanget av noen få mektige særinteresser?
 626 </p><p>
 627 Fører sunn fornuft til det ekstreme i dette spørsmålet på grunn av at sunn
 628 fornuft faktisk tror på dette ekstreme?  Eller står sunn fornuft i stillhet
 629 i møtet med dette ekstreme fordi, som med Armstrong versus RCA, at den mer
 630 mektige siden har sikret seg at det har et mye mer mektig synspunkt?
 631 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2881258"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2881264"></a><p>
 632
 633 Jeg forsøker ikke å være mystisk.  Mine egne synspunkter er klare. Jeg mener
 634 det var riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør mot ekstremismen til
 635 Causbyene.  Jeg mener det ville være riktig for sunn fornuft å gjøre opprør
 636 mot de ekstreme krav som gjøres i dag på vegne av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle
 637 rettigheter</span>»</span>.  Det som loven krever i dag er mer å mer like dumt som
 638 om lensmannen skulle arrestere en flymaskin for å trenge inn på annen manns
 639 eiendom.  Men konsekvensene av den nye dumskapen vil bli mye mer
 640 dyptgripende.
 641
 642 </p><p>
 643 Basketaket som pågår akkurat nå senterer seg rundt to idéer:
 644 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span>.  Mitt mål med
 645 denne bokens neste to deler er å utforske disse to idéene.
 646 </p><p>
 647 Metoden min er ikke den vanlige metoden for en akademiker.  Jeg ønsker ikke
 648 å pløye deg inn i et komplisert argument, steinsatt med referanser til
 649 obskure franske teoretikere&#8212;uansett hvor naturlig det har blitt for
 650 den rare sorten vi akademikere har blitt.  Jeg vil i stedet begynne hver del
 651 med en samling historier som etablerer en sammenheng der disse
 652 tilsynelatende enkle idéene kan bli fullt ut forstått.
 653 </p><p>
 654 De to delene setter opp kjernen i påstanden til denne boken: at mens
 655 internettet faktisk har produsert noe fantastisk og nytt, bidrar våre
 656 myndigheter, presset av store medieaktører for å møte dette <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">noe
 657 nytt</span>»</span> til å ødelegge noe som er svært gammelt.  I stedet for å forstå
 658 endringene som internettet kan gjøre mulig, og i stedet for å ta den tiden
 659 som trengs for å la <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sunn fornuft</span>»</span> finne ut hvordan best svare
 660 på utfordringen, så lar vi de som er mest truet av endringene bruke sin makt
 661 til å endre loven&#8212;og viktigere, å bruke sin makt til å endre noe
 662 fundamentalt om hvordan vi alltid har fungert.
 663 </p><p>
 664 Jeg tror vi tillater dette, ikke fordi det er riktig, og heller ikke fordi
 665 de fleste av oss tror på disse endringene.  Vi tillater det på grunn av at
 666 de interessene som er mest truet er blant de mest mektige aktørene i vår
 667 deprimerende kompromitterte prosess for å utforme lover. Denne boken er
 668 historien om nok en konsekvens for denne type korrupsjon&#8212;en konsekvens
 669 for de fleste av oss forblir ukjent med.
 670 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879743" href="#id2879743" class="para">4</a>] </sup>
 671 St. George Tucker, <em class="citetitle">Blackstone's Commentaries</em> 3 (South
 672 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1969), 18.
 673 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2879872" href="#id2879872" class="para">5</a>] </sup>
 674 USA mot Causby, U.S. 328 (1946): 256, 261. Domstolen fant at det kunne være
 675 å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> hvis regjeringens bruk av sitt land reelt sett hadde
 676 ødelagt verdien av eiendomen til Causby.  Dette eksemplet ble foreslått for
 677 meg i Keith Aokis flotte stykke, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">(intellectual) Property and
 678 Sovereignty: Notes Toward a cultural Geography of Authorship</span>»</span>,
 679 <em class="citetitle">Stanford Law Review</em> 48 (1996): 1293, 1333. Se også
 680 Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Real Property</em> (Mineola, N.Y.:
 681 Foundation Press (1984)), 1112&#8211;13.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2879911"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2879907"></a>
 682 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880179" href="#id2880179" class="para">6</a>] </sup>
 683 Lawrence Lessing, <em class="citetitle">Man of High Fidelity:: Edwin Howard
 684 Armstrong</em> (Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company, 1956), 209.
 685 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880115" href="#id2880115" class="para">7</a>] </sup> Se <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Saints: The Heroes and Geniuses of the Electronic Era,</span>»</span>
 686 første elektroniske kirke i USA, hos www.webstationone.com/fecha,
 687 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #1</a>.
 688 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880310" href="#id2880310" class="para">8</a>] </sup>Lessing, 226.
 689 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880324" href="#id2880324" class="para">9</a>] </sup>
 690 Lessing, 256.
 691 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880465" href="#id2880465" class="para">10</a>] </sup>
 692 Amanda Lenhart, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at
 693 Internet Access and the Digital Divide,</span>»</span> Pew Internet and American
 694 Life Project, 15. april 2003: 6, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #2</a>.
 695 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880600" href="#id2880600" class="para">11</a>] </sup>
 696 Dette er ikke det eneste formålet med opphavsrett, men det er helt klart
 697 hovedformålet med opphavsretten slik den er etablert i føderal grunnlov.
 698 Opphavsrettslovene i delstatene beskyttet historisk ikke bare kommersielle
 699 interesse når det gjaldt publikasjoner, men også personverninteresser.  Ved
 700 å gi forfattere eneretten til å publisere først, ga delstatenes
 701 opphavsrettslovene forfatterne makt til å kontrollere spredningen av fakta
 702 om seg selv. Se Samuel D. Warren og Louis Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to
 703 Privacy</span>»</span>, Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193, 198&#8211;200.
 704 <a class="indexterm" name="id2880094"></a>
 705 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880642" href="#id2880642" class="para">12</a>] </sup>
 706 Se Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (New York:
 707 Prometheus bøker, 2001), kap. 13.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2880650"></a>
 708 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2822752" href="#id2822752" class="para">13</a>] </sup>
 709 Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Black Hawk Download: Moving Beyond Music, Pirates Use New
 710 Tools to Turn the Net into an Illicit Video Club,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
 711 York Times</em>, 17. januar 2002.
 712 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881003" href="#id2881003" class="para">14</a>] </sup>
 713 Neil W. Netanel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society,</span>»</span>
 714 <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 106 (1996): 283.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2881014"></a>
 715 </p></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Del I. «Piratvirksomhet»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-piracy"></a>Del I. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="«Piratvirksomhet»"><div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield1"></a><p>
 716 Helt siden loven begynte å regulere kreative eierrettigheter, har det vært
 717 en krig mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>.  De presise konturene av dette
 718 konseptet, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>, har vært vanskelig å tegne opp,
 719 men bildet av urettferdighet er enkelt å beskrive.  Som Lord Mansfield skrev
 720 i en sak som utvidet rekkevidden for engelsk opphavsrettslov til å inkludere
 721 noteark,
 722 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 723 En person kan bruke kopien til å spille den, men han har ingen rett til å
 724 robbe forfatteren for profitten, ved å lage flere kopier og distribuere
 725 etter eget forgodtbefinnende.<sup>[<a name="id2881428" href="#ftn.id2881428" class="footnote">15</a>]</sup>
 726 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2881443"></a></blockquote></div><p>
 727
 728 I dag er vi midt inne i en annen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">krig</span>»</span> mot
 729 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span>. Internettet har fremprovosert denne krigen.
 730 Internettet gjør det mulig å effektivt spre innhold.  Peer-to-peer (p2p)
 731 fildeling er blant det mest effektive av de effektive teknologier
 732 internettet muliggjør. Ved å bruke distribuert intelligens, kan p2p-systemer
 733 muliggjøre enkel spredning av innhold på en måte som ingen forestilte seg
 734 for en generasjon siden.
 735
 736 </p><p>
 737 Denne effektiviteten respekterer ikke de tradisjonelle skillene i
 738 opphavsretten. Nettverket skiller ikke mellom deling av
 739 opphavsrettsbeskyttet og ikke opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold. Dermed har det
 740 vært deling av en enorm mengde opphavsrettsbeskyttet innhold.  Denne
 741 delingen har i sin tur ansporet til krigen, på grunn av at eiere av
 742 opphavsretter frykter delingen vil <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frata forfatteren
 743 overskuddet.</span>»</span>
 744 </p><p>
 745 Krigerne har snudd seg til domstolene, til lovgiverne, og i stadig større
 746 grad til teknologi for å forsvare sin <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> mot denne
 747 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>»</span>.  En generasjon amerikanere, advarer
 748 krigerne, blir oppdratt til å tro at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> skal være
 749 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratis</span>»</span>.  Glem tatoveringer, ikke tenk på
 750 kroppspiercing&#8212;våre barn blir <span class="emphasis"><em>tyver</em></span>!
 751 </p><p>
 752 Det er ingen tvil om at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> er galt, og at
 753 pirater bør straffes.  Men før vi roper på bødlene, bør vi sette dette
 754 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhets</span>»</span>-begrepet i en sammenheng.  For mens begrepet
 755 blir mer og mer brukt, har det i sin kjerne en ekstraordinær idé som nesten
 756 helt sikkert er feil.
 757 </p><p>
 758 Idéen høres omtrent slik ut:
 759 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 760 Kreativt arbeid har verdi.  Når jeg bruker, eller tar, eller bygger på det
 761 kreative arbeidet til andre, så tar jeg noe fra dem som har verdi.  Når jeg
 762 tar noe av verdi fra noen andre, bør jeg få tillatelse fra dem.  Å ta noe
 763 som har verdi fra andre uten tillatelse er galt.  Det er en form for
 764 piratvirksomhet.
 765 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2881565"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxifvalue"></a><p>
 766 Dette synet går dypt i de pågående debattene.  Det er hva jussprofessor
 767 Rochelle Dreyfuss ved NYU kritiserer som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så
 768 rettighet</span>»</span>-teorien for kreative eierrettigheter <sup>[<a name="id2881597" href="#ftn.id2881597" class="footnote">16</a>]</sup>&#8212;hvis det finnes verdi, så må noen ha
 769 rettigheten til denne verdien.  Det er perspektivet som fikk komponistenes
 770 rettighetsorganisasjon, ASCAP, til å saksøke jentespeiderne for å ikke
 771 betale for sangene som jentene sagt rundt jentespeidernes
 772 leirbål.<sup>[<a name="id2881620" href="#ftn.id2881620" class="footnote">17</a>]</sup> Det fantes
 773 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">verdi</span>»</span> (sangene), så det måtte ha vært en
 774 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rettighet</span>»</span>&#8212;til og med mot jentespeiderne.
 775 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2881664"></a><p>
 776
 777 Denne idéen er helt klart en mulig forståelse om hvordan kreative
 778 eierrettigheter bør virke.  Det er helt klart et mulig design for et
 779 lovsystem som beskytter kreative eierrettigheter.  Men teorien om
 780 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så rettighet</span>»</span> for kreative eierrettigheter har
 781 aldri vært USAs teori for kreative eierrettigheter.  It har aldri stått rot
 782 i vårt lovverk.
 783 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2881691"></a><p>
 784 I vår tradisjon har immaterielle rettigheter i stedet vært et instrument.
 785 Det bygger fundamentet for et rikt kreativt samfunn, men er fortsatt servilt
 786 til verdien av kreativitet.  Dagens debatt har snudd dette helt rundt.  Vi
 787 har blitt så opptatt av å beskytte instrumentet at vi mister verdien av
 788 syne.
 789 </p><p>
 790 Kilden til denne forvirringen er et skille som loven ikke lenger bryr seg om
 791 å markere&#8212;skillet mellom å gjenpublisere noens verk på den ene siden,
 792 og bygge på og gjøre om verket på den andre.  Da opphavsretten kom var det
 793 kun publisering som ble berørt. Opphavsretten i dag regulerer begge.
 794 </p><p>
 795 Før teknologiene til internettet dukket opp, betød ikke denne begrepsmessige
 796 sammenblandingen mye.  Teknologiene for å publisere var kostbare, som betød
 797 at det meste av publisering var kommersiell. Kommersielle aktører kunne
 798 håndtere byrden pålagt av loven&#8212;til og med byrden som den bysantiske
 799 kompleksiteten som opphavsrettsloven har blitt.  Det var bare nok en kostnad
 800 ved å drive forretning.
 801 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2881729"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2881735"></a><p>
 802 Men da internettet dukket opp, forsvant denne naturlige begrensningen til
 803 lovens virkeområde.  Loven kontrollerer ikke bare kreativiteten til
 804 kommersielle skapere, men effektivt sett kreativiteten til alle. Selv om
 805 utvidelsen ikke ville bety stort hvis opphavsrettsloven kun regulerte
 806 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopiering</span>»</span>, så betyr utvidelsen mye når loven regulerer så
 807 bredt og obskurt som den gjør.  Byrden denne loven gir oppveier nå langt
 808 fordelene den ga da den ble vedtatt&#8212;helt klart slik den påvirker
 809 ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, og i stadig større grad slik den påvirker
 810 kommersiell kreativitet.  Dermed, slik vi ser klarere i kapitlene som
 811 følger, er lovens rolle mindre og mindre å støtte kreativitet, og mer og mer
 812 å beskytte enkelte industrier mot konkurranse.  Akkurat på tidspunktet da
 813 digital teknologi kunne sluppet løs en ekstraordinær mengde med kommersiell
 814 og ikke-kommersiell kreativitet, tynger loven denne kreativiteten med
 815 sinnsykt kompliserte og vage regler og med trusselen om uanstendig harde
 816 straffer.  Vi ser kanskje, som Richard Florida skriver, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fremveksten
 817 av den kreative klasse</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2881774" href="#ftn.id2881774" class="footnote">18</a>]</sup>
 818 Dessverre ser vi også en ekstraordinær fremvekst av reguleringer av denne
 819 kreative klassen.
 820 </p><p>
 821 Disse byrdene gir ingen mening i vår tradisjon.  Vi bør begynne med å forstå
 822 den tradisjonen litt mer, og ved å plassere dagens slag om oppførsel med
 823 merkelappen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> i sin rette sammenheng.
 824 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881428" href="#id2881428" class="para">15</a>] </sup>
 825
 826
 827 <em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
 828 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777) (Mansfield).
 829 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881597" href="#id2881597" class="para">16</a>] </sup>
 830
 831
 832 Se Rochelle Dreyfuss, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Expressive Genericity: Trademarks as Language
 833 in the Pepsi Generation,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Notre Dame Law
 834 Review</em> 65 (1990): 397.
 835 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881620" href="#id2881620" class="para">17</a>] </sup>
 836
 837 Lisa Bannon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay
 838 Up,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>, 21. august 1996,
 839 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #3</a>;
 840 Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Calling Off the Copyright War: In Battle of
 841 Property vs. Free Speech, No One Wins,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston
 842 Globe</em>, 24. november 2002.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2881645"></a>
 843 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881774" href="#id2881774" class="para">18</a>] </sup>
 844
 845 I <em class="citetitle">The Rise of the Creative Class</em> (New York: Basic
 846 Books, 2002), dokumenterer Richard Florida en endring i arbeidsstokken mot
 847 kreativitetsarbeide.  Hans tekst omhandler derimot ikke direkte de juridiske
 848 vilkår som kreativiteten blir muliggjort eller hindret under.  Jeg er helt
 849 klart enig med ham i viktigheten og betydningen av denne endringen, men jeg
 850 tror også at vilkårene som disse endringene blir aktivert under er mye
 851 vanskeligere.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2881816"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2881824"></a>
 852 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel en: Skaperne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="creators"></a>Kapittel en: Skaperne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxanimadedcartoons"></a><p>
 853 I 1928 ble en tegnefilmfigur født.  En tidlig Mikke Mus debuterte i mai
 854 dette året, i en stille flopp ved navn <em class="citetitle">Plane Crazy</em>.
 855 I november, i Colony teateret i New York City, ble den første vidt
 856 distribuerte tegnefilmen med synkronisert lyd, <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
 857 Willy</em>, vist frem med figuren som skulle bli til Mikke Mus.
 858 </p><p>
 859 Film med synkronisert lyd hadde blitt introdusert et år tidligere i filmen
 860 <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em>.  Suksessen fikk Walt Disney til å
 861 kopiere teknikken og mikse lyd med tegnefilm.  Ingen visste hvorvidt det
 862 ville virke eller ikke, og om det fungere, hvorvidt publikum villa ha sans
 863 for det.  Men da Disney gjorde en test sommeren 1928, var resultatet
 864 entydig.  Som Disney beskriver dette første eksperimentet,
 865 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
 866
 867 Et par av guttene mine kunne lese noteark, og en av dem kunne spille
 868 munnspill.  Vi stappet dem inn i et rom hvor de ikke kunne se skjermen, og
 869 gjorde det slik at lyden de spilte ble sendt videre til et rom hvor våre
 870 koner og venner var plassert for å se på bildet.
 871
 872 </p><p>
 873 Guttene brukte et note- og lydeffekt-ark.  Etter noen dårlige oppstarter,
 874 kom endelig lyd og handling i gang med et smell. Munnspilleren spilte
 875 melodien, og resten av oss i lydavdelingen slamret på tinnkasseroller og
 876 blåste på slide-fløyte til rytmen. Synkroniseringen var nesten helt riktig.
 877 </p><p>
 878 Effekten på vårt lille publikum var intet mindre enn elektrisk.  De reagerte
 879 nesten instinktivt til denne union av lyd og bevegelse.  Jeg trodde de
 880 tullet med meg.  Så de puttet meg i publikum og satte igang på nytt.  Det
 881 var grufullt, men det var fantastisk.  Og det var noe nytt!<sup>[<a name="id2881954" href="#ftn.id2881954" class="footnote">19</a>]</sup>
 882 </p></blockquote></div><p>
 883 Disneys daværende partner, og en av animasjonsverdenens mest ekstraordinære
 884 talenter, Ub Iwerks, uttalte det sterkere: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg har aldri vært så
 885 begeistret i hele mitt liv. Ingenting annet har noen sinne vært like
 886 bra.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2881981"></a>
 887 </p><p>
 888 Disney hadde laget noe helt nyt, basert på noe relativt nytt. Synkronisert
 889 lyd ga liv til en form for kreativitet som sjeldent hadde&#8212;unntatt fra
 890 Disneys hender&#8212;vært noe annet en fyllstoff for andre filmer.  Gjennom
 891 animasjonens tidligere historie var det Disneys oppfinnelse som satte
 892 standarden som andre måtte sloss for å oppfylle.  Og ganske ofte var Disneys
 893 store geni, hans gnist av kreativitet, bygget på arbeidet til andre.
 894 </p><p>
 895 Dette er kjent stoff.  Det du kanskje ikke vet er at 1928 også markerer en
 896 annen viktig overgang.  I samme år laget et komedie-geni (i motsetning til
 897 tegnefilm-geni) sin siste uavhengig produserte stumfilm.  Dette geniet var
 898 Buster Keaton.  Filmen var <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>.
 899 </p><p>
 900 Keaton ble født inn i en vauderville-familie i 1895.  I stumfilm-æraen hadde
 901 han mestret bruken av bredpenslet fysisk komedie på en måte som tente
 902 ukontrollerbar latter fra hans publikum. <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill,
 903 Jr</em>. var en klassiker av denne typen, berømt blant film-elskere
 904 for sine utrolige stunts.  Filmen var en klassisk Keaton&#8212;fantastisk
 905 populær og blant de beste i sin sjanger.
 906 </p><p>
 907 <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill, Jr</em>. kom før Disneys tegnefilm
 908 Steamboat Willie.  Det er ingen tilfeldighet at titlene er så
 909 like. Steamboat Willie er en direkte tegneserieparodi av Steamboat
 910 Bill,<sup>[<a name="id2882052" href="#ftn.id2882052" class="footnote">20</a>]</sup> og begge bygger på en felles sang
 911 som kilde.  Det er ikke kun fra nyskapningen med synkronisert lyd i
 912 <em class="citetitle">The Jazz Singer</em> at vi får <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
 913 Willie</em>.  Det er også fra Buster Keatons nyskapning Steamboat
 914 Bill, Jr., som igjen var inspirert av sangen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill</span>»</span>,
 915 at vi får Steamboat Willie.  Og fra Steamboat Willie får vi så Mikke Mus.
 916 </p><p>
 917 Denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">låningen</span>»</span> var ikke unik, hverken for Disney eller for
 918 industrien.  Disney apet alltid etter full-lengde massemarkedsfilmene rundt
 919 ham.<sup>[<a name="id2882125" href="#ftn.id2882125" class="footnote">21</a>]</sup> Det samme gjorde mange andre.
 920 Tidlige tegnefilmer er stappfulle av etterapninger&#8212;små variasjoner
 921 over suksessfulle temaer, gamle historier fortalt på nytt.  Nøkkelen til
 922 suksess var brilliansen i forskjellene.  Med Disney var det lyden som ga
 923 gnisten til hans animasjoner.  Senere var det kvaliteten på hans arbeide
 924 relativt til de masseproduserte tegnefilmene som han konkurrerte med.
 925 Likevel var disse bidragene bygget på toppen av fundamentet som var lånt.
 926 Disney bygget på arbeidet til andre som kom før han, og skapte noe nytt ut
 927 av noe som bare var litt gammelt.
 928 </p><p>
 929 Noen ganger var låningen begrenset, og noen ganger var den betydelig. Tenkt
 930 på eventyrene til brødrene Grimm.  Hvis du er like ubevisst som jeg var, så
 931 tror du sannsynlighvis at disse fortellingene er glade, søte historier som
 932 passer for ethvert barn ved leggetid.  Realiteten er at Grimm-eventyrene er,
 933 for oss, ganske dystre.  Det er noen sjeldne og kanskje spesielt ambisiøse
 934 foreldre som ville våge å lese disse blodige moralistiske historiene til
 935 sine barn, ved leggetid eller hvilken som helst annet tidspunkt.
 936 </p><p>
 937
 938 Disney tok disse historiene og fortalte dem på nytt på en måte som førte dem
 939 inn i en ny tidsalder. Han ga historiene liv, med både karakterer og
 940 lys. Uten å fjerne bitene av frykt og fare helt, gjorde han morsomt det som
 941 var mørkt og satte inn en ekte følelse av medfølelse der det før var
 942 frykt. Og ikke bare med verkene av brødrene Grimm.  Faktisk er katalogen
 943 over Disney-arbeid som baserer seg på arbeidet til andre ganske forbløffende
 944 når den blir samlet: <em class="citetitle">Snøhvit</em> (1937),
 945 <em class="citetitle">Fantasia</em> (1940), <em class="citetitle">Pinocchio</em>
 946 (1940), <em class="citetitle">Dumbo</em> (1941), <em class="citetitle">Bambi</em>
 947 (1942), <em class="citetitle">Song of the South</em> (1946),
 948 <em class="citetitle">Askepott</em> (1950), <em class="citetitle">Alice in
 949 Wonderland</em> (1951), <em class="citetitle">Robin Hood</em> (1952),
 950 <em class="citetitle">Peter Pan</em> (1953), <em class="citetitle">Lady og
 951 landstrykeren</em> (1955), <em class="citetitle">Mulan</em> (1998),
 952 <em class="citetitle">Tornerose</em> (1959), <em class="citetitle">101
 953 dalmatinere</em> (1961), <em class="citetitle">Sverdet i steinen</em>
 954 (1963), og <em class="citetitle">Jungelboken</em> (1967)&#8212;for ikke å nevne
 955 et nylig eksempel som vi bør kanskje glemme raskt, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
 956 Planet</em> (2003). I alle disse tilfellene, har Disney (eller
 957 Disney, Inc.) hentet kreativitet fra kultur rundt ham, blandet med
 958 kreativiteten fra sitt eget ekstraordinære talent, og deretter brent denne
 959 blandingen inn i sjelen til sin kultur. Hente, blande og brenne.
 960 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2882255"></a><p>
 961 Dette er en type kreativitet.  Det er en kreativitet som vi bør huske på og
 962 feire.  Det er noen som vil si at det finnes ingen kreativitet bortsett fra
 963 denne typen.  Vi trenger ikke gå så langt for å anerkjenne dens betydning.
 964 Vi kan kalle dette <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span>, selv om det vil være
 965 litt misvisende.  Det er mer presist <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt
 966 Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span>&#8212;en uttrykksform og genialitet som bygger på
 967 kulturen rundt oss og omformer den til noe annet.
 968 </p><p> I 1928 var kulturen som Disney fritt kunne trekke veksler på relativt
 969 fersk.  Allemannseie i 1928 var ikke veldig gammelt og var dermed ganske
 970 levende.  Gjennomsnittlig vernetid i opphavsretten var bare rundt tredve
 971 år&#8212;for den lille delen av kreative verk som faktisk var
 972 opphavsrettsbeskyttet.<sup>[<a name="id2882282" href="#ftn.id2882282" class="footnote">22</a>]</sup> Det betyr at i
 973 tredve år, i gjennomsnitt, hadde forfattere eller kreative verks
 974 opphavsrettighetsinnehaver en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eksklusiv rett</span>»</span> til a
 975 kontrollere bestemte typer bruk av verket.  For å bruke disse
 976 opphavsrettsbeskyttede verkene på de begrensede måtene krevde tillatelse fra
 977 opphavsrettsinnehaveren.
 978 </p><p>
 979 Når opphavsrettens vernetid er over, faller et verk i det fri og blir
 980 allemannseie.  Ingen tillatelse trengs da for å bygge på eller bruke dette
 981 verket.  Ingen tillatelse og dermed, ingen advokater. Allemannseie er en
 982 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">advokat-fri sone</span>»</span>.  Det meste av innhold fra det nittende
 983 århundre var dermed fritt tilgjengelig for Disney å bruke eller bygge på i
 984 1928.  Det var tilgjengelig for enhver&#8212;uansett om de hadde
 985 forbindelser eller ikke, om de var rik eller ikke, om de var akseptert eller
 986 ikke&#8212;til å bruke og bygge videre på.
 987 </p><p>
 988
 989 Dette er slik det alltid har vært&#8212;inntil ganske nylig.  For
 990 mesteparten av vår historie, har allemannseiet vært like over horisonten.
 991 Fram til 1978 var den gjennomsnittlige opphavsrettslige vernetiden aldri mer
 992 enn trettito år, som gjorde at det meste av kultur fra en og en halv
 993 generasjon tidligere var tilgjengelig for enhver å bygge på uten tillatelse
 994 fra noen.  Tilsvarende for i dag ville være at kreative verker fra 1960- og
 995 1970-tallet nå ville være fritt tilgjengelig for de neste Walt Disney å
 996 bygge på uten tillatelse.  Men i dag er allemannseie presumtivt kun for
 997 innhold fra før mellomkrigstiden.
 998 </p><p>
 999 Walt Disney hadde selvfølgelig ikke monopol på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt
1000 Disney-kreativitet</span>»</span>.  Det har heller ikke USA.  Normen med fri kultur
1001 har, inntil nylig, og unntatt i totalitære nasjoner, vært bredt utnyttet og
1002 svært universell.
1003 </p><p>
1004 Vurder for eksempel en form for kreativitet som synes underlig for mange
1005 amerikanere, men som er overalt i japansk kultur:
1006 <em class="citetitle">manga</em>, eller tegneserier.  Japanerne er fanatiske når
1007 det gjelder tegneserier.  Over 40 prosent av publikasjoner er tegneserier,
1008 og 30 prosent av publikasjonsomsetningen stammer fra tegneserier.  De er
1009 over alt i det japanske samfunnet, tilgjengelig fra ethvert
1010 tidsskriftsutsalg, og i hendene på en stor andel av pendlere på Japans
1011 ekstraordinære system for offentlig transport.
1012 </p><p>
1013 Amerikanere har en tendens til å se ned på denne formen for kultur. Det er
1014 et lite attraktivt kjennetegn hos oss.  Vi misforstår sannsynligvis mye
1015 rundt manga, på grunn av at få av oss noen gang har lest noe som ligner på
1016 historiene i disse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grafiske historiene</span>»</span> forteller.  For en
1017 japaner dekker manga ethvert aspekt ved det sosiale liv.  For oss er
1018 tegneserier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menn i strømpebukser</span>»</span>.  Og uansett er det ikke
1019 slik at T-banen i New York er full av folk som leser Joyse eller Hemingway
1020 for den saks skyld.  Folk i ulike kulturer skiller seg ut på forskjellig
1021 måter, og japanerne på dette interessante viset.
1022 </p><p>
1023 Men mitt formål her er ikke å forstå manga.  Det er å beskrive en variant av
1024 manga som fra en advokats perspektiv er ganske merkelig, men som fra en
1025 Disneys perspektiv er ganske godt kjent.
1026 </p><p>
1027
1028 Dette er fenomenet <em class="citetitle">doujinshi</em>.  Doujinshi er også
1029 tegneserier, men de er slags etterapings-tegneserier.  En rik etikk styrer
1030 de som skaper doujinshi.  Det er ikke doujinshi hvis det
1031 <span class="emphasis"><em>bare</em></span> er en kopi.  Kunstneren må gjøre et bidrag til
1032 kunsten han kopierer ved å omforme det enten subtilt eller betydelig.  En
1033 doujinshi-tegneserie kan dermed ta en massemarkeds-tegneserie og utvikle den
1034 i en annen retning&#8212;med en annen historie-linje.  Eller tegneserien kan
1035 beholde figuren som seg selv men endre litt på utseendet.  Det er ingen
1036 bestemt formel for hva som gjør en doujinshi tilstrekkelig
1037 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">forskjellig</span>»</span>.  Men de må være forskjellige hvis de skal anses
1038 som ekte doujinshi.  Det er faktisk komiteer som går igjennom doujinshi for
1039 å bli med på messer, og avviser etterapninger som bare er en kopi.
1040 </p><p>
1041 Disse etterapings-tegneseriene er ikke en liten del av manga-markedet.  Det
1042 er enorme.  Mer en 33 000 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sirkler</span>»</span> av skapere over hele Japan
1043 som produserer disse bitene av Walt Disney-kreativitet.  Mer en 450 000
1044 japanere samles to ganger i året, i den største offentlige samlingen i
1045 langet, for å bytte og selge dem.  Dette markedet er parallelt med det
1046 kommersielle massemarkeds-manga-markedet.  På noen måter konkurrerer det
1047 åpenbart med det markedet, men det er ingen vedvarende innsats fra de som
1048 kontrollerer det kommersielle manga-markedet for å stenge
1049 doujinshi-markedet.  Det blomstrer, på tross av konkurransen og til tross
1050 for loven.
1051 </p><p>
1052 Den mest gåtefulle egenskapen med doujinshi-markedet, for de som har
1053 juridisk trening i hvert fall, er at det overhodet tillates å eksistere.
1054 Under japansk opphavsrettslov, som i hvert fall på dette området (på
1055 papiret) speiler USAs opphavsrettslov, er doujinshi-markedet ulovlig.
1056 Doujinshi er helt klart <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">avledede verk</span>»</span>.  Det er ingen generell
1057 praksis hos doujinshi-kunstnere for å sikre seg tillatelse hos
1058 manga-skaperne.  I stedet er praksisen ganske enkelt å ta og endre det andre
1059 har laget, slik Walt Disney gjorde med <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Bill,
1060 Jr</em>.  For både japansk og USAs lov, er å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span> uten
1061 tillatelse fra den opprinnelige opphavsrettsinnehaver ulovlig.  Det er et
1062 brudd på opphavsretten til det opprinnelige verket å lage en kopi eller et
1063 avledet verk uten tillatelse fra den opprinnelige rettighetsinnehaveren.
1064 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinickjudd"></a><p>
1065 Likevel eksisterer dette illegale markedet og faktisk blomstrer i Japan, og
1066 etter manges syn er det nettopp fordi det eksisterer at japansk manga
1067 blomstrer.  Som USAs tegneserieskaper Judd Winick fortalte meg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I
1068 amerikansk tegneseriers første dager var det ganske likt det som foregår i
1069 Japan i dag. &#8230; Amerikanske tegneserier kom til verden ved å kopiere
1070 hverandre. &#8230; Det er slik [kunstnerne] lærer å tegne&#8212;ved å se i
1071 tegneseriebøker og ikke følge streken, men ved å se på dem og kopiere
1072 dem</span>»</span> og bygge basert på dem.<sup>[<a name="id2882578" href="#ftn.id2882578" class="footnote">23</a>]</sup>
1073 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2882604"></a><p>
1074 Amerikanske tegneserier nå er ganske annerledes, forklarer Winick, delvis på
1075 grunn av de juridiske problemene med å tilpasse tegneserier slik doujinshi
1076 får lov til.  Med for eksempel Supermann, fortalte Winick meg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er det
1077 en rekke regler, og du må følge dem</span>»</span>.  Det er ting som Supermann
1078 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke kan</span>»</span> gjøre.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For en som lager tegneserier er det
1079 frustrerende å måtte begrense seg til noen parameter som er femti år
1080 gamle.</span>»</span>
1081 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2882637"></a><p>
1082 Normen i Japan reduserer denne juridiske utfordringen.  Noen sier at det
1083 nettopp er den oppsamlede fordelen i det japanske mangamarkedet som
1084 forklarer denne reduksjonen.  Jussprofessor Salil Mehra ved Temple
1085 University hypnotiserer for eksempel med at manga-markedet aksepterer disse
1086 teoretiske bruddene fordi de får mangamarkedet til å bli rikere og mer
1087 produktivt.  Alle ville få det verre hvis doujinshi ble bannlyst, så loven
1088 bannlyser ikke doujinshi.<sup>[<a name="id2882662" href="#ftn.id2882662" class="footnote">24</a>]</sup>
1089 </p><p>
1090 Problemet med denne historien, derimot, og som Mehra helt klart erkjenner,
1091 er at mekanismen som produserer denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hold hendene
1092 borte</span>»</span>-responsen ikke er forstått.  Det kan godt være at markedet som
1093 helhet gjør det bedre hvis doujinshi tillates i stedet for å bannlyse den,
1094 men det forklarer likevel ikke hvorfor individuelle opphavsrettsinnehavere
1095 ikke saksøker.  Hvis loven ikke har et generelt unntak for doujinshi, og det
1096 finnes faktisk noen tilfeller der individuelle manga-kunstnere har saksøkt
1097 doujinshi-kunstnere, hvorfor er det ikke et mer generelt mønster for å
1098 blokkere denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frie takingen</span>»</span> hos doujinshi-kulturen?
1099 </p><p>
1100 Jeg var fire nydelige måneder i Japan, og jeg stilte dette spørsmål så ofte
1101 som jeg kunne.  Kanskje det beste svaret til slutt kom fra en venn i et
1102 større japansk advokatfirma. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vi har ikke nok advokater</span>»</span>,
1103 fortalte han meg en ettermiddag.  Det er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bare ikke nok ressurser til
1104 å tiltale tilfeller som dette</span>»</span>.
1105 </p><p>
1106
1107 Dette er et tema vi kommer tilbake til: at lovens regulering både er en
1108 funksjon av ordene i bøkene, og kostnadene med å få disse ordene til å ha
1109 effekt.  Akkurat nå er det endel åpenbare spørsmål som presser seg frem:
1110 Ville Japan gjøre det bedre med flere advokater? Ville manga være rikere
1111 hvis doujinshi-kunstnere ble regelmessig rettsforfulgt?  Ville Japan vinne
1112 noe viktig hvis de kunne stoppe praksisen med deling uten kompensasjon?
1113 Skader piratvirksomhet ofrene for piratvirksomheten, eller hjelper den dem?
1114 Ville advokaters kamp mot denne piratvirksomheten hjelpe deres klienter,
1115 eller skade dem? La oss ta et øyeblikks pause.
1116 </p><p>
1117 Hvis du er som meg et tiår tilbake, eller som folk flest når de først
1118 begynner å tenke på disse temaene, da bør du omtrent nå være rådvill om noe
1119 du ikke hadde tenkt igjennom før.
1120 </p><p>
1121 Vi lever i en verden som feirer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span>.  Jeg er en av de som
1122 feierer.  Jeg tror på verdien av eiendom generelt, og jeg tror også på
1123 verdien av den sære formen for eiendom som advokater kaller
1124 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immateriell eiendom</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2882775" href="#ftn.id2882775" class="footnote">25</a>]</sup> Et
1125 stort og variert samfunn kan ikke overleve uten eiendom, og et moderne
1126 samfunn kan ikke blomstre uten immaterielle eierrettigheter.
1127 </p><p>
1128 Men det tar bare noen sekunders refleksjon for å innse at det er masse av
1129 verdi der ute som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> ikke dekker.  Jeg mener ikke
1130 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kjærlighet kan ikke kjøpes med penger</span>»</span> men heller, at en verdi
1131 som ganske enkelt er del av produksjonsprosessen, både for kommersiell og
1132 ikke-kommersiell produksjon.  Hvis Disneys animatører hadde stjålet et sett
1133 med blyanter for å tegne Steamboat Willie, vi ville ikke nølt med å dømme
1134 det som galt&#8212;selv om det er trivielt og selv om det ikke blir
1135 oppdaget.  Men det var intet galt, i hvert fall slik loven var da, med at
1136 Disney tok fra Buster Keaton eller fra Grimm-brødrene.  Det var intet galt
1137 med å ta fra Keaton, fordi Disneys bruk ville blitt ansett som
1138 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig</span>»</span>.  Det var intet galt med å ta fra brødrene Grimm
1139 fordi deres verker var allemannseie.
1140 </p><p>
1141
1142 Dermed, selv om de tingene som Disney tok&#8212;eller mer generelt, tingene
1143 som blir tatt av enhver som utøver Walt Disney-kreativitet&#8212;er
1144 verdifulle, så anser ikke vår tradisjon det som galt å ta disse tingene.
1145 Noen ting forblir frie til å bli tatt i en fri kultur og denne friheten er
1146 bra.
1147 </p><p>
1148 Det er det samme med doujinshi-kulturen.  Hvis en doujinshi-kunstner brøt
1149 seg inn på kontoret til en forlegger, og stakk av med tusen kopier av hans
1150 siste verk&#8212;eller bare en kopi&#8212;uten å betale, så ville vi uten å
1151 nøle si at kunstneren har gjort noe galt.  I tillegg til å ha trengt seg inn
1152 på andres eiendom, ville han ha stjålet noe av verdi. Loven forbyr stjeling
1153 i enhver form, uansett hvor stort eller lite som blir tatt.
1154 </p><p>
1155 Likevel er det en åpenbar motvilje, selv blant japanske advokater, for å si
1156 at etterapende tegneseriekunstnere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeler</span>»</span>.  Denne formen for
1157 Walt Disney-kreativitet anses som rimelig og riktig, selv om spesielt
1158 advokater synes det er vanskelig å forklare hvorfor.
1159 </p><p>
1160 Det er det same med tusen eksempler som dukker opp over alt med en gang en
1161 begynner å se etter dem.  Forskerne bygger på arbeidet til andre forskere
1162 uten å spørre eller betale for privilegiet. (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Unnskyld meg, professor
1163 Einstein, men kan jeg få tillatelse til å bruke din relativitetsteori til å
1164 vise at du tok feil om kvantefysikk?</span>»</span>) Teatertropper viser frem
1165 bearbeidelser av verkene til Shakespeare uten å sikre seg noen tillatelser.
1166 (Er det <span class="emphasis"><em>noen</em></span> som tror at Shakespeare ville vært mer
1167 spredt i vår kultur om det var et sentralt rettighetsklareringskontor for
1168 Shakespeare som alle som laget Shakespeare-produksjoner måtte appellere til
1169 først?)  Og Hollywood går igjennom sykluser med en bestemt type filmer: fem
1170 astroidefilmer i slutten av 1990-tallet, to vulkankatastrofefilmer i 1997.
1171 </p><p>
1172
1173 Skapere her og overalt har alltid og til alle tider bygd på kreativiteten
1174 som eksisterte før og som omringer dem nå.  Denne byggingen er alltid og
1175 overalt i det minste delvis gjort uten tillatelse og uten å kompensere den
1176 opprinnelige skaperen.  Intet samfunn, fritt eller kontrollert, har noen
1177 gang krevd at enhver bruk skulle bli betalt for eller at tillatelse for Walt
1178 Disney-kreativitet alltid måtte skaffes.  Istedet har ethvert samfunn latt
1179 en bestemt bit av sin kultur være fritt tilgjengelig for alle å
1180 ta&#8212;frie samfunn muligens i større grad enn ufrie, men en viss grad i
1181 alle samfunn.
1182
1183 </p><p>
1184 Det vanskelige spørsmålet er derfor ikke <span class="emphasis"><em>om</em></span> en kultur
1185 er fri.  Alle kulturer er frie til en viss grad. Det vanskelige spørsmålet
1186 er i stedet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><span class="emphasis"><em>hvor</em></span> fri er denne kulturen
1187 er?</span>»</span> Hvor mye og hvor bredt, er kulturen fritt tilgjengelig for andre
1188 å ta, og bygge på?  Er den friheten begrenset til partimedlemmer?  Til
1189 medlemmer av kongefamilien?  Til de ti største selskapene på New
1190 York-børsen?  Eller er at frihet bredt tilgjengelig? Til kunstnere generelt,
1191 uansett om de er tilknyttet til nasjonalmuseet eller ikke?  Til musikere
1192 generelt, uansett om de er hvite eller ikke? Til filmskapere generelt,
1193 uansett om de er tilknyttet et studio eller ikke?
1194 </p><p>
1195 Frie kulturer er kulturer som etterlater mye åpent for andre å bygge på.
1196 Ufrie, eller tillatelse-kulturer etterlater mye mindre.  Vår var en fri
1197 kultur. Den er på tur til å bli mindre fri.
1198 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2881954" href="#id2881954" class="para">19</a>] </sup>
1199
1200
1201 Leonard Maltin, <em class="citetitle">Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated
1202 Cartoons</em> (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 34&#8211;35.
1203 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882052" href="#id2882052" class="para">20</a>] </sup>
1204
1205
1206 Jeg er takknemlig overfor David Gerstein og hans nøyaktige historie,
1207 beskrevet på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #4</a>.  I
1208 følge Dave Smith ved the Disney Archives, betalte Disney for å bruke
1209 musikken til fem sanger i <em class="citetitle">Steamboat Willie</em>:
1210 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Steamboat Bill,</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Simpleton</span>»</span> (Delille),
1211 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mischief Makers</span>»</span> (Carbonara), <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Joyful Hurry
1212 No. 1</span>»</span> (Baron), og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Gawky Rube</span>»</span> (Lakay). En sjette sang,
1213 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Turkey in the Straw,</span>»</span> var allerede allemannseie.  Brev fra
1214 David Smith til Harry Surden, 10. juli 2003, tilgjenglig i arkivet til
1215 forfatteren.
1216 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882125" href="#id2882125" class="para">21</a>] </sup>
1217
1218
1219 Han var også tilhenger av allmannseiet. Se Chris Sprigman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Mouse
1220 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>.
1221 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882282" href="#id2882282" class="para">22</a>] </sup>
1222
1223
1224 Inntil 1976 ga opphavsrettsloven en forfatter to mulige verneperioder: en
1225 initiell periode, og en fornyingsperiode.  Jeg har beregnet
1226 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gjennomsnittlig</span>»</span> vernetid ved å finne vektet gjennomsnitt av
1227 de totale registreringer for et gitt år, og andelen fornyinger.  Hvis 100
1228 opphavsretter ble registrert i år 1, bare 15 av dem ble fornyet, og
1229 fornyingsvernetiden er 28 år, så er gjennomsnittlig vernetid 32,2
1230 år. Fornyingsdata og andre relevante data ligger på nettsidene tilknyttet
1231 denne boka, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
1232 #6</a>.
1233 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882578" href="#id2882578" class="para">23</a>] </sup>
1234
1235
1236 For en utmerket historie, se Scott McCloud, <em class="citetitle">Reinventing
1237 Comics</em> (New York: Perennial, 2000).
1238 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882662" href="#id2882662" class="para">24</a>] </sup>
1239
1240
1241 Se Salil K. Mehra, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain
1242 Why All the Comics My Kid Watches Are Japanese Imports?</span>»</span>
1243 <em class="citetitle">Rutgers Law Review</em> 55 (2002): 155, 182. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det
1244 kan være en kollektiv økonomisk rasjonalitet som får manga- og
1245 anime-kunstnere til ikke å saksøke for opphavsrettsbrudd. Én hypotese er at
1246 alle manga-kunstnere kan være bedre stilt hvis de setter sin individuelle
1247 egeninteresse til side og bestemmer seg for ikke å forfølge sine juridiske
1248 rettigheter. Dette er essensielt en løsning på fangens dilemma.</span>»</span>
1249 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2882775" href="#id2882775" class="para">25</a>] </sup>
1250
1251 Begrepet <em class="citetitle">immateriell eiendom</em> er av relativ ny
1252 opprinnelse. Se See Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
1253 Copywrongs</em>, 11 (New York: New York University Press, 2001). Se
1254 også Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> (New York:
1255 Random House, 2001), 293 n. 26. Begrepet presist beskriver et sett med
1256 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendoms</span>»</span>-rettigheter&#8212;opphavsretter, patenter,
1257 varemerker og forretningshemmeligheter&#8212;men egenskapene til disse
1258 rettighetene er svært forskjellige.<a class="indexterm" name="id2882796"></a>
1259 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="mere-copyists"></a>Kapittel to: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kun etter-apere</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxphotography"></a><p>
1260 I 1839 fant Louis Daguerre opp den første praktiske teknologien for å
1261 produsere det vi ville kalle <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fotografier</span>»</span>.  Rimelig nok ble de
1262 kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">daguerreotyper</span>»</span>.  Prosessen var komplisert og kostbar, og
1263 feltet var dermed begrenset til profesjonelle og noen få ivrige og
1264 velstående amatører.  (Det var til og med en amerikansk Daguerre-forening
1265 som hjalp til med å regulere industrien, slik alle slike foreninger gjør,
1266 ved å holde konkurransen ned slik at prisene var høye.)  <a class="indexterm" name="id2883055"></a>
1267 </p><p>
1268 Men til tross for høye priser var etterspørselen etter daguerreotyper
1269 sterk.  Dette inspirerte oppfinnere til å finne enklere og billigere måter å
1270 lage <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">automatiske bilder</span>»</span>.  William Talbot oppdaget snart en
1271 prosess for å lage <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">negativer</span>»</span>.  Men da negativene var av
1272 glass, og måtte holdes fuktige, forble prosessen kostbar og tung.  På
1273 1870-tallet ble tørrplater utviklet, noe som gjorde det enklere å skille det
1274 å ta et bilde fra å fremkalle det.  Det var fortsatt plater av glass, og
1275 dermed var det fortsatt ikke en prosess som var innenfor rekkevidden til de
1276 fleste amatører. <a class="indexterm" name="id2883090"></a>
1277 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxeastmangeorge"></a><p>
1278
1279 Den teknologiske endringen som gjorde masse-fotografering mulig skjedde ikke
1280 før i 1888, og det var takket være en eneste mann. George Eastman, selv en
1281 amatørfotograf, var frustrert over den plate-baserte fotografi-teknologien.
1282 I et lysglimt av innsikt (for å si det slik), forsto Eastman at hvis filmen
1283 kunne gjøres bøyelig, så kunne den holdes på en enkel rull.  Denne rullen
1284 kunne så sendes til en fremkaller, og senke kostnadene til fotografering
1285 vesentlig.  Ved å redusere kostnadene, forventet Eastman at han dramatisk
1286 kunne utvide andelen fotografer.
1287 </p><p>
1288 Eastman utviklet bøyelig, emulsjons-belagt papirfilm og plasserte ruller med
1289 dette i små, enkle kameraer: Kodaken.  Enheten ble markedsfør med grunnlag
1290 dens enkelhet. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Du trykker på knappen og vi fikser
1291 resten.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2883140" href="#ftn.id2883140" class="footnote">26</a>]</sup> Som han beskrev det i
1292 <em class="citetitle">The Kodak Primer</em>: <a class="indexterm" name="id2883154"></a>
1293 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1294 Prinsippet til Kodak-systemet er skillet mellom arbeidet som enhver kan
1295 utføre når en tar fotografier, fra arbeidet som kun en ekspert kan
1296 gjøre. &#8230; Vi utstyrte alle, menn, kvinner og barn, som hadde
1297 tilstrekkelig intelligens til å peke en boks i riktig retning og trykke på
1298 en knapp, med et instrument som helt fjernet fra praksisen med å fotografere
1299 nødvendigheten av uvanlig utstyr eller for den del, noe som helst spesiell
1300 kunnskap om kunstarten.  Det kan tas i bruk uten forutgående studier, uten
1301 et mørkerom og uten kjemikalier.<sup>[<a name="id2880357" href="#ftn.id2880357" class="footnote">27</a>]</sup>
1302 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1303 For $25 kunne alle ta bilder.  Det var allerede film i kameraet, og når det
1304 var brukt ble kameraet returnert til en Eastman-fabrikk hvor filmen ble
1305 fremkalt.  Etter hvert, naturligvis, ble både kostnaden til kameraet og hvor
1306 enkelt et var å bruke forbedret.  Film på rull ble dermed grunnlaget for en
1307 eksplosiv vekst i fotografering blant folket. Eastmans kamera ble lagt ut
1308 for salg i 1888, og et år senere trykket Kodak mer enn seks tusen negativer
1309 om dagen.  Fra 1888 til 1909, mens produksjonen i industrien vokste med 4,7
1310 prosent, økte salget av fotografisk utstyr og materiale med 11
1311 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2883219" href="#ftn.id2883219" class="footnote">28</a>]</sup> Salget til Eastman Kodak i
1312 samme periode opplevde en årlig vekst på over 17 prosent.<sup>[<a name="id2883228" href="#ftn.id2883228" class="footnote">29</a>]</sup>
1313 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2883237"></a><p>
1314
1315
1316 Den virkelige betydningen av oppfinnelsen til Eastman, var derimot ikke
1317 økonomisk.  Den var sosial.  Profesjonell fotografering ga individer et
1318 glimt av steder de ellers aldri ville se. Amatørfotografering ga dem
1319 muligheten til å arkivere deres liv på en måte som de aldri hadde vært i
1320 stand til tidligere.  Som forfatter Brian Coe skriver, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For første
1321 gang tilbød fotoalbumet mannen i gata et permanent arkiv over hans familie
1322 og dens aktiviteter. &#8230; For første gang i historien fantes det en
1323 autentisk visuell oppføring av utseende og aktivitet til vanlige mennesker
1324 laget uten [skrivefør] tolkning eller forutinntatthet.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2883170" href="#ftn.id2883170" class="footnote">30</a>]</sup>
1325 </p><p>
1326 På denne måten var Kodak-kameraet og film uttrykksteknologier. Blyanten og
1327 malepenselen var selvfølgelig også en uttrykksteknologi. Men det tok årevis
1328 med trening før de kunne bli brukt nyttig og effektiv av amatører.  Med
1329 Kodaken var uttrykk mulig mye raskere og enklere.  Barrièren for å uttrykke
1330 seg var senket.  Snobber ville fnyse over <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kvaliteten</span>»</span>,
1331 profesjonelle ville avvise den som irrelevant.  Men se et barn studere
1332 hvordan best velge bildemotiv og du får følelsen av hva slags
1333 kreativitetserfaring som Kodaken muliggjorde.  Demokratiske verktøy ga
1334 vanlige folk en måte å uttrykke dem selv på enklere enn noe annet verktøy
1335 kunne ha gjort før.
1336 </p><p>
1337 Hva krevdes for at denne teknologien skulle blomstre.  Eastmans genialitet
1338 var åpenbart en viktig del.  Men den juridiske miljøet som Eastmans
1339 oppfinnelse vokste i var også viktig.  For tidlig i historien til
1340 fotografering, var det en rekke av rettsavgjørelser som godt kunne ha endret
1341 kursen til fotograferingen betydelig.  Domstoler ble spurt om fotografen,
1342 amatør eller profesjonell, måtte ha ha tillatelse før han kunne fange og
1343 trykke hvilket som helst bilde han ønsket.  Svaret var nei.<sup>[<a name="id2883322" href="#ftn.id2883322" class="footnote">31</a>]</sup>
1344 </p><p>
1345
1346 Argumentene til fordel for å kreve tillatelser vil høres overraskende kjent
1347 ut.  Fotografen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tok</span>»</span> noe fra personen eller bygningen som ble
1348 fotografert&#8212;røvet til seg noe av verdi.  Noen trodde til og med at han
1349 tok målets sjel.  På samme måte som Disney ikke var fri til å ta blyantene
1350 som hans animatører brukte til å tegne Mikke, så skulle heller ikke disse
1351 fotografene være fri til å ta bilder som de fant verdi i.
1352 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2882956"></a><p>
1353 På den andre siden var et argument som også bør bør være kjent. Joda, det
1354 var kanskje noe av verdi som ble brukt.  Men borgerne burde ha rett til å
1355 fange i hvert fall de bildene som var tatt av offentlig område.  (Louis
1356 Brandeis, som senere ble høyesterettsjustitiarus, mente regelen skulle være
1357 annerledes for bilder tatt av private områder.<sup>[<a name="id2883391" href="#ftn.id2883391" class="footnote">32</a>]</sup>) Det kan være at dette betyr at fotografen får noe for ingenting.
1358 På samme måte som Disney kunne hente inspirasjon fra <em class="citetitle">Steamboat
1359 Bill, Jr</em>. eller Grimm-brødrene, så burde fotografene stå fritt
1360 til å fange et bilde uten å kompensere kilden.
1361 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2883430"></a><p>
1362 Heldigvis for Mr. Eastman, og for fotografering generelt, gikk disse
1363 tidligere avgjørelsene i favør av piratene.  Generelt ble det ikke nødvendig
1364 å sikre seg tillatelse før et bilde kunne tas og deles med andre.  I stedet
1365 var det antatt at tillatelse var gitt.  Frihet var utgangspunktet.  (Loven
1366 ga etter en stund et unntak for berømte personer: kommersielle fotografer
1367 som tok bilder av berømte personer for kommersielle formål har flere
1368 begrensninger enn resten av oss.  Men i det vanlige tilfellet, kan bildet
1369 fanges uten å klarere rettighetene for a fange det.<sup>[<a name="id2883452" href="#ftn.id2883452" class="footnote">33</a>]</sup>)
1370 </p><p>
1371 Vi kan kun spekulere om hvordan fotografering ville ha utviklet seg om loven
1372 hadde slått ut den andre veien.  Hvis den hadde vært mot fotografen, da
1373 ville fotografen måttet dokumentere at tillatelse var på plass.  Kanskje
1374 Eastman Kodak også måtte ha dokumentert at tillatelse var gitt, før de
1375 utviklet filmen som bildene ble fanget på.  Tross alt, hvis tillatelse ikke
1376 var gitt, da ville Eastman Kodak ha nytt fordeler fra
1377 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tyveriet</span>»</span> begått av fotografer.  På samme måte som Napster nøt
1378 fordeler fra opphavsrettsbrudd utført av Napster-brukere, så ville Kodak
1379 nytt fordeler fra <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bilde-rettighets</span>»</span>-brudd til deres
1380 fotografer.  Vi kan forestille oss at loven da krevede at en form for
1381 tillatelse ble vist frem før et selskap fremkalte bildene.  Vi kan
1382 forestille oss et system bli utviklet for å legge frem slike tillatelser.
1383 </p><p>
1384
1385
1386
1387 Men selv om vi kan tenke oss dette godkjenningssystemet, så vil det være
1388 svært vanskelig å se hvordan fotografering skulle ha blomstret slik det
1389 gjorde hvis det var bygd inn krav om godkjenning i reglene som styrte det.
1390 Fotografering ville eksistert.  Det ville ha økt sin betydning over tid.
1391 Profesjonelle ville ha fortsatt å bruke teknologien slik de
1392 gjorde&#8212;siden profesjonelle enklere kunne håndtert byrdene pålagt dem
1393 av godkjenningssystemet.  Men spredningen av fotografering til vanlige folk
1394 villa aldri ha skjedd.  Veksten det skapte kunne aldri ha skjedd.  Og det
1395 ville uten tvil aldri vært realisert en slik vekst i demokratisk
1396 uttrykksteknologi.  Hvis du kjører gjennom området Presidio i San Francisco,
1397 kan det hende du ser to gusjegule skolebusser overmalt med fargefulle og
1398 iøynefallende bilder, og logoen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Just Think!</span>»</span> i stedet for
1399 navnet på en skole. Men det er lite som er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bare</span>»</span> mentalt i
1400 prosjektene som disse bussene muliggjør.  Disse bussene er fylt med
1401 teknologi som lærer unger å fikle med film.  Ikke filmen til Eastman.  Ikke
1402 en gang filmen i din videospiller.  I stedet er det snakk om
1403 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">filmen</span>»</span> til digitale kamera.  Just Think! er et prosjekt som
1404 gjør det mulig for unger å lage filmer, som en måte å forstå og kritisere
1405 den filmede kulturen som de finner over alt rundt seg.  Hvert år besøker
1406 disse bussene mer enn tredve skoler og gir mellom tre hundre og fire hundre
1407 barn muligheten til å lære noe om media ved å gjøre noe med media.  Ved å
1408 gjøre, så tenker de.  Ved å fikle, så lærer de.
1409 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2883579"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2883586"></a><p>
1410 Disse bussene er ikke billige, men teknologien de har med seg blir billigere
1411 og billigere.  Kostnaden til et høykvalitets digitalt videosystem har falt
1412 dramatisk.  Som en analytiker omtalte det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for fem år siden kostet et
1413 godt sanntids redigerinssystem for digital video $25 000.  I dag kan du
1414 få profesjonell kvalitet for $595.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2883617" href="#ftn.id2883617" class="footnote">34</a>]</sup> Disse bussene er fylt med teknologi som ville kostet
1415 hundre-tusenvis av dollar for bare ti år siden.  Og det er nå mulig å
1416 forestille seg ikke bare slike busser, men klasserom rundt om i landet hvor
1417 unger kan lære mer og mer av det lærerne kaller
1418 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">medie-skriveføre</span>»</span> eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mediekompetanse</span>»</span>.
1419 </p><p>
1420
1421 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Media-skriveføre,</span>»</span> eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mediekompetanse</span>»</span> som
1422 administrerende direktør Dave Yanofsky i Just Think!, sier det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er
1423 evnen til &#8230; å forstå, analysere og dekonstruere mediebilder. Dets mål
1424 er å gjøre [unger] i stand til å forstå hvordan mediene fungerer, hvordan de
1425 er konstruert, hvordan de blir levert, og hvordan folk bruker
1426 dem</span>»</span>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2883672"></a>
1427 </p><p>
1428 Dette kan virke som en litt rar måte å tenke på
1429 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">skrivefør</span>»</span>. For de fleste handler skrivefør å kunne lese og
1430 skrive. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Skriveføre</span>»</span> folk kjenner ting som Faulkner, Hemingway
1431 og å kjenne igjen delte infinitiver.
1432 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2883700"></a><p>
1433 Mulig det.  Men i en verden hvor barn ser i gjennomsnitt 390 timer med
1434 TV-reklaager i året, eller generelt mellom 20 000 og 45 000
1435 reklameinnslag,<sup>[<a name="id2883714" href="#ftn.id2883714" class="footnote">35</a>]</sup> så er det mer og mer
1436 viktig å forstå <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gramatikken</span>»</span> til media.  For på samme måte som
1437 det er en gramatikk for det skrevne ord, så er det også en for media.  Og
1438 akkurat slik som unger lærer å skrive ved å skrive masse grusom prosa, så
1439 lærer unger å skrive media ved å konstruere masse (i hvert fall i
1440 begynnelsen) grusom media.
1441 </p><p>
1442 Et voksende felt av akademikere og aktivister ser denne formen for
1443 skriveføre som avgjørende for den neste generasjonen av kultur. For selv om
1444 de som har skrevet forstår hvor vanskelig det er å skrive&#8212;hvor
1445 vanskelig det er å bestemme rekkefølge i historien, å holde på
1446 oppmerksomheten hos leseren, å forme språket slik at det er
1447 forståelig&#8212;så har få av oss en reell følelse av hvor vanskelig medier
1448 er. Eller mer fundamentalt, de færreste av av oss har en følelse for
1449 hvordan media fungerer, hvordan det holder et publikum eller leder leseren
1450 gjennom historien, hvordan det utløser følelser eller bygger opp spenningen.
1451 </p><p>
1452 Det tok filmkusten en generasjon før den kunne gjøre disse tingene bra.  Men
1453 selv da, så var kunnskapen i filmingen, ikke i å skrive om filmen.
1454 Ferdigheten kom fra erfaring med å lage en film, ikke fra å lese en bok om
1455 den.  En lærer å skrive ved å skrive, og deretter reflektere over det en har
1456 skrevet.  En lærer å skrive med bilder ved å lage dem, og deretter
1457 reflektere over det en har laget.
1458 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2883754"></a><p>
1459 Denne gramatikken har endret seg etter hvert som media har endret seg.  Da
1460 det kun var film, som Elizabeth Daley, administrerende direktør ved
1461 Universitetet i Sør-Califorias Anneberg-senter for kommunkasjon og rektor
1462 ved USC skole for Kino-Televisjon, forklarte for meg, var gramatikken om
1463 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">plasseringen av objekter, farger, &#8230; rytme, skritt og
1464 tekstur</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2883813" href="#ftn.id2883813" class="footnote">36</a>]</sup> Men etter hvert som
1465 datamaskiner åpner opp et interaktivt rom hvor en historie blir
1466 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">spillt</span>»</span> i tillegg til opplevd, endrer gramatikken seg.  Den
1467 enkle kontrollen til forstellerstemmen er forsvunnet, og dermed er andre
1468 teknikker nødvendig.  Forfatter Michael Crichton hadde mestret
1469 fortellerstemmen til science fiction.  Men da han forsøkte å lage et
1470 dataspill basert på et av sine verk, så var det et nytt håndverk han måtte
1471 lære.  Det var ikke åpenbart hvordan en leder folk gjennom et spill uten at
1472 de far følelsen av å ha blitt ledet, selv for en enormt vellykket
1473 forfatter.<sup>[<a name="id2883857" href="#ftn.id2883857" class="footnote">37</a>]</sup>
1474 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2883885"></a><p>
1475 Akkurat denne ferdigheten er håndverket en lærer til de som lager
1476 filmer. Som Daley skriver, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">folk er svært overrasket over hvordan de
1477 blir ledet gjennom en film.  Den er perfekt konstruert for å hindre deg fra
1478 å se det, så du aner det ikke.  Hvis en som lager filmer lykkes så vet du
1479 ikke at du har vært ledet.</span>»</span> Hvis du vet at du ble ledet igjennom en
1480 film, så har filmen feilet.
1481 </p><p>
1482 Likevel er innsatsen for å utvide skriveføren&#8212;til en som går ut over
1483 tekst til å ta med lyd og visuelle elementer&#8212;handler ikke om å lage
1484 bedre filmregisører.  Målet er ikke å forbedre filmyrket i det hele tatt.  I
1485 stedet, som Daley forklarer,
1486 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1487 Fra mitt perspektiv er antagelig det viktigste digitale skillet ikke om en
1488 har tilgang til en boks eller ikke.  Det er evnen til å ha kontroll over
1489 språket som boksen bruker.  I motsatt fall er det bare noen få som kan
1490 skrive i dette språket, og alle oss andre er redusert til å ikke kunne
1491 skrive.
1492 </p></blockquote></div><p>
1493 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ikke kunne skrive.</span>»</span> Passive mottakerne av kultur produsert
1494 andre steder. Sofapoteter. Forbrukere. Dette er medieverden fra det tjuende
1495 århundre.
1496 </p><p>
1497 Det tjueførste århundret kan bli annerledes.  Dette er et kritisk punkt: Det
1498 kan bli både lesing og skriving.  Eller i det minste lesing og bedre
1499 forståelse for håndverket å skrive.  Eller det beste, lesing og forstå
1500 verktøyene som gir skriving mulighet til å veilede eller villede.  Målet med
1501 enhver skriveførhet, og denne skriveførheten spesielt, er å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gi folket
1502 myndighet til å velge det språket som passer for det de trenger å lage eller
1503 uttrykke</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2883970" href="#ftn.id2883970" class="footnote">38</a>]</sup> Det gir studenter
1504 mulighet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">til å kommunisere i språket til det tjueførste
1505 århundret</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2883992" href="#ftn.id2883992" class="footnote">39</a>]</sup>
1506 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2884000"></a><p>
1507 Som det alle andre språk, læres dette språket lettere for noen enn for
1508 andre.  Det kommer ikke nødvendigvis lettere for de som gjør det godt
1509 skriftlig. Daley og Stephanie Barish, direktør for Institutt for
1510 Multimedia-skriveføre ved Annenberg-senteret, beskriver et spesielt sterkt
1511 eksempel fra et prosjekt de gjennomførte i en videregående skole.  Den
1512 videregående skolen var en veldig fattig skole i den indre byen i Los
1513 Angeles.  Etter alle tradisjonelle måleenheter for suksess var denne skolen
1514 en fiasko.  Men Daley og Barish gjennomførte et program som ga ungene en
1515 mulighet til å bruke film til å uttrykke sine meninger om noe som studentene
1516 visste noe om&#8212;våpen-relatert vold.
1517 </p><p>
1518 Klassen møttes fredag ettermiddag, og skapte et relativt nytt problem for
1519 skolen.  Mens utfordringen i de fleste klasser var å få ungene til å dukke
1520 opp, var utfordringen for denne klassen å holde dem unna. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ungene
1521 dukket opp 06:00, og dro igjen 05:00 på natta</span>»</span>, sa Barish. De jobbet
1522 hardere enn i noen annen klasse for å gjøre det utdanning burde handle
1523 om&#8212;å lære hvordan de skulle uttrykke seg.
1524 </p><p>
1525 Ved å bruke hva som helst av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fritt tilgjengelig web-stoff de kunne
1526 finne</span>»</span>, og relativt enkle verktøy som gjorde det mulig for ungene å
1527 blande <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bilde, lyd og tekst</span>»</span>, sa Barish at denne klassen
1528 produserte en serie av prosjekter som viste noe om våpen-basert vold som få
1529 ellers ville forstå. Dette var et tema veldig nært livene til disse
1530 studentene.  Prosjektet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ga dem et verktøy og bemyndiget dem slik at
1531 de både ble i stand til å forstå det og snakke om det</span>»</span>, forklarer
1532 Barish.  Dette verktøyet lyktes med å skape uttrykk&#8212;mye mer vellykket
1533 og kraffylt enn noe som hadde blitt laget ved å kun bruke tekst.
1534 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis du hadde sagt til disse studentene at 'du må gjøre dette i
1535 tekstform', så hadde de bare kastet hendene i været og gått og gjort noe
1536 annet</span>»</span>, forklarer Barish.  Delvis, uten tvil, fordi å uttrykke seg
1537 selv i tekstform ikke er noe disse studentene gjør godt. Heller ikke er
1538 tekstform en form som kan uttrykke <span class="emphasis"><em>disse</em></span> idéene godt.
1539 Kraften i denne meldingen avhenger av dens forbindelse med denne for for
1540 uttrykk.
1541 </p><p>
1542
1543
1544
1545 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Men handler ikke utdanning om å lære unger å skrive?</span>»</span> spurte
1546 jeg. Jo delvis, naturligvis.  Men hvorfor lærer vi unger å skrive?
1547 Utdanning, forklarer Daley, handler om å gi studentene en måte å
1548 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">konstruere mening</span>»</span>.  Å si at det kun betyr skriving er som å
1549 si at å lære bort skriving kun handler om å lære ungene å
1550 stave. Tekstforming er bare en del&#8212;og i større grad ikke den
1551 kraftigste delen&#8212;for å konstruere mening.  Som Daley forklarte i den
1552 mest rørende delen av vårt intervju,
1553 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
1554 Det du ønsker er å gi disse studentene en måte å konstruere mening. Hvis alt
1555 du gir dem er tekst, så kommer de ikke til å gjøre det. Fordi de kan ikke.
1556 Du vet, du har Johnny som kan se på en video, han kan spille på et TV-spill,
1557 han kan spre grafitti over alle dine vegger, han kan ta fra hverandre bilen
1558 din, og han kan gjøre alle mulige andre ting.  Men han kan ikke lese teksten
1559 din.  Så Jonny kommer på skolen og du sier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Johnny, du er analfabet.
1560 Ingenting du gjør betyr noe</span>»</span>.  Vel, da har Johnny to valg: Han kan
1561 avvise deg eller han kan avvise seg selv.  Hvis han har et sunt ego så vil
1562 han avvise deg.  Men hvis du i stedet sier, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vel, med alle disse
1563 tingene som du kan gjøre, la oss snakke om dette temaet.  Spill musikk til
1564 meg som du mener reflekterer over temaet, eller vis meg bilder som du mener
1565 reflekterer over temaet, eller tegn noe til meg som reflektere
1566 temaet</span>»</span>.  Ikke ved å gi en unge et videokamera og &#8230; si
1567 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">La oss dra å ha det morsomt med videokameraet og lage en liten
1568 film</span>»</span>. Men istedet, virkelig hjelpe deg å ta disse elementene som du
1569 forstår, som er ditt språk, og konstruer mening om temaet.&#8230;
1570 </p><p>
1571 Dette bemyndiger enormt.  Og det som skjer til slutt, selvfølgelig, som det
1572 har skjedd i alle disse klassene, er at de stopper opp når de treffer
1573 faktumet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">jeg trenger å forklare dette, og da trenger jeg virkelig å
1574 skrive noe</span>»</span>.  Og som en av lærerne fortalte Stephanie, de vil skrive
1575 om avsnittet 5, 6, 7, 8 ganger, helt til det blir riktig.
1576 </p><p>
1577
1578 Fordi de trengte det.  Det var en grunn til å gjøre det.  De trengte å si
1579 noe, i motsetning til å kun danse etter din pipe.  De trengte faktisk å
1580 bruke det språket de ikke håndterte veldig bra.  Men de hadde begynt å
1581 forstå at de hadde mye gjennomslagskraft med dette språket.
1582 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2884222"></a><p>
1583 Da to fly krasjet inn i World Trade Center, og et annet inn i Pentagon, og
1584 et fjerde inn i et jorde i Pennsylvania, snudde alle medier verden rundt seg
1585 til denne nyheten.  Ethvert moment for omtreng hver eneste dag den uka, og
1586 ukene som fulgte gjenfortalte TV spesielt, men media generelt, historien om
1587 disse hendelsene som vi nettopp hadde vært vitne til.  Genialiteten i denne
1588 forferdelige terrorhandlingen var at det forsinkede andre-angrepet var
1589 perfekt tidsatt for å sikre at hele verden ville være der for å se på.
1590 </p><p>
1591 Disse gjenfortellingene ga en økende familiær følelse.  Det var musikk
1592 spesiallaget for mellom-innslagene, og avansert grafikk som blinket tvers
1593 over skjermen.  Det var en formel for intervjuer.  Det var
1594 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balanse</span>»</span> og seriøsitet.  Dette var nyheter koreaografert slik
1595 vi i stadig større grad forventer det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nyheter som
1596 underholdning</span>»</span>, selv om underholdningen er en tragedie.
1597 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2884269"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2884274"></a><p>
1598 Men i tillegg til disse produserte nyhetene om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tragedien
1599 11. september</span>»</span>, kunne de av oss som er knyttet til internettet i
1600 tillegg se en svært annerledes produksjon. Internettet er fullt av
1601 fortellinger om de samme hendelsene.  Men disse internet-fortellingene hadde
1602 en veldig annerledes smak.  Noen folk konstruerte foto-sider som fanget
1603 bilder fra hele verden og presenterte dem som lysbildepresentasjoner med
1604 tekst.  Noen tilbød åpne brev.  Det var lydopptak.  Det var sinne og
1605 frustrasjon.  Det var forsøk på å tilby en sammenheng.  Det var, kort og
1606 godt, en ekstraordinær verdensomspennende låvebygging, slik Mike Godwin
1607 bruker begrepet i hans bok <em class="citetitle">Cyber Rights</em>, rundt en
1608 nyhetshendelse som hadde fanget oppmerksomheten til hele verden.  Det var
1609 ABC og CBS, men det var også internettet.
1610 </p><p>
1611
1612 Det er ikke så enkelt som at jeg ønsker å lovprise internettet&#8212;selv om
1613 jeg mener at folkene som støtter denne formen for tale bør lovprises.  Jeg
1614 ønsker i stedet å peke på viktigheten av denne formen for tale.  For på
1615 samme måte som en Kodak, gjør internettet folk i stand til å fange bilder.
1616 Og på samme måte som med en film laget av en av studentene på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Just
1617 Think!</span>»</span>-bussen, kan visuelle bilder bli blandet med lyd og tekst.
1618 </p><p>
1619 Men i motsetning til en hvilken som helst teknologi for å enkelt fange
1620 bilder, tillater internettet at en nesten umiddelbart deler disse
1621 kreasjonene med et ekstraordinært antall menesker.  Dette er noe nytt i vår
1622 tradisjon&#8212;ikke bare kan kultur fanges inn mekanisk, og åpenbart heller
1623 ikke at hendelser blir kommentert kritisk, men at denne blandingen av
1624 bilder, lyd og kommentar kan spres vidt omkring nesten umiddelbart.
1625 </p><p>
1626 11. september var ikke et avvik.  Det var en start.  Omtrent på samme tid,
1627 begynte en form for kommunkasjon som hadde vokst dramatisk å komme inn i
1628 offentlig bevissthet: web-loggen, eller blog.  Bloggen er en slags offentlig
1629 dagbok, og i noen kulturer, slik som i Japan, fungerer den veldig lik en
1630 dagbok.  I disse kulturene registrerer den private fakta på en offentlig
1631 måte&#8212;det er en slags elektronisk <em class="citetitle">Jerry
1632 Springer</em>, tilgjengelig overalt i verden.
1633 </p><p>
1634 Men i USA har blogger inntatt en svært annerledes karakter.  Det er noen som
1635 bruker denne plassen til å snakke om sitt private liv.  Men det er mange som
1636 bruker denne plassen til å delta i offentlig debatt. Diskuterer saker med
1637 offentlig interesse, kritiserer andre som har feil synspunkt, kritisere
1638 politigere for avgjørelser de tar, tilbyr løsninger på problemer vi alle
1639 ser.  Blogger skaper en følelse av et virtuelt offentlig møte, men et hvor
1640 vi ikke alle håper å være tilstede på samme tid og hvor konversasjonene ikke
1641 nødvendigvis er koblet sammen.  De beste av bloggoppføringene er relativt
1642 korte.  De peker direkte til ord bruk av andre, kritiserer dem eller bidrar
1643 til dem.  Det kan argumenteres for at de er den viktigste form for
1644 ukoreografert offentlig debatt som vi har.
1645 </p><p>
1646
1647 Dette er en sterk uttalelse.  Likevel sier den like mye om vårt demokrati
1648 som den sier om blogger.  Dette er delen av USA som det er mest vanskelig
1649 for oss som elsker USA å akseptere: vårt demokrati har svunnet hen.  Vi har
1650 naturligvis valg, og mesteparten av tiden tillater domstolene at disse
1651 valgene teller.  Et relativt lite antall mennesker stemmer i disse valgene.
1652 Syklusen med disse valgene har blitt totalt profesjonalisert og
1653 rutinepreget.  De fleste av oss tenker på dette som demokrati.
1654 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2884410"></a><p>
1655 Men demokrati har aldri kun handlet om valg.  Demokrati betyr at folket
1656 styrer, og å styre betyr noe mer enn kun valg.  I vår tradisjon betyr det
1657 også kontroll gjennom gjennomtenkt meningsbrytning.  Dette var idéen som
1658 fanget fantasien til Alexis de Tocqueville, den franske
1659 nittenhundretalls-advokaten som skrev den viktigste historien om det tidlige
1660 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">demokratiet i Amerika</span>»</span>.  Det var ikke allmenn stemmerett som
1661 fascinerte han&#8212;det var juryen, en institusjon som ga vanlige folk
1662 retten til å velge liv eller død før andre borgere.  Og det som fascinerte
1663 han mest var at juryen ikke bare stemte over hvilket resultat de ville legge
1664 frem.  De diskuterte.  Medlemmene argumenterte om hva som var
1665 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">riktig</span>»</span> resultat, de forsøkte å overbevise hverandre om
1666 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">riktig</span>»</span>resultat, og i hvert fall i kriminalsaker måtte de bli
1667 enige om et enstemming resultat for at prosessen skulle
1668 avsluttes.<sup>[<a name="id2884456" href="#ftn.id2884456" class="footnote">40</a>]</sup>
1669 </p><p>
1670 Og likevel fremheves denne institusjonen i USA i dag.  Og i dets sted er det
1671 ingen systematisk innsats for å muliggjøre borger-diskusjon. Noen gjør en
1672 innsats for å lage en slik institusjon.<sup>[<a name="id2884478" href="#ftn.id2884478" class="footnote">41</a>]</sup>
1673 Og i noen landsbyer i New England er det noe i nærheten av diskusjon igjen.
1674 Men for de fleste av oss mesteparten av tiden, er det ingen tid og sted for
1675 å gjennomføre <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">demokratisk diskusjon</span>»</span>.
1676 </p><p>
1677 Mer merkelig er at en generelt sett ikke engang har aksept for at det skal
1678 skje.  Vi, det mektigste demokratiet i verden, har utviklet en sterk norm
1679 mot å diskutere politikk.  Det er greit å diskutere politikk med folk du er
1680 enig med, men det er uhøflig å diskutere politikk med folk du er uenig med.
1681 Politisk debatt blir isolert, og isolert diskusjon blir mer
1682 ekstrem.<sup>[<a name="id2884516" href="#ftn.id2884516" class="footnote">42</a>]</sup> Vi sier det våre venner vil
1683 høre, og hører veldig lite utenom hva våre venner sier.
1684 </p><p>
1685
1686 Så kommer bloggen.  Selve bloggens arkitektur løser en del av dette
1687 problemet.  Folk publiserer det de ønsker å publisere, og folk leser det de
1688 ønsker å lese.  Det vanskeligste tiden er synkron tid. Teknologier som
1689 muliggjør asynkron kommunasjons, slik som epost, øker muligheten for
1690 kommunikasjon.  Blogger gjør det mulig med offentlig debatt uten at folket
1691 noen gang trenger å samle seg på et enkelt offentlig sted.
1692 </p><p>
1693 Men i tillegg til arkitektur, har blogger også løst problemet med normer.
1694 Det er (ennå) ingen norm i blogg-sfæren om å ikke snakke om politikk.
1695 Sfæren er faktisk fylt med politiske innlegg, både på høyre- og
1696 venstresiden.  Noen av de mest populære stedene er konservative eller
1697 libertarianske, men det er mange av alle politiske farger.  Til og med
1698 blogger som ikke er politiske dekker politiske temaer når anledningen krever
1699 det.
1700 </p><p>
1701 Betydningene av disse bloggene er liten nå, men ikke ubetydelig. Navnet
1702 Howard Dean har i stor grad forsvunnet fra 2004-presidentvalgkampen bortsett
1703 fra hos noen få blogger.  Men selv om antallet lesere er lavt, så har det å
1704 lese dem en effekt. <a class="indexterm" name="id2884573"></a>
1705 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2884580"></a><p>
1706 En direkte effekt er på historier som hadde en annerledes livssyklus i de
1707 store mediene.  Trend Lott-affæren er et eksempel.  Da Logg <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sa
1708 feil</span>»</span> på en fest for senator Storm Thurmond, og essensielt lovpriste
1709 segregeringspolitikken til Thurmond, regnet han ganske riktig med at
1710 historien ville forsvinne fra de store mediene i løpet av førtiåtte timer.
1711 Det skjedde.  Men han regnet ikke med dens livssyklus i bloggsfæren.
1712 Bloggerne fortsatte å undersøke historien.  Etter hvert dukket flere og
1713 flere tilfeller av tilsvarende <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">feiluttalelser</span>»</span> opp. Så dukket
1714 historien opp igjen hos de store mediene.  Lott ble til slutt tvinget til å
1715 trekke seg som leder for senatets flertall.<sup>[<a name="id2884614" href="#ftn.id2884614" class="footnote">43</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2884626"></a>
1716 </p><p>
1717 Denne annerledes syklusen er mulig på grunn av at et tilsvarende kommersielt
1718 press ikke eksisterer hos blogger slik det gjør hos andre kanaler.
1719 Televisjon og aviser er kommersielle aktører.  De må arbeide for å holde på
1720 oppmerksomheten.  Hvis de mister lesere, så mister de inntekter.  Som haier,
1721 må de bevege seg videre.
1722 </p><p>
1723 Men bloggere har ikke tilsvarende begresninger.  De kan bli opphengt, de kan
1724 fokusere, de kan bli seriøse.  Hvis en bestemt blogger skriver en spesielt
1725 interessant historie, så vil flere og flere folk lenke til den historien.
1726 Og etter hvert som antalet lenker til en bestemt historie øker, så stiger
1727 den i rangeringen for historier.  Folk leser det som er populært, og hva som
1728 er populært har blitt valgt gjennom en svært demokratisk prosess av
1729 likemanns-generert rangering.
1730 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxwinerdave"></a><p>
1731
1732 Det er også en annen måte, hvor blogger har en annen syklus enn de store
1733 mediene.  Som Dave Winer, en av fedrene til denne bevegelsen og en
1734 programvareutvikler i mange tiår fortalte meg, er en annen forskjell
1735 fraværet av finansiell <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">interessekonflikt</span>»</span>.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg tror du
1736 må ta interessekonflikten</span>»</span> ut av journalismen, fortalte Winer
1737 meg. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">En amatørjournalist har ganske enkelt ikke interessekonflikt,
1738 eller interessekonflikten er så enkelt å avsløre at du liksom vet du kan
1739 rydde den av veien.</span>»</span>
1740 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2884707"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2884713"></a><p>
1741 Disse konfliktene blir mer viktig etter hvert som mediene blir mer
1742 konsentert (mer om dette under).  Konsenterte medier kan skjule mer fra
1743 offentligheten enn ikke-konsenterte medier kan&#8212;slik CNN innrømte at de
1744 gjorde etter Iraq-krigen fordi de var rett for konsekvensene for sine egne
1745 ansatte.<sup>[<a name="id2884434" href="#ftn.id2884434" class="footnote">44</a>]</sup> De trenger også å opprettholde
1746 en mer konsistent rapportering.  (Midt under Irak-krigen, leste jeg en
1747 melding på Internet fra noen som på det tidspunktet lyttet på
1748 satellitt-forbindelsen til en reporter i Iraq.  New York-hovedkvarteret ba
1749 reporteren gang på gang at hennes rapport om krigen var for trist: Hun måtte
1750 tilby en mer optimistisk historie. Når hun fortalte New York at det ikke var
1751 grunnlag for det, fortalte de henne at det var <span class="emphasis"><em>dem</em></span> som
1752 skrev <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">historien</span>»</span>.)
1753 </p><p> Blogg-sfæren gir amatører en måte å bli med i
1754 debatten&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">amatør</span>»</span> ikke i betydningen uerfaren, men i
1755 betydningen til en Olympisk atlet, det vil si ikke betalt av noen for å
1756 komme med deres rapport.  Det tillater en mye bredere rekke av innspill til
1757 en historie, slik rapporteringen Columbia-katastrofen avdekket, når
1758 hundrevis fra hele sørvest-USA vendte seg til internettet for å gjenfortelle
1759 hva de hadde sett.<sup>[<a name="id2884777" href="#ftn.id2884777" class="footnote">45</a>]</sup> Og det får lesere
1760 til å lese på tvers av en rekke fortellinger og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">triangulere</span>»</span>,
1761 som Winer formulerer det, sannheten.  Blogger, sier Winer,
1762 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kommunserer direkte med vår velgermasse, og mellommannen er
1763 fjernet</span>»</span>&#8212; med alle de fordeler og ulemper det kan føre med seg.
1764 </p><p>
1765
1766 Winer er optimistisk når det gjelder en journalistfremtid infisert av
1767 blogger.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det kommer til å bli en nødvendig ferdighet</span>»</span>, spår
1768 Winer, for offentlige aktører og også i større grad for private aktører.
1769 Det er ikke klart at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">journalismen</span>»</span> er glad for
1770 dette&#8212;noen journalister har blitt bedt om å kutte ut sin
1771 blogging.<sup>[<a name="id2884813" href="#ftn.id2884813" class="footnote">46</a>]</sup> Men det er klart at vi
1772 fortsatt er i en overgangsfase.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mye av det vi gjør nå er
1773 oppvarmingsøvelser</span>»</span>, fortalte Winer meg.  Det er mye som må modne før
1774 dette området har sin modne effekt.  Og etter som inkludering av innhold i
1775 dette området er det området med minst opphavsrettsbrudd på internettet, sa
1776 Wiener at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vi vil være den siste tingen som blir skutt ned</span>»</span>.
1777 </p><p>
1778 Slik tale påvirker demokratiet.  Winer mener dette skjer fordi <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">du
1779 trenger ikke jobber for noen som kontrollerer, [for] en
1780 portvokter</span>»</span>. Det er sant.  Men det påvirker demokratiet også på en
1781 annen måte. Etter hvert som flere og flere borgere uttrykker hva de mener,
1782 og forsvarer det skriftlig, så vil det endre hvordan folk forstår offentlige
1783 temaer.  Det er enkelt å ha feil og være på villspor i hodet ditt.  Det er
1784 vanskeligere når resultatet fra dine tanker kan bli kritisert av andre.  Det
1785 er selvfølgelig et sjeldent menneske som innrømmer at han ble overtalt til å
1786 innse at han tok feil.  Men det er mer sjeldent for et menneske å ignorere
1787 at noen har bevist at han tok feil.  Å skrive ned idéer, argumenter og
1788 kritikk forbedrer demokratiet.  I dag er det antagelig et par millioner
1789 blogger der det skrives på denne måten.  Når det er ti milloner, så vil det
1790 være noe ekstraordært å rapportere.
1791 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2884950"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbrownjohnseely"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising1"></a><p>
1792 John Seely Brown er sjefsforsker ved Xerox Corporation.  Hans arbeid, i
1793 følge hans eget nettsted, er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menneskelig læring og &#8230; å skape
1794 kunnskapsøkologier for å skape &#8230; innovasjon</span>»</span>.
1795 </p><p>
1796 Brown ser dermed på disse teknologiene for digital kreativitet litt
1797 annerledes enn fra perspektivene jeg har skissert opp så langt.  Jeg er
1798 sikker på at han blir begeistret for enhver teknologi som kan forbedre
1799 demokratiet.  Men det han virkelig blir begeistret over er hvordan disse
1800 teknologiene påvirker læring.
1801 </p><p>
1802
1803 Brown tror vi lærer med å fikle.  Da <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mange av oss vokste opp</span>»</span>,
1804 forklarer han, ble fiklingen gjort <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pa motorsykkelmotorer,
1805 gressklippermotorer, biler, radioer og så videre</span>»</span>.  Men digitale
1806 teknologier muliggjør en annen type fikling&#8212;med abstrakte idéer i sin
1807 konkrete form.  Ungene i Just Think! tenker ikke bare på hvordan et
1808 reklameinnslag fremstiller en politiker.  Ved å bruke digital teknologi kan
1809 de ta reklameinnslaget fra hverandre og manipulerer det, fikle med det, og
1810 se hvordan det blir gjort.  Digitale teknologier setter igang en slags
1811 *bricolage* eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling</span>»</span>, som
1812 Brown kaller det.  Mange får mulighet til å legge til på eller endre på
1813 fiklingen til mange andre.
1814 </p><p>
1815 Det beste eksemplet i større skala så langt på denne typen fikling er fri
1816 programvare og åpen kildekode (FS/OSS).  FS/OSS er programvare der
1817 kildekoden deles ut.  Alle kan laste ned teknologien som får et
1818 FS/OSS-program til å fungere.  Og enhver som har lyst til å lære hvordan en
1819 bestemt bit av FS/OSS-teknologi fungerer kan fikle med koden.
1820 </p><p>
1821 Denne muligheten gir en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">helt ny type læringsplattform</span>»</span>, i
1822 følge Brown.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Så snart du begynner å gjøre dette, så &#8230; slipper
1823 du løs en fritt tilgjengelig sammenstilling til fellesskapet, slik at andre
1824 folk kan begynne å se på koden din, fikle med den, teste den, seom de kan
1825 forbedre den</span>»</span>.  Og hver innsats er et slags læretid.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Åpen
1826 kildekode blir en stor lærlingeplatform.</span>»</span>.
1827 </p><p>
1828 I denne prossesen, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">er de konkrete tingene du fikler med abstrakte. De
1829 er kildekode</span>»</span>.  Unger <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">endres til å få evnen til å fikle med
1830 det abstrakte, og denne fiklingen er ikke lenger en isolert aktivitet som du
1831 gjør i garasjen din.  Du fikler med en fellesskapsplatform. &#8230; Du
1832 fikler med andre folks greier.  Og jo mer du fikler, jo mer forbedrer
1833 du.</span>»</span> Jo mer du forbedrer, jo mer lærer du.
1834 </p><p>
1835 Denne sammen tingen skjer også med innhold.  Og det skjer på samme
1836 samarbeidende måte når dette innholdet er del av nettet.  Som Brown
1837 formulerer det, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nettet er det første medium som virkelig tar hensyn
1838 til flere former for intelligens</span>»</span>.  Tidligere teknologier, slik som
1839 skrivemaskin eller tekstbehandling, hjelper med å fremme tekst.  Men nettet
1840 fremmer mye mer enn tekst.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Nettet &#8230; si hvis du er musikalsk,
1841 hvis du er kunstnerisk, hvis du er visuell, hvis du er interessert i film
1842 &#8230;da er det en masse du kan gå igang med på dette mediet.  Det kan
1843 fremme og ta hensyn til alle disse formene for intelligens.</span>»</span>
1844 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2885135"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2885142"></a><p>
1845
1846 Brown snakker om hva Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish Og Just Think! lærer
1847 bort: at denne fiklingen med kultur lærer såvel som den skaper. Den utvikler
1848 talenter litt anderledes, og den bygger en annen type gjenkjenning.
1849 </p><p>
1850 Likevel er friheten til å fikle med disse objektene ikke garantert. Faktisk,
1851 som vi vil se i løpet av denne boken, er den friheten i stadig større grad
1852 omstridt.  Mens det ikke er noe tvil om at din far hadde rett til å fikle
1853 med bilmotoren, så er det stor tvil om dine barn vil ha retten til å fikle
1854 med bilder som hun finner over alt. Loven, og teknologi i stadig større
1855 grad, forstyrrer friheten som teknolog, nysgjerrigheten, ellers ville sikre.
1856 </p><p>
1857 Disse begresningene har blitt fokusen for forskere og akademikere. Professor
1858 Ed Felten ved Princeton (som vi vil se mer fra i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>) har utviklet et
1859 kraftfylt argument til fordel for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">retten til å fikle</span>»</span> slik det
1860 gjøres i informatikk og til kunnskap generelt.<sup>[<a name="id2885193" href="#ftn.id2885193" class="footnote">47</a>]</sup> Men bekymringen til Brown er tidligere, og mer fundamentalt.  Det
1861 handler om hva slags læring unger kan få, eller ikke kan få, på grunn av
1862 loven.
1863 </p><p>
1864 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dette er dit utviklingen av utdanning i det tjueførste århundret er
1865 på vei</span>»</span>, forklarer Brown.  Vi må <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">forstå hvordan unger som
1866 vokser opp digitalt tenker og ønsker å lære</span>»</span>.
1867 </p><p>
1868 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Likevel</span>»</span>, fortsatte Brown, og som balansen i denne boken vil
1869 føre bevis for, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bygger vi et juridisk system som fullstendig
1870 undertrykker den naturlige tendensen i dagens digitale unger. &#8230; We
1871 bygger en arkitektur som frigjør 60 prosent av hjernen [og] et juridisk
1872 system som stenger ned den delen av hjernen</span>»</span>.
1873 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2885252"></a><p>
1874 Vi bygger en teknologi som tar magien til Kodak, mikser inn bevegelige
1875 bilder og lyd, og legger inn plass for kommentarer og en mulighet til å spre
1876 denne kreativiteten over alt.  Men vi bygger loven for å stenge ned denne
1877 teknologien.
1878 </p><p>
1879 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke måten å drive en kultur på</span>»</span>, sa Brewster Kahle, som vi
1880 møtte i kapittel <a class="xref" href="#collectors" title="Kapittel ni: Samlere">9</a>, kommenterte til meg i et sjeldent øyeblikk av
1881 nedstemthet.
1882 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883140" href="#id2883140" class="para">26</a>] </sup>
1883
1884
1885 Reese V. Jenkins, <em class="citetitle">Images and Enterprise</em> (Baltimore:
1886 Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 112.
1887 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2880357" href="#id2880357" class="para">27</a>] </sup>
1888
1889 Brian Coe, <em class="citetitle">The Birth of Photography</em> (New York:
1890 Taplinger Publishing, 1977), 53.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2883193"></a>
1891 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883219" href="#id2883219" class="para">28</a>] </sup>
1892
1893
1894 Jenkins, 177.
1895 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883228" href="#id2883228" class="para">29</a>] </sup>
1896
1897
1898 Basert på et diagram i Jenkins, s. 178.
1899 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883170" href="#id2883170" class="para">30</a>] </sup>
1900
1901
1902 Coe, 58.
1903 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883322" href="#id2883322" class="para">31</a>] </sup>
1904
1905
1906 For illustrerende saker, se for eksempel, <em class="citetitle">Pavesich</em>
1907 mot <em class="citetitle">N.E. Life Ins. Co</em>., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905);
1908 <em class="citetitle">Foster-Milburn Co</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Chinn</em>,
1909 123090 S.W. 364, 366 (Ky. 1909); <em class="citetitle">Corliss</em> mot
1910 <em class="citetitle">Walker</em>, 64 F. 280 (Mass.  Dist. Ct. 1894).
1911 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883391" href="#id2883391" class="para">32</a>] </sup>
1912
1913 Samuel D. Warren og Louis D. Brandeis, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to Privacy</span>»</span>,
1914 <em class="citetitle">Harvard Law Review</em> 4 (1890): 193.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2883402"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2883411"></a>
1915 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883452" href="#id2883452" class="para">33</a>] </sup>
1916
1917
1918 Se Melville B. Nimmer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right of Publicity</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Law
1919 and Contemporary Problems</em> 19 (1954): 203; William L. Prosser,
1920 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Privacy</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">California Law Review</em> 48
1921 (1960) 398&#8211;407; <em class="citetitle">White</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Samsung
1922 Electronics America, Inc</em>., 971 F.  2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992),
1923 sert. nektet, 508 U.S. 951 (1993).
1924 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883617" href="#id2883617" class="para">34</a>] </sup>
1925
1926
1927 H. Edward Goldberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Essential Presentation Tools: Hardware and
1928 Software You Need to Create Digital Multimedia Presentations,</span>»</span>
1929 cadalyst, februar 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #7</a>.
1930 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883714" href="#id2883714" class="para">35</a>] </sup>
1931
1932
1933 Judith Van Evra, <em class="citetitle">Television and Child Development</em>
1934 (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990); <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Findings on
1935 Family and TV Study</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Denver Post</em>, 25. mai
1936 1997, B6.
1937 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883813" href="#id2883813" class="para">36</a>] </sup>
1938
1939 Intervju med Elizabeth Daley og Stephanie Barish, 13. desember 2002.
1940 <a class="indexterm" name="id2883821"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2883829"></a>
1941 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883857" href="#id2883857" class="para">37</a>] </sup>
1942
1943
1944 Se Scott Steinberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Crichton Gets Medieval on PCs</span>»</span>, E!online,
1945 4. november 2000, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #8</a>;
1946 <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>.
1947 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883970" href="#id2883970" class="para">38</a>] </sup>
1948
1949 Intervju med Daley og Barish.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2883977"></a>
1950 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2883992" href="#id2883992" class="para">39</a>] </sup>
1951
1952
1953 ibid.
1954 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2884456" href="#id2884456" class="para">40</a>] </sup>
1955
1956
1957 Se for eksempel Alexis de Tocqueville, <em class="citetitle">Democracy in
1958 America</em>, bk. 1, overs.  Henry Reeve (New York: Bantam Books,
1959 2000), kap. 16.
1960 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2884478" href="#id2884478" class="para">41</a>] </sup>
1961
1962
1963 Bruce Ackerman og James Fishkin, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Deliberation Day</span>»</span>,
1964 <em class="citetitle">Journal of Political Philosophy</em> 10 (2) (2002): 129.
1965 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2884516" href="#id2884516" class="para">42</a>] </sup>
1966
1967
1968 Cass Sunstein, <em class="citetitle">Republic.com</em> (Princeton: Princeton
1969 University Press, 2001), 65&#8211;80, 175, 182, 183, 192.
1970 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2884614" href="#id2884614" class="para">43</a>] </sup>
1971
1972
1973 Noah Shachtman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the
1974 Pot</span>»</span>, New York Times, 16. januar 2003, G5.
1975 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2884434" href="#id2884434" class="para">44</a>] </sup>
1976
1977
1978 Telefonintervju med David Winer, 16. april 2003.
1979 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2884777" href="#id2884777" class="para">45</a>] </sup>
1980
1981
1982 John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Loss of the Shuttle: The Internet; A Wealth of
1983 Information Online</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 2 februar
1984 2003, A28; Staci D. Kramer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Shuttle Disaster Coverage Mixed, but
1985 Strong Overall</span>»</span>, Online Journalism Review, 2. februar 2003,
1986 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
1987 #10</a>.
1988 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2884813" href="#id2884813" class="para">46</a>] </sup>
1989
1990 <a class="indexterm" name="id2884844"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2884852"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2884858"></a> Se Michael Falcone,
1991 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does an Editor's Pencil Ruin a Web Log?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
1992 Times</em>, 29. september 2003, C4. (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ikke alle
1993 nyhetsorganisasjoner har hatt like stor aksept for ansatte som
1994 blogger. Kevin Sites, en CNN-korrespondent i Irak som startet en blogg om
1995 sin rapportering av krigen 9. mars, stoppet å publisere 12 dager senere på
1996 forespørsel fra sine sjefer. I fjor fikk Steve Olafson, en
1997 <em class="citetitle">Houston Chronicle</em>-reporter, sparken for å ha hatt en
1998 personlig web-logg, publisert under pseudonym, som handlet om noen av
1999 temaene og folkene som han dekket.</span>»</span>)
2000 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885193" href="#id2885193" class="para">47</a>] </sup>
2001
2002
2003 Se for eksempel, Edward Felten og Andrew Appel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Technological Access
2004 Control Interferes with Noninfringing Scholarship,</span>»</span>
2005 <em class="citetitle">Communications of the Association for Computer
2006 Machinery</em> 43 (2000): 9.
2007 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel tre: Kataloger"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="catalogs"></a>Kapittel tre: Kataloger</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2885302"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxrensselaer"></a><p>
2008 Høsten 2001, ble Jesse Jordan fra Oceanside, New York, innrullert som
2009 førsteårsstudent ved Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, i Troy, New York.
2010 Hans studieprogram ved RPI var informasjonsteknologi.  Selv om han ikke var
2011 en programmerer, bestemte Jesse seg i oktober å begynne å fikle med en
2012 søkemotorteknologi som var tilgjengelig på RPI-nettverket.
2013 </p><p>
2014 RPI er en av Amerikas fremste teknologiske forskningsinstitusjoner. De
2015 tilbyr grader innen områder som går fra arkitektur og ingeniørfag til
2016 informasjonsvitenskap.  Mer enn 65 prosent av de fem tusen
2017 laveregradsstudentene fullførte blant de 10 prosent beste i deres klasse på
2018 videregående.  Skolen er dermed en perfekt blanding av talent og erfaring
2019 for å se for seg og deretter bygge, en generasjon tilpasset
2020 nettverksalderen.
2021 </p><p>
2022 RPIs data-nettverk kobler studenter, forelesere og administrasjon sammen.
2023 Det kobler også RPI til internettet.  Ikke alt som er tilgjengelig på
2024 RPI-nettet er tilgjengelig på internettet.  Men nettverket er utformet for å
2025 gi alle studentene mulighet til å bruke internettet, i tillegg til mer
2026 direkte tilgang til andre medlemmer i RPI-fellesskapet.
2027 </p><p>
2028
2029 Søkemotorer er et mål pa hvor nært et nettverk oppleves å være. Google
2030 brakte internettet mye nærmere oss alle ved en utrolig forbedring av
2031 kvaliteten på søk i nettverket.  Spesialiserte søkemotorer kan gjøre dette
2032 enda bedre.  Idéen med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intranett</span>»</span>-søkemotorer, søkemotorer som
2033 kun søker internt i nettverket til en bestemt institusjon, er å tilby
2034 brukerne i denne institusjonen bedre tilgang til materiale fra denne
2035 institusjonen. Bedrifter gjør dette hele tiden, ved å gi ansatte mulighet
2036 til å få tak i materiale som folk på utsiden av bedriften ikke kan få tak
2037 i. Universitetet gjør også dette.
2038 </p><p>
2039 Disse motorene blir muliggjort av netverksteknologien selv.  For eksempel
2040 har Microsoft et nettverksfilsystem som gjør det veldig enkelt for
2041 søkemotorer tilpasset det nettverket å spørre systemet etter informasjon om
2042 det offentlig (innen nettverket) tilgjengelige innholdet.  Søkemotoren til
2043 Jesse var bygget for å dra nytte av denne teknologien.  Den brukte
2044 Microsofts nettverksfilsystem for å bygge en indeks over alle filene
2045 tilgjengelig inne i RPI-nettverket.
2046 </p><p>
2047 Jesse sin var ikke den første søkemotoren bygget for RPI-nettverket. Hans
2048 motor var faktisk en enkel endring av motorer som andre hadde bygget.  Hans
2049 viktigste enkeltforbedring i forhold til disse motorene var å fikse en feil
2050 i Microsofts fildelings-system som fikk en brukers datamaskin til å krasje.
2051 Med motorene som hadde eksistert tidligere, hvis du forsøkte å koble deg ved
2052 hjelp av Windows-utforskeren til en fil som var på en datamaskin som ikke
2053 var på nett, så ville din datamaskin krasje.  Jesse endret systemet litt for
2054 å fikse det problemet, ved å legge til en knapp som en bruker kunne klikke
2055 på for å se om maskinen som hadde filen fortsatt var på nett.
2056 </p><p>
2057 Motoren til Jesse kom pa nett i slutten av oktober.  I løpet av de følgende
2058 seks månedene fortsatte han å justere den for å forbedre dens
2059 funksjonalitet.  I mars fungerte systemet ganske bra.  Jesse hadde mer enn
2060 en million filer i sin katalog, inkludert alle mulige typer innhold som
2061 fantes på brukernes datamaskiner.
2062 </p><p>
2063
2064 Dermed inneholdt indeksen som hans søkemotor produserte bilder, som
2065 studentene kunne bruke til å legge inn på sine egne nettsider, kopier av
2066 notater og forskning, kopier av informasjonshefter, filmklipp som studentene
2067 kanskje hadde laget, universitetsbrosjyrer&#8212;ganske enkelt alt som
2068 brukerne av RPI-nettverket hadde gjort tilgjengelig i en fellesmappe på sine
2069 datamaskiner.
2070 </p><p>
2071 Men indeksen inneholdt også musikkfiler.  Faktisk var en fjerdedel av filene
2072 som Jesses søkemotor inneholdt musikkfiler.  Men det betyr, naturligvis, at
2073 tre fjerdedeler ikke var det, og&#8212;slik at dette poenget er helt
2074 klart&#8212;Jesse gjorde ingenting for å få folk til å plassere musikkfiler
2075 i deres fellesmapper.  Han gjorde ingenting for å sikte søkemotoren mot
2076 disse filene.  Han var en ungdom som fiklet med Google-lignende teknologi
2077 ved et universitet der han studerte informasjonsvitenskap, og dermed var
2078 fiklingen målet.  I motsetning til Google, eller Microsoft for den saks
2079 skyld, tjente han ingen penger på denne fiklingen.  Han var ikke knyttet til
2080 noen bedrift som skulle tjene penger fra dette eksperimentet.  Han var en
2081 ungdom som fiklet med teknologi i en omgivelse hvor fikling med teknologi
2082 var nøyaktig hva han var ment å gjøre.
2083 </p><p>
2084 Den 3. april 2003 ble Jesse kontaktet av lederen for studentkontoret ved
2085 RPI.  Lederen fortalte Jesse at Foreningen for musikkindustri i USA, RIAA,
2086 wille levere inn et søksmål mot han og tre andre studenter som han ikke en
2087 gang kjente, to av dem på andre undersiteter.  Noen få timer senere ble
2088 Jesse forkynt søksmålet og fikk overlevert dokumentene.  Mens han leste
2089 disse dokumentene og så på nyhetsrapportene om den, ble han stadig mer
2090 forbauset.
2091 </p><p>
2092 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det var absurd</span>»</span>, fortalte han meg. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg mener at jeg
2093 ikke gjorde noe galt. &#8230; Jeg mener det ikke er noe galt med
2094 søkemotoren som jeg kjørte eller &#8230; hva jeg hadde gjort med den.  Jeg
2095 mener, jeg hadde ikke endret den på noen måte som fremmet eller forbedret
2096 arbeidet til pirater.  Jeg endret kun søkemotoren slik at den ble enklere å
2097 bruke</span>»</span>&#8212;igjen, en <span class="emphasis"><em>søkemotor</em></span>, som Jesse ikke
2098 hadde bygd selv, som brukte fildelingssystemet til Windows, som Jesse ikke
2099 hadde bygd selv, for å gjøre det mulig for medlemmer av RPI-fellesskapet å
2100 få tilgang til innhold, som Jesse ikke hadde laget eller gjort tilgjengelig,
2101 og der det store flertall av dette ikke hadde noe å gjøre med musikk.
2102 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2885549"></a><p>
2103
2104 Men RIAA kalte Jesse en pirat.  De hevdet at han opererte et nettverk og
2105 dermed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">med vilje</span>»</span> hadde brutt opphavsrettslovene.  De krevde
2106 at han betalte dem skadeerstatning for det han hadde gjort galt.  I saker
2107 med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">krenkelser med vilje</span>»</span>, spesifiserer opphavsrettsloven noe
2108 som advokater kaller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lovbestemte skader</span>»</span>.  Disse skadene
2109 tillater en opphavsrettighetseier å kreve $150 000 per krenkelse.
2110 Etter som RIAA påsto det var mer enn et hundre spesifikke
2111 opphavsrettskrenkelser, krevde de dermed at Jesse betalte dem minst
2112 $15 000 000.
2113 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2885575"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2885585"></a><p>
2114 Lignende søksmål ble gjort mot tre andre studenter: en annen student ved
2115 RPI, en ved Michegan Technical University og en ved Princeton. Deres
2116 situasjoner var lik den til Jesse.  Selv om hver sak hadde forskjellige
2117 detaljer, var hovedpoenget nøyaktig det samme: store krav om
2118 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">erstatning</span>»</span> som RIAA påsto de hadde rett på.  Hvis du summerte
2119 opp disse kravene, ba disse fire søksmålene domstolene i USA å tildele
2120 saksøkerne nesten $100 <span class="emphasis"><em>milliarder</em></span>&#8212;seks ganger det
2121 <span class="emphasis"><em>totale</em></span> overskuddet til filmindustrien i
2122 2001.<sup>[<a name="id2885618" href="#ftn.id2885618" class="footnote">48</a>]</sup>
2123 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2885635"></a><p>
2124 Jesse kontaktet sine foreldre.  De støttet ham, men var litt skremt. En
2125 onkel var advokat.  Han startet forhandlinger med RIAA.  De krevde å få vite
2126 hvor mye penger Jesse hadde.  Jesse hadde spart opp $12 000 fra
2127 sommerjobber og annet arbeid.  De krevde 12 000 for å trekke saken.
2128 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2885656"></a><p>
2129 RIAA ville at Jesse skulle innrømme at han hadde gjort noe galt.  Han
2130 nektet.  De ville ha han til å godta en kjennelse som i praksis ville gjøre
2131 det umulig for han å arbeide i mange områder innen teknologi for resten av
2132 hans liv.  Han nektet.  De fikk han til å forstå at denne prosessen med å
2133 bli saksøkt ikke kom til å bli hyggelig.  (Som faren til Jesse refererte til
2134 meg, fortalte sjefsadvokaten på saken, Matt Oppenheimer, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Du ønsker
2135 ikke et tannlegebesøk hos meg flere ganger</span>»</span>) Og gjennom det hele
2136 insisterte RIAA at de ikke ville inngå forlik før de hadde tatt hver eneste
2137 øre som Jesse hadde spart opp.
2138 </p><p>
2139
2140 Familien til Jessie ble opprørt over disse påstandene.  De ønsket å kjempe.
2141 Men onkelen til Jessie gjorde en innsats for å lære familien om hvordan det
2142 amerikanske juridiske systemet fungerte.  Jesse kunne sloss mot RIAA.  Han
2143 kunne til og med vinne.  Men kostnaden med å loss mot et søksmål som dette,
2144 ble Jesse fortalt, ville være minst $250 000.  Hvis han vant ville han
2145 ikke få tilbake noen av de pengene.  Hvis han vant, så ville han ha en bit
2146 papir som sa at han vant, og en bit papir som sa at han og hans familie var
2147 konkurs.
2148 </p><p>
2149 Så Jesse hadde et mafia-lignende valg: $250 000 og en sjanse til å
2150 vinne, eller $12 000 og et forlik.
2151 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2885697"></a><p>
2152 Musikkindustrien insisterer at dette er et spørsmål om lov og moral.  La oss
2153 legge loven til side for et øyeblikk og tenke på moralen.  Hvor er moralen i
2154 et søksmål som dette?  Hva er dyden i å skape offerlam.  RIAA er en spesielt
2155 mektig lobby.  Presidenten i RIAA tjener i følge rapporter mer enn $1
2156 million i året.  Artister, på den andre siden, får ikke godt betalt.  Den
2157 gjennomsnittelige innspillingsartist tjener $45 900.<sup>[<a name="id2885702" href="#ftn.id2885702" class="footnote">49</a>]</sup> Det er utallige måter som RIAA kan bruke for å
2158 påvirke og styre politikken.  Så hva er det moralske i å ta penger fra en
2159 student for å drive en søkemotor?<sup>[<a name="id2885759" href="#ftn.id2885759" class="footnote">50</a>]</sup>
2160 </p><p>
2161 23. juni overførte Jesse alle sine oppsparte midler til advokaten som jobbet
2162 for RIAA.  Saken mot ham ble trukket.  Og med dette, ble unggutten som hadde
2163 fiklet med en datamaskin og blitt saksøkt for 15 millioner dollar en
2164 aktivist:
2165 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2166 Jeg var definitivt ikke en aktivist [tidligere].  Jeg mente egentlig aldri å
2167 være en aktivist. &#8230; [men] jeg har blitt skjøvet inn i dette.  Jeg
2168 forutså over hodet ikke noe slik som dette, men jeg tror det er bare helt
2169 absurd det RIAA har gjort.
2170 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2171 Foreldrene til Jesse avslører en viss stolthet over deres motvillige
2172 aktivist.  Som hans far fortalte meg, Jesse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">anser seg selv for å være
2173 konservativ, og det samme gjør jeg. &#8230; Han er ingen
2174 treklemmer. &#8230; Jeg synes det er sært at de ville lage bråk med ham.
2175 Men han ønsker å la folk vite at de sender feil budskap.  Og han ønsker å
2176 korrigere rullebladet.</span>»</span>
2177 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885618" href="#id2885618" class="para">48</a>] </sup>
2178
2179
2180
2181 Tim Goral, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recording Industry Goes After Campus P-2-P Networks: Suit
2182 Alleges $97.8 Billion in Damages,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Professional Media
2183 Group LCC</em> 6 (2003): 5, tilgjengelig fra 2003 WL 55179443.
2184 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885702" href="#id2885702" class="para">49</a>] </sup>
2185
2186
2187 Occupational Employment Survey, U.S. Dept. of Labor (2001)
2188 (27&#8211;2042&#8212;Musikere og Sangere). Se også National Endowment for
2189 the Arts, <em class="citetitle">More Than One in a Blue Moon</em> (2000).
2190 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885759" href="#id2885759" class="para">50</a>] </sup>
2191
2192
2193 Douglas Lichtman kommer med et relatert poeng i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">KaZaA and
2194 Punishment,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Wall Street Journal</em>,
2195 10. september 2003, A24.
2196 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel fire: «Pirater»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="pirates"></a>Kapittel fire: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Pirater</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2885834"></a><p>
2197 <span class="strong"><strong>Hvis <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> betyr</strong></span>
2198 å bruke den kreative eiendommen til andre uten deres tillatelse&#8212;hvis
2199 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvis verdi, så rettighet</span>»</span> er sant&#8212;da er historien om
2200 innholdsindustrien en historie om piratvirksomhet.  Hver eneste viktige
2201 sektor av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">store medier</span>»</span> i dag&#8212;film, plater, radio og
2202 kabel-TV&#8212;kom fra en slags piratvirksomhet etter den definisjonen.  Den
2203 konsekvente fortellingen er at forrige generasjon pirater blir del av denne
2204 generasjonens borgerskap&#8212;inntil nå.
2205 </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>
2206
2207 Filmindustrien i Hollywood var bygget av flyktende pirater.<sup>[<a name="id2885886" href="#ftn.id2885886" class="footnote">51</a>]</sup> Skapere og regisører migrerte fra østkysten til
2208 California tidlig i det tjuende århundret delvis for å slippe unna
2209 kontrollene som patenter ga oppfinneren av det å lage filmer, Thomas
2210 Edison.  Disse kontrollene be utøvet gjennom et
2211 monopol-<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kartell</span>»</span>, The Motion Pictures Patents company, og var
2212 basert på Tomhas Edisons kreative eierrettigheter&#8212;patenter. Edison
2213 stiftet MPPC for å utøve rettighetene som disse kreative eierrettighetene ga
2214 ham, og MPPC var seriøst med kontrollen de krevde.
2215 </p><p>
2216 Som en kommentaror forteller en del av historien,
2217 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2218 En tidsfrist ble satt til januar 1909 for alle selskaper å komme i samsvar
2219 med lisensen.  Når februar kom, protesterte de ulisensierte fredløse, som
2220 refererte til seg selv som uavhengige, mot kartellet og fortsatte sin
2221 forretningsvirksomhet uten å bøye seg for Edisons monopol.  Sommeren 1909
2222 var bevegelsen med uavhenginge i full sving, med produsenter og kinoeiere
2223 som brukte ulovlig utstyr og importerte filmlager for å opprette sitt eget
2224 undergrunnsmarked.
2225 </p><p>
2226 Med et land som så en kolosal økning i antall billige kinoer, såkalte
2227 nickelodeons, reagerte patentselskapet på bevegelsen av uavhengige med å
2228 stifte et hardhendt datterselskap ved navn General Film Company for å
2229 blokkere innføringen av ulisensierte uavhengige.  Med tvangstaktikker som
2230 har blitt legendariske, konfiserte General Film ulisensiert utstyr, stoppet
2231 varelevering til kinoer som viste ulisensiert fil, og effektivt
2232 monopoliserte distribusjon ved å kjøpe opp alle USAs filmsentraler, med
2233 unntak av den ene som var eid av den uavhengige William Fox som motsto
2234 kartellet selv etter at hans lisens var trukket tilbake.<sup>[<a name="id2885967" href="#ftn.id2885967" class="footnote">52</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2886007"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2886013"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2886020"></a>
2235 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2236 Napsterne i de dager, de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">uavhengige</span>»</span>, var selskaper som Fox.
2237 Og ikke mindre enn i dag ble disse uavhengige intenst motarbeidet.
2238 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Opptak ble avbrutt av stjålet maskineri, og 'uhell' som førte til
2239 tapte negativer, utstyr, bygninger og noen ganger liv og lemmer skjedde
2240 ofte.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2886042" href="#ftn.id2886042" class="footnote">53</a>]</sup> Dette fikk de uavhengige
2241 til å flykte til østkysten.  Californa var fjernt nok fra Edisons
2242 innflytelse til at filmskaperne der kunne røve hans nyvinninger uten å
2243 frykte loven.  Og lederne blant Hollywods filmskapere, Fox mest
2244 fremtredende, gjorde akkurat dette.
2245 </p><p>
2246
2247 California vokste naturligvis raskt, og effektiv håndhevelse av føderale
2248 lover spredte seg til slutt vestover.  Men fordi patenter tildeler
2249 patentinnehaveren et i sannhet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">begrenset</span>»</span> monopol (kun sytten
2250 år på den tiden), så patentene var utgått før nok føderale lovmenn dukket
2251 opp. En ny industri var født, delvis fra piratvirksomhet mot Edison's
2252 kreative rettigheter.
2253 </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>
2254 Musikkindustrien ble født av en annen type piratvirksomhet, dog for å forstå
2255 hvordan krever at en setter seg inn i detaljer om hvordan loven regulerer
2256 musikk.
2257 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxfourneauxhenri"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2886122"></a><p>
2258 På den tiden da Edison og Henri Fourneaux fant opp maskiner for å
2259 reprodusere musikk (Edison fonografen, Fourneaux det automatiske pianoet),
2260 gav loven komponister eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere kopier av
2261 deres musikk og eksklusive rettigheter til å kontrollere fremføringer av
2262 deres musikk.  Med andre ord, i 1900, hvis jeg ønsket et kopi av Phil
2263 Russels populære låt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>»</span>, sa loven at jeg måtte betale
2264 for rettigheten til å få en kopi av notearkene, og jeg måtte også betale for
2265 å ha rett til å fremføre det offentlig.
2266 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2886151"></a><p>
2267 Men hva hvis jeg ønsket å spille inn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Mose</span>»</span> ved hjelp av
2268 Edisons fonograf eller Fourneaux automatiske piano?  Her snublet loven.  Det
2269 var klart nok at jeg måtte kjøpe en kopi av notene som jeg fremførte når jeg
2270 gjorde innspillingen.  Og det var klart nok at jeg måtte betale for enhver
2271 offentlig fremførelse av verket jeg spilte inn.  Men det var ikke helt klart
2272 at jeg måtte betale for en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>»</span> hvis jeg
2273 spilte inn sangen i mitt eget hus (selv i dag skylder du ingenting til
2274 Beatles hvis du synger en av deres sanger i dusjen), eller hvis jeg spilte
2275 inn sangen fra hukommelsen (kopier i din hjerne er
2276 ikke&#8212;ennå&#8212;regulert av opphavsrettsloven).  Så hvis jeg ganske
2277 enkelt sang sangen inn i et innspillingsaparat i mitt eget hjem, så var det
2278 ikke klart at jeg skyldte komponisten noe.  Og enda viktigere, det var ikke
2279 klart om jeg skyldte komponisten noe hvis jeg så laget kopier av disse
2280 innspillingene.  På grunn av dette hullet i loven, sa kunne jeg i effekt
2281 røve noen andres sang uten å betale dets komponist noe.
2282 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2886179"></a><p>
2283 Komponistene (og utgiverne) var ikke veldig glade for denne kapasiteten til
2284 å røve.  Som Senator Alfred Kittredge fra Sør-Dakota formulerte
2285 det,<a class="indexterm" name="id2886214"></a>
2286 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2287 Forestill dere denne urettferdigheten.  En komponist skriver en sang eller
2288 en opera.  En utgiver kjøper til et høy sum rettighetene til denne, og
2289 registrerer opphavsretten til den.  Så kommer de fonografiske selskapene og
2290 selskapene som skjærer musikk-ruller og med vitende og vilje stjeler
2291 arbeidet som kommer fra hjernet til komponisten og utgiveren uten å bry seg
2292 om [deres] rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2886242" href="#ftn.id2886242" class="footnote">54</a>]</sup>
2293 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2886266"></a><p>
2294 Innovatørene som utviklet teknologien for å spille inn andres arbeide
2295 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">snyltet på innsatsen, arbeidet, tallentet og geniet til amerikanske
2296 komponister</span>»</span>,<sup>[<a name="id2886283" href="#ftn.id2886283" class="footnote">55</a>]</sup> og
2297 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">musikkpubliseringsindistrien</span>»</span> var dermed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fullstendig i
2298 denne piratens vold</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2886300" href="#ftn.id2886300" class="footnote">56</a>]</sup> Som John
2299 Philip Sousa formulerte det, så direkte som det kan sies, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">når de
2300 tjener penger på mine stykker, så vil jeg ha en andel</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2886317" href="#ftn.id2886317" class="footnote">57</a>]</sup>
2301 </p><p>
2302 These arguments have familiar echoes in the wars of our day. So, too, do the
2303 arguments on the other side. The innovators who developed the player piano
2304 argued that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">it is perfectly demonstrable that the introduction of
2305 automatic music players has not deprived any composer of anything he had
2306 before their introduction.</span>»</span> Rather, the machines increased the sales
2307 of sheet music.<sup>[<a name="id2886338" href="#ftn.id2886338" class="footnote">58</a>]</sup> In any case, the
2308 innovators argued, the job of Congress was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to consider first the
2309 interest of [the public], whom they represent, and whose servants they
2310 are.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All talk about `theft,'</span>»</span> the general counsel of
2311 the American Graphophone Company wrote, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">is the merest claptrap, for
2312 there exists no property in ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as
2313 defined by statute.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2886362" href="#ftn.id2886362" class="footnote">59</a>]</sup>
2314 <a class="indexterm" name="id2886374"></a>
2315 </p><p>
2316
2317 Loven løste snart denne kampen i favør av <span class="emphasis"><em>både</em></span>
2318 komponisten og innspillingsartisten.  Kongressen endret loven slik at
2319 komponisten fikk betalt for den <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mekaniske reproduksjonen</span>»</span> av
2320 deres musikk.  Men i stedet for å ganske enkelt gi komponisten full kontroll
2321 over rettigheten til å lage mekaniske reproduksjoner, ga kongressen
2322 innspillingsartister rett en til å spille inn musikk, til en pris satt av
2323 kongressen, så snart komponisten har tillatt at den ble spilt inn en gang.
2324 Det er denne delen av opphavsrettsloven som gjør cover-låter mulig.  Så
2325 snart en komponist tillater en innspilling av hans sang, har andre mulighet
2326 til å spille inn samme sang, så lenge de betaler den originale komponisten
2327 et gebyr fastsatt av loven.
2328 </p><p>
2329 Amerikansk lov kaller dette vanligvis en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tvangslisens</span>»</span>, men
2330 jeg vil referere til dette som en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lovbestemt lisens</span>»</span>.  En
2331 lovbestemt lisens er en lisens hvis nøkkelvilkår er bestemt i lovverket.
2332 Etter kongressens endring av opphavsrettsloven i 1909, sto plateselskapene
2333 fritt til å distribuere kopier av innspillinger så lenge som de betalte
2334 komponisten (eller opphavsrettsinnehaveren) gebyret spesifisert i lovverket.
2335 </p><p>
2336 Dette er et unntak i opphavsrettsloven.  Når John Grisham skriver en roman
2337 så kan en utgiver kun utgi denne romanen hvis Grisham gir utgiveren
2338 tillatelse til det.  Girsham står fritt til å kreve hvilken som helst
2339 betaling for den tillatelsen.  Prisen for å publisere Grisham er dermed
2340 bestemt av Grisham og opphavsrettsloven sier at du ikke har tillatelse til å
2341 bruke Grishams verker med mindre du har tillatelse fra Grisham.
2342 <a class="indexterm" name="id2886444"></a>
2343 </p><p>
2344 But the law governing recordings gives recording artists less. And thus, in
2345 effect, the law <span class="emphasis"><em>subsidizes</em></span> the recording industry
2346 through a kind of piracy&#8212;by giving recording artists a weaker right
2347 than it otherwise gives creative authors. The Beatles have less control over
2348 their creative work than Grisham does. And the beneficiaries of this less
2349 control are the recording industry and the public. The recording industry
2350 gets something of value for less than it otherwise would pay; the public
2351 gets access to a much wider range of musical creativity. Indeed, Congress
2352 was quite explicit about its reasons for granting this right. Its fear was
2353 the monopoly power of rights holders, and that that power would stifle
2354 follow-on creativity.<sup>[<a name="id2885926" href="#ftn.id2885926" class="footnote">60</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2886485"></a>
2355 </p><p>
2356 Mens musikkindustrien har vært ganske stille om dette i det siste, har de
2357 historisk vært høylytte tilhengere av den lovbestemte lisensen for
2358 innspillinger.  Som det sto i en rapport fra 1967 utgitt av House Committee
2359 on the Judiciary:
2360 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2361 the record producers argued vigorously that the compulsory license system
2362 must be retained. They asserted that the record industry is a
2363 half-billion-dollar business of great economic importance in the United
2364 States and throughout the world; records today are the principal means of
2365 disseminating music, and this creates special problems, since performers
2366 need unhampered access to musical material on nondiscriminatory
2367 terms. Historically, the record producers pointed out, there were no
2368 recording rights before 1909 and the 1909 statute adopted the compulsory
2369 license as a deliberate anti-monopoly condition on the grant of these
2370 rights. They argue that the result has been an outpouring of recorded music,
2371 with the public being given lower prices, improved quality, and a greater
2372 choice.<sup>[<a name="id2886521" href="#ftn.id2886521" class="footnote">61</a>]</sup>
2373 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2374 Ved å begrense rettighetene musikere hadde, ved å delvis røve deres kreative
2375 verk, fikk innspillingsprodusentene, og folket, fordeler.
2376 </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>
2377 Radio kom også fra piratvirksomhet.
2378 </p><p>
2379 Når en radiostasjon spiller en plate på luften, så utgjør dette en
2380 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremføring</span>»</span> av komponistens verk.<sup>[<a name="id2886582" href="#ftn.id2886582" class="footnote">62</a>]</sup> Som jeg beskrev over, gir loven komponisten (eller
2381 opphavsrettsinnehaveren) en eksklusiv rett til offentlige fremføringer av
2382 hans verk.  Radiostasjonen skylder dermed komponisten penger for denne
2383 fremføringe.
2384 </p><p>
2385
2386 Men når en radiostasjon spiller en plage, så fremfører det ikke bare et
2387 eksemplar av <span class="emphasis"><em>komponistens</em></span> verk. Radiostasjonen
2388 fremfører også et eksemplar av <span class="emphasis"><em>innspillingsartistens</em></span>
2389 verk.  Det er en ting å få <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> sunget på radio av
2390 det lokale barnekoret.  Det er noe ganske annet å få det sunget av Rolling
2391 Stones eller Lyle Lovett.  Innspillingsartisten legger til verdi på
2392 komposisjonen fremført på radiostasjonen.  Og hvis loven var fullstendig
2393 konsistent, så burde radiostasjonen også vært nødt til å betale
2394 innspillingsartisten for hans verk, på samme måten som den betaler
2395 komponisten av musikken for hans verk.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2886668"></a>
2396
2397
2398 </p><p>
2399 Men det gjør den ikke.  I følge loven som styrer radiofremføringer, trenger
2400 ikke radiostasjonen å betale noe til innspillingsartisten. Radiostasjonen
2401 trenger kun å betale komponisten.  Radiostasjonen får dermed noe uten å
2402 betale.  Den får fremføre innspillingsartistens verk gratis, selv om den må
2403 betale komponisten noe for privilegiet det er å spille sangen.
2404 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmadonna"></a><p>
2405 Denne forskjellen kan bli stor.  Forestill deg at du komponerer et stykke
2406 musikk.  Se for deg at det er ditt første stykke.  Du eier de eksklusive
2407 rettighetene til å godkjenne offentlig fremføring av den musikken.  Så hvis
2408 Madonna ønsker å synge din sang offentlig, må hun få din tillatelse.
2409 </p><p>
2410 Tenkt deg videre at hun synger din sang, og at hun liker den veldig
2411 godt. Hun bestemmer seg deretter for å spille inn sangen din, og den blir en
2412 populær hitlåt.  Med vår lov vil du få litt penger hver gang en radiostasjon
2413 spiller din sang.  Men Madonna får ingenting, fortsett fra de indirekte
2414 effektene fra salg av hennes CD-er.  Den offentlige fremføringen av hennes
2415 innspilling er ikke en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">beskyttet</span>»</span> rettighet. Radiostasjonen
2416 får dermed <span class="emphasis"><em>røve</em></span> verdien av Madonnas arbeid uten å
2417 betale henne noen ting.
2418 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2886742"></a><p>
2419 Uten tvil kan en argumentere at, totalt sett, tjener innspillingsartistene
2420 på dette.  I snitt er reklamen de får verdt mer enn enn
2421 fremføringsrettighetene de frasier seg.  Kanskje.  Men selv om det er slik,
2422 så gir loven vanligvis skaperen retten til å gjøre dette valget.  Ved å
2423 gjøre valgen for ham eller henne, gir loven radiostasjonen rett til å ta noe
2424 uten å betale.
2425 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2886766"></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><p>
2426
2427 Kabel-TV kom også fra en form for piratvirksomhet.
2428 </p><p>
2429
2430 Da kabel-TV-gründere først begynte å koble opp fellesskap med kabel-TV i
2431 1948, nektet de fleste å betale kringkasterne for innholdet som de sendte
2432 videre til sine kunder.  Selv da kabelselskapene begynte å selge tilgang til
2433 TV-kringkastinger, nektet de å betale for det de solgte.  Kabelselskapene
2434 Napsteriserte dermed kringkasternes innhold, men grovere enn det Napster
2435 noen gang gjorde&#8212;Napster tok aldri betalt for innholdet som det ble
2436 mulig for andre å gi bort.
2437 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2886792"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2886798"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2886823"></a><p>
2438 Broadcasters and copyright owners were quick to attack this theft.  Rosel
2439 Hyde, chairman of the FCC, viewed the practice as a kind of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">unfair
2440 and potentially destructive competition.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2886836" href="#ftn.id2886836" class="footnote">63</a>]</sup> There may have been a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public interest</span>»</span> in spreading
2441 the reach of cable TV, but as Douglas Anello, general counsel to the
2442 National Association of Broadcasters, asked Senator Quentin Burdick during
2443 testimony, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does public interest dictate that you use somebody else's
2444 property?</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2886862" href="#ftn.id2886862" class="footnote">64</a>]</sup> As another
2445 broadcaster put it,
2446 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2447 The extraordinary thing about the CATV business is that it is the only
2448 business I know of where the product that is being sold is not paid
2449 for.<sup>[<a name="id2886880" href="#ftn.id2886880" class="footnote">65</a>]</sup>
2450 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2451 Igjen, kravene til opphavsrettsinnehaverne virket rimelige nok:
2452 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2453 Alt vi ber om er en veldig enkel ting, at folk som tar vår eiendom gratis
2454 betaler for den.  Vi forsøker å stoppe piratvirksomhet og jeg kan ikke tenke
2455 på et svakere ord for å beskrive det.  Jeg tror det er sterkere ord som
2456 ville passe.<sup>[<a name="id2886908" href="#ftn.id2886908" class="footnote">66</a>]</sup>
2457 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2886919"></a><p>
2458 Disse var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gratispassasjerer</span>»</span>, sa presidenten Charlton Heston i
2459 Screen Actor's Guild, som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tok lønna fra
2460 skuespillerne</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2886935" href="#ftn.id2886935" class="footnote">67</a>]</sup>
2461 </p><p>
2462 Men igjen, det er en annen side i debatten.  Som assisterende justisminister
2463 Edwin Zimmerman sa det,
2464 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
2465 Vårt poeng her er ikke problemet med om hvorvidt du over hode har
2466 opphavsrettsbeskyttelse.  Problemet her er hvorvidt opphavsrettsinnehavere
2467 som allerede blir kompensert, som allerede har et monopol, skal få lov til å
2468 utvide dette monopolet. &#8230; Spørsmålet er hvor mye kompensasjon de bør
2469 ha, og hvor langt de kan strekke sin rett på kompenasjon.<sup>[<a name="id2885793" href="#ftn.id2885793" class="footnote">68</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2886993"></a>
2470 </p></blockquote></div><p>
2471 Opphavsrettinnehaverne tok kabelselskapene til retten. Høyesterett fant to
2472 ganger at kabelselskaper ikke skyldte opphavsrettinnehaverne noen ting.
2473 </p><p>
2474 Det tok kongressen nesten tredve år før den fikk løst spørsmålet om hvorvidt
2475 kabel-TV-selskapene måtte betale for innholdet de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røvet</span>»</span>.  Til
2476 slutt løste kongressen dette spørsmålet på samme måte som den hadde løst
2477 spørsmålet om platespillere og automatiske pianoer.  Ja, kabel-TV-selskapene
2478 måtte betale for innholdet som de kringkastet, men prisen de måtte betale
2479 ble ikke satt av opphavsrettsinnehaveren.  Prisen ble fastsatt ved lov, slik
2480 at kringkasterne ikke kunne utøve vetomakt over den nye teknologien
2481 kabel-TV.  Kabel-TV-selskapene bygde dermed deres imperie delvis ved å
2482 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røve</span>»</span> verdien skapt av kringkasternes innhold.
2483 </p><p>
2484 Disse separate historiene synger en felles melodi.  Hvis
2485 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> betyr å bruke verdien fra noen andres
2486 kreative eiendom uten tillatelse fra dets skaper&#8212;slik det stadig
2487 oftere beskrives i dag<sup>[<a name="id2886967" href="#ftn.id2886967" class="footnote">69</a>]</sup> &#8212;da er
2488 <span class="emphasis"><em>enhver</em></span> industri påvirket av opphavsrett i dag produktet
2489 og de som har nytt godt av ulike former for piratvirksomhet.  Film, plater,
2490 radio, kabel-TV. &#8230; Listen er lang og kunne vært lengre.  Hver
2491 generasjon ønsker piratene fra den forrige velkommen.  Hver
2492 generasjon&#8212;inntil nå.
2493 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885886" href="#id2885886" class="para">51</a>] </sup>
2494
2495 Jeg er takknemlig til Peter DiMauro for å ha pekt meg i retning av denne
2496 ekstraordinære historien.  Se også Siva Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights
2497 and Copywrongs</em>, 87&#8211;93, som forteller detaljer om Edisons
2498 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eventyr</span>»</span> med opphavsrett og patent. <a class="indexterm" name="id2885902"></a>
2499 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885967" href="#id2885967" class="para">52</a>] </sup>
2500
2501 J. A. Aberdeen, <em class="citetitle">Hollywood Renegades: The Society of Independent
2502 Motion Picture Producers</em> (Cobblestone Entertainment, 2000) and
2503 expanded texts posted at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Edison Movie Monopoly: The Motion
2504 Picture Patents Company vs. the Independent Outlaws,</span>»</span> available at
2505 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #11</a>. For a
2506 discussion of the economic motive behind both these limits and the limits
2507 imposed by Victor on phonographs, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison
2508 to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the
2509 Propertization of Copyright</span>»</span> (September 2002), University of Chicago
2510 Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working Paper
2511 No. 159.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2885996"></a>
2512 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886042" href="#id2886042" class="para">53</a>] </sup>
2513
2514
2515 Marc Wanamaker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First Studios,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">The Silents
2516 Majority</em>, arkivert på <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #12</a>.
2517 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886242" href="#id2886242" class="para">54</a>] </sup>
2518
2519 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright: Hearings on S. 6330
2520 and H.R. 19853 Before the ( Joint) Committees on Patents, 59th Cong. 59, 1st
2521 sess. (1906) (statement of Senator Alfred B. Kittredge, of South Dakota,
2522 chairman), reprinted in <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the Copyright
2523 Act</em>, E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South
2524 Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2886255"></a>
2525 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886283" href="#id2886283" class="para">55</a>] </sup>
2526
2527
2528 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 223 (uttalelse fra
2529 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2530 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886300" href="#id2886300" class="para">56</a>] </sup>
2531
2532
2533 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 226 (uttalelse fra
2534 Nathan Burkan, advokat for the Music Publishers Association).
2535 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886317" href="#id2886317" class="para">57</a>] </sup>
2536
2537
2538 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 23 (uttalelse fra
2539 John Philip Sousa, komponist).
2540 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886338" href="#id2886338" class="para">58</a>] </sup>
2541
2542
2543
2544 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 283&#8211;84
2545 (uttalelse fra Albert Walker, representant for the Auto-Music Perforating
2546 Company of New York).
2547 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886362" href="#id2886362" class="para">59</a>] </sup>
2548
2549
2550 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 376 (forberedt
2551 innspill fra Philip Mauro, sjefspatentrådgiver for the American Graphophone
2552 Company Association).
2553 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885926" href="#id2885926" class="para">60</a>] </sup>
2554
2555
2556
2557 Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on S. 2499, S. 2900, H.R. 243, and
2558 H.R. 11794 Before the ( Joint) Committee on Patents, 60th Cong., 1st sess.,
2559 217 (1908) (statement of Senator Reed Smoot, chairman), reprinted in
2560 <em class="citetitle">Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act</em>,
2561 E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman
2562 Reprints, 1976).
2563 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886521" href="#id2886521" class="para">61</a>] </sup>
2564
2565
2566 Copyright Law Revision: Report to Accompany H.R. 2512, House Committee on
2567 the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 1st sess., House Document no. 83, (8 March
2568 1967). I am grateful to Glenn Brown for drawing my attention to this report.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886582" href="#id2886582" class="para">62</a>] </sup>
2569
2570 See 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, sections 106 and 110. At
2571 the beginning, record companies printed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Not Licensed for Radio
2572 Broadcast</span>»</span> and other messages purporting to restrict the ability to
2573 play a record on a radio station.  Judge Learned Hand rejected the argument
2574 that a warning attached to a record might restrict the rights of the radio
2575 station. See <em class="citetitle">RCA Manufacturing
2576 Co</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Whiteman</em>, 114 F. 2d 86 (2nd
2577 Cir. 1940). See also Randal C.  Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From Edison to the Broadcast
2578 Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of
2579 Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em>
2580 70 (2003): 281.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2886614"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2886622"></a>
2581 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886836" href="#id2886836" class="para">63</a>] </sup>
2582
2583 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV: Hearing on S. 1006 Before the
2584 Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee
2585 on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 78 (1966)  (statement of Rosel
2586 H. Hyde, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2886802"></a>
2587 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886862" href="#id2886862" class="para">64</a>] </sup>
2588
2589
2590 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 116 (statement of Douglas A. Anello,
2591 general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters).
2592 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886880" href="#id2886880" class="para">65</a>] </sup>
2593
2594
2595 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 126 (statement of Ernest W. Jennes,
2596 general counsel of the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.).
2597 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886908" href="#id2886908" class="para">66</a>] </sup>
2598
2599
2600 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 169 (joint statement of Arthur B.  Krim,
2601 president of United Artists Corp., and John Sinn, president of United
2602 Artists Television, Inc.).
2603 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886935" href="#id2886935" class="para">67</a>] </sup>
2604
2605 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 209 (vitnemål fra Charlton Heston,
2606 president i Screen Actors Guild).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2886913"></a>
2607 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2885793" href="#id2885793" class="para">68</a>] </sup>
2608
2609 Copyright Law Revision&#8212;CATV, 216 (uttalelse fra Edwin M. Zimmerman,
2610 fungerende assisterende justisministeren).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2886938"></a>
2611 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886967" href="#id2886967" class="para">69</a>] </sup>
2612
2613
2614 See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, <em class="citetitle">The
2615 Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet&#8212;The Myth of Free
2616 Information</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #13</a>. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The threat of
2617 piracy&#8212;the use of someone else's creative work without permission or
2618 compensation&#8212;has grown with the Internet.</span>»</span>
2619 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="piracy"></a>Kapittel fem: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Piratvirksomhet</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
2620 There is piracy of copyrighted material. Lots of it. This piracy comes in
2621 many forms. The most significant is commercial piracy, the unauthorized
2622 taking of other people's content within a commercial context. Despite the
2623 many justifications that are offered in its defense, this taking is
2624 wrong. No one should condone it, and the law should stop it.
2625 </p><p>
2626
2627 But as well as copy-shop piracy, there is another kind of
2628 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span> that is more directly related to the Internet. That
2629 taking, too, seems wrong to many, and it is wrong much of the time. Before
2630 we paint this taking <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> however, we should understand
2631 its nature a bit more.  For the harm of this taking is significantly more
2632 ambiguous than outright copying, and the law should account for that
2633 ambiguity, as it has so often done in the past.
2634
2635 </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="id2887134"></a><p>
2636 All across the world, but especially in Asia and Eastern Europe, there are
2637 businesses that do nothing but take others people's copyrighted content,
2638 copy it, and sell it&#8212;all without the permission of a copyright
2639 owner. The recording industry estimates that it loses about $4.6 billion
2640 every year to physical piracy<sup>[<a name="id2886971" href="#ftn.id2886971" class="footnote">70</a>]</sup> (that
2641 works out to one in three CDs sold worldwide). The MPAA estimates that it
2642 loses $3 billion annually worldwide to piracy.
2643 </p><p>
2644 This is piracy plain and simple. Nothing in the argument of this book, nor
2645 in the argument that most people make when talking about the subject of this
2646 book, should draw into doubt this simple point: This piracy is wrong.
2647 </p><p>
2648 Which is not to say that excuses and justifications couldn't be made for
2649 it. We could, for example, remind ourselves that for the first one hundred
2650 years of the American Republic, America did not honor foreign copyrights. We
2651 were born, in this sense, a pirate nation. It might therefore seem
2652 hypocritical for us to insist so strongly that other developing nations
2653 treat as wrong what we, for the first hundred years of our existence,
2654 treated as right.
2655 </p><p>
2656 That excuse isn't terribly strong. Technically, our law did not ban the
2657 taking of foreign works. It explicitly limited itself to American
2658 works. Thus the American publishers who published foreign works without the
2659 permission of foreign authors were not violating any rule.  The copy shops
2660 in Asia, by contrast, are violating Asian law. Asian law does protect
2661 foreign copyrights, and the actions of the copy shops violate that law. So
2662 the wrong of piracy that they engage in is not just a moral wrong, but a
2663 legal wrong, and not just an internationally legal wrong, but a locally
2664 legal wrong as well.
2665 </p><p>
2666 True, these local rules have, in effect, been imposed upon these
2667 countries. No country can be part of the world economy and choose
2668
2669 not to protect copyright internationally. We may have been born a pirate
2670 nation, but we will not allow any other nation to have a similar childhood.
2671 </p><p>
2672 If a country is to be treated as a sovereign, however, then its laws are its
2673 laws regardless of their source. The international law under which these
2674 nations live gives them some opportunities to escape the burden of
2675 intellectual property law.<sup>[<a name="id2887226" href="#ftn.id2887226" class="footnote">71</a>]</sup> In my view,
2676 more developing nations should take advantage of that opportunity, but when
2677 they don't, then their laws should be respected. And under the laws of these
2678 nations, this piracy is wrong.
2679 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2887270"></a><p>
2680 Alternatively, we could try to excuse this piracy by noting that in any
2681 case, it does no harm to the industry. The Chinese who get access to
2682 American CDs at 50 cents a copy are not people who would have bought those
2683 American CDs at $15 a copy. So no one really has any less money than they
2684 otherwise would have had.<sup>[<a name="id2887284" href="#ftn.id2887284" class="footnote">72</a>]</sup>
2685 </p><p>
2686 This is often true (though I have friends who have purchased many thousands
2687 of pirated DVDs who certainly have enough money to pay for the content they
2688 have taken), and it does mitigate to some degree the harm caused by such
2689 taking. Extremists in this debate love to say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You wouldn't go into
2690 Barnes &amp; Noble and take a book off of the shelf without paying; why
2691 should it be any different with on-line music?</span>»</span> The difference is, of
2692 course, that when you take a book from Barnes &amp; Noble, it has one less
2693 book to sell. By contrast, when you take an MP3 from a computer network,
2694 there is not one less CD that can be sold.  The physics of piracy of the
2695 intangible are different from the physics of piracy of the tangible.
2696 </p><p>
2697
2698 This argument is still very weak. However, although copyright is a property
2699 right of a very special sort, it <span class="emphasis"><em>is</em></span> a property
2700 right. Like all property rights, the copyright gives the owner the right to
2701 decide the terms under which content is shared. If the copyright owner
2702 doesn't want to sell, she doesn't have to. There are exceptions: important
2703 statutory licenses that apply to copyrighted content regardless of the wish
2704 of the copyright owner. Those licenses give people the right to
2705 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">take</span>»</span> copyrighted content whether or not the copyright owner
2706 wants to sell. But where the law does not give people the right to take
2707 content, it is wrong to take that content even if the wrong does no harm. If
2708 we have a property system, and that system is properly balanced to the
2709 technology of a time, then it is wrong to take property without the
2710 permission of a property owner. That is exactly what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span>
2711 means.
2712 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2887372"></a><p>
2713 Finally, we could try to excuse this piracy with the argument that the
2714 piracy actually helps the copyright owner. When the Chinese
2715 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">steal</span>»</span> Windows, that makes the Chinese dependent on
2716 Microsoft.  Microsoft loses the value of the software that was taken. But it
2717 gains users who are used to life in the Microsoft world. Over time, as the
2718 nation grows more wealthy, more and more people will buy software rather
2719 than steal it. And hence over time, because that buying will benefit
2720 Microsoft, Microsoft benefits from the piracy. If instead of pirating
2721 Microsoft Windows, the Chinese used the free GNU/Linux operating system,
2722 then these Chinese users would not eventually be buying Microsoft.  Without
2723 piracy, then, Microsoft would lose.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2887396"></a>
2724 <a class="indexterm" name="id2887402"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2887408"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2887420"></a>
2725 </p><p>
2726 This argument, too, is somewhat true. The addiction strategy is a good
2727 one. Many businesses practice it. Some thrive because of it. Law students,
2728 for example, are given free access to the two largest legal databases. The
2729 companies marketing both hope the students will become so used to their
2730 service that they will want to use it and not the other when they become
2731 lawyers (and must pay high subscription fees).
2732 </p><p>
2733 Still, the argument is not terribly persuasive. We don't give the alcoholic
2734 a defense when he steals his first beer, merely because that will make it
2735 more likely that he will buy the next three. Instead, we ordinarily allow
2736 businesses to decide for themselves when it is best to give their product
2737 away. If Microsoft fears the competition of GNU/Linux, then Microsoft can
2738 give its product away, as it did, for example, with Internet Explorer to
2739 fight Netscape. A property right means giving the property owner the right
2740 to say who gets access to what&#8212;at least ordinarily. And if the law
2741 properly balances the rights of the copyright owner with the rights of
2742 access, then violating the law is still wrong.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2887145"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2887445"></a>
2743 <a class="indexterm" name="id2887465"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2887472"></a>
2744 </p><p>
2745
2746
2747 Thus, while I understand the pull of these justifications for piracy, and I
2748 certainly see the motivation, in my view, in the end, these efforts at
2749 justifying commercial piracy simply don't cut it. This kind of piracy is
2750 rampant and just plain wrong. It doesn't transform the content it steals; it
2751 doesn't transform the market it competes in. It merely gives someone access
2752 to something that the law says he should not have.  Nothing has changed to
2753 draw that law into doubt. This form of piracy is flat out wrong.
2754 </p><p>
2755 But as the examples from the four chapters that introduced this part
2756 suggest, even if some piracy is plainly wrong, not all <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span>
2757 is. Or at least, not all <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> is wrong if that term is
2758 understood in the way it is increasingly used today. Many kinds of
2759 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> are useful and productive, to produce either new
2760 content or new ways of doing business.  Neither our tradition nor any
2761 tradition has ever banned all <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> in that sense of the
2762 term.
2763 </p><p>
2764 This doesn't mean that there are no questions raised by the latest piracy
2765 concern, peer-to-peer file sharing. But it does mean that we need to
2766 understand the harm in peer-to-peer sharing a bit more before we condemn it
2767 to the gallows with the charge of piracy.
2768 </p><p>
2769 For (1) like the original Hollywood, p2p sharing escapes an overly
2770 controlling industry; and (2) like the original recording industry, it
2771 simply exploits a new way to distribute content; but (3) unlike cable TV, no
2772 one is selling the content that is shared on p2p services.
2773 </p><p>
2774 These differences distinguish p2p sharing from true piracy. They should push
2775 us to find a way to protect artists while enabling this sharing to survive.
2776 </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>
2777
2778 The key to the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> that the law aims to quash is a use
2779 that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rob[s] the author of [his] profit.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2887557" href="#ftn.id2887557" class="footnote">73</a>]</sup> This means we must determine whether and how much
2780 p2p sharing harms before we know how strongly the law should seek to either
2781 prevent it or find an alternative to assure the author of his profit.
2782 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2887575"></a><p>
2783 Peer-to-peer sharing was made famous by Napster. But the inventors of the
2784 Napster technology had not made any major technological innovations.  Like
2785 every great advance in innovation on the Internet (and, arguably, off the
2786 Internet as well<sup>[<a name="id2887587" href="#ftn.id2887587" class="footnote">74</a>]</sup>), Shawn Fanning and
2787 crew had simply put together components that had been developed
2788 independently.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2887623"></a>
2789 </p><p>
2790 The result was spontaneous combustion. Launched in July 1999, Napster
2791 amassed over 10 million users within nine months. After eighteen months,
2792 there were close to 80 million registered users of the system.<sup>[<a name="id2887636" href="#ftn.id2887636" class="footnote">75</a>]</sup> Courts quickly shut Napster down, but other
2793 services emerged to take its place. (Kazaa is currently the most popular p2p
2794 service. It boasts over 100 million members.) These services' systems are
2795 different architecturally, though not very different in function: Each
2796 enables users to make content available to any number of other users. With a
2797 p2p system, you can share your favorite songs with your best friend&#8212;
2798 or your 20,000 best friends.
2799 </p><p>
2800 According to a number of estimates, a huge proportion of Americans have
2801 tasted file-sharing technology. A study by Ipsos-Insight in September 2002
2802 estimated that 60 million Americans had downloaded music&#8212;28 percent of
2803 Americans older than 12.<sup>[<a name="id2887686" href="#ftn.id2887686" class="footnote">76</a>]</sup> A survey by
2804 the NPD group quoted in <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> estimated
2805 that 43 million citizens used file-sharing networks to exchange content in
2806 May 2003.<sup>[<a name="id2887714" href="#ftn.id2887714" class="footnote">77</a>]</sup> The vast majority of these
2807 are not kids. Whatever the actual figure, a massive quantity of content is
2808 being <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taken</span>»</span> on these networks. The ease and inexpensiveness
2809 of file-sharing networks have inspired millions to enjoy music in a way that
2810 they hadn't before.
2811 </p><p>
2812 Some of this enjoying involves copyright infringement. Some of it does
2813 not. And even among the part that is technically copyright infringement,
2814 calculating the actual harm to copyright owners is more complicated than one
2815 might think. So consider&#8212;a bit more carefully than the polarized
2816 voices around this debate usually do&#8212;the kinds of sharing that file
2817 sharing enables, and the kinds of harm it entails.
2818 </p><p>
2819
2820
2821 Fildelerne deler ulike typer innhold.  Vi kan dele disse ulike typene inn i
2822 fire typer.
2823 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
2824
2825 There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing
2826 content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD,
2827 these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who
2828 takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available
2829 for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who
2830 would.  The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead
2831 of purchasing.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2887774"></a>
2832 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2833
2834
2835 There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing
2836 it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard
2837 of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of
2838 targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed.  If the friend recommending
2839 the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect
2840 that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this
2841 sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.
2842 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2843
2844
2845 There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content
2846 that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the
2847 transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is
2848 among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood
2849 but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the
2850 network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a
2851 solid weekend <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">recalling</span>»</span> old songs. She was astonished at the
2852 range and mix of content that was available.)  For content not sold, this is
2853 still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright
2854 owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is
2855 zero&#8212;the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s
2856 45-rpm records to a local collector.
2857 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862 Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content
2863 that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.
2864 </p></li></ol></div><p>
2865 Hvordan balanserer disse ulike delingstypene?
2866 </p><p>
2867 Let's start with some simple but important points. From the perspective of
2868 the law, only type D sharing is clearly legal. From the perspective of
2869 economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.<sup>[<a name="id2887852" href="#ftn.id2887852" class="footnote">78</a>]</sup> Type B sharing is illegal but plainly
2870 beneficial. Type C sharing is illegal, yet good for society (since more
2871 exposure to music is good)  and harmless to the artist (since the work is
2872 not otherwise available). So how sharing matters on balance is a hard
2873 question to answer&#8212;and certainly much more difficult than the current
2874 rhetoric around the issue suggests.
2875 </p><p>
2876 Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how harmful
2877 type A sharing is. Just as Edison complained about Hollywood, composers
2878 complained about piano rolls, recording artists complained about radio, and
2879 broadcasters complained about cable TV, the music industry complains that
2880 type A sharing is a kind of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theft</span>»</span> that is
2881 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">devastating</span>»</span> the industry.
2882 </p><p>
2883 While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder
2884 to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame
2885 technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a
2886 good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst &amp; Young put it,
2887 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels
2888 fought it.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2887905" href="#ftn.id2887905" class="footnote">79</a>]</sup> The labels claimed
2889 that every album taped was an album unsold, and when record sales fell by
2890 11.4 percent in 1981, the industry claimed that its point was
2891 proved. Technology was the problem, and banning or regulating technology was
2892 the answer.
2893 </p><p>
2894 Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity to enact
2895 regulation, MTV was launched, and the industry had a record
2896 turnaround. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the end,</span>»</span> Cap Gemini concludes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
2897 `crisis' &#8230; was not the fault of the tapers&#8212;who did not [stop
2898 after MTV came into being]&#8212;but had to a large extent resulted from
2899 stagnation in musical innovation at the major labels.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2887296" href="#ftn.id2887296" class="footnote">80</a>]</sup>
2900 </p><p>
2901 But just because the industry was wrong before does not mean it is wrong
2902 today. To evaluate the real threat that p2p sharing presents to the industry
2903 in particular, and society in general&#8212;or at least the society that
2904 inherits the tradition that gave us the film industry, the record industry,
2905 the radio industry, cable TV, and the VCR&#8212;the question is not simply
2906 whether type A sharing is harmful. The question is also
2907 <span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> harmful type A sharing is, and how beneficial the
2908 other types of sharing are.
2909 </p><p>
2910 We start to answer this question by focusing on the net harm, from the
2911 standpoint of the industry as a whole, that sharing networks cause.  The
2912 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">net harm</span>»</span> to the industry as a whole is the amount by which
2913 type A sharing exceeds type B. If the record companies sold more records
2914 through sampling than they lost through substitution, then sharing networks
2915 would actually benefit music companies on balance. They would therefore have
2916 little <span class="emphasis"><em>static</em></span> reason to resist them.
2917
2918 </p><p>
2919 Could that be true? Could the industry as a whole be gaining because of file
2920 sharing? Odd as that might sound, the data about CD sales actually suggest
2921 it might be close.
2922 </p><p>
2923 In 2002, the RIAA reported that CD sales had fallen by 8.9 percent, from 882
2924 million to 803 million units; revenues fell 6.7 percent.<sup>[<a name="id2888011" href="#ftn.id2888011" class="footnote">81</a>]</sup> This confirms a trend over the past few years. The
2925 RIAA blames Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other
2926 causes that could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a
2927 more than 20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since 1999. That no
2928 doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales. Rising prices could
2929 account for at least some of the loss. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From 1999 to 2001, the average
2930 price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2888061" href="#ftn.id2888061" class="footnote">82</a>]</sup> Competition from other forms of media could also
2931 account for some of the decline. As Jane Black of
2932 <em class="citetitle">BusinessWeek</em> notes, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The soundtrack to the film
2933 <em class="citetitle">High Fidelity</em> has a list price of $18.98. You could
2934 get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2888098" href="#ftn.id2888098" class="footnote">83</a>]</sup>
2935 </p><p>
2936
2937
2938
2939 But let's assume the RIAA is right, and all of the decline in CD sales is
2940 because of Internet sharing. Here's the rub: In the same period that the
2941 RIAA estimates that 803 million CDs were sold, the RIAA estimates that 2.1
2942 billion CDs were downloaded for free. Thus, although 2.6 times the total
2943 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, sales revenue fell by just 6.7
2944 percent.
2945 </p><p>
2946 There are too many different things happening at the same time to explain
2947 these numbers definitively, but one conclusion is unavoidable: The recording
2948 industry constantly asks, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What's the difference between downloading a
2949 song and stealing a CD?</span>»</span>&#8212;but their own numbers reveal the
2950 difference. If I steal a CD, then there is one less CD to sell. Every taking
2951 is a lost sale. But on the basis of the numbers the RIAA provides, it is
2952 absolutely clear that the same is not true of downloads. If every download
2953 were a lost sale&#8212;if every use of Kazaa <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rob[bed] the author of
2954 [his] profit</span>»</span>&#8212;then the industry would have suffered a 100
2955 percent drop in sales last year, not a 7 percent drop. If 2.6 times the
2956 number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, and yet sales revenue dropped
2957 by just 6.7 percent, then there is a huge difference between
2958 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">downloading a song and stealing a CD.</span>»</span>
2959 </p><p>
2960 These are the harms&#8212;alleged and perhaps exaggerated but, let's assume,
2961 real. What of the benefits? File sharing may impose costs on the recording
2962 industry. What value does it produce in addition to these costs?
2963 </p><p>
2964 One benefit is type C sharing&#8212;making available content that is
2965 technically still under copyright but is no longer commercially available.
2966 This is not a small category of content. There are millions of tracks that
2967 are no longer commercially available.<sup>[<a name="id2888147" href="#ftn.id2888147" class="footnote">84</a>]</sup>
2968 And while it's conceivable that some of this content is not available
2969 because the artist producing the content doesn't want it to be made
2970 available, the vast majority of it is unavailable solely because the
2971 publisher or the distributor has decided it no longer makes economic sense
2972 <span class="emphasis"><em>to the company</em></span> to make it available.
2973 </p><p>
2974 In real space&#8212;long before the Internet&#8212;the market had a simple
2975 response to this problem: used book and record stores. There are thousands
2976 of used book and used record stores in America today.<sup>[<a name="id2888188" href="#ftn.id2888188" class="footnote">85</a>]</sup> These stores buy content from owners, then sell the
2977 content they buy. And under American copyright law, when they buy and sell
2978 this content, <span class="emphasis"><em>even if the content is still under
2979 copyright</em></span>, the copyright owner doesn't get a dime. Used book and
2980 record stores are commercial entities; their owners make money from the
2981 content they sell; but as with cable companies before statutory licensing,
2982 they don't have to pay the copyright owner for the content they sell.
2983 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2888238"></a><p>
2984 Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used record
2985 stores. It is different, of course, because the person making the content
2986 available isn't making money from making the content available.  It is also
2987 different, of course, because in real space, when I sell a record, I don't
2988 have it anymore, while in cyberspace, when someone shares my 1949 recording
2989 of Bernstein's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Two Love Songs,</span>»</span> I still have it. That
2990 difference would matter economically if the owner of the copyright were
2991 selling the record in competition to my sharing. But we're talking about the
2992 class of content that is not currently commercially available. The Internet
2993 is making it available, through cooperative sharing, without competing with
2994 the market.
2995 </p><p>
2996 It may well be, all things considered, that it would be better if the
2997 copyright owner got something from this trade. But just because it may well
2998 be better, it doesn't follow that it would be good to ban used book
2999 stores. Or put differently, if you think that type C sharing should be
3000 stopped, do you think that libraries and used book stores should be shut as
3001 well?
3002 </p><p>
3003
3004 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, file-sharing networks enable type D
3005 sharing to occur&#8212;the sharing of content that copyright owners want to
3006 have shared or for which there is no continuing copyright. This sharing
3007 clearly benefits authors and society. Science fiction author Cory Doctorow,
3008 for example, released his first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
3009 Kingdom</em>, both free on-line and in bookstores on the same
3010 day. His (and his publisher's) thinking was that the on-line distribution
3011 would be a great advertisement for the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">real</span>»</span> book. People
3012 would read part on-line, and then decide whether they liked the book or
3013 not. If they liked it, they would be more likely to buy it. Doctorow's
3014 content is type D content. If sharing networks enable his work to be spread,
3015 then both he and society are better off. (Actually, much better off: It is a
3016 great book!)
3017 </p><p>
3018 Likewise for work in the public domain: This sharing benefits society with
3019 no legal harm to authors at all. If efforts to solve the problem of type A
3020 sharing destroy the opportunity for type D sharing, then we lose something
3021 important in order to protect type A content.
3022 </p><p>
3023 The point throughout is this: While the recording industry understandably
3024 says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This is how much we've lost,</span>»</span> we must also ask,
3025 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much has society gained from p2p sharing? What are the
3026 efficiencies? What is the content that otherwise would be
3027 unavailable?</span>»</span>
3028 </p><p>
3029 For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this chapter, much
3030 of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> that file sharing enables is plainly legal and
3031 good.  And like the piracy I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Kapittel fire: «Pirater»">4</a>, much of this piracy is motivated by a new
3032 way of spreading content caused by changes in the technology of
3033 distribution. Thus, consistent with the tradition that gave us Hollywood,
3034 radio, the recording industry, and cable TV, the question we should be
3035 asking about file sharing is how best to preserve its benefits while
3036 minimizing (to the extent possible) the wrongful harm it causes artists. The
3037 question is one of balance. The law should seek that balance, and that
3038 balance will be found only with time.
3039 </p><p>
3040 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Men er ikke krigen bare en krig mot ulovlig deling?  Er ikke
3041 angrepsmålet bare det du kaller type-A-deling?</span>»</span>
3042 </p><p>
3043 You would think. And we should hope. But so far, it is not. The effect of
3044 the war purportedly on type A sharing alone has been felt far beyond that
3045 one class of sharing. That much is obvious from the Napster case
3046 itself. When Napster told the district court that it had developed a
3047 technology to block the transfer of 99.4 percent of identified infringing
3048 material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4 percent was not
3049 good enough. Napster had to push the infringements <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">down to
3050 zero.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2888377" href="#ftn.id2888377" class="footnote">86</a>]</sup>
3051 </p><p>
3052 If 99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing
3053 technologies, not a war on copyright infringement. There is no way to assure
3054 that a p2p system is used 100 percent of the time in compliance with the
3055 law, any more than there is a way to assure that 100 percent of VCRs or 100
3056 percent of Xerox machines or 100 percent of handguns are used in compliance
3057 with the law. Zero tolerance means zero p2p.  The court's ruling means that
3058 we as a society must lose the benefits of p2p, even for the totally legal
3059 and beneficial uses they serve, simply to assure that there are zero
3060 copyright infringements caused by p2p.
3061 </p><p>
3062 Zero tolerance has not been our history. It has not produced the content
3063 industry that we know today. The history of American law has been a process
3064 of balance. As new technologies changed the way content was distributed, the
3065 law adjusted, after some time, to the new technology.  In this adjustment,
3066 the law sought to ensure the legitimate rights of creators while protecting
3067 innovation. Sometimes this has meant more rights for creators. Sometimes
3068 less.
3069 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2888426"></a><p>
3070 So, as we've seen, when <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mechanical reproduction</span>»</span> threatened
3071 the interests of composers, Congress balanced the rights of composers
3072 against the interests of the recording industry. It granted rights to
3073 composers, but also to the recording artists: Composers were to be paid, but
3074 at a price set by Congress. But when radio started broadcasting the
3075 recordings made by these recording artists, and they complained to Congress
3076 that their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> was not being respected (since
3077 the radio station did not have to pay them for the creativity it broadcast),
3078 Congress rejected their claim. An indirect benefit was enough.
3079 </p><p>
3080 Cable TV followed the pattern of record albums. When the courts rejected the
3081 claim that cable broadcasters had to pay for the content they rebroadcast,
3082 Congress responded by giving broadcasters a right to compensation, but at a
3083 level set by the law. It likewise gave cable companies the right to the
3084 content, so long as they paid the statutory price.
3085 </p><p>
3086
3087
3088
3089 This compromise, like the compromise affecting records and player pianos,
3090 served two important goals&#8212;indeed, the two central goals of any
3091 copyright legislation. First, the law assured that new innovators would have
3092 the freedom to develop new ways to deliver content.  Second, the law assured
3093 that copyright holders would be paid for the content that was
3094 distributed. One fear was that if Congress simply required cable TV to pay
3095 copyright holders whatever they demanded for their content, then copyright
3096 holders associated with broadcasters would use their power to stifle this
3097 new technology, cable. But if Congress had permitted cable to use
3098 broadcasters' content for free, then it would have unfairly subsidized
3099 cable. Thus Congress chose a path that would assure
3100 <span class="emphasis"><em>compensation</em></span> without giving the past (broadcasters)
3101 control over the future (cable).
3102 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2888490"></a><p>
3103 In the same year that Congress struck this balance, two major producers and
3104 distributors of film content filed a lawsuit against another technology, the
3105 video tape recorder (VTR, or as we refer to them today, VCRs) that Sony had
3106 produced, the Betamax. Disney's and Universal's claim against Sony was
3107 relatively simple: Sony produced a device, Disney and Universal claimed,
3108 that enabled consumers to engage in copyright infringement. Because the
3109 device that Sony built had a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">record</span>»</span> button, the device could
3110 be used to record copyrighted movies and shows. Sony was therefore
3111 benefiting from the copyright infringement of its customers. It should
3112 therefore, Disney and Universal claimed, be partially liable for that
3113 infringement.
3114 </p><p>
3115
3116 There was something to Disney's and Universal's claim. Sony did decide to
3117 design its machine to make it very simple to record television shows. It
3118 could have built the machine to block or inhibit any direct copying from a
3119 television broadcast. Or possibly, it could have built the machine to copy
3120 only if there were a special <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy me</span>»</span> signal on the line. It
3121 was clear that there were many television shows that did not grant anyone
3122 permission to copy. Indeed, if anyone had asked, no doubt the majority of
3123 shows would not have authorized copying. And in the face of this obvious
3124 preference, Sony could have designed its system to minimize the opportunity
3125 for copyright infringement. It did not, and for that, Disney and Universal
3126 wanted to hold it responsible for the architecture it chose.
3127 </p><p>
3128 MPAA president Jack Valenti became the studios' most vocal champion. Valenti
3129 called VCRs <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tapeworms.</span>»</span> He warned, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">When there are 20,
3130 30, 40 million of these VCRs in the land, we will be invaded by millions of
3131 `tapeworms,' eating away at the very heart and essence of the most precious
3132 asset the copyright owner has, his copyright.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2888550" href="#ftn.id2888550" class="footnote">87</a>]</sup> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">One does not have to be trained in
3133 sophisticated marketing and creative judgment,</span>»</span> he told Congress,
3134 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to understand the devastation on the after-theater marketplace caused
3135 by the hundreds of millions of tapings that will adversely impact on the
3136 future of the creative community in this country. It is simply a question of
3137 basic economics and plain common sense.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2888571" href="#ftn.id2888571" class="footnote">88</a>]</sup> Indeed, as surveys would later show, percent of VCR owners had
3138 movie libraries of ten videos or more<sup>[<a name="id2888581" href="#ftn.id2888581" class="footnote">89</a>]</sup>
3139 &#8212; a use the Court would later hold was not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair.</span>»</span> By
3140 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allowing VCR owners to copy freely by the means of an exemption from
3141 copyright infringementwithout creating a mechanism to compensate
3142 copyrightowners,</span>»</span> Valenti testified, Congress would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">take from
3143 the owners the very essence of their property: the exclusive right to
3144 control who may use their work, that is, who may copy it and thereby profit
3145 from its reproduction.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2888610" href="#ftn.id2888610" class="footnote">90</a>]</sup>
3146 </p><p>
3147 It took eight years for this case to be resolved by the Supreme Court. In
3148 the interim, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Hollywood in
3149 its jurisdiction&#8212;leading Judge Alex Kozinski, who sits on that court,
3150 refers to it as the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hollywood Circuit</span>»</span>&#8212;held that Sony
3151 would be liable for the copyright infringement made possible by its
3152 machines. Under the Ninth Circuit's rule, this totally familiar
3153 technology&#8212;which Jack Valenti had called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Boston Strangler
3154 of the American film industry</span>»</span> (worse yet, it was a
3155 <span class="emphasis"><em>Japanese</em></span> Boston Strangler of the American film
3156 industry)&#8212;was an illegal technology.<sup>[<a name="id2888632" href="#ftn.id2888632" class="footnote">91</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2888656"></a>
3157 </p><p>
3158
3159 But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit.  And in
3160 its reversal, the Court clearly articulated its understanding of when and
3161 whether courts should intervene in such disputes. As the Court wrote,
3162 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3163 Sound policy, as well as history, supports our consistent deference to
3164 Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for
3165 copyrighted materials. Congress has the constitutional authority and the
3166 institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of
3167 competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new
3168 technology.<sup>[<a name="id2888682" href="#ftn.id2888682" class="footnote">92</a>]</sup>
3169 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3170 Congress was asked to respond to the Supreme Court's decision.  But as with
3171 the plea of recording artists about radio broadcasts, Congress ignored the
3172 request. Congress was convinced that American film got enough, this
3173 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking</span>»</span> notwithstanding.  If we put these cases together, a
3174 pattern is clear:
3175 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t1"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char">Tilfelle</th><th align="char">Hvems verdi ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">røvet</span>»</span></th><th align="char">Responsen til domstolene</th><th align="char">Responsen til Kongressen</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Innspillinger</td><td align="char">Komponister</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Radio</td><td align="char">Innspillingsartister</td><td align="char">N/A</td><td align="char">Ingenting</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Kabel-TV</td><td align="char">Kringkastere</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Statutory license</td></tr><tr><td align="char">VCR</td><td align="char">Filmskapere</td><td align="char">Ingen beskyttelse</td><td align="char">Ingenting</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
3176 In each case throughout our history, a new technology changed the way
3177 content was distributed.<sup>[<a name="id2888814" href="#ftn.id2888814" class="footnote">93</a>]</sup> In each case,
3178 throughout our history, that change meant that someone got a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free
3179 ride</span>»</span> on someone else's work.
3180 </p><p>
3181
3182 In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these cases did either the courts or
3183 Congress eliminate all free riding. In <span class="emphasis"><em>none</em></span> of these
3184 cases did the courts or Congress insist that the law should assure that the
3185 copyright holder get all the value that his copyright created. In every
3186 case, the copyright owners complained of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy.</span>»</span> In every
3187 case, Congress acted to recognize some of the legitimacy in the behavior of
3188 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates.</span>»</span> In each case, Congress allowed some new
3189 technology to benefit from content made before. It balanced the interests at
3190 stake.
3191
3192 </p><p>
3193 When you think across these examples, and the other examples that make up
3194 the first four chapters of this section, this balance makes sense. Was Walt
3195 Disney a pirate? Would doujinshi be better if creators had to ask
3196 permission? Should tools that enable others to capture and spread images as
3197 a way to cultivate or criticize our culture be better regulated? Is it
3198 really right that building a search engine should expose you to $15 million
3199 in damages? Would it have been better if Edison had controlled film? Should
3200 every cover band have to hire a lawyer to get permission to record a song?
3201 </p><p>
3202 We could answer yes to each of these questions, but our tradition has
3203 answered no. In our tradition, as the Supreme Court has stated, copyright
3204 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all
3205 possible uses of his work.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2888914" href="#ftn.id2888914" class="footnote">94</a>]</sup>
3206 Instead, the particular uses that the law regulates have been defined by
3207 balancing the good that comes from granting an exclusive right against the
3208 burdens such an exclusive right creates. And this balancing has historically
3209 been done <span class="emphasis"><em>after</em></span> a technology has matured, or settled
3210 into the mix of technologies that facilitate the distribution of content.
3211 </p><p>
3212 We should be doing the same thing today. The technology of the Internet is
3213 changing quickly. The way people connect to the Internet (wires
3214 vs. wireless) is changing very quickly. No doubt the network should not
3215 become a tool for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stealing</span>»</span> from artists. But neither should
3216 the law become a tool to entrench one particular way in which artists (or
3217 more accurately, distributors) get paid. As I describe in some detail in the
3218 last chapter of this book, we should be securing income to artists while we
3219 allow the market to secure the most efficient way to promote and distribute
3220 content. This will require changes in the law, at least in the
3221 interim. These changes should be designed to balance the protection of the
3222 law against the strong public interest that innovation continue.
3223 </p><p>
3224
3225
3226 This is especially true when a new technology enables a vastly superior mode
3227 of distribution. And this p2p has done. P2p technologies can be ideally
3228 efficient in moving content across a widely diverse network.  Left to
3229 develop, they could make the network vastly more efficient.  Yet these
3230 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">potential public benefits,</span>»</span> as John Schwartz writes in
3231 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">could be delayed in the
3232 P2P fight.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2888974" href="#ftn.id2888974" class="footnote">95</a>]</sup> Yet when anyone
3233 begins to talk about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">balance,</span>»</span> the copyright warriors raise a
3234 different argument. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All this hand waving about balance and
3235 incentives,</span>»</span> they say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">misses a fundamental point. Our
3236 content,</span>»</span> the warriors insist, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">is our
3237 <span class="emphasis"><em>property</em></span>. Why should we wait for Congress to
3238 `rebalance' our property rights? Do you have to wait before calling the
3239 police when your car has been stolen? And why should Congress deliberate at
3240 all about the merits of this theft? Do we ask whether the car thief had a
3241 good use for the car before we arrest him?</span>»</span>
3242 </p><p>
3243 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Det er <span class="emphasis"><em>vår eiendom</em></span>,</span>»</span> insisterer
3244 krigerne. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">og den bør være beskyttet på samme måte som all annen
3245 eiendom er beskyttet.</span>»</span>
3246 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2886971" href="#id2886971" class="para">70</a>] </sup>
3247
3248
3249 See IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry),
3250 <em class="citetitle">The Recording Industry Commercial Piracy Report 2003</em>,
3251 July 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
3252 #14</a>. See also Ben Hunt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Companies Warned on Music Piracy
3253 Risk,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Financial Times</em>, 14 February 2003, 11.
3254 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887226" href="#id2887226" class="para">71</a>] </sup>
3255
3256 See Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism:
3257 <em class="citetitle">Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New
3258 Press, 2003), 10&#8211;13, 209.  The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
3259 Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement obligates member nations to create
3260 administrative and enforcement mechanisms for intellectual property rights,
3261 a costly proposition for developing countries. Additionally, patent rights
3262 may lead to higher prices for staple industries such as agriculture. Critics
3263 of TRIPS question the disparity between burdens imposed upon developing
3264 countries and benefits conferred to industrialized nations. TRIPS does
3265 permit governments to use patents for public, noncommercial uses without
3266 first obtaining the patent holder's permission. Developing nations may be
3267 able to use this to gain the benefits of foreign patents at lower
3268 prices. This is a promising strategy for developing nations within the TRIPS
3269 framework.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2886344"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2887258"></a>
3270 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887284" href="#id2887284" class="para">72</a>] </sup>
3271
3272 For an analysis of the economic impact of copying technology, see Stan
3273 Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em> (New York:
3274 Amacom, 2002), 144&#8211;90. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In some instances &#8230; the impact of
3275 piracy on the copyright holder's ability to appropriate the value of the
3276 work will be negligible. One obvious instance is the case where the
3277 individual engaging in pirating would not have purchased an original even if
3278 pirating were not an option.</span>»</span> Ibid., 149.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2887302"></a>
3279 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887557" href="#id2887557" class="para">73</a>] </sup>
3280
3281
3282 <em class="citetitle">Bach</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Longman</em>, 98
3283 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777).
3284 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887587" href="#id2887587" class="para">74</a>] </sup>
3285
3286 <a class="indexterm" name="id2887590"></a> See Clayton M. Christensen,
3287 <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary National Bestseller
3288 That Changed the Way We Do Business</em> (New York: HarperBusiness,
3289 2000). Professor Christensen examines why companies that give rise to and
3290 dominate a product area are frequently unable to come up with the most
3291 creative, paradigm-shifting uses for their own products.  This job usually
3292 falls to outside innovators, who reassemble existing technology in inventive
3293 ways. For a discussion of Christensen's ideas, see Lawrence Lessig,
3294 <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 89&#8211;92, 139.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2887294"></a>
3295 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887636" href="#id2887636" class="para">75</a>] </sup>
3296
3297
3298 See Carolyn Lochhead, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Silicon Valley Dream, Hollywood
3299 Nightmare,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco Chronicle</em>, 24
3300 September 2002, A1; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rock 'n' Roll Suicide,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New
3301 Scientist</em>, 6 July 2002, 42; Benny Evangelista, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Napster
3302 Names CEO, Secures New Financing,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
3303 Chronicle</em>, 23 May 2003, C1; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Napster's Wake-Up
3304 Call,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 24 June 2000, 23; John
3305 Naughton, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hollywood at War with the Internet</span>»</span> (London)
3306 <em class="citetitle">Times</em>, 26 July 2002, 18.
3307 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887686" href="#id2887686" class="para">76</a>] </sup>
3308
3309
3310
3311 See Ipsos-Insight, <em class="citetitle">TEMPO: Keeping Pace with Online Music
3312 Distribution</em> (September 2002), reporting that 28 percent of
3313 Americans aged twelve and older have downloaded music off of the Internet
3314 and 30 percent have listened to digital music files stored on their
3315 computers.
3316 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887714" href="#id2887714" class="para">77</a>] </sup>
3317
3318
3319 Amy Harmon, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight,</span>»</span>
3320 <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 6 June 2003, A1.
3321 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887852" href="#id2887852" class="para">78</a>] </sup>
3322
3323 Se Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network Economy</em>,
3324 148&#8211;49.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2887614"></a>
3325 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887905" href="#id2887905" class="para">79</a>] </sup>
3326
3327
3328 See Cap Gemini Ernst &amp; Young, <em class="citetitle">Technology Evolution and the
3329 Music Industry's Business Model Crisis</em> (2003), 3. This report
3330 describes the music industry's effort to stigmatize the budding practice of
3331 cassette taping in the 1970s, including an advertising campaign featuring a
3332 cassette-shape skull and the caption <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Home taping is killing
3333 music.</span>»</span> At the time digital audio tape became a threat, the Office of
3334 Technical Assessment conducted a survey of consumer behavior. In 1988, 40
3335 percent of consumers older than ten had taped music to a cassette
3336 format. U.S.  Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,
3337 <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the
3338 Law</em>, OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.  Government Printing
3339 Office, October 1989), 145&#8211;56.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887296" href="#id2887296" class="para">80</a>] </sup>
3340
3341
3342 U.S. Congress, <em class="citetitle">Copyright and Home Copying</em>, 4.
3343 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888011" href="#id2888011" class="para">81</a>] </sup>
3344
3345
3346 See Recording Industry Association of America, <em class="citetitle">2002 Yearend
3347 Statistics</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #15</a>. A later report
3348 indicates even greater losses. See Recording Industry Association of
3349 America, <em class="citetitle">Some Facts About Music Piracy</em>, 25 June 2003,
3350 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #16</a>:
3351 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the past four years, unit shipments of recorded music have fallen
3352 by 26 percent from 1.16 billion units in to 860 million units in 2002 in the
3353 United States (based on units shipped).  In terms of sales, revenues are
3354 down 14 percent, from $14.6 billion in to $12.6 billion last year (based on
3355 U.S. dollar value of shipments). The music industry worldwide has gone from
3356 a $39 billion industry in 2000 down to a $32 billion industry in 2002 (based
3357 on U.S. dollar value of shipments).</span>»</span>
3358 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888061" href="#id2888061" class="para">82</a>] </sup>
3359 Jane Black, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Big Music's Broken Record</span>»</span>, BusinessWeek online,
3360 13. februar 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #17</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2888077"></a>
3361 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888098" href="#id2888098" class="para">83</a>] </sup>
3362
3363
3364 ibid.
3365 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888147" href="#id2888147" class="para">84</a>] </sup>
3366
3367
3368 By one estimate, 75 percent of the music released by the major labels is no
3369 longer in print. See Online Entertainment and Copyright Law&#8212;Coming
3370 Soon to a Digital Device Near You: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on
3371 the Judiciary, 107th Cong., 1st sess. (3 April 2001) (prepared statement of
3372 the Future of Music Coalition), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #18</a>.
3373 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888188" href="#id2888188" class="para">85</a>] </sup>
3374
3375
3376 While there are not good estimates of the number of used record stores in
3377 existence, in 2002, there were 7,198 used book dealers in the United States,
3378 an increase of 20 percent since 1993. See Book Hunter Press, <em class="citetitle">The
3379 Quiet Revolution: The Expansion of the Used Book Market</em> (2002),
3380 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
3381 #19</a>. Used records accounted for $260 million in sales in 2002. See
3382 National Association of Recording Merchandisers, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">2002 Annual Survey
3383 Results,</span>»</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #20</a>.
3384 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888377" href="#id2888377" class="para">86</a>] </sup>
3385
3386
3387 See Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Napster Copyright Litigation at 34- 35
3388 (N.D. Cal., 11 July 2001), nos. MDL-00-1369 MHP, C 99-5183 MHP, available at
3389 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #21</a>. For an account
3390 of the litigation and its toll on Napster, see Joseph Menn, <em class="citetitle">All
3391 the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster</em> (New
3392 York: Crown Business, 2003), 269&#8211;82.
3393 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888550" href="#id2888550" class="para">87</a>] </sup>
3394
3395
3396 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders): Hearing on S. 1758
3397 Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess.,
3398 459 (1982) (testimony of Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association
3399 of America, Inc.).
3400 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888571" href="#id2888571" class="para">88</a>] </sup>
3401
3402
3403 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 475.
3404 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888581" href="#id2888581" class="para">89</a>] </sup>
3405
3406
3407 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Sony
3408 Corp. of America</em>, 480 F. Supp. 429, (C.D. Cal., 1979).
3409 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888610" href="#id2888610" class="para">90</a>] </sup>
3410
3411
3412 Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders), 485 (testimony of Jack
3413 Valenti).
3414 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888632" href="#id2888632" class="para">91</a>] </sup>
3415
3416
3417 <em class="citetitle">Universal City Studios, Inc</em>. mot <em class="citetitle">Sony
3418 Corp. of America</em>, 659 F. 2d 963 (9th Cir.  1981).
3419 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888682" href="#id2888682" class="para">92</a>] </sup>
3420
3421
3422 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3423 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984).
3424 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888814" href="#id2888814" class="para">93</a>] </sup>
3425
3426 These are the most important instances in our history, but there are other
3427 cases as well. The technology of digital audio tape (DAT), for example, was
3428 regulated by Congress to minimize the risk of piracy. The remedy Congress
3429 imposed did burden DAT producers, by taxing tape sales and controlling the
3430 technology of DAT. See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (Title 17 of the
3431 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>), Pub. L. No. 102-563, 106 Stat.
3432 4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. §1001. Again, however, this regulation did not
3433 eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
3434 Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Future</em>, 71. See also Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">From
3435 Edison to the Broadcast Flag,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law
3436 Review</em> 70 (2003): 293&#8211;96.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2888398"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2888853"></a>
3437 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888914" href="#id2888914" class="para">94</a>] </sup>
3438
3439
3440 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corp. of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal City
3441 Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, (1984).
3442 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2888974" href="#id2888974" class="para">95</a>] </sup>
3443
3444
3445 John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software
3446 Echoes Past Efforts,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>,
3447 22. september 2003, C3.
3448 </p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Del II. «Eiendom»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-property"></a>Del II. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="«Eiendom»"><div></div><p>
3449
3450
3451
3452 Opphavsretts-krigerne har rett: Opphavsretten er en type eiendom. Den kan
3453 eies og selges, og loven beskytter mot at den blir stjålet. Vanligvis, kan
3454 opphavsrettseieren be om hvilken som helst pris som han ønsker.  Markeder
3455 bestemmer tilbud og etterspørsel som i hvert tilfelle bestemmer prisen hun
3456 kan få.
3457 </p><p>
3458 Men i vanlig språk er det å kalle opphavsrett for en
3459 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendoms</span>»</span>-rett litt misvisende, for eindommen i opphavsretten
3460 er en merkelig type eiendom.  Selve Idéen om eienrettigheter til en idé
3461 eller et uttrykk er nemlig veldig merkelig.  Jeg forstår hva jeg tar når jeg
3462 tar en piknik-bord som du plasserte i din bakhage.  Jeg tar en ting,
3463 piknik-bokrdet, og etter at jeg tar det har ikke du det.  Men hva tar jeg
3464 når jeg tar den gode <span class="emphasis"><em>idéen</em></span> som du hadde om å plassere
3465 piknik-bordet i bakhagen&#8212;ved å for eksempel dra til butikken Sears,
3466 kjøpe et bord, og plassere det i min egen bakhage? Hva er tingen jeg tar da?
3467 </p><p>
3468 Poenget er ikke bare om hvorvidt piknik-bord og ideer er ting, selv om det
3469 er en viktig forskjell.  Poenget er istedet at i det vanlige
3470 tilfelle&#8212;faktisk i praktisk talt ethvert tilfelle unntatt en begrenset
3471 rekke med unntak&#8212;er ideer sluppet ut i verden frie. Jeg tar ingenting
3472 fra deg når jeg kopierer måten du kler deg&#8212;selv om det ville se sært
3473 ut hvis jeg gjorde det hver dag, og spesielt sært hvis du er en kvinne.
3474 Istedet, som Thomas Jefferson sa (og det er spesielt sant når jeg kopierer
3475 hvordan noen andre kler seg), <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Den som mottar en idé fra meg, får selv
3476 information uten å ta noe fra me, på samme måte som den som tenner sitt lys
3477 från min veike får lys utan å forlate meg i mørket</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2889125" href="#ftn.id2889125" class="footnote">96</a>]</sup>
3478 </p><p>
3479 Unntakene til fri bruk er ideer og uttrykk innenfor dekningsområdet til
3480 loven om patent og opphavsrett, og noen få andre områder som jeg ikke vil
3481 diskutere her.  Her sier loven at du ikke kan ta min idé eller uttrykk uten
3482 min tilatelse: Loven gjør det immaterielle til eiendom.
3483 </p><p>
3484 Men hvordan, og i hvilken utstrekning, og i hvilken form&#8212;detaljene,
3485 med andre ord&#8212;betyr noe.  For å få en god forståelse om hvordan denne
3486 praksis om å gjøre det immaterielle om til eiendom vokste frem, trenger vi å
3487 plassere denne <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> i sin rette sammenheng.<sup>[<a name="id2889167" href="#ftn.id2889167" class="footnote">97</a>]</sup>
3488 </p><p>
3489 Min strategi for å gjøre detet er den samme som min strategi i den
3490 foregående del.  Jeg tilbyr fire historier som bidrar til å plassere
3491 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettsmateriale er eiendom</span>»</span> i sammenheng.  Hvor kom
3492 idéen fra?  Hva er dens begresninger?  Hvordan fungerer dette i praksis.
3493 Etter disse historiene vil betydningen til dette sanne
3494 utsagnet&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettsmateriale er eiendom</span>»</span>&#8212; bli
3495 litt mer klart, og dets implikasjoner vil bli avslørt som ganske forskjellig
3496 fra implikasjonene som opphavsrettskrigerne vil at vi skal forstå.
3497 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889125" href="#id2889125" class="para">96</a>] </sup>
3498
3499
3500 Brev fra Thomas Jefferson til Isaac McPherson (13. august 1813) i
3501 <em class="citetitle">The Writings of Thomas Jefferson</em>, vol. 6 (Andrew
3502 A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, eds., 1903), 330, 333&#8211;34.
3503 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889167" href="#id2889167" class="para">97</a>] </sup>
3504
3505
3506 Slik de juridiske realistene lærte bort amerikansk lov, var alle
3507 eiendomsretter immaterielle.  En eiendomsrett er ganske enkelt den retten
3508 som et idivid har mot verden til å gjøre eller ikke gjøre visse ting som er
3509 eller ikke er knyttet til et fysisk objekt.  Retten i seg selv er
3510 immateriell, selv om objektet som det er (metafysisk) knyttet til er
3511 materielt.  Se Adam Mossoff, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What Is Property? Putting the Pieces
3512 Back Together,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Arizona Law Review</em> 45 (2003):
3513 373, 429 n. 241.
3514 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="founders"></a>Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2889230"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2889237"></a><p>
3515 William Shakespeare skrev <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> i
3516 1595. Skuespillet ble først utgitt i 1597. Det var det ellevte store
3517 skuespillet Shakespeare hadde skrevet. Han fortsatte å skrive skuespill helt
3518 til 1613, og stykkene han skrevhar fortsatt å definere angloamerikansk
3519 kultur siden. Så dypt har verkene av en 1500-talls forfatter sunket inn i
3520 vår kultur at vi ofte ikke engang kjenner kilden. Jeg overhørte en gang noen
3521 som kommentere Kenneth Branaghs utgave av Henry V: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg likte det, men
3522 Shakespeare er så full av klisjeer.</span>»</span>
3523 </p><p>
3524
3525 I 1774, nesten 180 år etter at <em class="citetitle">Romeo og Julie</em> ble
3526 skrevet, mente mange at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsretten</span>»</span> kun tilhørte én eneste
3527 utgiver i London, John Tonson. <sup>[<a name="id2889280" href="#ftn.id2889280" class="footnote">98</a>]</sup> Tonson
3528 var den mest fremstående av en liten gruppe utgivere kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
3529 Conger</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2889329" href="#ftn.id2889329" class="footnote">99</a>]</sup>, som kontrollerte
3530 boksalget i England gjennom hele 1700-tallet. The Conger hevdet at de hadde
3531 en evigvarende rett over <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopier</span>»</span> av bøker de hadde fått av
3532 forfatterne. Denne evigvarende retten innebar at ingen andre kunne publisere
3533 kopier av disse bøkene. Slik ble prisen på klassiske bøker holdt oppe; alle
3534 konkurrenter som lagde bedre eller billigere utgaver, ble fjernet.
3535 </p><p>
3536 Men altså, det er noe spennende med året 1774 for alle som vet litt om
3537 opphavsretts-lovgivning. Det mest kjente året for opphavsrett er 1710, da
3538 det britiske parlamentet vedtok den første loven. Denne loven er kjent som
3539 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> og sa at alle publiserte verk skulle være
3540 beskyttet i fjorten år, en periode som kunne fornyes én gang dersom
3541 forfatteren ennå levde, og at alle verk publisert i eller før 1710 skulle ha
3542 en ekstraperiode på 22 tillegsår.<sup>[<a name="id2889376" href="#ftn.id2889376" class="footnote">100</a>]</sup> På
3543 grunn av denne loven, så skulle <em class="citetitle">Rome og Julie</em> ha falt
3544 i det fri i 1731. Hvordan kunne da Tonson fortsatt ha kontroll over verket i
3545 1774?
3546 </p><p>
3547 Årsaken var ganske enkelt at engelskmennene ennå ikke hadde bestemt hva
3548 opphavsrett innebar -- faktisk hadde ingen i verden det. På den tiden da
3549 engelskmennene vedtok <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, var det ingen annen
3550 lovgivning om opphavsrett. Den siste loven som regulerte utgivere var
3551 lisensieringsloven av 1662, utløpt i 1695. At loven ga utgiverne monopol
3552 over publiseringen, noe som gjorde det enklere for kronen å kontrollere hva
3553 ble publisert. Men etter at det har utløpt, var det ingen positiv lov som sa
3554 at utgiverne hadde en eksklusiv rett til å trykke bøker.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2889429"></a>
3555 </p><p>
3556 At det ikke fantes noen <span class="emphasis"><em>positiv</em></span> lov, betydde ikke at
3557 det ikke fantes noen lov. Den anglo-amerikanske juridiske tradisjon ser både
3558 til lover skapt av politikere (det lovgivende statsorgen)og til lover
3559 (prejudikater) skapt av domstolene for å bestemme hvordan folket skal
3560 leve. Vi kaller politikernes lover for positiv lov og vi kaller lovene fra
3561 dommerne sedvanerett.<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Common law</span>»</span> angir bakgrunnen for de
3562 lovgivendes lovgivning; retten til lovgiving, vanligvis kan trumfe at
3563 bakgrunnen bare hvis det går gjennom en lov til å forskyve den. Og så var
3564 det virkelige spørsmålet etter lisensiering lover hadde utløpt om felles lov
3565 beskyttet opphavsretten, uavhengig av lovverket positiv.
3566 </p><p>
3567
3568 Dette spørsmålet var viktig for utgiverne eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bokselgere</span>»</span>,
3569 som de ble kalt, fordi det var økende konkurranse fra utenlandske utgivere,
3570 Særlig fra Skottland hvor publiseringen og eksporten av bøker til England
3571 hadde økt veldig. Denne konkurransen reduserte fortjenesten til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The
3572 Conger</span>»</span>, som derfor krevde at parlamentet igjen skulle vedta en lov
3573 for å gi dem eksklusiv kontroll over publisering. Dette kravet resulterte i
3574 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>.
3575 </p><p>
3576 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> ga forfatteren eller <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eieren</span>»</span> av
3577 en bok en eksklusiv rett til å publisere denne boken. Men det var, til
3578 bokhandernes forferdelse en viktig begrensning, nemlig hvor lenge denne
3579 retten skulle vare. Etter dette gikk trykkeretten bort og verket falt i det
3580 fri og kunne trykkes av hvem som helst. Det var ihvertfall det lovgiverne
3581 hadde tenkt.
3582 </p><p>
3583 Men nå det mest interessante med dette: Hvorfor ville parlamentet begrense
3584 trykkeretten? Sprøsmålet er ikke hvorfor de bestemte seg for denne perioden,
3585 men hvorfor ville de begrense retten <span class="emphasis"><em>i det hele tatt?</em></span>
3586 </p><p>
3587 Bokhandlerne, og forfatterne som de representerte, hadde et veldig sterkt
3588 krav. Ta <em class="citetitle">romeo og Julie</em> som et eksempel: Skuespillet
3589 ble skrevet av Shakespeare. Det var hans kreativitet som brakte det til
3590 verden. Han krenket ikke noens rett da han skrev dette verket (det er en
3591 kontroversiell påstanden, men det er urelevant), og med sin egen rett skapte
3592 han verket, han gjorde det ikke noe vanskeligere for andre til å lage
3593 skuespill. Så hvorfor skulle loven tillate at noen annen kunne komme og ta
3594 Shakespeares verkuten hans, eller hans arvingers, tillatelse? Hvilke grunner
3595 finnes for å tillate at noen <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjeler</span>»</span> Shakespeares verk?
3596 </p><p>
3597 Svaret er todel. Først må vi se på noe spesielt med oppfatningen av
3598 opphavsrett som fantes på tidspunktet da <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> ble
3599 vedtatt. Deretter må vi se på noe spesielt med bokhandlerne.
3600 </p><p>
3601
3602 Først om opphavsretten. I de siste tre hundre år har vi kommet til å bruke
3603 begrepet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> i stadig videre forstand. Men i 1710 var
3604 det ikke så mye et konsept som det var en bestemt rett. Opphavsretten ble
3605 født som et svært spesifikt sett med begrensninger: den forbød andre å
3606 reprodusere en bok. I 1710 var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopi-rett</span>»</span> en rett til å bruke
3607 en bestemt maskin til å replikere en bestemt arbeid. Den gikk ikke utover
3608 dette svært smale formålet. Den kontrollerte ikke mer generelt hvordan et
3609 verk kunne <span class="emphasis"><em>brukes</em></span>. Idag inkluderer retten en stor
3610 samling av restriksjoner på andres frihet: den gir forfatteren eksklusiv
3611 rett til å kopiere, eksklusiv rett til å distribuere, eksklusiv rett til å
3612 fremføre, og så videre.
3613 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2889610"></a><p>
3614 Så selv om f. eks. opphavsretten til Shakespeares verker var evigvarende,
3615 betydde det under den opprinnelige betydningen av begrepet at ingen kunne
3616 trykke Shakespeares arbeid uten tillatelse fra Shakespeares arvinger. Den
3617 ville ikke ha kontrollert noe mer, for eksempel om hvordan verket kunne
3618 fremføres, om verket kunne oversettes eller om Kenneth Branagh ville hatt
3619 lov til å lage filmer. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kopi-retten</span>»</span> var bare en eksklusiv rett
3620 til å trykke--ikke noe mindre, selvfølgelig, men heller ikke mer.
3621 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2889636"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2889643"></a><p>
3622 Selv dnne begrensede retten ble møtt med skepsis av britene. De hadde hatt
3623 en lang og stygg erfaring med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eksklusive rettigheter</span>»</span>,
3624 spesielt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">enerett</span>»</span> gitt av kronen. Engelskmennene hadde
3625 utkjempet en borgerkrig delvis mot kronens praksis med å dele ut
3626 monopoler--spesielt monopoler for verk som allerede eksisterte. Kong Henrik
3627 VIII hadde gitt patent til å trykke Bibelen og monopol til Darcy for å lage
3628 spillkort. Det engelske parlamentet begynte å kjempe tilbake mot denne
3629 makten hos kronen. I 1656 ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Monopolis</span>»</span> vedtatt
3630 for å begrense monopolene på patenter for nye oppfinnelser. Og i 1710 var
3631 parlamentet ivrig etter å håndtere det voksende monopolet på publisering.
3632 </p><p>
3633 Dermed ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kopi-retten</span>»</span>, når den sees på som en monopolrett,
3634 en rettighet som bør være begrenset. (Uansett hvor overbevisende påstanden
3635 om at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er min eiendom, og jeg skal ha for alltid,</span>»</span> prøv
3636 hvor overbevisende det er når men sier <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det er mitt monopol, og jeg
3637 skal ha det for alltid.</span>»</span>) Staten ville beskytte eneretten, men bare
3638 så lenge det gavnet samfunnet. Britene så skadene særinteresserte kunne
3639 skape; de vedtok en lov for å stoppe dem.
3640 </p><p>
3641 Dernest, om bokhandlerne. Det var ikke bare at kopiretten var et
3642 monopol. Det var også et monopol holdt av bokhandlerne. En bokhandler høres
3643 greie og ufarlige ut for oss, men slik var det ikke i syttenhundretallets
3644 England. Medlemmene i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span> ble av en voksende mengde
3645 sett på som monopolister av verste sort - et verktøy for kronens
3646 undertrykkelse, de solgte Englands frihet mot å være garantert en
3647 monopolskinntekt. Men monopolistene ble kvast kritisert: Milton beskrev dem
3648 som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">gamle patentholdere og monopolister i bokhandlerkunsten</span>»</span>;
3649 de var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">menn som derfor ikke hadde  et ærlig arbeide hvor utdanning er
3650 nødvendig.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2889741" href="#ftn.id2889741" class="footnote">101</a>]</sup>
3651 </p><p>
3652 Mange trodde at den makten bokhandlerne utøvde over spredning av kunnskap,
3653 var til skade for selve spredningen, men på dette tidspunktet viste
3654 Opplysningen viktigheten av utdannelse og kunnskap for alle. idéen om at
3655 kunnskap burde være gratis er et kjennetegn for tiden, og disse kraftige
3656 kommersielle interesser forstyrret denne idéen.
3657 </p><p>
3658 For å balansere denne makten, besluttet Parlamentet å øke konkurransen blant
3659 bokhandlerne, og den enkleste måten å gjøre det på, var å spre mengden av
3660 verdifulle bøker. Parlamentet begrenset derfor begrepet om opphavsrett, og
3661 garantert slik at verdifulle bøker ville bli frie for alle utgiver å
3662 publisere etter en begrenset periode. Slik ble det å gi eksisterende verk en
3663 periode på tjueen år et kompromiss for å bekjempe bokhandlernes
3664 makt. Begrensninger med dato var en indirekte måte å skape konkurranse
3665 mellom utgivere, og slik en skapelse og spredning av kultur.
3666 </p><p>
3667 Når 1731 (1710+21) kom, ble bokhandlerne engstelige. De så konsekvensene av
3668 mer konkurranse, og som alle konkurrenter, likte de det ikke. Først
3669 ignorerte bokhandlere ganske enkelt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, og
3670 fortsatte å kreve en evigvarende rett til å kontrollere publiseringen. Men i
3671 1735 og 1737 de prøvde å tvinge Parlamentet til å utvide periodene. Tjueen
3672 år var ikke nok, sa de; de trengte mer tid.
3673 </p><p>
3674 Parlamentet avslo kravene, Som en pamflett sa, i en vending som levere ennå
3675 idag,
3676 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3677 Jeg ser ingen grunn til å gi en utvidet perioden nå som ikke ville kunne gi
3678 utvidelser om igjen og om igjen, så fort de gamle utgår; så dersom dette
3679 lovforslaget blir vedtatt, vil effekten være: at et evig monopol blir skapt,
3680 et stort nederlag for handelen, et angrep mot kunnskapen, ingen fordel for
3681 forfatterne, men en stor avgift for folket; og alt dette kun for å øke
3682 bokhandlernes personlige rikdom.<sup>[<a name="id2889825" href="#ftn.id2889825" class="footnote">102</a>]</sup>
3683 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3684 Etter å ha mislyktes i Parlamentet gikk utgiverne til rettssalen i en rekke
3685 saker. Deres argument var enkelt og direkte: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>
3686 ga forfatterne en viss beskyttelse gjennom positiv loven, men denne
3687 beskyttelsenvar ikke ment som en erstatning for felles lov. Istedet var de
3688 ment å supplere felles lov. Ifølge sedvanerett var det galt å ta en annen
3689 persons kreative eiendom og bruke den uten hans tillatelse. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute
3690 of Anne</span>»</span>, hevdet bokhandlere, endret ikke dette faktum. Derfor
3691 betydde ikke det at beskyttelsen gitt av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>
3692 utløp, at beskyttelsen fra sedvaneretten utløp: Ifølge sedvaneretten hadde
3693 de rett til å fordømme publiseringen av en bok, selv følgelig om
3694 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> sa at de var falt i det fri. Dette, mente de,
3695 var den eneste måten å beskytte forfatterne.
3696 </p><p>
3697 Dette var et godt argument, og hadde støtte fra flere av den tidens ledende
3698 jurister. Det viste også en ekstraordinær chutzpah. Inntail da, som
3699 jusprofessor Raymond Pattetson har sagt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var utgiverne &#8230; like
3700 bekymret for forfatterne som en gjeter for sine lam.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2887951" href="#ftn.id2887951" class="footnote">103</a>]</sup> Bokselgerne brydde seg ikke det spor om
3701 forfatternes rettigheter. Deres bekymring var den monopolske inntekten
3702 forfatterens verk ga.
3703 </p><p>
3704 Men bokhandlernes argument ble ikke godtatt uten kamp. Helten fra denne
3705 kampen var den skotske bokselgeren Alexander Donaldson.<sup>[<a name="id2889932" href="#ftn.id2889932" class="footnote">104</a>]</sup>
3706 </p><p>
3707 Donaldson var en fremmed for Londons <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span>. Han startet
3708 in karriere i Edinburgh i 1750. Hans forretningsidé var billige kopier av
3709 standardverk falt i det fri, ihvertfall fri ifølge <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
3710 Anne</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2889959" href="#ftn.id2889959" class="footnote">105</a>]</sup> Donaldsons forlag vokste
3711 og ble <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">et sentrum for litterære skotter.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Blant
3712 dem,</span>»</span> skriver professor Mark Rose, var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">den unge James Boswell
3713 som, sammen med sin venn Andrew Erskine, publiserte en hel antologi av
3714 skotsk samtidspoesi sammen med Donaldson.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2889989" href="#ftn.id2889989" class="footnote">106</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2889997"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2890004"></a>
3715 </p><p>
3716 Da Londons bokselgere prøvde å få stengt Donaldsons butikk i Skottland, så
3717 flyttet han butikken til London. Her solgte han billige utgaver av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">de
3718 mest populære, engelske bøker, i kamp mot sedvanerettens rett til litterær
3719 eiendom.</span>»</span> <sup>[<a name="id2890024" href="#ftn.id2890024" class="footnote">107</a>]</sup> Bøkene hans var
3720 mellom 30% og 50% billigere enn <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conger</span>»</span>s, og han baserte
3721 sin rett til denne konkurransen på at bøkene, takket være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
3722 Anne</span>»</span>, var falt i det fri.
3723 </p><p>
3724 Londons bokselgere begynte straks å slå ned mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span> som
3725 Donaldson. Flere tiltak var vellykkede, den viktigste var den tidlig seieren
3726 i kampen mellom <em class="citetitle">Millar</em> og
3727 <em class="citetitle">Taylor</em>.
3728 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2890063"></a><p>
3729 Millar var en bokhandler som i 1729 hadde kjøpt opp rettighetene til James
3730 Thomsons dikt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Seasons</span>»</span>. Millar hadde da full beskyttelse
3731 gjennom <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, men etter at denne beskyttelsen var
3732 uløpt, begynte Robert Taylor å trykke et konkurrerende bind. Millar gikk til
3733 sak, og hevdet han hadde en evig rett gjennom sedvaneretten, uansett hva
3734 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> sa.<sup>[<a name="id2890092" href="#ftn.id2890092" class="footnote">108</a>]</sup>
3735 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxmansfield2"></a><p>
3736 Til moderne juristers forbløffelse, var en av, ikke bare datidens, men en av
3737 de største dommere i engelsk historie, Lord Mansfield, enig med
3738 bokhandlerne. Uansett hvilken beskyttelse <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> gav
3739 bokhandlerne, så sa han at den ikke fortrengte noe fra
3740 sedvaneretten. Spørsmålet var hvorvidt sedvaneretten beskyttet forfatterne
3741 mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirater</span>»</span>. Mansfield svar var ja: Sedvaneretten nektet
3742 Taylor å reprodusere Thomsons dikt uten Millars tillatelse. Slik gav
3743 sedvaneretten bokselgerne en evig publiseringsrett til bøker solgt til dem.
3744 </p><p>
3745
3746 Ser man på det som et spørsmål innen abstrakt jus - dersom man resonnere som
3747 om rettferdighet bare var logisk deduksjon fra de første bud - kunne
3748 Mansfields konklusjon gitt mening. Men den overså det Parlamentet hadde
3749 kjempet for i 1710: Hvordan man på best mulig vis kunne innskrenke
3750 utgivernes monopolmakt. Parlamentets strategi hadde vært å kjøpe fred
3751 gjennom å tilby en beskyttelsesperiode også for eksisterende verk, men
3752 perioden måtte være så kort at kulturen ble utsatt for konkurranse innen
3753 rimelig tid. Storbritannia skulle vokse fra den kontrollerte kulturen under
3754 kronen, inn i en fri og åpen kultur.
3755 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2890175"></a><p>
3756 Kampen for å forsvare <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>s begrensninger sluttet
3757 uansett ikke der, for nå kommer Donaldson.
3758 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2890192"></a><p>
3759 Millar døde kort tid etter sin seier. Boet hans solgte rettighetene over
3760 Thomsons dikt til et syndikat av utgivere, deriblant Thomas
3761 Beckett.<sup>[<a name="id2890206" href="#ftn.id2890206" class="footnote">109</a>]</sup> Da ga Donaldson ut en
3762 uautorisert utgave av Thomsons verk. Etter avgjørelsen i
3763 <em class="citetitle">Millar</em>-saken, gikk Beckett til sak mot
3764 Donaldson. Donaldson tok saken inn for Overhuset, som da fungerte som en
3765 slags høyesterett. I februar 1774 hadde dette organet muligheten til å tolke
3766 Parlamentets mening med utøpsdatoen fra seksti år før.
3767 </p><p>
3768 Rettssaken <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot
3769 <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> fikk en enorm oppmerksomhet i hele
3770 Storbritannia. Donaldsons advokater mente at selv om det før fantes en del
3771 rettigheter i sedvaneretten, så var disse fortrengt av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of
3772 Anne</span>»</span>. Etter at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span> var blitt vedtatt,
3773 skulle den eneste lovlige beskyttelse for trykkerett kom derfra. Og derfor,
3774 mente de, i tråd med vilkårene i <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Statute of Anne</span>»</span>, falle i det
3775 fri så fort beskyttelsesperioden var over.
3776 </p><p>
3777 Overhuset var en merkelig institusjon. Juridiske spørsmål ble presentert for
3778 huset, og ble først stemt over av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">juslorder</span>»</span>, medlemmer av
3779 enspesiell rettslig gruppe som fungerte nesten slik som justiariusene i vår
3780 Høyesterett. Deretter, etter at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">juslordene</span>»</span> hadde stemt,
3781 stemte resten av Overhuset.
3782 </p><p>
3783
3784 Rapportene om juslordene stemmer er uenige. På enkelte punkter ser det ut
3785 som om evigvarende beskyttelse fikk flertall. Men det er ingen tvil om
3786 hvordan resten av Overhuset stemte. Med en majoritet på to mot en (22 mot
3787 11) stemte de ned forslaget om en evig beskyttelse. Uansett hvordan man
3788 hadde tolket sedvaneretten, var nå kopiretten begrenset til en periode, og
3789 etter denne ville verket falle i det fri.
3790 </p><p>
3791 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Å falle i det fri</span>»</span>. Før rettssaken
3792 <em class="citetitle">Donaldson</em> mot <em class="citetitle">Beckett</em> var det
3793 ingen klar oppfatning om hva å falle i det fri innebar. Før 1774 var det jo
3794 en allmenn oppfatning om at kopiretten var evigvarende. Men etter 1774 ble
3795 Public Domain født.For første gang i angloamerikansk historie var den
3796 lovlige beskyttelsen av et verk utgått, og de største verk i engelsk
3797 historie - inkludert Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Johnson og Bunyan - var
3798 frie.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2890319"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2890325"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2890331"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2890338"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2890344"></a>
3799 </p><p>
3800 Vi kan knapt forestille oss det, men denne avgjørelsen fra Overhuset fyrte
3801 opp under en svært populær og politisk reaksjon. I Skottland, hvor de fleste
3802 piratugiverne hadde holdt til, ble avgjørelsen feiret i gatene. Som
3803 <em class="citetitle">Edinburgh Advertiser</em> skrev <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ingen privatsak har
3804 noen gang fått slik oppmerksomhet fra folket, og ingen sak som har blitt
3805 prøvet i Overhuset har interessert så mange enkeltmennesker.</span>»</span>
3806 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Stor glede i Edinburgh etter seieren over litterær eiendom: bål og
3807 *illuminations*.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2890378" href="#ftn.id2890378" class="footnote">110</a>]</sup>
3808 </p><p>
3809 I London, ihvertfall blant utgiverne, var reaksjonen like sterk, men i
3810 motsatt retning. <em class="citetitle">Morning Chronicle</em> skrev:
3811 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
3812 Gjennom denne avgjørelsen &#8230; er verdier til nesten 200 000 pund, som
3813 er blitt ærlig kjøpt gjennom allment salg, og som i går var eiendom, er nå
3814 redusert til ingenting. Bokselgerne i London og Westminster, mange av dem
3815 har solgt hus og eiendom for å kjøpe kopirettigheter, er med ett ruinerte,
3816 og mange som gjennom mange år har opparbeidet kompetanse for å brødfø
3817 familien, sitter nå uten en shilling til sine.<sup>[<a name="id2889901" href="#ftn.id2889901" class="footnote">111</a>]</sup>
3818 </p></blockquote></div><p>
3819
3820
3821 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ruinert</span>»</span> er en overdrivelse. Men det er ingen overdrivelse å
3822 si at endringen var stor. Vedtaket fra Overhuset betydde at bokhandlerne
3823 ikke lenger kunnen kontrollere hvordan kulturen i England ville vokse og
3824 utvikle seg. Kulturen i England var etter dette
3825 <span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span>. Ikke i den betydning at kopiretten ble ignorert,
3826 for utgiverne hadde i en begrenset periode rett over trykkingen. Og heller
3827 ikke i den betydningen at bøker kunne stjeles, for selv etter at boken var
3828 falt i det fri, så måtte den kjøpes. Men <span class="emphasis"><em>fri</em></span> i
3829 betydningen at kulturen og dens vekst ikke lenger var kontrollert av en
3830 liten gruppe utgivere. Som alle frie markeder, ville dette markedet vokse og
3831 utvikle seg etter tilbud og etterspørsel. Den engelske kulturen ble nå
3832 formet slik flertallet Englands lesere ville at det skulle formes - gjennom
3833 valget av hva de kjøpte og skrev, gjennom valget av *memes* de gjentok og
3834 beundret. Valg i en <span class="emphasis"><em>konkurrerende sammenheng</em></span>, ikke der
3835 hvor valgene var om hvilken kultur som skulle være tilgjengelig for folket
3836 og hvor deres tilgang til den ble styrt av noen få, på tros av flertallets
3837 ønsker.
3838 </p><p>
3839 Til sist, dette var en verden hvor Parlamentet var antimonopolistisk, og
3840 holdt stand mot utgivernes krav. I en verden hvor parlamentet er lett å
3841 påvirke, vil den frie kultur være mindre beskyttet.
3842 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889280" href="#id2889280" class="para">98</a>] </sup>
3843
3844 <a class="indexterm" name="id2889283"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2889292"></a> Jacob Tonson er vanligvis husket for sin omgang med 1700-tallets
3845 litterære storheter, spesielt John Dryden, og for hans kjekke<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ferdige
3846 versjoner</span>»</span> av klassiske verk. I tillegg til <em class="citetitle">Romeo og
3847 Julie</em>, utga han en utrolig rekke liste av verk som ennå er
3848 hjertet av den engelske kanon, inkludert de samlede verk av Shakespeare, Ben
3849 Jonson, John Milton, og John Dryden. Se Keith Walker: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jacob Tonson,
3850 Bookseller</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">American Scholar</em> 61:3 (1992):
3851 424-31.
3852 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889329" href="#id2889329" class="para">99</a>] </sup>
3853
3854
3855 Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3856 Perspective</em> (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968),
3857 151&#8211;52.
3858 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889376" href="#id2889376" class="para">100</a>] </sup>
3859
3860 Som Siva Vaidhyanathan så pent argumenterer, er det feilaktige å kalle dette
3861 en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrettslov</span>»</span>. Se Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights
3862 and Copywrongs</em>, 40.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2889388"></a>
3863 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889741" href="#id2889741" class="para">101</a>] </sup>
3864
3865
3866
3867 Philip Wittenberg, <em class="citetitle">The Protection and Marketing of Literary
3868 Property</em> (New York: J. Messner, Inc., 1937), 31.
3869 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889825" href="#id2889825" class="para">102</a>] </sup>
3870
3871
3872 A Letter to a Member of Parliament concerning the Bill now depending in the
3873 House of Commons, for making more effectual an Act in the Eighth Year of the
3874 Reign of Queen Anne, entitled, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by
3875 Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such
3876 Copies, during the Times therein mentioned (London, 1735), in Brief Amici
3877 Curiae of Tyler T. Ochoa et al., 8, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
3878 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01-618).
3879 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2887951" href="#id2887951" class="para">103</a>] </sup>
3880
3881 Lyman Ray Patterson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use</span>»</span>,
3882 <em class="citetitle">Vanderbilt Law Review</em> 40 (1987): 28. For en
3883 fantastisk overbevisende fortelling, se Vaidhyanathan, 37&#8211;48.
3884 <a class="indexterm" name="id2889339"></a>
3885 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889932" href="#id2889932" class="para">104</a>] </sup>
3886
3887
3888 For a compelling account, see David Saunders, <em class="citetitle">Authorship and
3889 Copyright</em> (London: Routledge, 1992), 62&#8211;69.
3890 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889959" href="#id2889959" class="para">105</a>] </sup>
3891
3892 Mark Rose, <em class="citetitle">Authors and Owners</em> (Cambridge: Harvard
3893 University Press, 1993), 92.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2889966"></a>
3894 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889989" href="#id2889989" class="para">106</a>] </sup>
3895
3896
3897 Ibid., 93.
3898 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2890024" href="#id2890024" class="para">107</a>] </sup>
3899
3900
3901 Lyman Ray Patterson, <em class="citetitle">Copyright in Historical
3902 Perspective</em>, 167 (quoting Borwell).
3903 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2890092" href="#id2890092" class="para">108</a>] </sup>
3904
3905
3906 Howard B. Abrams, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
3907 Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Wayne Law
3908 Review</em> 29 (1983): 1152.
3909 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2890206" href="#id2890206" class="para">109</a>] </sup>
3910
3911
3912 Ibid., 1156.
3913 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2890378" href="#id2890378" class="para">110</a>] </sup>
3914
3915
3916 Rose, 97.
3917 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2889901" href="#id2889901" class="para">111</a>] </sup>
3918
3919
3920 ibid.
3921 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel sju: Innspillerne"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="recorders"></a>Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</h2></div></div></div><p>
3922 Jon Else er en filmskaper. Han er mest kjent for sine dokumentarer og har på
3923 ypperlig vis klart å spre sin kunst. Han er også en lærer, som meg selv, og
3924 jeg misunner den lojaliteten og beundringen hans studenter har for ham. (Ved
3925 et uhell møtte jeg to av hans studenter i et middagsselskap og han var deres
3926 Gud.)
3927 </p><p>
3928 Else arbeidet med en dokumentarfilm hvor også jeg var involvert. I en pause
3929 så fortalte han meg om hvordan det kunne være å skape film i dagens Amerika.
3930 </p><p>
3931 I 1990 arbeidet Else med en dokumentar om Wagners Ring Cycle. Fokuset var på
3932 *stagehands* på San Francisco Opera. Stagehands er spesielt morsomt og
3933 fargerikt innslag i en opera. I løpet av forestillingen oppholder de seg
3934 blant publikum og på lysloftet. De er en perfekt kontrast til kunsten på
3935 scenen.<a class="indexterm" name="id2890532"></a>
3936 </p><p>
3937
3938 Under en forestilling, filmet Else noen stagehands som spilte *checkers*. I
3939 et hjørne av rommet stod det et fjernsynsapparat. På fjernsynet, mens
3940 forestillingen pågikk og operakompaniet spilte Wagner, gikk <em class="citetitle">The
3941 Simpsons</em>. Slik Else så det, så hjalp dette tegnefilm-innslaget
3942 med å fange det spesielle med scenen.
3943 </p><p>
3944 Så noen år senere, da han endelig hadde fått ordnet den siste
3945 finansieringen, ville Else skaffe rettigheter til å bruke disse få sekundene
3946 med <em class="citetitle">The Simpson</em>. For disse få sekundene var selvsagt
3947 beskyttet av opphavsretten, og for å bruke beskyttet materiale må man ha
3948 tillatelse fra eieren, dersom det ikke er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> eller
3949 det foreligger spesielle avtaler.
3950 </p><p>
3951 Else kontaktet <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-skaper Matt Groenings kontor
3952 for å få tillatelse. Og Groening gav ham det. Det var tross alt kun snakk om
3953 fire og et halvt sekund på et lite fjernsyn, bakerst i et hjørne av
3954 rommet. Hvordan kunne det skade? Groening var glad for å få ha det med i
3955 filmen, men han ba Else om å kontakte Gracie Films, firmaet som produserer
3956 programmet.<a class="indexterm" name="id2890596"></a>
3957 </p><p>
3958 Gracie Films sa også at det var greit, men de, slik som Groening, ønsket å
3959 være forsiktige, og ba Else om å kontakte Fox, konsernet som eide Gracie. Og
3960 Else kontaktet Fox og forklarte situasjonen; at det var snakk om et klipp i
3961 hjørnet i bakgrunnen i ett rom i filmen. Matt Groening hadde allerede gitt
3962 sin tillatelse, sa Else. Han ville bare få det avklart med Fox.<a class="indexterm" name="id2890616"></a>
3963 </p><p>
3964 Deretter, fortalte Else: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">skjedde to ting. Først oppdaget vi &#8230;
3965 at Matt Groening ikke eide sitt eget verk &#8212; ihvertfall at noen [hos
3966 Fox] trodde at han ikke eide sitt eget verk.</span>»</span> Som det andre krevde
3967 Fox <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ti tusen dollar i lisensavgift for disse fire og et halvt
3968 sekundene med &#8230; fullstendig tilfeldig <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>
3969 som var i et hjørne i ett opptak.</span>»</span>
3970 </p><p>
3971 Ellers var sikker på at det var en feil. Han fikk tak i noen som han trodde
3972 var nestleder for lisensiering, Rebecca Herrera. Han forklarte for henne at
3973 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">det må være en feil her &#8230; Vi ber deg om en utdanningssats på
3974 dette.</span>»</span> Og de hadde fått utdanningssats, fortalte Herrera. Kort tid
3975 etter ringte Else igjen for å få dette bekreftet.
3976 </p><p>
3977
3978 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Jeg måtte være sikker på at jeg hadde riktige opplysninger foran
3979 meg</span>»</span>, sa han. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ja, du har riktige opplysninger</span>»</span>, sa
3980 hun. Det ville koste $10 000 å bruke dette lille klippet av <em class="citetitle">The
3981 Simpson</em>, plassert bakerst i et hjørne i en scene i en dokumentar
3982 om Wagners Ring Cycle. Som om det ikke var nok, forbløffet Herrera Else med
3983 å si <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Og om du siterer meg, vil du høre fra våre advokater.</span>»</span> En
3984 av Herreras assistenter fortalte Else at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">De bryr seg ikke i det
3985 heletatt. Alt de vil ha er pengene.</span>»</span>
3986 </p><p>
3987 Men Else hadde ikke penger til å kjøpe lisens for klippet. Så å gjenskape
3988 denne delen av virkeligheten, lå langt utenfor hans budsjett. Like før
3989 dokumentaren skulle slippes, redigerte Else inn et annet klipp på
3990 fjernsynet, et klipp fra en av hans andre filmer <em class="citetitle">The Day After
3991 Trinity</em> fra ti år tidligere. <a class="indexterm" name="id2890713"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2890720"></a>
3992 </p><p>
3993 Det er ingen tvil om at noen, enten det er er Matt Groening eller Fox, eier
3994 rettighetene til <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Rettighetene er deres
3995 eiendom. For å bruke beskyttet mteriale, kreves det ofte at men får
3996 tillatelse fra eieren eller eierne. Dersom Else ønsket å bruke
3997 <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em> til noe hvor loven gir verket
3998 beskyttelse, så må han innhente tillatelse fra eieren før han kan bruke
3999 det. Og i et fritt markes er det eieren som bestemmer hvor mye han/hun vil
4000 ta for hvilken som helst bruk (hvor loven krever tillatelse fra eier).
4001 </p><p>
4002 For eksempel <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">offentlig fremvisning</span>»</span>* av <em class="citetitle">The
4003 Simpson</em> er en form for bruk hvor loven gir eieren
4004 kontroll. Dersom du velger ut dine favorittepisoder, leier en kinosal og
4005 selger billetter til <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mine
4006 <em class="citetitle">Simpson</em>-favoritter</span>»</span>, så må du ha tillatelse
4007 fra rettighetsinnhaveren (eieren). Og eieren kan (med rette, slik jeg ser
4008 det) kreve hvor mye han vil; $10ellr $1 000 000. Det er hans rett ifølge
4009 loven.
4010 </p><p>
4011 Men når jurister hører denne historien om Jon Else og Fox, så er deres
4012 første tanke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2890785" href="#ftn.id2890785" class="footnote">112</a>]</sup> Elses bruk av 4,5 sekunder med et indirekte klipp av en
4013 <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>-episode er et klart eksempel på
4014 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>&#8212; og
4015 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> krever ingen tillatelse fra noen.
4016 </p><p>
4017
4018
4019 Så jeg spurte Else om hvorfor han ikke bare stolte på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
4020 use</span>»</span>. Og her er hans svar:
4021 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4022 <em class="citetitle">Simpsons</em>-fiaskoen lærte meg om hvor stor avstand det
4023 var mellom det jurister finner urelevant på en abstrakt måte, og hva som er
4024 knusende relevant på en konkret måte for oss som prøver å lage og kringkaste
4025 dokumentarer. Jeg tvilte aldri på at dette helt klart var <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
4026 bruk</span>»</span>, men jeg kunne ikke stole på konseptet på noen konkret måte. Og
4027 dette er grunnen:
4028 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
4029
4030
4031 Før våre filmer kan kringkastes, krever nettverket at vi kjøper en
4032 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Errors and Omissions</span>»</span>-forsikring. Den krever en detailjert
4033 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">visual cue sheet</span>»</span> med alle kilder og lisens-status på alle
4034 scener i filmen. De har et smalt syn på <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>, og å påstå
4035 at noe er nettopp det kan forsinke, og i verste fall stoppe, prosessen.
4036 </p></li><li class="listitem"><a class="indexterm" name="id2890895"></a><p>
4037
4038 Jeg skulle nok aldri ha bedt om Matt Groenings tillatelse. Men jeg visste
4039 (ihvertfall fra rykter) at Fox tidligere hadde brukt å jakte på og stoppe
4040 ulisensiert bruk av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>, på samme måte som
4041 George Lucas var veldig ivrig på å forfølge bruken av <em class="citetitle">Star
4042 Wars</em>. Så jeg bestemte meg for å følge boka, og trodde at vi
4043 kulle få til en gratis, i alle fall rimelig, avtale for fire sekunders bruk
4044 av <em class="citetitle">The Simpsons</em>. Som en dokumentarskaper, arbeidende
4045 på randen av utryddelse, var det siste jeg ønsket en juridisk strid, selv
4046 for å forsvare et prinsipp.
4047 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4048
4049
4050
4051 Jeg snakket faktisk med en av dine kolleger på Stanford Law School &#8230;
4052 som bekreftet at dette var rimelig bruk. Han bekreftet også at Fox ville
4053 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">depose and litigate you to within an inch of your life</span>»</span>,
4054 uavhengig av sannheten i mine krav. Han gjorde det klart at alt ville koke
4055 ned til hvem som hadde flest jurister og dypest lommer, jeg eller dem.
4056
4057 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
4058
4059
4060 Spørsmålet om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> dukker om regel opp helt mot slutten
4061 av prosjektet, når vi nærmer oss siste frist og er tomme for penger.
4062 </p></li></ol></div></blockquote></div><p>
4063 I teorien betyr <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> at du ikke trenger
4064 tillatelse. Teorien støtter derfor den frie kultur og arbeider mot
4065 tillatelseskulturen. Men i praksis fungerer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> helt
4066 annerledes. Men de uklare linjene i lovverket, samt de fryktelige
4067 konsekvensene dersom man tar feil, gjør at mange kunstnere ikke stoler på
4068 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>. Loven har en svært god hensikt, men praksisen har
4069 ikke fulgt opp.
4070 </p><p>
4071 Dette eksempelet viser hvor langt denne loven har kommet fra sine
4072 syttenhundretalls røtter. Loven som skulle beskytte utgiverne mot
4073 urettferdig piratkonkurranse, hadde utviklet seg til et sverd som slo ned på
4074 _all_ bruk, transformativ* eller ikke.
4075 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2890785" href="#id2890785" class="para">112</a>] </sup>
4076
4077
4078 Ønsker du å lese en flott redegjørelse om hvordan dette er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
4079 use</span>»</span>, og hvordan advokatene ikke anerkjenner det, så les Richard
4080 A. Posner og William F. Patry, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the
4081 Wake of <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> </span>»</span> (utkast arkivert hos
4082 forfatteren), University of Chicago Law School, 5. august 2003.
4083 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel åtte: Omformere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="transformers"></a>Kapittel åtte: Omformere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2891020"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2891039"></a><p>
4084 In 1993, Alex Alben was a lawyer working at Starwave, Inc.  Starwave was an
4085 innovative company founded by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen to develop
4086 digital entertainment. Long before the Internet became popular, Starwave
4087 began investing in new technology for delivering entertainment in
4088 anticipation of the power of networks.
4089 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistsretrospective"></a><p>
4090 Alben had a special interest in new technology. He was intrigued by the
4091 emerging market for CD-ROM technology&#8212;not to distribute film, but to
4092 do things with film that otherwise would be very difficult.  In 1993, he
4093 launched an initiative to develop a product to build retrospectives on the
4094 work of particular actors. The first actor chosen was Clint Eastwood. The
4095 idea was to showcase all of the work of Eastwood, with clips from his films
4096 and interviews with figures important to his career.
4097 </p><p>
4098 At that time, Eastwood had made more than fifty films, as an actor and as a
4099 director. Alben began with a series of interviews with Eastwood, asking him
4100 about his career. Because Starwave produced those interviews, it was free to
4101 include them on the CD.
4102 </p><p>
4103
4104
4105 That alone would not have made a very interesting product, so Starwave
4106 wanted to add content from the movies in Eastwood's career: posters,
4107 scripts, and other material relating to the films Eastwood made. Most of his
4108 career was spent at Warner Brothers, and so it was relatively easy to get
4109 permission for that content.
4110 </p><p>
4111 Then Alben and his team decided to include actual film clips. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Our
4112 goal was that we were going to have a clip from every one of Eastwood's
4113 films,</span>»</span> Alben told me. It was here that the problem arose. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No
4114 one had ever really done this before,</span>»</span> Alben explained. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No one
4115 had ever tried to do this in the context of an artistic look at an actor's
4116 career.</span>»</span>
4117 </p><p>
4118 Alben brought the idea to Michael Slade, the CEO of Starwave.  Slade asked,
4119 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, what will it take?</span>»</span>
4120 </p><p>
4121 Alben replied, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, we're going to have to clear rights from
4122 everyone who appears in these films, and the music and everything else that
4123 we want to use in these film clips.</span>»</span> Slade said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Great! Go for
4124 it.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2891137" href="#ftn.id2891137" class="footnote">113</a>]</sup>
4125 </p><p>
4126 The problem was that neither Alben nor Slade had any idea what clearing
4127 those rights would mean. Every actor in each of the films could have a claim
4128 to royalties for the reuse of that film. But CD- ROMs had not been specified
4129 in the contracts for the actors, so there was no clear way to know just what
4130 Starwave was to do.
4131 </p><p>
4132 I asked Alben how he dealt with the problem. With an obvious pride in his
4133 resourcefulness that obscured the obvious bizarreness of his tale, Alben
4134 recounted just what they did:
4135 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4136 So we very mechanically went about looking up the film clips.  We made some
4137 artistic decisions about what film clips to include&#8212;of course we were
4138 going to use the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Make my day</span>»</span> clip from <em class="citetitle">Dirty
4139 Harry</em>. But you then need to get the guy on the ground who's
4140 wiggling under the gun and you need to get his permission.  And then you
4141 have to decide what you are going to pay him.
4142 </p><p>
4143
4144
4145 We decided that it would be fair if we offered them the dayplayer rate for
4146 the right to reuse that performance. We're talking about a clip of less than
4147 a minute, but to reuse that performance in the CD-ROM the rate at the time
4148 was about $600.  So we had to identify the people&#8212;some of them were
4149 hard to identify because in Eastwood movies you can't tell who's the guy
4150 crashing through the glass&#8212;is it the actor or is it the stuntman? And
4151 then we just, we put together a team, my assistant and some others, and we
4152 just started calling people.
4153 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2891210"></a><p>
4154 Some actors were glad to help&#8212;Donald Sutherland, for example, followed
4155 up himself to be sure that the rights had been cleared.  Others were
4156 dumbfounded at their good fortune. Alben would ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hey, can I pay
4157 you $600 or maybe if you were in two films, you know, $1,200?</span>»</span> And
4158 they would say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Are you for real? Hey, I'd love to get
4159 $1,200.</span>»</span> And some of course were a bit difficult (estranged ex-wives,
4160 in particular). But eventually, Alben and his team had cleared the rights to
4161 this retrospective CD-ROM on Clint Eastwood's career.
4162 </p><p>
4163 It was one <span class="emphasis"><em>year</em></span> later&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">and even then we
4164 weren't sure whether we were totally in the clear.</span>»</span>
4165 </p><p>
4166 Alben is proud of his work. The project was the first of its kind and the
4167 only time he knew of that a team had undertaken such a massive project for
4168 the purpose of releasing a retrospective.
4169 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4170 Everyone thought it would be too hard. Everyone just threw up their hands
4171 and said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh, my gosh, a film, it's so many copyrights, there's the
4172 music, there's the screenplay, there's the director, there's the
4173 actors.</span>»</span> But we just broke it down. We just put it into its
4174 constituent parts and said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Okay, there's this many actors, this many
4175 directors, &#8230; this many musicians,</span>»</span> and we just went at it very
4176 systematically and cleared the rights.
4177 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4178
4179
4180
4181 And no doubt, the product itself was exceptionally good. Eastwood loved it,
4182 and it sold very well.
4183 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2891292"></a><p>
4184 But I pressed Alben about how weird it seems that it would have to take a
4185 year's work simply to clear rights. No doubt Alben had done this
4186 efficiently, but as Peter Drucker has famously quipped, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">There is
4187 nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at
4188 all.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2891307" href="#ftn.id2891307" class="footnote">114</a>]</sup> Did it make sense, I asked
4189 Alben, that this is the way a new work has to be made?
4190 </p><p>
4191 For, as he acknowledged, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">very few &#8230; have the time and
4192 resources, and the will to do this,</span>»</span> and thus, very few such works
4193 would ever be made. Does it make sense, I asked him, from the standpoint of
4194 what anybody really thought they were ever giving rights for originally,
4195 that you would have to go clear rights for these kinds of clips?
4196 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4197 I don't think so. When an actor renders a performance in a movie, he or she
4198 gets paid very well. &#8230; And then when 30 seconds of that performance
4199 is used in a new product that is a retrospective of somebody's career, I
4200 don't think that that person &#8230; should be compensated for that.
4201 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4202 Or at least, is this <span class="emphasis"><em>how</em></span> the artist should be
4203 compensated? Would it make sense, I asked, for there to be some kind of
4204 statutory license that someone could pay and be free to make derivative use
4205 of clips like this? Did it really make sense that a follow-on creator would
4206 have to track down every artist, actor, director, musician, and get explicit
4207 permission from each? Wouldn't a lot more be created if the legal part of
4208 the creative process could be made to be more clean?
4209 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4210
4211 Absolutely. I think that if there were some fair-licensing
4212 mechanism&#8212;where you weren't subject to hold-ups and you weren't
4213 subject to estranged former spouses&#8212;you'd see a lot more of this work,
4214 because it wouldn't be so daunting to try to put together a retrospective of
4215 someone's career and meaningfully illustrate it with lots of media from that
4216 person's career. You'd build in a cost as the producer of one of these
4217 things. You'd build in a cost of paying X dollars to the talent that
4218 performed. But it would be a known cost. That's the thing that trips
4219 everybody up and makes this kind of product hard to get off the ground. If
4220 you knew I have a hundred minutes of film in this product and it's going to
4221 cost me X, then you build your budget around it, and you can get investments
4222 and everything else that you need to produce it. But if you say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh,
4223 I want a hundred minutes of something and I have no idea what it's going to
4224 cost me, and a certain number of people are going to hold me up for
4225 money,</span>»</span> then it becomes difficult to put one of these things
4226 together.
4227 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4228 Alben worked for a big company. His company was backed by some of the
4229 richest investors in the world. He therefore had authority and access that
4230 the average Web designer would not have. So if it took him a year, how long
4231 would it take someone else? And how much creativity is never made just
4232 because the costs of clearing the rights are so high?
4233 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2891404"></a><p>
4234 These costs are the burdens of a kind of regulation. Put on a Republican hat
4235 for a moment, and get angry for a bit. The government defines the scope of
4236 these rights, and the scope defined determines how much it's going to cost
4237 to negotiate them. (Remember the idea that land runs to the heavens, and
4238 imagine the pilot purchasing flythrough rights as he negotiates to fly from
4239 Los Angeles to San Francisco.)  These rights might well have once made
4240 sense; but as circumstances change, they make no sense at all. Or at least,
4241 a well-trained, regulationminimizing Republican should look at the rights
4242 and ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Does this still make sense?</span>»</span>
4243 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2891429"></a><p>
4244
4245 I've seen the flash of recognition when people get this point, but only a
4246 few times. The first was at a conference of federal judges in California.
4247 The judges were gathered to discuss the emerging topic of cyber-law. I was
4248 asked to be on the panel. Harvey Saferstein, a well-respected lawyer from an
4249 L.A. firm, introduced the panel with a video that he and a friend, Robert
4250 Fairbank, had produced.
4251 </p><p>
4252 Videoen var en glimrende sammenstilling av filmer fra hver periode i det
4253 tjuende århundret, rammet inn rundt idéen om en episode i TV-serien
4254 <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em>. Utførelsen var perfekt, ned til seksti
4255 minutter stoppeklokken. Dommerne elsket enhver minutt av den.
4256 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2891464"></a><p>
4257 Da lysene kom på, kikket jeg over til min medpaneldeltager, David Nimmer,
4258 kanskje den ledende opphavsrettakademiker og utøver i nasjonen. Han hadde en
4259 forbauset uttrykk i ansiktet sitt, mens han tittet ut over rommet med over
4260 250 godt underholdte dommere. Med en en illevarslende tone, begynte han sin
4261 tale med et spørsmål: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Vet dere hvor mange føderale lover som nettopp
4262 brutt i dette rommet?</span>»</span>
4263 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2891490"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2891496"></a><p>
4264 For of course, the two brilliantly talented creators who made this film
4265 hadn't done what Alben did. They hadn't spent a year clearing the rights to
4266 these clips; technically, what they had done violated the law.  Of course,
4267 it wasn't as if they or anyone were going to be prosecuted for this
4268 violation (the presence of 250 judges and a gaggle of federal marshals
4269 notwithstanding). But Nimmer was making an important point: A year before
4270 anyone would have heard of the word Napster, and two years before another
4271 member of our panel, David Boies, would defend Napster before the Ninth
4272 Circuit Court of Appeals, Nimmer was trying to get the judges to see that
4273 the law would not be friendly to the capacities that this technology would
4274 enable. Technology means you can now do amazing things easily; but you
4275 couldn't easily do them legally.
4276 </p><p>
4277 We live in a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>»</span> culture enabled by
4278 technology. Anyone building a presentation knows the extraordinary freedom
4279 that the cut and paste architecture of the Internet created&#8212;in a
4280 second you can find just about any image you want; in another second, you
4281 can have it planted in your presentation.
4282 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2891525"></a><p>
4283
4284 But presentations are just a tiny beginning. Using the Internet and its
4285 archives, musicians are able to string together mixes of sound never before
4286 imagined; filmmakers are able to build movies out of clips on computers
4287 around the world. An extraordinary site in Sweden takes images of
4288 politicians and blends them with music to create biting political
4289 commentary. A site called Camp Chaos has produced some of the most biting
4290 criticism of the record industry that there is through the mixing of Flash!
4291 and music.
4292 </p><p>
4293 All of these creations are technically illegal. Even if the creators wanted
4294 to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">legal,</span>»</span> the cost of complying with the law is impossibly
4295 high. Therefore, for the law-abiding sorts, a wealth of creativity is never
4296 made. And for that part that is made, if it doesn't follow the clearance
4297 rules, it doesn't get released.
4298 </p><p>
4299 To some, these stories suggest a solution: Let's alter the mix of rights so
4300 that people are free to build upon our culture. Free to add or mix as they
4301 see fit. We could even make this change without necessarily requiring that
4302 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> use be free as in <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free beer.</span>»</span> Instead,
4303 the system could simply make it easy for follow-on creators to compensate
4304 artists without requiring an army of lawyers to come along: a rule, for
4305 example, that says <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the royalty owed the copyright owner of an
4306 unregistered work for the derivative reuse of his work will be a flat 1
4307 percent of net revenues, to be held in escrow for the copyright
4308 owner.</span>»</span> Under this rule, the copyright owner could benefit from some
4309 royalty, but he would not have the benefit of a full property right (meaning
4310 the right to name his own price) unless he registers the work.
4311 </p><p>
4312 Who could possibly object to this? And what reason would there be for
4313 objecting? We're talking about work that is not now being made; which if
4314 made, under this plan, would produce new income for artists.  What reason
4315 would anyone have to oppose it?
4316 </p><p>
4317
4318 In February 2003, DreamWorks studios announced an agreement with Mike Myers,
4319 the comic genius of <em class="citetitle">Saturday Night Live</em> and Austin
4320 Powers. According to the announcement, Myers and Dream-Works would work
4321 together to form a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">unique filmmaking pact.</span>»</span> Under the
4322 agreement, DreamWorks <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">will acquire the rights to existing motion
4323 picture hits and classics, write new storylines and&#8212;with the use of
4324 stateof-the-art digital technology&#8212;insert Myers and other actors into
4325 the film, thereby creating an entirely new piece of entertainment.</span>»</span>
4326 </p><p>
4327 The announcement called this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">film sampling.</span>»</span> As Myers
4328 explained, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Film Sampling is an exciting way to put an original spin
4329 on existing films and allow audiences to see old movies in a new light. Rap
4330 artists have been doing this for years with music and now we are able to
4331 take that same concept and apply it to film.</span>»</span> Steven Spielberg is
4332 quoted as saying, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If anyone can create a way to bring old films to
4333 new audiences, it is Mike.</span>»</span>
4334 </p><p>
4335 Spielberg is right. Film sampling by Myers will be brilliant. But if you
4336 don't think about it, you might miss the truly astonishing point about this
4337 announcement. As the vast majority of our film heritage remains under
4338 copyright, the real meaning of the DreamWorks announcement is just this: It
4339 is Mike Myers and only Mike Myers who is free to sample. Any general freedom
4340 to build upon the film archive of our culture, a freedom in other contexts
4341 presumed for us all, is now a privilege reserved for the funny and
4342 famous&#8212;and presumably rich.
4343 </p><p>
4344 This privilege becomes reserved for two sorts of reasons. The first
4345 continues the story of the last chapter: the vagueness of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair
4346 use.</span>»</span> Much of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sampling</span>»</span> should be considered
4347 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use.</span>»</span> But few would rely upon so weak a doctrine to
4348 create. That leads to the second reason that the privilege is reserved for
4349 the few: The costs of negotiating the legal rights for the creative reuse of
4350 content are astronomically high.  These costs mirror the costs with fair
4351 use: You either pay a lawyer to defend your fair use rights or pay a lawyer
4352 to track down permissions so you don't have to rely upon fair use
4353 rights. Either way, the creative process is a process of paying
4354 lawyers&#8212;again a privilege, or perhaps a curse, reserved for the few.
4355 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891137" href="#id2891137" class="para">113</a>] </sup>
4356
4357 Technically, the rights that Alben had to clear were mainly those of
4358 publicity&#8212;rights an artist has to control the commercial exploitation
4359 of his image.  But these rights, too, burden <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rip, Mix, Burn</span>»</span>
4360 creativity, as this chapter evinces.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2891149"></a>
4361 <a class="indexterm" name="id2891164"></a>
4362 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891307" href="#id2891307" class="para">114</a>] </sup>
4363
4364
4365 U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management,
4366 <em class="citetitle">Seven Steps to Performance-Based Services
4367 Acquisition</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #22</a>.
4368 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel ni: Samlere"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="collectors"></a>Kapittel ni: Samlere</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital1"></a><p>
4369 In April 1996, millions of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bots</span>»</span>&#8212;computer codes designed
4370 to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">spider,</span>»</span> or automatically search the Internet and copy
4371 content&#8212;began running across the Net. Page by page, these bots copied
4372 Internet-based information onto a small set of computers located in a
4373 basement in San Francisco's Presidio. Once the bots finished the whole of
4374 the Internet, they started again. Over and over again, once every two
4375 months, these bits of code took copies of the Internet and stored them.
4376 </p><p>
4377 By October 2001, the bots had collected more than five years of copies. And
4378 at a small announcement in Berkeley, California, the archive that these
4379 copies created, the Internet Archive, was opened to the world. Using a
4380 technology called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Way Back Machine,</span>»</span> you could enter a Web
4381 page, and see all of its copies going back to 1996, as well as when those
4382 pages changed.
4383 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxorwellgeorge"></a><p>
4384 This is the thing about the Internet that Orwell would have appreciated.  In
4385 the dystopia described in <em class="citetitle">1984</em>, old newspapers were
4386 constantly updated to assure that the current view of the world, approved of
4387 by the government, was not contradicted by previous news reports.
4388 </p><p>
4389
4390
4391 Thousands of workers constantly reedited the past, meaning there was no way
4392 ever to know whether the story you were reading today was the story that was
4393 printed on the date published on the paper.
4394 </p><p>
4395 It's the same with the Internet. If you go to a Web page today, there's no
4396 way for you to know whether the content you are reading is the same as the
4397 content you read before. The page may seem the same, but the content could
4398 easily be different. The Internet is Orwell's library&#8212;constantly
4399 updated, without any reliable memory.
4400 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2891776"></a><p>
4401 Until the Way Back Machine, at least. With the Way Back Machine, and the
4402 Internet Archive underlying it, you can see what the Internet was. You have
4403 the power to see what you remember. More importantly, perhaps, you also have
4404 the power to find what you don't remember and what others might prefer you
4405 forget.<sup>[<a name="id2891800" href="#ftn.id2891800" class="footnote">115</a>]</sup>
4406 </p><p>
4407 We take it for granted that we can go back to see what we remember
4408 reading. Think about newspapers. If you wanted to study the reaction of your
4409 hometown newspaper to the race riots in Watts in 1965, or to Bull Connor's
4410 water cannon in 1963, you could go to your public library and look at the
4411 newspapers. Those papers probably exist on microfiche. If you're lucky, they
4412 exist in paper, too. Either way, you are free, using a library, to go back
4413 and remember&#8212;not just what it is convenient to remember, but remember
4414 something close to the truth.
4415 </p><p>
4416 It is said that those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat
4417 it. That's not quite correct. We <span class="emphasis"><em>all</em></span> forget
4418 history. The key is whether we have a way to go back to rediscover what we
4419 forget. More directly, the key is whether an objective past can keep us
4420 honest. Libraries help do that, by collecting content and keeping it, for
4421 schoolchildren, for researchers, for grandma. A free society presumes this
4422 knowedge.
4423 </p><p>
4424
4425 The Internet was an exception to this presumption. Until the Internet
4426 Archive, there was no way to go back. The Internet was the quintessentially
4427 transitory medium. And yet, as it becomes more important in forming and
4428 reforming society, it becomes more and more important to maintain in some
4429 historical form. It's just bizarre to think that we have scads of archives
4430 of newspapers from tiny towns around the world, yet there is but one copy of
4431 the Internet&#8212;the one kept by the Internet Archive.
4432 </p><p>
4433 Brewster Kahle is the founder of the Internet Archive. He was a very
4434 successful Internet entrepreneur after he was a successful computer
4435 researcher.  In the 1990s, Kahle decided he had had enough business
4436 success.  It was time to become a different kind of success. So he launched
4437 a series of projects designed to archive human knowledge. The Internet
4438 Archive was just the first of the projects of this Andrew Carnegie of the
4439 Internet. By December of 2002, the archive had over 10 billion pages, and it
4440 was growing at about a billion pages a month.
4441 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2891867"></a><p>
4442 The Way Back Machine is the largest archive of human knowledge in human
4443 history. At the end of 2002, it held <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">two hundred and thirty terabytes
4444 of material</span>»</span>&#8212;and was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ten times larger than the Library
4445 of Congress.</span>»</span> And this was just the first of the archives that Kahle
4446 set out to build. In addition to the Internet Archive, Kahle has been
4447 constructing the Television Archive. Television, it turns out, is even more
4448 ephemeral than the Internet. While much of twentieth-century culture was
4449 constructed through television, only a tiny proportion of that culture is
4450 available for anyone to see today. Three hours of news are recorded each
4451 evening by Vanderbilt University&#8212;thanks to a specific exemption in the
4452 copyright law. That content is indexed, and is available to scholars for a
4453 very low fee. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But other than that, [television] is almost
4454 unavailable,</span>»</span> Kahle told me. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">If you were Barbara Walters you
4455 could get access to [the archives], but if you are just a graduate
4456 student?</span>»</span> As Kahle put it,
4457 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2891928"></a><p>
4458
4459 Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown? Remember
4460 that back and forth surreal experience of a politician interacting with a
4461 fictional television character? If you were a graduate student wanting to
4462 study that, and you wanted to get those original back and forth exchanges
4463 between the two, the <em class="citetitle">60 Minutes</em> episode that came out
4464 after it &#8230; it would be almost impossible. &#8230; Those materials
4465 are almost unfindable. &#8230;
4466 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4467 Why is that? Why is it that the part of our culture that is recorded in
4468 newspapers remains perpetually accessible, while the part that is recorded
4469 on videotape is not? How is it that we've created a world where researchers
4470 trying to understand the effect of media on nineteenthcentury America will
4471 have an easier time than researchers trying to understand the effect of
4472 media on twentieth-century America?
4473 </p><p>
4474 In part, this is because of the law. Early in American copyright law,
4475 copyright owners were required to deposit copies of their work in
4476 libraries.  These copies were intended both to facilitate the spread of
4477 knowledge and to assure that a copy of the work would be around once the
4478 copyright expired, so that others might access and copy the work.
4479 </p><p>
4480 These rules applied to film as well. But in 1915, the Library of Congress
4481 made an exception for film. Film could be copyrighted so long as such
4482 deposits were made. But the filmmaker was then allowed to borrow back the
4483 deposits&#8212;for an unlimited time at no cost. In 1915 alone, there were
4484 more than 5,475 films deposited and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">borrowed back.</span>»</span> Thus, when
4485 the copyrights to films expire, there is no copy held by any library. The
4486 copy exists&#8212;if it exists at all&#8212;in the library archive of the
4487 film company.<sup>[<a name="id2891984" href="#ftn.id2891984" class="footnote">116</a>]</sup>
4488 </p><p>
4489 The same is generally true about television. Television broadcasts were
4490 originally not copyrighted&#8212;there was no way to capture the broadcasts,
4491 so there was no fear of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theft.</span>»</span> But as technology enabled
4492 capturing, broadcasters relied increasingly upon the law. The law required
4493 they make a copy of each broadcast for the work to be
4494 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrighted.</span>»</span> But those copies were simply kept by the
4495 broadcasters. No library had any right to them; the government didn't demand
4496 them.  The content of this part of American culture is practically invisible
4497 to anyone who would look.
4498 </p><p>
4499
4500 Kahle was eager to correct this. Before September 11, 2001, he and his
4501 allies had started capturing television. They selected twenty stations from
4502 around the world and hit the Record button. After September 11, Kahle,
4503 working with dozens of others, selected twenty stations from around the
4504 world and, beginning October 11, 2001, made their coverage during the week
4505 of September 11 available free on-line.  Anyone could see how news reports
4506 from around the world covered the events of that day.
4507 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2892041"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2892047"></a><p>
4508 Kahle had the same idea with film. Working with Rick Prelinger, whose
4509 archive of film includes close to 45,000 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ephemeral films</span>»</span>
4510 (meaning films other than Hollywood movies, films that were never
4511 copyrighted), Kahle established the Movie Archive. Prelinger let Kahle
4512 digitize 1,300 films in this archive and post those films on the Internet to
4513 be downloaded for free. Prelinger's is a for-profit company. It sells copies
4514 of these films as stock footage. What he has discovered is that after he
4515 made a significant chunk available for free, his stock footage sales went up
4516 dramatically. People could easily find the material they wanted to use. Some
4517 downloaded that material and made films on their own. Others purchased
4518 copies to enable other films to be made.  Either way, the archive enabled
4519 access to this important part of our culture.  Want to see a copy of the
4520 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Duck and Cover</span>»</span> film that instructed children how to save
4521 themselves in the middle of nuclear attack? Go to archive.org, and you can
4522 download the film in a few minutes&#8212;for free.
4523 </p><p>
4524 Here again, Kahle is providing access to a part of our culture that we
4525 otherwise could not get easily, if at all. It is yet another part of what
4526 defines the twentieth century that we have lost to history. The law doesn't
4527 require these copies to be kept by anyone, or to be deposited in an archive
4528 by anyone. Therefore, there is no simple way to find them.
4529 </p><p>
4530 The key here is access, not price. Kahle wants to enable free access to this
4531 content, but he also wants to enable others to sell access to it. His aim is
4532 to ensure competition in access to this important part of our culture.  Not
4533 during the commercial life of a bit of creative property, but during a
4534 second life that all creative property has&#8212;a noncommercial life.
4535 </p><p>
4536
4537 For here is an idea that we should more clearly recognize. Every bit of
4538 creative property goes through different <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lives.</span>»</span> In its first
4539 life, if the creator is lucky, the content is sold. In such cases the
4540 commercial market is successful for the creator. The vast majority of
4541 creative property doesn't enjoy such success, but some clearly does. For
4542 that content, commercial life is extremely important. Without this
4543 commercial market, there would be, many argue, much less creativity.
4544 </p><p>
4545 After the commercial life of creative property has ended, our tradition has
4546 always supported a second life as well. A newspaper delivers the news every
4547 day to the doorsteps of America. The very next day, it is used to wrap fish
4548 or to fill boxes with fragile gifts or to build an archive of knowledge
4549 about our history. In this second life, the content can continue to inform
4550 even if that information is no longer sold.
4551 </p><p>
4552 The same has always been true about books. A book goes out of print very
4553 quickly (the average today is after about a year<sup>[<a name="id2892138" href="#ftn.id2892138" class="footnote">117</a>]</sup>). After it is out of print, it can be sold in used book stores
4554 without the copyright owner getting anything and stored in libraries, where
4555 many get to read the book, also for free. Used book stores and libraries are
4556 thus the second life of a book. That second life is extremely important to
4557 the spread and stability of culture.
4558 </p><p>
4559 Yet increasingly, any assumption about a stable second life for creative
4560 property does not hold true with the most important components of popular
4561 culture in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. For
4562 these&#8212;television, movies, music, radio, the Internet&#8212;there is no
4563 guarantee of a second life. For these sorts of culture, it is as if we've
4564 replaced libraries with Barnes &amp; Noble superstores. With this culture,
4565 what's accessible is nothing but what a certain limited market demands.
4566 Beyond that, culture disappears.
4567 </p><p>
4568
4569 For most of the twentieth century, it was economics that made this so. It
4570 would have been insanely expensive to collect and make accessible all
4571 television and film and music: The cost of analog copies is extraordinarily
4572 high. So even though the law in principle would have restricted the ability
4573 of a Brewster Kahle to copy culture generally, the real restriction was
4574 economics. The market made it impossibly difficult to do anything about this
4575 ephemeral culture; the law had little practical effect.
4576 </p><p>
4577 Perhaps the single most important feature of the digital revolution is that
4578 for the first time since the Library of Alexandria, it is feasible to
4579 imagine constructing archives that hold all culture produced or distributed
4580 publicly. Technology makes it possible to imagine an archive of all books
4581 published, and increasingly makes it possible to imagine an archive of all
4582 moving images and sound.
4583 </p><p>
4584 The scale of this potential archive is something we've never imagined
4585 before. The Brewster Kahles of our history have dreamed about it; but we are
4586 for the first time at a point where that dream is possible. As Kahle
4587 describes,
4588 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2892219"></a><p>
4589 It looks like there's about two to three million recordings of music.
4590 Ever. There are about a hundred thousand theatrical releases of movies,
4591 &#8230; and about one to two million movies [distributed] during the
4592 twentieth century. There are about twenty-six million different titles of
4593 books. All of these would fit on computers that would fit in this room and
4594 be able to be afforded by a small company.  So we're at a turning point in
4595 our history. Universal access is the goal. And the opportunity of leading a
4596 different life, based on this, is &#8230; thrilling. It could be one of the
4597 things humankind would be most proud of. Up there with the Library of
4598 Alexandria, putting a man on the moon, and the invention of the printing
4599 press.
4600 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4601
4602 Kahle is not the only librarian. The Internet Archive is not the only
4603 archive. But Kahle and the Internet Archive suggest what the future of
4604 libraries or archives could be. <span class="emphasis"><em>When</em></span> the commercial
4605 life of creative property ends, I don't know. But it does. And whenever it
4606 does, Kahle and his archive hint at a world where this knowledge, and
4607 culture, remains perpetually available. Some will draw upon it to understand
4608 it; some to criticize it. Some will use it, as Walt Disney did, to re-create
4609 the past for the future. These technologies promise something that had
4610 become unimaginable for much of our past&#8212;a future
4611 <span class="emphasis"><em>for</em></span> our past. The technology of digital arts could make
4612 the dream of the Library of Alexandria real again.
4613 </p><p>
4614 Technologists have thus removed the economic costs of building such an
4615 archive. But lawyers' costs remain. For as much as we might like to call
4616 these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">archives,</span>»</span> as warm as the idea of a
4617 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">library</span>»</span> might seem, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">content</span>»</span> that is
4618 collected in these digital spaces is also someone's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span>
4619 And the law of property restricts the freedoms that Kahle and others would
4620 exercise.
4621 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2892293"></a><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891800" href="#id2891800" class="para">115</a>] </sup>
4622
4623 <a class="indexterm" name="id2891803"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2891812"></a> The temptations remain, however. Brewster Kahle reports that the
4624 White House changes its own press releases without notice. A May 13, 2003,
4625 press release stated, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.</span>»</span>
4626 That was later changed, without notice, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Major Combat Operations in
4627 Iraq Have Ended.</span>»</span> E-mail from Brewster Kahle, 1 December 2003.
4628 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2891984" href="#id2891984" class="para">116</a>] </sup>
4629
4630
4631 Doug Herrick, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
4632 the Library of Congress,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Film Library
4633 Quarterly</em> 13 nos. 2&#8211;3 (1980): 5; Anthony Slide,
4634 <em class="citetitle">Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film Preservation in the United
4635 States</em> ( Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland &amp; Co., 1992), 36.
4636 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892138" href="#id2892138" class="para">117</a>] </sup>
4637
4638
4639 Dave Barns, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fledgling Career in Antique Books: Woodstock Landlord,
4640 Bar Owner Starts a New Chapter by Adopting Business,</span>»</span>
4641 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 5 September 1997, at Metro Lake
4642 1L. Of books published between 1927 and 1946, only 2.2 percent were in print
4643 in 2002. R. Anthony Reese, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of
4644 Digital Networks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston College Law Review</em>
4645 44 (2003): 593 n. 51.
4646 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="property-i"></a>Kapittel ti: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eiendom</span>»</span></h2></div></div></div><p>
4647 Jack Valenti has been the president of the Motion Picture Association of
4648 America since 1966. He first came to Washington, D.C., with Lyndon Johnson's
4649 administration&#8212;literally. The famous picture of Johnson's swearing-in
4650 on Air Force One after the assassination of President Kennedy has Valenti in
4651 the background. In his almost forty years of running the MPAA, Valenti has
4652 established himself as perhaps the most prominent and effective lobbyist in
4653 Washington.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2892265"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2892333"></a>
4654 </p><p>
4655 The MPAA is the American branch of the international Motion Picture
4656 Association. It was formed in 1922 as a trade association whose goal was to
4657 defend American movies against increasing domestic criticism.  The
4658 organization now represents not only filmmakers but producers and
4659 distributors of entertainment for television, video, and cable. Its board is
4660 made up of the chairmen and presidents of the seven major producers and
4661 distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States:
4662 Walt Disney, Sony Pictures Entertainment, MGM, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth
4663 Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2892352"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2892359"></a>
4664 <a class="indexterm" name="id2892365"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2892371"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2892377"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2892384"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2892390"></a>
4665 </p><p>
4666
4667
4668 Valenti is only the third president of the MPAA. No president before him has
4669 had as much influence over that organization, or over Washington. As a
4670 Texan, Valenti has mastered the single most important political skill of a
4671 Southerner&#8212;the ability to appear simple and slow while hiding a
4672 lightning-fast intellect. To this day, Valenti plays the simple, humble
4673 man. But this Harvard MBA, and author of four books, who finished high
4674 school at the age of fifteen and flew more than fifty combat missions in
4675 World War II, is no Mr. Smith. When Valenti went to Washington, he mastered
4676 the city in a quintessentially Washingtonian way.
4677 </p><p>
4678 In defending artistic liberty and the freedom of speech that our culture
4679 depends upon, the MPAA has done important good. In crafting the MPAA rating
4680 system, it has probably avoided a great deal of speech-regulating harm. But
4681 there is an aspect to the organization's mission that is both the most
4682 radical and the most important. This is the organization's effort,
4683 epitomized in Valenti's every act, to redefine the meaning of
4684 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span>
4685 </p><p>
4686 In 1982, Valenti's testimony to Congress captured the strategy perfectly:
4687 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
4688 No matter the lengthy arguments made, no matter the charges and the
4689 counter-charges, no matter the tumult and the shouting, reasonable men and
4690 women will keep returning to the fundamental issue, the central theme which
4691 animates this entire debate: <span class="emphasis"><em>Creative property owners must be
4692 accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other property
4693 owners in the nation</em></span>. That is the issue.  That is the
4694 question. And that is the rostrum on which this entire hearing and the
4695 debates to follow must rest.<sup>[<a name="id2892459" href="#ftn.id2892459" class="footnote">118</a>]</sup>
4696 </p></blockquote></div><p>
4697
4698 The strategy of this rhetoric, like the strategy of most of Valenti's
4699 rhetoric, is brilliant and simple and brilliant because simple. The
4700 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">central theme</span>»</span> to which <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">reasonable men and
4701 women</span>»</span> will return is this: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative property owners must be
4702 accorded the same rights and protections resident in all other property
4703 owners in the nation.</span>»</span> There are no second-class citizens, Valenti
4704 might have continued. There should be no second-class property owners.
4705 </p><p>
4706 This claim has an obvious and powerful intuitive pull. It is stated with
4707 such clarity as to make the idea as obvious as the notion that we use
4708 elections to pick presidents. But in fact, there is no more extreme a claim
4709 made by <span class="emphasis"><em>anyone</em></span> who is serious in this debate than this
4710 claim of Valenti's. Jack Valenti, however sweet and however brilliant, is
4711 perhaps the nation's foremost extremist when it comes to the nature and
4712 scope of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span> His views have
4713 <span class="emphasis"><em>no</em></span> reasonable connection to our actual legal tradition,
4714 even if the subtle pull of his Texan charm has slowly redefined that
4715 tradition, at least in Washington.
4716 </p><p>
4717 While <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> is certainly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span>
4718 in a nerdy and precise sense that lawyers are trained to
4719 understand,<sup>[<a name="id2892528" href="#ftn.id2892528" class="footnote">119</a>]</sup> it has never been the case,
4720 nor should it be, that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property owners</span>»</span> have been
4721 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other
4722 property owners.</span>»</span> Indeed, if creative property owners were given the
4723 same rights as all other property owners, that would effect a radical, and
4724 radically undesirable, change in our tradition.
4725 </p><p>
4726 Valenti knows this. But he speaks for an industry that cares squat for our
4727 tradition and the values it represents. He speaks for an industry that is
4728 instead fighting to restore the tradition that the British overturned in
4729 1710. In the world that Valenti's changes would create, a powerful few would
4730 exercise powerful control over how our creative culture would develop.
4731 </p><p>
4732
4733 I have two purposes in this chapter. The first is to convince you that,
4734 historically, Valenti's claim is absolutely wrong. The second is to convince
4735 you that it would be terribly wrong for us to reject our history.  We have
4736 always treated rights in creative property differently from the rights
4737 resident in all other property owners. They have never been the same. And
4738 they should never be the same, because, however counterintuitive this may
4739 seem, to make them the same would be to fundamentally weaken the opportunity
4740 for new creators to create.  Creativity depends upon the owners of
4741 creativity having less than perfect control.
4742 </p><p>
4743 Organizations such as the MPAA, whose board includes the most powerful of
4744 the old guard, have little interest, their rhetoric notwithstanding, in
4745 assuring that the new can displace them. No organization does. No person
4746 does. (Ask me about tenure, for example.)  But what's good for the MPAA is
4747 not necessarily good for America. A society that defends the ideals of free
4748 culture must preserve precisely the opportunity for new creativity to
4749 threaten the old.  To get just a hint that there is something fundamentally
4750 wrong in Valenti's argument, we need look no further than the United States
4751 Constitution itself.
4752 </p><p>
4753 The framers of our Constitution loved <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> Indeed, so
4754 strongly did they love property that they built into the Constitution an
4755 important requirement. If the government takes your property&#8212;if it
4756 condemns your house, or acquires a slice of land from your farm&#8212;it is
4757 required, under the Fifth Amendment's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Takings Clause,</span>»</span> to pay
4758 you <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">just compensation</span>»</span> for that taking. The Constitution thus
4759 guarantees that property is, in a certain sense, sacred. It cannot
4760 <span class="emphasis"><em>ever</em></span> be taken from the property owner unless the
4761 government pays for the privilege.
4762 </p><p>
4763
4764 Yet the very same Constitution speaks very differently about what Valenti
4765 calls <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property.</span>»</span> In the clause granting Congress the
4766 power to create <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property,</span>»</span> the Constitution
4767 <span class="emphasis"><em>requires</em></span> that after a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited time,</span>»</span>
4768 Congress take back the rights that it has granted and set the
4769 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> free to the public domain. Yet when
4770 Congress does this, when the expiration of a copyright term
4771 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">takes</span>»</span> your copyright and turns it over to the public domain,
4772 Congress does not have any obligation to pay <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">just
4773 compensation</span>»</span> for this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taking.</span>»</span> Instead, the same
4774 Constitution that requires compensation for your land requires that you lose
4775 your <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> right without any compensation at all.
4776 </p><p>
4777 The Constitution thus on its face states that these two forms of property
4778 are not to be accorded the same rights. They are plainly to be treated
4779 differently. Valenti is therefore not just asking for a change in our
4780 tradition when he argues that creative-property owners should be accorded
4781 the same rights as every other property-right owner. He is effectively
4782 arguing for a change in our Constitution itself.
4783 </p><p>
4784 Arguing for a change in our Constitution is not necessarily wrong.  There
4785 was much in our original Constitution that was plainly wrong.  The
4786 Constitution of 1789 entrenched slavery; it left senators to be appointed
4787 rather than elected; it made it possible for the electoral college to
4788 produce a tie between the president and his own vice president (as it did in
4789 1800). The framers were no doubt extraordinary, but I would be the first to
4790 admit that they made big mistakes. We have since rejected some of those
4791 mistakes; no doubt there could be others that we should reject as well. So
4792 my argument is not simply that because Jefferson did it, we should, too.
4793 </p><p>
4794 Instead, my argument is that because Jefferson did it, we should at least
4795 try to understand <span class="emphasis"><em>why</em></span>. Why did the framers, fanatical
4796 property types that they were, reject the claim that creative property be
4797 given the same rights as all other property? Why did they require that for
4798 creative property there must be a public domain?
4799 </p><p>
4800 To answer this question, we need to get some perspective on the history of
4801 these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> rights, and the control that they
4802 enabled.  Once we see clearly how differently these rights have been
4803 defined, we will be in a better position to ask the question that should be
4804 at the core of this war: Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> creative property
4805 should be protected, but how. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span> we will
4806 enforce the rights the law gives to creative-property owners, but what the
4807 particular mix of rights ought to be. Not <span class="emphasis"><em>whether</em></span>
4808 artists should be paid, but whether institutions designed to assure that
4809 artists get paid need also control how culture develops.
4810 </p><p>
4811
4812
4813
4814 To answer these questions, we need a more general way to talk about how
4815 property is protected. More precisely, we need a more general way than the
4816 narrow language of the law allows. In <em class="citetitle">Code and Other Laws of
4817 Cyberspace</em>, I used a simple model to capture this more general
4818 perspective. For any particular right or regulation, this model asks how
4819 four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken the
4820 right or regulation. I represented it with this diagram:
4821 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1331"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.1. How four different modalities of regulation interact to support or weaken
4822 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>
4823 At the center of this picture is a regulated dot: the individual or group
4824 that is the target of regulation, or the holder of a right. (In each case
4825 throughout, we can describe this either as regulation or as a right.  For
4826 simplicity's sake, I will speak only of regulations.)  The ovals represent
4827 four ways in which the individual or group might be regulated&#8212; either
4828 constrained or, alternatively, enabled. Law is the most obvious constraint
4829 (to lawyers, at least). It constrains by threatening punishments after the
4830 fact if the rules set in advance are violated. So if, for example, you
4831 willfully infringe Madonna's copyright by copying a song from her latest CD
4832 and posting it on the Web, you can be punished with a $150,000 fine. The
4833 fine is an ex post punishment for violating an ex ante rule. It is imposed
4834 by the state.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2892406"></a>
4835 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2892809"></a><p>
4836 Norms are a different kind of constraint. They, too, punish an individual
4837 for violating a rule. But the punishment of a norm is imposed by a
4838 community, not (or not only) by the state. There may be no law against
4839 spitting, but that doesn't mean you won't be punished if you spit on the
4840 ground while standing in line at a movie. The punishment might not be harsh,
4841 though depending upon the community, it could easily be more harsh than many
4842 of the punishments imposed by the state. The mark of the difference is not
4843 the severity of the rule, but the source of the enforcement.
4844 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2892830"></a><p>
4845 The market is a third type of constraint. Its constraint is effected through
4846 conditions: You can do X if you pay Y; you'll be paid M if you do N. These
4847 constraints are obviously not independent of law or norms&#8212;it is
4848 property law that defines what must be bought if it is to be taken legally;
4849 it is norms that say what is appropriately sold. But given a set of norms,
4850 and a background of property and contract law, the market imposes a
4851 simultaneous constraint upon how an individual or group might behave.
4852 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2892838"></a><p>
4853 Finally, and for the moment, perhaps, most mysteriously,
4854 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture</span>»</span>&#8212;the physical world as one finds
4855 it&#8212;is a constraint on behavior.  A fallen bridge might constrain your
4856 ability to get across a river. Railroad tracks might constrain the ability
4857 of a community to integrate its social life. As with the market,
4858 architecture does not effect its constraint through ex post
4859 punishments. Instead, also as with the market, architecture effects its
4860 constraint through simultaneous conditions. These conditions are imposed not
4861 by courts enforcing contracts, or by police punishing theft, but by nature,
4862 by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture.</span>»</span> If a 500-pound boulder blocks your way, it
4863 is the law of gravity that enforces this constraint. If a $500 airplane
4864 ticket stands between you and a flight to New York, it is the market that
4865 enforces this constraint.
4866 </p><p>
4867
4868
4869
4870 So the first point about these four modalities of regulation is obvious:
4871 They interact. Restrictions imposed by one might be reinforced by
4872 another. Or restrictions imposed by one might be undermined by another.
4873 </p><p>
4874 The second point follows directly: If we want to understand the effective
4875 freedom that anyone has at a given moment to do any particular thing, we
4876 have to consider how these four modalities interact.  Whether or not there
4877 are other constraints (there may well be; my claim is not about
4878 comprehensiveness), these four are among the most significant, and any
4879 regulator (whether controlling or freeing)  must consider how these four in
4880 particular interact.
4881 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxdrivespeed"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2892913"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2892920"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2892926"></a><p>
4882 So, for example, consider the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> to drive a car at a
4883 high speed. That freedom is in part restricted by laws: speed limits that
4884 say how fast you can drive in particular places at particular times. It is
4885 in part restricted by architecture: speed bumps, for example, slow most
4886 rational drivers; governors in buses, as another example, set the maximum
4887 rate at which the driver can drive. The freedom is in part restricted by the
4888 market: Fuel efficiency drops as speed increases, thus the price of gasoline
4889 indirectly constrains speed. And finally, the norms of a community may or
4890 may not constrain the freedom to speed. Drive at 50 mph by a school in your
4891 own neighborhood and you're likely to be punished by the neighbors. The same
4892 norm wouldn't be as effective in a different town, or at night.
4893 </p><p>
4894
4895 The final point about this simple model should also be fairly clear: While
4896 these four modalities are analytically independent, law has a special role
4897 in affecting the three.<sup>[<a name="id2892960" href="#ftn.id2892960" class="footnote">120</a>]</sup> The law, in
4898 other words, sometimes operates to increase or decrease the constraint of a
4899 particular modality.  Thus, the law might be used to increase taxes on
4900 gasoline, so as to increase the incentives to drive more slowly. The law
4901 might be used to mandate more speed bumps, so as to increase the difficulty
4902 of driving rapidly. The law might be used to fund ads that stigmatize
4903 reckless driving. Or the law might be used to require that other laws be
4904 more strict&#8212;a federal requirement that states decrease the speed
4905 limit, for example&#8212;so as to decrease the attractiveness of fast
4906 driving.
4907 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2892984"></a><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1361"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.2. Law has a special role in affecting the three.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1361.png" alt="Law has a special role in affecting the three."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="id2893020"></a><p>
4908 These constraints can thus change, and they can be changed. To understand
4909 the effective protection of liberty or protection of property at any
4910 particular moment, we must track these changes over time. A restriction
4911 imposed by one modality might be erased by another. A freedom enabled by one
4912 modality might be displaced by another.<sup>[<a name="id2893035" href="#ftn.id2893035" class="footnote">121</a>]</sup>
4913 </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>
4914 The most obvious point that this model reveals is just why, or just how,
4915 Hollywood is right. The copyright warriors have rallied Congress and the
4916 courts to defend copyright. This model helps us see why that rallying makes
4917 sense.
4918 </p><p>
4919 Let's say this is the picture of copyright's regulation before the Internet:
4920 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1371"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.3. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="Copyright's regulation before the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><a class="indexterm" name="id2893153"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2893159"></a><p>
4921
4922
4923 There is balance between law, norms, market, and architecture. The law
4924 limits the ability to copy and share content, by imposing penalties on those
4925 who copy and share content. Those penalties are reinforced by technologies
4926 that make it hard to copy and share content (architecture) and expensive to
4927 copy and share content (market). Finally, those penalties are mitigated by
4928 norms we all recognize&#8212;kids, for example, taping other kids'
4929 records. These uses of copyrighted material may well be infringement, but
4930 the norms of our society (before the Internet, at least) had no problem with
4931 this form of infringement.
4932 </p><p>
4933 Enter the Internet, or, more precisely, technologies such as MP3s and p2p
4934 sharing. Now the constraint of architecture changes dramatically, as does
4935 the constraint of the market. And as both the market and architecture relax
4936 the regulation of copyright, norms pile on. The happy balance (for the
4937 warriors, at least) of life before the Internet becomes an effective state
4938 of anarchy after the Internet.
4939 </p><p>
4940
4941 Thus the sense of, and justification for, the warriors' response.
4942 Technology has changed, the warriors say, and the effect of this change,
4943 when ramified through the market and norms, is that a balance of protection
4944 for the copyright owners' rights has been lost. This is Iraq after the fall
4945 of Saddam, but this time no government is justifying the looting that
4946 results.
4947 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1381"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.4. effective state of anarchy after the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1381.png" alt="effective state of anarchy after the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
4948 Neither this analysis nor the conclusions that follow are new to the
4949 warriors. Indeed, in a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">White Paper</span>»</span> prepared by the Commerce
4950 Department (one heavily influenced by the copyright warriors) in 1995, this
4951 mix of regulatory modalities had already been identified and the strategy to
4952 respond already mapped. In response to the changes the Internet had
4953 effected, the White Paper argued (1) Congress should strengthen intellectual
4954 property law, (2) businesses should adopt innovative marketing techniques,
4955 (3) technologists should push to develop code to protect copyrighted
4956 material, and (4) educators should educate kids to better protect copyright.
4957 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2893236"></a><p>
4958
4959 This mixed strategy is just what copyright needed&#8212;if it was to
4960 preserve the particular balance that existed before the change induced by
4961 the Internet. And it's just what we should expect the content industry to
4962 push for. It is as American as apple pie to consider the happy life you have
4963 as an entitlement, and to look to the law to protect it if something comes
4964 along to change that happy life. Homeowners living in a flood plain have no
4965 hesitation appealing to the government to rebuild (and rebuild again) when a
4966 flood (architecture) wipes away their property (law). Farmers have no
4967 hesitation appealing to the government to bail them out when a virus
4968 (architecture) devastates their crop. Unions have no hesitation appealing to
4969 the government to bail them out when imports (market) wipe out the
4970 U.S. steel industry.
4971 </p><p>
4972 Thus, there's nothing wrong or surprising in the content industry's campaign
4973 to protect itself from the harmful consequences of a technological
4974 innovation. And I would be the last person to argue that the changing
4975 technology of the Internet has not had a profound effect on the content
4976 industry's way of doing business, or as John Seely Brown describes it, its
4977 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">architecture of revenue.</span>»</span>
4978 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2893275"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2893281"></a><p>
4979 But just because a particular interest asks for government support, it
4980 doesn't follow that support should be granted. And just because technology
4981 has weakened a particular way of doing business, it doesn't follow that the
4982 government should intervene to support that old way of doing
4983 business. Kodak, for example, has lost perhaps as much as 20 percent of
4984 their traditional film market to the emerging technologies of digital
4985 cameras.<sup>[<a name="id2893296" href="#ftn.id2893296" class="footnote">122</a>]</sup> Does anyone believe the
4986 government should ban digital cameras just to support Kodak? Highways have
4987 weakened the freight business for railroads. Does anyone think we should ban
4988 trucks from roads <span class="emphasis"><em>for the purpose of</em></span> protecting the
4989 railroads? Closer to the subject of this book, remote channel changers have
4990 weakened the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stickiness</span>»</span> of television advertising (if a
4991 boring commercial comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf ), and
4992 it may well be that this change has weakened the television advertising
4993 market. But does anyone believe we should regulate remotes to reinforce
4994 commercial television? (Maybe by limiting them to function only once a
4995 second, or to switch to only ten channels within an hour?)
4996 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2893345"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2893351"></a><p>
4997 The obvious answer to these obviously rhetorical questions is no.  In a free
4998 society, with a free market, supported by free enterprise and free trade,
4999 the government's role is not to support one way of doing business against
5000 others. Its role is not to pick winners and protect them against loss. If
5001 the government did this generally, then we would never have any progress. As
5002 Microsoft chairman Bill Gates wrote in 1991, in a memo criticizing software
5003 patents, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">established companies have an interest in excluding future
5004 competitors.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2893371" href="#ftn.id2893371" class="footnote">123</a>]</sup> And relative to a
5005 startup, established companies also have the means. (Think RCA and FM
5006 radio.) A world in which competitors with new ideas must fight not only the
5007 market but also the government is a world in which competitors with new
5008 ideas will not succeed. It is a world of stasis and increasingly
5009 concentrated stagnation. It is the Soviet Union under Brezhnev.
5010 </p><p>
5011 Thus, while it is understandable for industries threatened with new
5012 technologies that change the way they do business to look to the government
5013 for protection, it is the special duty of policy makers to guarantee that
5014 that protection not become a deterrent to progress. It is the duty of policy
5015 makers, in other words, to assure that the changes they create, in response
5016 to the request of those hurt by changing technology, are changes that
5017 preserve the incentives and opportunities for innovation and change.
5018 </p><p>
5019 In the context of laws regulating speech&#8212;which include, obviously,
5020 copyright law&#8212;that duty is even stronger. When the industry
5021 complaining about changing technologies is asking Congress to respond in a
5022 way that burdens speech and creativity, policy makers should be especially
5023 wary of the request. It is always a bad deal for the government to get into
5024 the business of regulating speech markets. The risks and dangers of that
5025 game are precisely why our framers created the First Amendment to our
5026 Constitution: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Congress shall make no law &#8230; abridging the
5027 freedom of speech.</span>»</span> So when Congress is being asked to pass laws that
5028 would <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">abridge</span>»</span> the freedom of speech, it should ask&#8212;
5029 carefully&#8212;whether such regulation is justified.
5030 </p><p>
5031
5032 My argument just now, however, has nothing to do with whether the changes
5033 that are being pushed by the copyright warriors are
5034 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">justified.</span>»</span> My argument is about their effect. For before we
5035 get to the question of justification, a hard question that depends a great
5036 deal upon your values, we should first ask whether we understand the effect
5037 of the changes the content industry wants.
5038 </p><p>
5039 Her kommer metaforen som vil forklare argumentet.
5040 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxddt"></a><p>
5041 In 1873, the chemical DDT was first synthesized. In 1948, Swiss chemist Paul
5042 Hermann Müller won the Nobel Prize for his work demonstrating the
5043 insecticidal properties of DDT. By the 1950s, the insecticide was widely
5044 used around the world to kill disease-carrying pests. It was also used to
5045 increase farm production.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2893471"></a>
5046 </p><p>
5047 No one doubts that killing disease-carrying pests or increasing crop
5048 production is a good thing. No one doubts that the work of Müller was
5049 important and valuable and probably saved lives, possibly millions.
5050 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2893488"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2893495"></a><p>
5051 But in 1962, Rachel Carson published <em class="citetitle">Silent Spring</em>,
5052 which argued that DDT, whatever its primary benefits, was also having
5053 unintended environmental consequences. Birds were losing the ability to
5054 reproduce.  Whole chains of the ecology were being destroyed.
5055 </p><p>
5056 No one set out to destroy the environment. Paul Müller certainly did not aim
5057 to harm any birds. But the effort to solve one set of problems produced
5058 another set which, in the view of some, was far worse than the problems that
5059 were originally attacked. Or more accurately, the problems DDT caused were
5060 worse than the problems it solved, at least when considering the other, more
5061 environmentally friendly ways to solve the problems that DDT was meant to
5062 solve.
5063 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2893527"></a><p>
5064
5065 It is to this image precisely that Duke University law professor James Boyle
5066 appeals when he argues that we need an <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">environmentalism</span>»</span> for
5067 culture.<sup>[<a name="id2893543" href="#ftn.id2893543" class="footnote">124</a>]</sup> His point, and the point I
5068 want to develop in the balance of this chapter, is not that the aims of
5069 copyright are flawed. Or that authors should not be paid for their work. Or
5070 that music should be given away <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for free.</span>»</span> The point is that
5071 some of the ways in which we might protect authors will have unintended
5072 consequences for the cultural environment, much like DDT had for the natural
5073 environment. And just as criticism of DDT is not an endorsement of malaria
5074 or an attack on farmers, so, too, is criticism of one particular set of
5075 regulations protecting copyright not an endorsement of anarchy or an attack
5076 on authors.  It is an environment of creativity that we seek, and we should
5077 be aware of our actions' effects on the environment.
5078 </p><p>
5079 My argument, in the balance of this chapter, tries to map exactly this
5080 effect. No doubt the technology of the Internet has had a dramatic effect on
5081 the ability of copyright owners to protect their content. But there should
5082 also be little doubt that when you add together the changes in copyright law
5083 over time, plus the change in technology that the Internet is undergoing
5084 just now, the net effect of these changes will not be only that copyrighted
5085 work is effectively protected. Also, and generally missed, the net effect of
5086 this massive increase in protection will be devastating to the environment
5087 for creativity.
5088 </p><p>
5089 In a line: To kill a gnat, we are spraying DDT with consequences for free
5090 culture that will be far more devastating than that this gnat will be lost.
5091 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2893603"></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>
5092 America copied English copyright law. Actually, we copied and improved
5093 English copyright law. Our Constitution makes the purpose of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative
5094 property</span>»</span> rights clear; its express limitations reinforce the English
5095 aim to avoid overly powerful publishers.
5096 </p><p>
5097 The power to establish <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span> rights is granted to
5098 Congress in a way that, for our Constitution, at least, is very odd. Article
5099 I, section 8, clause 8 of our Constitution states that:
5100 </p><p>
5101
5102 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
5103 by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
5104 to their respective Writings and Discoveries.  We can call this the
5105 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Progress Clause,</span>»</span> for notice what this clause does not say. It
5106 does not say Congress has the power to grant <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property
5107 rights.</span>»</span> It says that Congress has the power <span class="emphasis"><em>to promote
5108 progress</em></span>. The grant of power is its purpose, and its purpose is a
5109 public one, not the purpose of enriching publishers, nor even primarily the
5110 purpose of rewarding authors.
5111 </p><p>
5112 The Progress Clause expressly limits the term of copyrights. As we saw in
5113 chapter <a class="xref" href="#founders" title="Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne">6</a>, the
5114 English limited the term of copyright so as to assure that a few would not
5115 exercise disproportionate control over culture by exercising
5116 disproportionate control over publishing. We can assume the framers followed
5117 the English for a similar purpose. Indeed, unlike the English, the framers
5118 reinforced that objective, by requiring that copyrights extend <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">to
5119 Authors</span>»</span> only.
5120 </p><p>
5121 The design of the Progress Clause reflects something about the
5122 Constitution's design in general. To avoid a problem, the framers built
5123 structure. To prevent the concentrated power of publishers, they built a
5124 structure that kept copyrights away from publishers and kept them short. To
5125 prevent the concentrated power of a church, they banned the federal
5126 government from establishing a church. To prevent concentrating power in the
5127 federal government, they built structures to reinforce the power of the
5128 states&#8212;including the Senate, whose members were at the time selected
5129 by the states, and an electoral college, also selected by the states, to
5130 select the president. In each case, a <span class="emphasis"><em>structure</em></span> built
5131 checks and balances into the constitutional frame, structured to prevent
5132 otherwise inevitable concentrations of power.
5133 </p><p>
5134 I doubt the framers would recognize the regulation we call
5135 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> today. The scope of that regulation is far beyond
5136 anything they ever considered. To begin to understand what they did, we need
5137 to put our <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> in context: We need to see how it has
5138 changed in the 210 years since they first struck its design.
5139 </p><p>
5140
5141 Some of these changes come from the law: some in light of changes in
5142 technology, and some in light of changes in technology given a particular
5143 concentration of market power. In terms of our model, we started here:
5144 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1441"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.5. Copyright's regulation before the Internet.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1331.png" alt="Copyright's regulation before the Internet."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5145 Vi kommer til å ende opp her:
5146 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1442"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.6. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Opphavsrett</span>»</span> i dag.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1442.png" alt="Opphavsrett i dag."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5147
5148 La meg forklare hvordan.
5149
5150 </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>
5151 When the first Congress enacted laws to protect creative property, it faced
5152 the same uncertainty about the status of creative property that the English
5153 had confronted in 1774. Many states had passed laws protecting creative
5154 property, and some believed that these laws simply supplemented common law
5155 rights that already protected creative authorship.<sup>[<a name="id2893784" href="#ftn.id2893784" class="footnote">125</a>]</sup> This meant that there was no guaranteed public
5156 domain in the United States in 1790. If copyrights were protected by the
5157 common law, then there was no simple way to know whether a work published in
5158 the United States was controlled or free. Just as in England, this lingering
5159 uncertainty would make it hard for publishers to rely upon a public domain
5160 to reprint and distribute works.
5161 </p><p>
5162 That uncertainty ended after Congress passed legislation granting
5163 copyrights. Because federal law overrides any contrary state law, federal
5164 protections for copyrighted works displaced any state law protections.  Just
5165 as in England the Statute of Anne eventually meant that the copyrights for
5166 all English works expired, a federal statute meant that any state copyrights
5167 expired as well.
5168 </p><p>
5169 In 1790, Congress enacted the first copyright law. It created a federal
5170 copyright and secured that copyright for fourteen years. If the author was
5171 alive at the end of that fourteen years, then he could opt to renew the
5172 copyright for another fourteen years. If he did not renew the copyright, his
5173 work passed into the public domain.
5174 </p><p>
5175 Selv om det ble skapt mange verker i USA i de første 10 årene til
5176 republikken, så ble kun 5 prosent av verkene registrert under det føderale
5177 opphavsrettsregimet.  Av alle verker skapt i USA både før 1790 og fra 1790
5178 fram til 1800, så ble 95 prosent øyeblikkelig allemannseie (public
5179 domain). Resten ble allemannseie etter maksimalt 20 år, og som oftest etter
5180 14 år.<sup>[<a name="id2893852" href="#ftn.id2893852" class="footnote">126</a>]</sup>
5181 </p><p>
5182
5183 Dette fornyelsessystemet var en avgjørende del av det amerikanske systemet
5184 for opphavsrett.  Det sikret at maksimal vernetid i opphavsretten bare ble
5185 gitt til verker der det var ønsket. Etter den første perioden på fjorten år,
5186 hvis forfatteren ikke så verdien av å fornye sin opphavsrett, var det heller
5187 ikke verdt det for samfunnet å håndheve opphavsretten.
5188 </p><p>
5189 Fourteen years may not seem long to us, but for the vast majority of
5190 copyright owners at that time, it was long enough: Only a small minority of
5191 them renewed their copyright after fourteen years; the balance allowed their
5192 work to pass into the public domain.<sup>[<a name="id2893919" href="#ftn.id2893919" class="footnote">127</a>]</sup>
5193 </p><p>
5194 Even today, this structure would make sense. Most creative work has an
5195 actual commercial life of just a couple of years. Most books fall out of
5196 print after one year.<sup>[<a name="id2893954" href="#ftn.id2893954" class="footnote">128</a>]</sup> When that
5197 happens, the used books are traded free of copyright regulation. Thus the
5198 books are no longer <span class="emphasis"><em>effectively</em></span> controlled by
5199 copyright. The only practical commercial use of the books at that time is to
5200 sell the books as used books; that use&#8212;because it does not involve
5201 publication&#8212;is effectively free.
5202 </p><p>
5203 In the first hundred years of the Republic, the term of copyright was
5204 changed once. In 1831, the term was increased from a maximum of 28 years to
5205 a maximum of 42 by increasing the initial term of copyright from 14 years to
5206 28 years. In the next fifty years of the Republic, the term increased once
5207 again. In 1909, Congress extended the renewal term of 14 years to 28 years,
5208 setting a maximum term of 56 years.
5209 </p><p>
5210 Then, beginning in 1962, Congress started a practice that has defined
5211 copyright law since. Eleven times in the last forty years, Congress has
5212 extended the terms of existing copyrights; twice in those forty years,
5213 Congress extended the term of future copyrights. Initially, the extensions
5214 of existing copyrights were short, a mere one to two years.  In 1976,
5215 Congress extended all existing copyrights by nineteen years.  And in 1998,
5216 in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Congress extended the term
5217 of existing and future copyrights by twenty years.
5218 </p><p>
5219
5220 The effect of these extensions is simply to toll, or delay, the passing of
5221 works into the public domain. This latest extension means that the public
5222 domain will have been tolled for thirty-nine out of fifty-five years, or 70
5223 percent of the time since 1962. Thus, in the twenty years after the Sonny
5224 Bono Act, while one million patents will pass into the public domain, zero
5225 copyrights will pass into the public domain by virtue of the expiration of a
5226 copyright term.
5227 </p><p>
5228 The effect of these extensions has been exacerbated by another,
5229 little-noticed change in the copyright law. Remember I said that the framers
5230 established a two-part copyright regime, requiring a copyright owner to
5231 renew his copyright after an initial term. The requirement of renewal meant
5232 that works that no longer needed copyright protection would pass more
5233 quickly into the public domain. The works remaining under protection would
5234 be those that had some continuing commercial value.
5235 </p><p>
5236 The United States abandoned this sensible system in 1976. For all works
5237 created after 1978, there was only one copyright term&#8212;the maximum
5238 term. For <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natural</span>»</span> authors, that term was life plus fifty
5239 years. For corporations, the term was seventy-five years. Then, in 1992,
5240 Congress abandoned the renewal requirement for all works created before
5241 1978. All works still under copyright would be accorded the maximum term
5242 then available. After the Sonny Bono Act, that term was ninety-five years.
5243 </p><p>
5244 This change meant that American law no longer had an automatic way to assure
5245 that works that were no longer exploited passed into the public domain. And
5246 indeed, after these changes, it is unclear whether it is even possible to
5247 put works into the public domain. The public domain is orphaned by these
5248 changes in copyright law. Despite the requirement that terms be
5249 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited,</span>»</span> we have no evidence that anything will limit them.
5250 </p><p>
5251 The effect of these changes on the average duration of copyright is
5252 dramatic. In 1973, more than 85 percent of copyright owners failed to renew
5253 their copyright. That meant that the average term of copyright in 1973 was
5254 just 32.2 years. Because of the elimination of the renewal requirement, the
5255 average term of copyright is now the maximum term.  In thirty years, then,
5256 the average term has tripled, from 32.2 years to 95 years.<sup>[<a name="id2894056" href="#ftn.id2894056" class="footnote">129</a>]</sup>
5257 </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>
5258 The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">scope</span>»</span> of a copyright is the range of rights granted by
5259 the law.  The scope of American copyright has changed dramatically. Those
5260 changes are not necessarily bad. But we should understand the extent of the
5261 changes if we're to keep this debate in context.
5262 </p><p>
5263 In 1790, that scope was very narrow. Copyright covered only <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">maps,
5264 charts, and books.</span>»</span> That means it didn't cover, for example, music or
5265 architecture. More significantly, the right granted by a copyright gave the
5266 author the exclusive right to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">publish</span>»</span> copyrighted works. That
5267 means someone else violated the copyright only if he republished the work
5268 without the copyright owner's permission. Finally, the right granted by a
5269 copyright was an exclusive right to that particular book. The right did not
5270 extend to what lawyers call <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative works.</span>»</span> It would not,
5271 therefore, interfere with the right of someone other than the author to
5272 translate a copyrighted book, or to adapt the story to a different form
5273 (such as a drama based on a published book).
5274 </p><p>
5275 This, too, has changed dramatically. While the contours of copyright today
5276 are extremely hard to describe simply, in general terms, the right covers
5277 practically any creative work that is reduced to a tangible form. It covers
5278 music as well as architecture, drama as well as computer programs. It gives
5279 the copyright owner of that creative work not only the exclusive right to
5280 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">publish</span>»</span> the work, but also the exclusive right of control
5281 over any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span> of that work. And most significant for our
5282 purposes here, the right gives the copyright owner control over not only his
5283 or her particular work, but also any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative work</span>»</span> that
5284 might grow out of the original work. In this way, the right covers more
5285 creative work, protects the creative work more broadly, and protects works
5286 that are based in a significant way on the initial creative work.
5287 </p><p>
5288
5289 At the same time that the scope of copyright has expanded, procedural
5290 limitations on the right have been relaxed. I've already described the
5291 complete removal of the renewal requirement in 1992. In addition to the
5292 renewal requirement, for most of the history of American copyright law,
5293 there was a requirement that a work be registered before it could receive
5294 the protection of a copyright. There was also a requirement that any
5295 copyrighted work be marked either with that famous © or the word
5296 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>. And for most of the history of American
5297 copyright law, there was a requirement that works be deposited with the
5298 government before a copyright could be secured.
5299 </p><p>
5300 The reason for the registration requirement was the sensible understanding
5301 that for most works, no copyright was required. Again, in the first ten
5302 years of the Republic, 95 percent of works eligible for copyright were never
5303 copyrighted. Thus, the rule reflected the norm: Most works apparently didn't
5304 need copyright, so registration narrowed the regulation of the law to the
5305 few that did. The same reasoning justified the requirement that a work be
5306 marked as copyrighted&#8212;that way it was easy to know whether a copyright
5307 was being claimed. The requirement that works be deposited was to assure
5308 that after the copyright expired, there would be a copy of the work
5309 somewhere so that it could be copied by others without locating the original
5310 author.
5311 </p><p>
5312 All of these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">formalities</span>»</span> were abolished in the American
5313 system when we decided to follow European copyright law. There is no
5314 requirement that you register a work to get a copyright; the copyright now
5315 is automatic; the copyright exists whether or not you mark your work with a
5316 ©; and the copyright exists whether or not you actually make a copy
5317 available for others to copy.
5318 </p><p>
5319 Vurder et praktisk eksempel for å forstå omfanget av disse forskjellene.
5320 </p><p>
5321 If, in 1790, you wrote a book and you were one of the 5 percent who actually
5322 copyrighted that book, then the copyright law protected you against another
5323 publisher's taking your book and republishing it without your
5324 permission. The aim of the act was to regulate publishers so as to prevent
5325 that kind of unfair competition. In 1790, there were 174 publishers in the
5326 United States.<sup>[<a name="id2894210" href="#ftn.id2894210" class="footnote">130</a>]</sup> The Copyright Act was
5327 thus a tiny regulation of a tiny proportion of a tiny part of the creative
5328 market in the United States&#8212;publishers.
5329 </p><p>
5330
5331
5332 The act left other creators totally unregulated. If I copied your poem by
5333 hand, over and over again, as a way to learn it by heart, my act was totally
5334 unregulated by the 1790 act. If I took your novel and made a play based upon
5335 it, or if I translated it or abridged it, none of those activities were
5336 regulated by the original copyright act. These creative activities remained
5337 free, while the activities of publishers were restrained.
5338 </p><p>
5339 Today the story is very different: If you write a book, your book is
5340 automatically protected. Indeed, not just your book. Every e-mail, every
5341 note to your spouse, every doodle, <span class="emphasis"><em>every</em></span> creative act
5342 that's reduced to a tangible form&#8212;all of this is automatically
5343 copyrighted.  There is no need to register or mark your work. The protection
5344 follows the creation, not the steps you take to protect it.
5345 </p><p>
5346 That protection gives you the right (subject to a narrow range of fair use
5347 exceptions) to control how others copy the work, whether they copy it to
5348 republish it or to share an excerpt.
5349 </p><p>
5350 That much is the obvious part. Any system of copyright would control
5351 competing publishing. But there's a second part to the copyright of today
5352 that is not at all obvious. This is the protection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">derivative
5353 rights.</span>»</span> If you write a book, no one can make a movie out of your
5354 book without permission. No one can translate it without permission.
5355 CliffsNotes can't make an abridgment unless permission is granted. All of
5356 these derivative uses of your original work are controlled by the copyright
5357 holder. The copyright, in other words, is now not just an exclusive right to
5358 your writings, but an exclusive right to your writings and a large
5359 proportion of the writings inspired by them.
5360 </p><p>
5361 It is this derivative right that would seem most bizarre to our framers,
5362 though it has become second nature to us. Initially, this expansion was
5363 created to deal with obvious evasions of a narrower copyright.  If I write a
5364 book, can you change one word and then claim a copyright in a new and
5365 different book? Obviously that would make a joke of the copyright, so the
5366 law was properly expanded to include those slight modifications as well as
5367 the verbatim original work.
5368 </p><p>
5369
5370 In preventing that joke, the law created an astonishing power within a free
5371 culture&#8212;at least, it's astonishing when you understand that the law
5372 applies not just to the commercial publisher but to anyone with a
5373 computer. I understand the wrong in duplicating and selling someone else's
5374 work. But whatever <span class="emphasis"><em>that</em></span> wrong is, transforming someone
5375 else's work is a different wrong. Some view transformation as no wrong at
5376 all&#8212;they believe that our law, as the framers penned it, should not
5377 protect derivative rights at all.<sup>[<a name="id2894297" href="#ftn.id2894297" class="footnote">131</a>]</sup>
5378 Whether or not you go that far, it seems plain that whatever wrong is
5379 involved is fundamentally different from the wrong of direct piracy.
5380 </p><p>
5381 Yet copyright law treats these two different wrongs in the same way. I can
5382 go to court and get an injunction against your pirating my book. I can go to
5383 court and get an injunction against your transformative use of my
5384 book.<sup>[<a name="id2894345" href="#ftn.id2894345" class="footnote">132</a>]</sup> These two different uses of my
5385 creative work are treated the same.
5386 </p><p>
5387 This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should you be
5388 able to write a movie that takes my story and makes money from it without
5389 paying me or crediting me? Or if Disney creates a creature called
5390 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Mickey Mouse,</span>»</span> why should you be able to make Mickey Mouse
5391 toys and be the one to trade on the value that Disney originally created?
5392 </p><p>
5393 These are good arguments, and, in general, my point is not that the
5394 derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower: simply to
5395 make clear that this expansion is a significant change from the rights
5396 originally granted.
5397 </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>
5398 Whereas originally the law regulated only publishers, the change in
5399 copyright's scope means that the law today regulates publishers, users, and
5400 authors. It regulates them because all three are capable of making copies,
5401 and the core of the regulation of copyright law is copies.<sup>[<a name="id2894411" href="#ftn.id2894411" class="footnote">133</a>]</sup>
5402 </p><p>
5403
5404
5405 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copies.</span>»</span> That certainly sounds like the obvious thing for
5406 <span class="emphasis"><em>copy</em></span>right law to regulate. But as with Jack Valenti's
5407 argument at the start of this chapter, that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">creative property</span>»</span>
5408 deserves the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">same rights</span>»</span> as all other property, it is the
5409 <span class="emphasis"><em>obvious</em></span> that we need to be most careful about. For
5410 while it may be obvious that in the world before the Internet, copies were
5411 the obvious trigger for copyright law, upon reflection, it should be obvious
5412 that in the world with the Internet, copies should <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span>
5413 be the trigger for copyright law. More precisely, they should not
5414 <span class="emphasis"><em>always</em></span> be the trigger for copyright law.
5415 </p><p>
5416 This is perhaps the central claim of this book, so let me take this very
5417 slowly so that the point is not easily missed. My claim is that the Internet
5418 should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which the law of
5419 copyright automatically applies,<sup>[<a name="id2894490" href="#ftn.id2894490" class="footnote">134</a>]</sup>
5420 because it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never
5421 contemplated, much less chosen, by the legislators who enacted copyright
5422 law.
5423 </p><p>
5424 We can see this point abstractly by beginning with this largely empty
5425 circle.
5426 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1521"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.7. Alle potensielle bruk av en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1521.png" alt="Alle potensielle bruk av en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5427
5428
5429 Think about a book in real space, and imagine this circle to represent all
5430 its potential <span class="emphasis"><em>uses</em></span>. Most of these uses are unregulated
5431 by copyright law, because the uses don't create a copy. If you read a book,
5432 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you give someone the book,
5433 that act is not regulated by copyright law. If you resell a book, that act
5434 is not regulated (copyright law expressly states that after the first sale
5435 of a book, the copyright owner can impose no further conditions on the
5436 disposition of the book). If you sleep on the book or use it to hold up a
5437 lamp or let your puppy chew it up, those acts are not regulated by copyright
5438 law, because those acts do not make a copy.
5439 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1531"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.8. Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1531.png" alt="Eksempler på uregulert bruk av en bok."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5440 Obviously, however, some uses of a copyrighted book are regulated by
5441 copyright law. Republishing the book, for example, makes a copy. It is
5442 therefore regulated by copyright law. Indeed, this particular use stands at
5443 the core of this circle of possible uses of a copyrighted work. It is the
5444 paradigmatic use properly regulated by copyright regulation (see first
5445 diagram on next page).
5446 </p><p>
5447 Til slutt er det en tynn skive av ellers regulert kopierings-bruk som
5448 forblir uregluert på grunn av at loven anser dette som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig
5449 bruk</span>»</span>.
5450 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1541"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.9. Republishing stands at the core of this circle of possible uses of a
5451 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>
5452 These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law treats as
5453 unregulated because public policy demands that they remain unregulated.  You
5454 are free to quote from this book, even in a review that is quite negative,
5455 without my permission, even though that quoting makes a copy. That copy
5456 would ordinarily give the copyright owner the exclusive right to say whether
5457 the copy is allowed or not, but the law denies the owner any exclusive right
5458 over such <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair uses</span>»</span> for public policy (and possibly First
5459 Amendment) reasons.
5460 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1542"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.10. Uregulert kopiering anses som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1542.png" alt="Uregulert kopiering anses som rimelig bruk."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p> </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1551"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.11. Uses that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
5461 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>
5462
5463
5464 In real space, then, the possible uses of a book are divided into three
5465 sorts: (1) unregulated uses, (2) regulated uses, and (3) regulated uses that
5466 are nonetheless deemed <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair</span>»</span> regardless of the copyright
5467 owner's views.
5468 </p><p>
5469 Enter the Internet&#8212;a distributed, digital network where every use of a
5470 copyrighted work produces a copy.<sup>[<a name="id2894420" href="#ftn.id2894420" class="footnote">135</a>]</sup> And
5471 because of this single, arbitrary feature of the design of a digital
5472 network, the scope of category 1 changes dramatically. Uses that before were
5473 presumptively unregulated are now presumptively regulated. No longer is
5474 there a set of presumptively unregulated uses that define a freedom
5475 associated with a copyrighted work. Instead, each use is now subject to the
5476 copyright, because each use also makes a copy&#8212;category 1 gets sucked
5477 into category 2. And those who would defend the unregulated uses of
5478 copyrighted work must look exclusively to category 3, fair uses, to bear the
5479 burden of this shift.
5480 </p><p>
5481
5482 So let's be very specific to make this general point clear. Before the
5483 Internet, if you purchased a book and read it ten times, there would be no
5484 plausible <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span>-related argument that the copyright
5485 owner could make to control that use of her book. Copyright law would have
5486 nothing to say about whether you read the book once, ten times, or every
5487 night before you went to bed. None of those instances of
5488 use&#8212;reading&#8212; could be regulated by copyright law because none of
5489 those uses produced a copy.
5490 </p><p>
5491 But the same book as an e-book is effectively governed by a different set of
5492 rules. Now if the copyright owner says you may read the book only once or
5493 only once a month, then <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright law</em></span> would aid the
5494 copyright owner in exercising this degree of control, because of the
5495 accidental feature of copyright law that triggers its application upon there
5496 being a copy. Now if you read the book ten times and the license says you
5497 may read it only five times, then whenever you read the book (or any portion
5498 of it) beyond the fifth time, you are making a copy of the book contrary to
5499 the copyright owner's wish.
5500 </p><p>
5501 There are some people who think this makes perfect sense. My aim just now is
5502 not to argue about whether it makes sense or not. My aim is only to make
5503 clear the change. Once you see this point, a few other points also become
5504 clear:
5505 </p><p>
5506 First, making category 1 disappear is not anything any policy maker ever
5507 intended. Congress did not think through the collapse of the presumptively
5508 unregulated uses of copyrighted works. There is no evidence at all that
5509 policy makers had this idea in mind when they allowed our policy here to
5510 shift. Unregulated uses were an important part of free culture before the
5511 Internet.
5512 </p><p>
5513 Second, this shift is especially troubling in the context of transformative
5514 uses of creative content. Again, we can all understand the wrong in
5515 commercial piracy. But the law now purports to regulate
5516 <span class="emphasis"><em>any</em></span> transformation you make of creative work using a
5517 machine. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copy and paste</span>»</span> and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut and paste</span>»</span>
5518 become crimes. Tinkering with a story and releasing it to others exposes the
5519 tinkerer to at least a requirement of justification.  However troubling the
5520 expansion with respect to copying a particular work, it is extraordinarily
5521 troubling with respect to transformative uses of creative work.
5522 </p><p>
5523
5524 Third, this shift from category 1 to category 2 puts an extraordinary burden
5525 on category 3 (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span>) that fair use never before had to
5526 bear.  If a copyright owner now tried to control how many times I could read
5527 a book on-line, the natural response would be to argue that this is a
5528 violation of my fair use rights. But there has never been any litigation
5529 about whether I have a fair use right to read, because before the Internet,
5530 reading did not trigger the application of copyright law and hence the need
5531 for a fair use defense. The right to read was effectively protected before
5532 because reading was not regulated.
5533 </p><p>
5534 This point about fair use is totally ignored, even by advocates for free
5535 culture. We have been cornered into arguing that our rights depend upon fair
5536 use&#8212;never even addressing the earlier question about the expansion in
5537 effective regulation. A thin protection grounded in fair use makes sense
5538 when the vast majority of uses are <span class="emphasis"><em>unregulated</em></span>. But
5539 when everything becomes presumptively regulated, then the protections of
5540 fair use are not enough.
5541 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising2"></a><p>
5542 The case of Video Pipeline is a good example. Video Pipeline was in the
5543 business of making <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trailer</span>»</span> advertisements for movies
5544 available to video stores. The video stores displayed the trailers as a way
5545 to sell videos. Video Pipeline got the trailers from the film distributors,
5546 put the trailers on tape, and sold the tapes to the retail stores.
5547 </p><p>
5548 The company did this for about fifteen years. Then, in 1997, it began to
5549 think about the Internet as another way to distribute these previews.  The
5550 idea was to expand their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">selling by sampling</span>»</span> technique by
5551 giving on-line stores the same ability to enable <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">browsing.</span>»</span>
5552 Just as in a bookstore you can read a few pages of a book before you buy the
5553 book, so, too, you would be able to sample a bit from the movie on-line
5554 before you bought it.
5555 </p><p>
5556
5557 In 1998, Video Pipeline informed Disney and other film distributors that it
5558 intended to distribute the trailers through the Internet (rather than
5559 sending the tapes) to distributors of their videos. Two years later, Disney
5560 told Video Pipeline to stop. The owner of Video Pipeline asked Disney to
5561 talk about the matter&#8212;he had built a business on distributing this
5562 content as a way to help sell Disney films; he had customers who depended
5563 upon his delivering this content. Disney would agree to talk only if Video
5564 Pipeline stopped the distribution immediately.  Video Pipeline thought it
5565 was within their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> rights to distribute the clips as
5566 they had. So they filed a lawsuit to ask the court to declare that these
5567 rights were in fact their rights.
5568 </p><p>
5569 Disney countersued&#8212;for $100 million in damages. Those damages were
5570 predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">willfully
5571 infringed</span>»</span> on Disney's copyright. When a court makes a finding of
5572 willful infringement, it can award damages not on the basis of the actual
5573 harm to the copyright owner, but on the basis of an amount set in the
5574 statute. Because Video Pipeline had distributed seven hundred clips of
5575 Disney movies to enable video stores to sell copies of those movies, Disney
5576 was now suing Video Pipeline for $100 million.
5577 </p><p>
5578 Disney has the right to control its property, of course. But the video
5579 stores that were selling Disney's films also had some sort of right to be
5580 able to sell the films that they had bought from Disney. Disney's claim in
5581 court was that the stores were allowed to sell the films and they were
5582 permitted to list the titles of the films they were selling, but they were
5583 not allowed to show clips of the films as a way of selling them without
5584 Disney's permission.
5585 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2894895"></a><p>
5586 Now, you might think this is a close case, and I think the courts would
5587 consider it a close case. My point here is to map the change that gives
5588 Disney this power. Before the Internet, Disney couldn't really control how
5589 people got access to their content. Once a video was in the marketplace, the
5590 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">first-sale doctrine</span>»</span> would free the seller to use the video as
5591 he wished, including showing portions of it in order to engender sales of
5592 the entire movie video. But with the Internet, it becomes possible for
5593 Disney to centralize control over access to this content. Because each use
5594 of the Internet produces a copy, use on the Internet becomes subject to the
5595 copyright owner's control. The technology expands the scope of effective
5596 control, because the technology builds a copy into every transaction.
5597 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2894922"></a><p>
5598
5599
5600 No doubt, a potential is not yet an abuse, and so the potential for control
5601 is not yet the abuse of control. Barnes &amp; Noble has the right to say you
5602 can't touch a book in their store; property law gives them that right.  But
5603 the market effectively protects against that abuse. If Barnes &amp; Noble
5604 banned browsing, then consumers would choose other bookstores.  Competition
5605 protects against the extremes. And it may well be (my argument so far does
5606 not even question this) that competition would prevent any similar danger
5607 when it comes to copyright. Sure, publishers exercising the rights that
5608 authors have assigned to them might try to regulate how many times you read
5609 a book, or try to stop you from sharing the book with anyone. But in a
5610 competitive market such as the book market, the dangers of this happening
5611 are quite slight.
5612 </p><p>
5613 Again, my aim so far is simply to map the changes that this changed
5614 architecture enables. Enabling technology to enforce the control of
5615 copyright means that the control of copyright is no longer defined by
5616 balanced policy. The control of copyright is simply what private owners
5617 choose. In some contexts, at least, that fact is harmless. But in some
5618 contexts it is a recipe for disaster.
5619 </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>
5620 The disappearance of unregulated uses would be change enough, but a second
5621 important change brought about by the Internet magnifies its
5622 significance. This second change does not affect the reach of copyright
5623 regulation; it affects how such regulation is enforced.
5624 </p><p>
5625 In the world before digital technology, it was generally the law that
5626 controlled whether and how someone was regulated by copyright law.  The law,
5627 meaning a court, meaning a judge: In the end, it was a human, trained in the
5628 tradition of the law and cognizant of the balances that tradition embraced,
5629 who said whether and how the law would restrict your freedom.
5630 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2895015"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxmarxbrothers"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwarnerbrothers"></a><p>
5631 Det er en berømt historie om en kamp mellom Marx-brødrene (the Marx
5632 Brothers) og Warner Brothers.  Marx-brødrene planla å lage en parodi av
5633 <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>. Warner Brothers protesterte.  De skrev et
5634 ufint brev til Marx-brødrene og advarte dem om at det ville få seriøse
5635 juridiske konsekvenser hvis de gikk videre med sin plan.<sup>[<a name="id2895062" href="#ftn.id2895062" class="footnote">136</a>]</sup>
5636 </p><p>
5637 Dette fikk Marx-brødrene til å svare tilbake med samme mynt.  De advarte
5638 Warner Brothers om at Marx-brødrene <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">var brødre lenge før dere var
5639 det</span>»</span>.<sup>[<a name="id2895089" href="#ftn.id2895089" class="footnote">137</a>]</sup> Marx-brødrene eide derfor
5640 ordet <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>, og hvis Warner Brothers insisterte på
5641 å forsøke å kontrollere <em class="citetitle">Casablanca</em>, så ville
5642 Marx-brødrene insistere på kontroll over <em class="citetitle">Brothers</em>.
5643 </p><p>
5644 Det var en absurd og hul trussel, selvfølgelig, fordi Warner Brothers, på
5645 samme måte som Marx-brødrene, visste at ingen domstol noensinne ville
5646 håndheve et slikt dumt krav. Denne ekstremismen var irrelevant for de ekte
5647 friheter som alle (inkludert Warner Brothers) nøt godt av.
5648 </p><p>
5649 On the Internet, however, there is no check on silly rules, because on the
5650 Internet, increasingly, rules are enforced not by a human but by a machine:
5651 Increasingly, the rules of copyright law, as interpreted by the copyright
5652 owner, get built into the technology that delivers copyrighted content. It
5653 is code, rather than law, that rules. And the problem with code regulations
5654 is that, unlike law, code has no shame. Code would not get the humor of the
5655 Marx Brothers. The consequence of that is not at all funny.
5656 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2895147"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895156"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxadobeebookreader"></a><p>
5657 La oss se på livet til min Adobe eBook Reader.
5658 </p><p>
5659 En ebok er en bok levert i elektronisk form.  En Adobe eBook er ikke en bok
5660 som Adobe har publisert.  Adobe produserer kun programvaren som utgivere
5661 bruker å levere e-bøker.  Den bidrar med teknologien, og utgiveren leverer
5662 innholdet ved hjelp av teknologien.
5663 </p><p>
5664 On the next page is a picture of an old version of my Adobe eBook Reader.
5665 </p><p>
5666
5667 As you can see, I have a small collection of e-books within this e-book
5668 library. Some of these books reproduce content that is in the public domain:
5669 <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, for example, is in the public domain.
5670 Some of them reproduce content that is not in the public domain: My own book
5671 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> is not yet within the public
5672 domain.  Consider <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> first. If you click on
5673 my e-book copy of <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em>, you'll see a fancy
5674 cover, and then a button at the bottom called Permissions.
5675 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1611"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.12. Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1611.png" alt="Bilde av en gammel versjon av Adobe eBook Reader."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5676 If you click on the Permissions button, you'll see a list of the permissions
5677 that the publisher purports to grant with this book.
5678 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1612"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.13. List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1612.png" alt="List of the permissions that the publisher purports to grant."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5679
5680
5681 According to my eBook Reader, I have the permission to copy to the clipboard
5682 of the computer ten text selections every ten days. (So far, I've copied no
5683 text to the clipboard.)  I also have the permission to print ten pages from
5684 the book every ten days. Lastly, I have the permission to use the Read Aloud
5685 button to hear <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> read aloud through the
5686 computer.
5687 </p><p>
5688 Her er e-boken for et annet allemannseid verk (inkludert oversettelsen):
5689 Aristoteles <em class="citetitle">Politikk</em>  <a class="indexterm" name="id2895280"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2895286"></a>
5690 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1621"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.14. E-bok av Aristoteles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Politikk</span>»</span></b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1621.png" alt="E-bok av Aristoteles Politikk"></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5691 According to its permissions, no printing or copying is permitted at
5692 all. But fortunately, you can use the Read Aloud button to hear the book.
5693 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1622"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.15. Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1622.png" alt='Liste med tillatelser for Aristotles "Politikk".'></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5694 Finally (and most embarrassingly), here are the permissions for the original
5695 e-book version of my last book, <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>:
5696 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1631"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.16. Liste med tillatelser for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Future of Ideas</span>»</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1631.png" alt="Liste med tillatelser for The Future of Ideas."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5697 Ingen kopiering, ingen utskrift, og våg ikke å prøve å lytte til denne
5698 boken!
5699 </p><p>
5700 Now, the Adobe eBook Reader calls these controls
5701 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span>&#8212; as if the publisher has the power to
5702 control how you use these works.  For works under copyright, the copyright
5703 owner certainly does have the power&#8212;up to the limits of the copyright
5704 law. But for work not under copyright, there is no such copyright
5705 power.<sup>[<a name="id2895370" href="#ftn.id2895370" class="footnote">138</a>]</sup> When my e-book of
5706 <em class="citetitle">Middlemarch</em> says I have the permission to copy only
5707 ten text selections into the memory every ten days, what that really means
5708 is that the eBook Reader has enabled the publisher to control how I use the
5709 book on my computer, far beyond the control that the law would enable.
5710 </p><p>
5711 The control comes instead from the code&#8212;from the technology within
5712 which the e-book <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lives.</span>»</span> Though the e-book says that these are
5713 permissions, they are not the sort of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span> that most
5714 of us deal with. When a teenager gets <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permission</span>»</span> to stay out
5715 till midnight, she knows (unless she's Cinderella) that she can stay out
5716 till 2 A.M., but will suffer a punishment if she's caught. But when the
5717 Adobe eBook Reader says I have the permission to make ten copies of the text
5718 into the computer's memory, that means that after I've made ten copies, the
5719 computer will not make any more. The same with the printing restrictions:
5720 After ten pages, the eBook Reader will not print any more pages.  It's the
5721 same with the silly restriction that says that you can't use the Read Aloud
5722 button to read my book aloud&#8212;it's not that the company will sue you if
5723 you do; instead, if you push the Read Aloud button with my book, the machine
5724 simply won't read aloud.
5725 </p><p>
5726
5727 These are <span class="emphasis"><em>controls</em></span>, not permissions. Imagine a world
5728 where the Marx Brothers sold word processing software that, when you tried
5729 to type <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Warner Brothers,</span>»</span> erased <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Brothers</span>»</span> from
5730 the sentence.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2895444"></a>
5731 </p><p>
5732 This is the future of copyright law: not so much copyright
5733 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> as copyright <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span>. The
5734 controls over access to content will not be controls that are ratified by
5735 courts; the controls over access to content will be controls that are coded
5736 by programmers. And whereas the controls that are built into the law are
5737 always to be checked by a judge, the controls that are built into the
5738 technology have no similar built-in check.
5739 </p><p>
5740 How significant is this? Isn't it always possible to get around the controls
5741 built into the technology? Software used to be sold with technologies that
5742 limited the ability of users to copy the software, but those were trivial
5743 protections to defeat. Why won't it be trivial to defeat these protections
5744 as well?
5745 </p><p>
5746 We've only scratched the surface of this story. Return to the Adobe eBook
5747 Reader.
5748 </p><p>
5749 Early in the life of the Adobe eBook Reader, Adobe suffered a public
5750 relations nightmare. Among the books that you could download for free on the
5751 Adobe site was a copy of <em class="citetitle">Alice's Adventures in
5752 Wonderland</em>.  This wonderful book is in the public domain. Yet
5753 when you clicked on Permissions for that book, you got the following report:
5754 <a class="indexterm" name="id2895494"></a>
5755 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1641"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.17. Liste med tillatelser for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alice i Eventyrland</span>»</span>.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1641.png" alt="Liste med tillatelser for Alice i Eventyrland."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
5756 Here was a public domain children's book that you were not allowed to copy,
5757 not allowed to lend, not allowed to give, and, as the
5758 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permissions</span>»</span> indicated, not allowed to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">read
5759 aloud</span>»</span>!
5760 </p><p>
5761 The public relations nightmare attached to that final permission.  For the
5762 text did not say that you were not permitted to use the Read Aloud button;
5763 it said you did not have the permission to read the book aloud. That led
5764 some people to think that Adobe was restricting the right of parents, for
5765 example, to read the book to their children, which seemed, to say the least,
5766 absurd.
5767 </p><p>
5768 Adobe responded quickly that it was absurd to think that it was trying to
5769 restrict the right to read a book aloud. Obviously it was only restricting
5770 the ability to use the Read Aloud button to have the book read aloud. But
5771 the question Adobe never did answer is this: Would Adobe thus agree that a
5772 consumer was free to use software to hack around the restrictions built into
5773 the eBook Reader? If some company (call it Elcomsoft) developed a program to
5774 disable the technological protection built into an Adobe eBook so that a
5775 blind person, say, could use a computer to read the book aloud, would Adobe
5776 agree that such a use of an eBook Reader was fair? Adobe didn't answer
5777 because the answer, however absurd it might seem, is no.
5778 </p><p>
5779 The point is not to blame Adobe. Indeed, Adobe is among the most innovative
5780 companies developing strategies to balance open access to content with
5781 incentives for companies to innovate. But Adobe's technology enables
5782 control, and Adobe has an incentive to defend this control.  That incentive
5783 is understandable, yet what it creates is often crazy.
5784 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2895568"></a><p>
5785 To see the point in a particularly absurd context, consider a favorite story
5786 of mine that makes the same point.
5787 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog1"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo1"></a><p>
5788 Consider the robotic dog made by Sony named <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Aibo.</span>»</span> The Aibo
5789 learns tricks, cuddles, and follows you around. It eats only electricity and
5790 that doesn't leave that much of a mess (at least in your house).
5791 </p><p>
5792 The Aibo is expensive and popular. Fans from around the world have set up
5793 clubs to trade stories. One fan in particular set up a Web site to enable
5794 information about the Aibo dog to be shared. This fan set
5795
5796 up aibopet.com (and aibohack.com, but that resolves to the same site), and
5797 on that site he provided information about how to teach an Aibo to do tricks
5798 in addition to the ones Sony had taught it.
5799 </p><p>
5800 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Teach</span>»</span> here has a special meaning. Aibos are just cute
5801 computers.  You teach a computer how to do something by programming it
5802 differently.  So to say that aibopet.com was giving information about how to
5803 teach the dog to do new tricks is just to say that aibopet.com was giving
5804 information to users of the Aibo pet about how to hack their computer
5805 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">dog</span>»</span> to make it do new tricks (thus, aibohack.com).
5806 </p><p>
5807 If you're not a programmer or don't know many programmers, the word
5808 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> has a particularly unfriendly
5809 connotation. Nonprogrammers hack bushes or weeds. Nonprogrammers in horror
5810 movies do even worse. But to programmers, or coders, as I call them,
5811 <em class="citetitle">hack</em> is a much more positive
5812 term. <em class="citetitle">Hack</em> just means code that enables the program
5813 to do something it wasn't originally intended or enabled to do. If you buy a
5814 new printer for an old computer, you might find the old computer doesn't
5815 run, or <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">drive,</span>»</span> the printer. If you discovered that, you'd
5816 later be happy to discover a hack on the Net by someone who has written a
5817 driver to enable the computer to drive the printer you just bought.
5818 </p><p>
5819 Some hacks are easy. Some are unbelievably hard. Hackers as a community like
5820 to challenge themselves and others with increasingly difficult
5821 tasks. There's a certain respect that goes with the talent to hack
5822 well. There's a well-deserved respect that goes with the talent to hack
5823 ethically.
5824 </p><p>
5825 The Aibo fan was displaying a bit of both when he hacked the program and
5826 offered to the world a bit of code that would enable the Aibo to dance
5827 jazz. The dog wasn't programmed to dance jazz. It was a clever bit of
5828 tinkering that turned the dog into a more talented creature than Sony had
5829 built.
5830 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2895707"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895715"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895723"></a><p>
5831
5832 I've told this story in many contexts, both inside and outside the United
5833 States. Once I was asked by a puzzled member of the audience, is it
5834 permissible for a dog to dance jazz in the United States? We forget that
5835 stories about the backcountry still flow across much of the world. So let's
5836 just be clear before we continue: It's not a crime anywhere (anymore) to
5837 dance jazz. Nor is it a crime to teach your dog to dance jazz. Nor should it
5838 be a crime (though we don't have a lot to go on here) to teach your robot
5839 dog to dance jazz. Dancing jazz is a completely legal activity. One imagines
5840 that the owner of aibopet.com thought, <span class="emphasis"><em>What possible problem could
5841 there be with teaching a robot dog to dance?</em></span>
5842 </p><p>
5843 Let's put the dog to sleep for a minute, and turn to a pony show&#8212; not
5844 literally a pony show, but rather a paper that a Princeton academic named Ed
5845 Felten prepared for a conference. This Princeton academic is well known and
5846 respected. He was hired by the government in the Microsoft case to test
5847 Microsoft's claims about what could and could not be done with its own
5848 code. In that trial, he demonstrated both his brilliance and his
5849 coolness. Under heavy badgering by Microsoft lawyers, Ed Felten stood his
5850 ground. He was not about to be bullied into being silent about something he
5851 knew very well.
5852 </p><p>
5853 But Felten's bravery was really tested in April 2001.<sup>[<a name="id2895768" href="#ftn.id2895768" class="footnote">139</a>]</sup> He and a group of colleagues were working on a
5854 paper to be submitted at conference.  The paper was intended to describe the
5855 weakness in an encryption system being developed by the Secure Digital Music
5856 Initiative as a technique to control the distribution of music.
5857 </p><p>
5858 The SDMI coalition had as its goal a technology to enable content owners to
5859 exercise much better control over their content than the Internet, as it
5860 originally stood, granted them. Using encryption, SDMI hoped to develop a
5861 standard that would allow the content owner to say <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">this music cannot
5862 be copied,</span>»</span> and have a computer respect that command.  The technology
5863 was to be part of a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">trusted system</span>»</span> of control that would get
5864 content owners to trust the system of the Internet much more.
5865 </p><p>
5866 When SDMI thought it was close to a standard, it set up a competition.  In
5867 exchange for providing contestants with the code to an SDMI-encrypted bit of
5868 content, contestants were to try to crack it and, if they did, report the
5869 problems to the consortium.
5870 </p><p>
5871
5872
5873 Felten and his team figured out the encryption system quickly. He and the
5874 team saw the weakness of this system as a type: Many encryption systems
5875 would suffer the same weakness, and Felten and his team thought it
5876 worthwhile to point this out to those who study encryption.
5877 </p><p>
5878 Let's review just what Felten was doing. Again, this is the United
5879 States. We have a principle of free speech. We have this principle not just
5880 because it is the law, but also because it is a really great idea. A
5881 strongly protected tradition of free speech is likely to encourage a wide
5882 range of criticism. That criticism is likely, in turn, to improve the
5883 systems or people or ideas criticized.
5884 </p><p>
5885 What Felten and his colleagues were doing was publishing a paper describing
5886 the weakness in a technology. They were not spreading free music, or
5887 building and deploying this technology. The paper was an academic essay,
5888 unintelligible to most people. But it clearly showed the weakness in the
5889 SDMI system, and why SDMI would not, as presently constituted, succeed.
5890 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxaibo2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxroboticdog2"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxsonyaibo2"></a><p>
5891 What links these two, aibopet.com and Felten, is the letters they then
5892 received. Aibopet.com received a letter from Sony about the aibopet.com
5893 hack. Though a jazz-dancing dog is perfectly legal, Sony wrote:
5894 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5895 Your site contains information providing the means to circumvent AIBO-ware's
5896 copy protection protocol constituting a violation of the anti-circumvention
5897 provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
5898 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2895952"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895960"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2895968"></a><p>
5899 And though an academic paper describing the weakness in a system of
5900 encryption should also be perfectly legal, Felten received a letter from an
5901 RIAA lawyer that read:
5902 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5903
5904 Any disclosure of information gained from participating in the Public
5905 Challenge would be outside the scope of activities permitted by the
5906 Agreement and could subject you and your research team to actions under the
5907 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">DMCA</span>»</span>).
5908 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5909 In both cases, this weirdly Orwellian law was invoked to control the spread
5910 of information. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act made spreading such
5911 information an offense.
5912 </p><p>
5913 The DMCA was enacted as a response to copyright owners' first fear about
5914 cyberspace. The fear was that copyright control was effectively dead; the
5915 response was to find technologies that might compensate.  These new
5916 technologies would be copyright protection technologies&#8212; technologies
5917 to control the replication and distribution of copyrighted material. They
5918 were designed as <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> to modify the original
5919 <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> of the Internet, to reestablish some protection
5920 for copyright owners.
5921 </p><p>
5922 The DMCA was a bit of law intended to back up the protection of this code
5923 designed to protect copyrighted material. It was, we could say,
5924 <span class="emphasis"><em>legal code</em></span> intended to buttress <span class="emphasis"><em>software
5925 code</em></span> which itself was intended to support the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal
5926 code of copyright</em></span>.
5927 </p><p>
5928 But the DMCA was not designed merely to protect copyrighted works to the
5929 extent copyright law protected them. Its protection, that is, did not end at
5930 the line that copyright law drew. The DMCA regulated devices that were
5931 designed to circumvent copyright protection measures. It was designed to ban
5932 those devices, whether or not the use of the copyrighted material made
5933 possible by that circumvention would have been a copyright violation.
5934 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2896049"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2896056"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2896062"></a><p>
5935
5936 Aibopet.com and Felten make the point. The Aibo hack circumvented a
5937 copyright protection system for the purpose of enabling the dog to dance
5938 jazz. That enablement no doubt involved the use of copyrighted material. But
5939 as aibopet.com's site was noncommercial, and the use did not enable
5940 subsequent copyright infringements, there's no doubt that aibopet.com's hack
5941 was fair use of Sony's copyrighted material. Yet fair use is not a defense
5942 to the DMCA. The question is not whether the use of the copyrighted material
5943 was a copyright violation. The question is whether a copyright protection
5944 system was circumvented.
5945 </p><p>
5946 The threat against Felten was more attenuated, but it followed the same line
5947 of reasoning. By publishing a paper describing how a copyright protection
5948 system could be circumvented, the RIAA lawyer suggested, Felten himself was
5949 distributing a circumvention technology.  Thus, even though he was not
5950 himself infringing anyone's copyright, his academic paper was enabling
5951 others to infringe others' copyright.
5952 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2896099"></a><p>
5953 The bizarreness of these arguments is captured in a cartoon drawn in 1981 by
5954 Paul Conrad. At that time, a court in California had held that the VCR could
5955 be banned because it was a copyright-infringing technology: It enabled
5956 consumers to copy films without the permission of the copyright owner. No
5957 doubt there were uses of the technology that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka
5958 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote"><em class="citetitle">Mr. Rogers</em>,</span>»</span> for example, had testified
5959 in that case that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers'
5960 Neighborhood.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2896121"></a>
5961 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
5962 Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the
5963 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> at hours when some children cannot use it. I
5964 think that it's a real service to families to be able to record such
5965 programs and show them at appropriate times. I have always felt that with
5966 the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the
5967 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> off-the-air, and I'm speaking for the
5968 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Neighborhood</span>»</span> because that's what I produce, that they then
5969 become much more active in the programming of their family's television
5970 life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My
5971 whole approach in broadcasting has always been <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You are an important
5972 person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.</span>»</span> Maybe
5973 I'm going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to
5974 be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is
5975 important.<sup>[<a name="id2896161" href="#ftn.id2896161" class="footnote">140</a>]</sup>
5976 </p></blockquote></div><p>
5977
5978
5979 Even though there were uses that were legal, because there were some uses
5980 that were illegal, the court held the companies producing the VCR
5981 responsible.
5982 </p><p>
5983 This led Conrad to draw the cartoon below, which we can adopt to the DMCA.
5984 <a class="indexterm" name="id2896202"></a>
5985 </p><p>
5986 No argument I have can top this picture, but let me try to get close.
5987 </p><p>
5988 The anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA target copyright circumvention
5989 technologies. Circumvention technologies can be used for different
5990 ends. They can be used, for example, to enable massive pirating of
5991 copyrighted material&#8212;a bad end. Or they can be used to enable the use
5992 of particular copyrighted materials in ways that would be considered fair
5993 use&#8212;a good end.
5994 </p><p>
5995
5996 A handgun can be used to shoot a police officer or a child. Most would agree
5997 such a use is bad. Or a handgun can be used for target practice or to
5998 protect against an intruder. At least some would say that such a use would
5999 be good. It, too, is a technology that has both good and bad uses.
6000 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1711"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.18. VCR/handgun cartoon.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1711.png" alt="VCR/handgun cartoon."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
6001 The obvious point of Conrad's cartoon is the weirdness of a world where guns
6002 are legal, despite the harm they can do, while VCRs (and circumvention
6003 technologies) are illegal. Flash: <span class="emphasis"><em>No one ever died from copyright
6004 circumvention</em></span>. Yet the law bans circumvention technologies
6005 absolutely, despite the potential that they might do some good, but permits
6006 guns, despite the obvious and tragic harm they do.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2896260"></a>
6007 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2896268"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2896274"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2896280"></a><p>
6008 The Aibo and RIAA examples demonstrate how copyright owners are changing the
6009 balance that copyright law grants. Using code, copyright owners restrict
6010 fair use; using the DMCA, they punish those who would attempt to evade the
6011 restrictions on fair use that they impose through code. Technology becomes a
6012 means by which fair use can be erased; the law of the DMCA backs up that
6013 erasing.
6014 </p><p>
6015 This is how <span class="emphasis"><em>code</em></span> becomes <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span>. The
6016 controls built into the technology of copy and access protection become
6017 rules the violation of which is also a violation of the law. In this way,
6018 the code extends the law&#8212;increasing its regulation, even if the
6019 subject it regulates (activities that would otherwise plainly constitute
6020 fair use) is beyond the reach of the law. Code becomes law; code extends the
6021 law; code thus extends the control that copyright owners effect&#8212;at
6022 least for those copyright holders with the lawyers who can write the nasty
6023 letters that Felten and aibopet.com received.
6024 </p><p>
6025 There is one final aspect of the interaction between architecture and law
6026 that contributes to the force of copyright's regulation. This is the ease
6027 with which infringements of the law can be detected. For contrary to the
6028 rhetoric common at the birth of cyberspace that on the Internet, no one
6029 knows you're a dog, increasingly, given changing technologies deployed on
6030 the Internet, it is easy to find the dog who committed a legal wrong. The
6031 technologies of the Internet are open to snoops as well as sharers, and the
6032 snoops are increasingly good at tracking down the identity of those who
6033 violate the rules.
6034 </p><p>
6035
6036
6037 For example, imagine you were part of a <em class="citetitle">Star Trek</em> fan
6038 club. You gathered every month to share trivia, and maybe to enact a kind of
6039 fan fiction about the show. One person would play Spock, another, Captain
6040 Kirk. The characters would begin with a plot from a real story, then simply
6041 continue it.<sup>[<a name="id2896355" href="#ftn.id2896355" class="footnote">141</a>]</sup>
6042 </p><p>
6043 Before the Internet, this was, in effect, a totally unregulated activity.
6044 No matter what happened inside your club room, you would never be interfered
6045 with by the copyright police. You were free in that space to do as you
6046 wished with this part of our culture. You were allowed to build on it as you
6047 wished without fear of legal control.
6048 </p><p>
6049 But if you moved your club onto the Internet, and made it generally
6050 available for others to join, the story would be very different. Bots
6051 scouring the Net for trademark and copyright infringement would quickly find
6052 your site. Your posting of fan fiction, depending upon the ownership of the
6053 series that you're depicting, could well inspire a lawyer's threat. And
6054 ignoring the lawyer's threat would be extremely costly indeed.  The law of
6055 copyright is extremely efficient. The penalties are severe, and the process
6056 is quick.
6057 </p><p>
6058 This change in the effective force of the law is caused by a change in the
6059 ease with which the law can be enforced. That change too shifts the law's
6060 balance radically. It is as if your car transmitted the speed at which you
6061 traveled at every moment that you drove; that would be just one step before
6062 the state started issuing tickets based upon the data you transmitted. That
6063 is, in effect, what is happening here.
6064 </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>
6065
6066 So copyright's duration has increased dramatically&#8212;tripled in the past
6067 thirty years. And copyright's scope has increased as well&#8212;from
6068 regulating only publishers to now regulating just about everyone. And
6069 copyright's reach has changed, as every action becomes a copy and hence
6070 presumptively regulated. And as technologists find better ways to control
6071 the use of content, and as copyright is increasingly enforced through
6072 technology, copyright's force changes, too. Misuse is easier to find and
6073 easier to control. This regulation of the creative process, which began as a
6074 tiny regulation governing a tiny part of the market for creative work, has
6075 become the single most important regulator of creativity there is. It is a
6076 massive expansion in the scope of the government's control over innovation
6077 and creativity; it would be totally unrecognizable to those who gave birth
6078 to copyright's control.
6079 </p><p>
6080 Still, in my view, all of these changes would not matter much if it weren't
6081 for one more change that we must also consider. This is a change that is in
6082 some sense the most familiar, though its significance and scope are not well
6083 understood. It is the one that creates precisely the reason to be concerned
6084 about all the other changes I have described.
6085 </p><p>
6086 This is the change in the concentration and integration of the media.  In
6087 the past twenty years, the nature of media ownership has undergone a radical
6088 alteration, caused by changes in legal rules governing the media.  Before
6089 this change happened, the different forms of media were owned by separate
6090 media companies. Now, the media is increasingly owned by only a few
6091 companies. Indeed, after the changes that the FCC announced in June 2003,
6092 most expect that within a few years, we will live in a world where just
6093 three companies control more than percent of the media.
6094 </p><p>
6095 Det er her to sorter endringer: omfanget av konsentrasjon, og dens natur.
6096 </p><p>
6097 Changes in scope are the easier ones to describe. As Senator John McCain
6098 summarized the data produced in the FCC's review of media ownership,
6099 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five companies control 85 percent of our media
6100 sources.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2896478" href="#ftn.id2896478" class="footnote">142</a>]</sup> The five recording
6101 labels of Universal Music Group, BMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music
6102 Group, and EMI control 84.8 percent of the U.S. music market.<sup>[<a name="id2896490" href="#ftn.id2896490" class="footnote">143</a>]</sup> The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">five largest cable companies pipe
6103 programming to 74 percent of the cable subscribers
6104 nationwide.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2896508" href="#ftn.id2896508" class="footnote">144</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2896521"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2896527"></a>
6105 <a class="indexterm" name="id2896533"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2896539"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2896546"></a>
6106 </p><p>
6107
6108 The story with radio is even more dramatic. Before deregulation, the
6109 nation's largest radio broadcasting conglomerate owned fewer than
6110 seventy-five stations. Today <span class="emphasis"><em>one</em></span> company owns more than
6111 1,200 stations.  During that period of consolidation, the total number of
6112 radio owners dropped by 34 percent. Today, in most markets, the two largest
6113 broadcasters control 74 percent of that market's revenues. Overall, just
6114 four companies control 90 percent of the nation's radio advertising
6115 revenues.
6116 </p><p>
6117 Newspaper ownership is becoming more concentrated as well.  Today, there are
6118 six hundred fewer daily newspapers in the United States than there were
6119 eighty years ago, and ten companies control half of the nation's
6120 circulation. There are twenty major newspaper publishers in the United
6121 States. The top ten film studios receive 99 percent of all film revenue. The
6122 ten largest cable companies account for 85 percent of all cable
6123 revenue. This is a market far from the free press the framers sought to
6124 protect. Indeed, it is a market that is quite well protected&#8212; by the
6125 market.
6126 </p><p>
6127 Concentration in size alone is one thing. The more invidious change is in
6128 the nature of that concentration. As author James Fallows put it in a recent
6129 article about Rupert Murdoch, <a class="indexterm" name="id2896577"></a>
6130 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6131 Murdoch's companies now constitute a production system unmatched in its
6132 integration. They supply content&#8212;Fox movies &#8230; Fox TV shows
6133 &#8230; Fox-controlled sports broadcasts, plus newspapers and books. They
6134 sell the content to the public and to advertisers&#8212;in newspapers, on
6135 the broadcast network, on the cable channels. And they operate the physical
6136 distribution system through which the content reaches the
6137 customers. Murdoch's satellite systems now distribute News Corp. content in
6138 Europe and Asia; if Murdoch becomes DirecTV's largest single owner, that
6139 system will serve the same function in the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2896602" href="#ftn.id2896602" class="footnote">145</a>]</sup>
6140 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6141 The pattern with Murdoch is the pattern of modern media. Not just large
6142 companies owning many radio stations, but a few companies owning as many
6143 outlets of media as possible. A picture describes this pattern better than a
6144 thousand words could do:
6145 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-1761"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 10.19. Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap.</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/1761.png" alt="Mønster for moderne mediaeierskap."></div></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
6146
6147
6148 Betyr denne konsentrasjonen noe?  Påvirker det hva som blir laget, eller hva
6149 som blir distribuert?  Eller er det bare en mer effektiv måte å produsere og
6150 distribuere innhold?
6151 </p><p>
6152 Mitt syn var at konsentrasjonen ikke betød noe.  Jeg tenkte det ikke var noe
6153 mer enn en mer effektiv finansiell struktur.  Men nå, etter å ha lest og
6154 hørt på en haug av skapere prøve å overbevise meg om det motsatte, har jeg
6155 begynt å endre mening.
6156 </p><p>
6157 Her er en representativ historie som kan foreslå hvorfor denne integreringen
6158 er viktig.
6159 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2896684"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2896690"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2896697"></a><p>
6160 I 1969 laget Norman Lear en polit for <em class="citetitle">All in the
6161 Family</em>.  Han tok piloten til ABC, og nettverket likte det ikke.
6162 Da sa til Lear at det var for på kanten.  Gjør det om igjen. Lear lagde
6163 piloten på nytt, mer på kanten enn den første.  ABC ble fra seg.  Du får
6164 ikke med deg poenget, fortalte de Lear.  Vi vil ha det mindre på kanten,
6165 ikke mer.
6166 </p><p>
6167 I stedet for å føye seg, to Lear ganske enkelt serien sin til noen andre.
6168 CBS var glad for å ha seriene, og ABC kunne ikke stoppe Lear fra å gå til
6169 andre.  Opphavsretten som Lear hadde sikret uavhengighet fra
6170 nettverk-kontroll.<sup>[<a name="id2896729" href="#ftn.id2896729" class="footnote">146</a>]</sup>
6171 </p><p>
6172
6173
6174
6175 The network did not control those copyrights because the law forbade the
6176 networks from controlling the content they syndicated. The law required a
6177 separation between the networks and the content producers; that separation
6178 would guarantee Lear freedom. And as late as 1992, because of these rules,
6179 the vast majority of prime time television&#8212;75 percent of it&#8212;was
6180 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">independent</span>»</span> of the networks.
6181 </p><p>
6182 In 1994, the FCC abandoned the rules that required this independence.  After
6183 that change, the networks quickly changed the balance.  In 1985, there were
6184 twenty-five independent television production studios; in 2002, only five
6185 independent television studios remained. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In 1992, only 15 percent of
6186 new series were produced for a network by a company it controlled. Last
6187 year, the percentage of shows produced by controlled companies more than
6188 quintupled to 77 percent.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In 1992, 16 new series were
6189 produced independently of conglomerate control, last year there was
6190 one.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2896792" href="#ftn.id2896792" class="footnote">147</a>]</sup> In 2002, 75 percent of
6191 prime time television was owned by the networks that ran it. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the
6192 ten-year period between 1992 and 2002, the number of prime time television
6193 hours per week produced by network studios increased over 200%, whereas the
6194 number of prime time television hours per week produced by independent
6195 studios decreased 63%.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2896820" href="#ftn.id2896820" class="footnote">148</a>]</sup>
6196 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2896827"></a><p>
6197 Today, another Norman Lear with another <em class="citetitle">All in the
6198 Family</em> would find that he had the choice either to make the show
6199 less edgy or to be fired: The content of any show developed for a network is
6200 increasingly owned by the network.
6201 </p><p>
6202 Mens antall kanaler har økt dramatisk, har eierskapet til disse kanalene
6203 snevret inn fra få til stadig færre.  Som Barry Diller sa til Bill Moyers,
6204 <a class="indexterm" name="id2896851"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2896857"></a>
6205 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6206 Well, if you have companies that produce, that finance, that air on their
6207 channel and then distribute worldwide everything that goes through their
6208 controlled distribution system, then what you get is fewer and fewer actual
6209 voices participating in the process. [We u]sed to have dozens and dozens of
6210 thriving independent production companies producing television programs. Now
6211 you have less than a handful.<sup>[<a name="id2896876" href="#ftn.id2896876" class="footnote">149</a>]</sup>
6212 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6213 This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of such large
6214 and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous.  Increasingly
6215 safe. Increasingly sterile. The product of news shows from networks like
6216 this is increasingly tailored to the message the network wants to
6217 convey. This is not the communist party, though from the inside, it must
6218 feel a bit like the communist party. No one can question without risk of
6219 consequence&#8212;not necessarily banishment to Siberia, but punishment
6220 nonetheless. Independent, critical, different views are quashed. This is not
6221 the environment for a democracy.
6222 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2896903"></a><p>
6223 Economics itself offers a parallel that explains why this integration
6224 affects creativity. Clay Christensen has written about the
6225 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Innovator's Dilemma</span>»</span>: the fact that large traditional firms
6226 find it rational to ignore new, breakthrough technologies that compete with
6227 their core business.  The same analysis could help explain why large,
6228 traditional media companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural
6229 trends.<sup>[<a name="id2896934" href="#ftn.id2896934" class="footnote">150</a>]</sup> Lumbering giants not only
6230 don't, but should not, sprint. Yet if the field is only open to the giants,
6231 there will be far too little sprinting.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2896965"></a>
6232 </p><p>
6233 I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media market to say
6234 with certainty what concentration and integration will do. The efficiencies
6235 are important, and the effect on culture is hard to measure.
6236 </p><p>
6237 But there is a quintessentially obvious example that does strongly suggest
6238 the concern.
6239 </p><p>
6240 In addition to the copyright wars, we're in the middle of the drug
6241 wars. Government policy is strongly directed against the drug cartels;
6242 criminal and civil courts are filled with the consequences of this battle.
6243 </p><p>
6244
6245 Let me hereby disqualify myself from any possible appointment to any
6246 position in government by saying I believe this war is a profound mistake. I
6247 am not pro drugs. Indeed, I come from a family once wrecked by
6248 drugs&#8212;though the drugs that wrecked my family were all quite legal. I
6249 believe this war is a profound mistake because the collateral damage from it
6250 is so great as to make waging the war insane.  When you add together the
6251 burdens on the criminal justice system, the desperation of generations of
6252 kids whose only real economic opportunities are as drug warriors, the
6253 queering of constitutional protections because of the constant surveillance
6254 this war requires, and, most profoundly, the total destruction of the legal
6255 systems of many South American nations because of the power of the local
6256 drug cartels, I find it impossible to believe that the marginal benefit in
6257 reduced drug consumption by Americans could possibly outweigh these costs.
6258 </p><p>
6259 You may not be convinced. That's fine. We live in a democracy, and it is
6260 through votes that we are to choose policy. But to do that, we depend
6261 fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about these issues.
6262 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxadvertising3"></a><p>
6263 Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched a
6264 media campaign as part of the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">war on drugs.</span>»</span> The campaign
6265 produced scores of short film clips about issues related to illegal
6266 drugs. In one series (the Nick and Norm series) two men are in a bar,
6267 discussing the idea of legalizing drugs as a way to avoid some of the
6268 collateral damage from the war. One advances an argument in favor of drug
6269 legalization. The other responds in a powerful and effective way against the
6270 argument of the first. In the end, the first guy changes his mind (hey, it's
6271 television). The plug at the end is a damning attack on the pro-legalization
6272 campaign.
6273 </p><p>
6274 Fair enough. It's a good ad. Not terribly misleading. It delivers its
6275 message well. It's a fair and reasonable message.
6276 </p><p>
6277 But let's say you think it is a wrong message, and you'd like to run a
6278 countercommercial. Say you want to run a series of ads that try to
6279 demonstrate the extraordinary collateral harm that comes from the drug
6280 war. Can you do it?
6281 </p><p>
6282
6283 Well, obviously, these ads cost lots of money. Assume you raise the
6284 money. Assume a group of concerned citizens donates all the money in the
6285 world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your message will be
6286 heard then?
6287 </p><p>
6288 No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding
6289 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">controversial</span>»</span> ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
6290 uncontroversial; ads disagreeing with the government are controversial.
6291 This selectivity might be thought inconsistent with the First Amendment, but
6292 the Supreme Court has held that stations have the right to choose what they
6293 run. Thus, the major channels of commercial media will refuse one side of a
6294 crucial debate the opportunity to present its case.  And the courts will
6295 defend the rights of the stations to be this biased.<sup>[<a name="id2897087" href="#ftn.id2897087" class="footnote">151</a>]</sup>
6296 </p><p>
6297 I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well&#8212;if we lived in a
6298 media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the media throws
6299 that condition into doubt. If a handful of companies control access to the
6300 media, and that handful of companies gets to decide which political
6301 positions it will allow to be promoted on its channels, then in an obvious
6302 and important way, concentration matters. You might like the positions the
6303 handful of companies selects. But you should not like a world in which a
6304 mere few get to decide which issues the rest of us get to know about.
6305 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2896999"></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>
6306 There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the copyright
6307 warriors that the government should <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protect my property.</span>»</span> In
6308 the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No
6309 sane sort who is not an anarchist could disagree.
6310 </p><p>
6311
6312 But when we see how dramatically this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> has
6313 changed&#8212; when we recognize how it might now interact with both
6314 technology and markets to mean that the effective constraint on the liberty
6315 to cultivate our culture is dramatically different&#8212;the claim begins to
6316 seem less innocent and obvious. Given (1) the power of technology to
6317 supplement the law's control, and (2) the power of concentrated markets to
6318 weaken the opportunity for dissent, if strictly enforcing the massively
6319 expanded <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> rights granted by copyright fundamentally
6320 changes the freedom within this culture to cultivate and build upon our
6321 past, then we have to ask whether this property should be redefined.
6322 </p><p>
6323 Not starkly. Or absolutely. My point is not that we should abolish copyright
6324 or go back to the eighteenth century. That would be a total mistake,
6325 disastrous for the most important creative enterprises within our culture
6326 today.
6327 </p><p>
6328 But there is a space between zero and one, Internet culture
6329 notwithstanding.  And these massive shifts in the effective power of
6330 copyright regulation, tied to increased concentration of the content
6331 industry and resting in the hands of technology that will increasingly
6332 enable control over the use of culture, should drive us to consider whether
6333 another adjustment is called for. Not an adjustment that increases
6334 copyright's power. Not an adjustment that increases its term. Rather, an
6335 adjustment to restore the balance that has traditionally defined copyright's
6336 regulation&#8212;a weakening of that regulation, to strengthen creativity.
6337 </p><p>
6338 Copyright law has not been a rock of Gibraltar. It's not a set of constant
6339 commitments that, for some mysterious reason, teenagers and geeks now
6340 flout. Instead, copyright power has grown dramatically in a short period of
6341 time, as the technologies of distribution and creation have changed and as
6342 lobbyists have pushed for more control by copyright holders. Changes in the
6343 past in response to changes in technology suggest that we may well need
6344 similar changes in the future. And these changes have to be
6345 <span class="emphasis"><em>reductions</em></span> in the scope of copyright, in response to
6346 the extraordinary increase in control that technology and the market enable.
6347 </p><p>
6348
6349 For the single point that is lost in this war on pirates is a point that we
6350 see only after surveying the range of these changes. When you add together
6351 the effect of changing law, concentrated markets, and changing technology,
6352 together they produce an astonishing conclusion: <span class="emphasis"><em>Never in our
6353 history have fewer had a legal right to control more of the development of
6354 our culture than now</em></span>.
6355 </p><p>
6356 Not when copyrights were perpetual, for when copyrights were perpetual, they
6357 affected only that precise creative work. Not when only publishers had the
6358 tools to publish, for the market then was much more diverse. Not when there
6359 were only three television networks, for even then, newspapers, film
6360 studios, radio stations, and publishers were independent of the
6361 networks. <span class="emphasis"><em>Never</em></span> has copyright protected such a wide
6362 range of rights, against as broad a range of actors, for a term that was
6363 remotely as long. This form of regulation&#8212;a tiny regulation of a tiny
6364 part of the creative energy of a nation at the founding&#8212;is now a
6365 massive regulation of the overall creative process. Law plus technology plus
6366 the market now interact to turn this historically benign regulation into the
6367 most significant regulation of culture that our free society has
6368 known.<sup>[<a name="id2897337" href="#ftn.id2897337" class="footnote">152</a>]</sup>
6369 </p><p>
6370 This has been a long chapter. Its point can now be briefly stated.
6371 </p><p>
6372 At the start of this book, I distinguished between commercial and
6373 noncommercial culture. In the course of this chapter, I have distinguished
6374 between copying a work and transforming it. We can now combine these two
6375 distinctions and draw a clear map of the changes that copyright law has
6376 undergone.  In 1790, the law looked like this:
6377 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t2"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char"> </th><th align="char">Publisere</th><th align="char">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">Fri</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="char">Fri</td><td align="char">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
6378
6379 The act of publishing a map, chart, and book was regulated by copyright
6380 law. Nothing else was. Transformations were free. And as copyright attached
6381 only with registration, and only those who intended to benefit commercially
6382 would register, copying through publishing of noncommercial work was also
6383 free.
6384 </p><p>
6385 På slutten av det nittende århundre hadde loven blitt endret til dette:
6386 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t3"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char"> </th><th align="char">Publisere</th><th align="char">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">©</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="char">Fri</td><td align="char">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
6387 Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law&#8212;if published,
6388 which again, given the economics of publishing at the time, means if offered
6389 commercially. But noncommercial publishing and transformation were still
6390 essentially free.
6391 </p><p>
6392 In 1909 the law changed to regulate copies, not publishing, and after this
6393 change, the scope of the law was tied to technology. As the technology of
6394 copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law expanded.  Thus by 1975,
6395 as photocopying machines became more common, we could say the law began to
6396 look like this:
6397 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t4"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char"> </th><th align="char">Kopiere</th><th align="char">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">©</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="char">©/Fri</td><td align="char">Fri</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
6398 The law was interpreted to reach noncommercial copying through, say, copy
6399 machines, but still much of copying outside of the commercial market
6400 remained free. But the consequence of the emergence of digital technologies,
6401 especially in the context of a digital network, means that the law now looks
6402 like this:
6403 </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="t5"></a><table border="1"><colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="char"> </th><th align="char">Kopiere</th><th align="char">Omforme</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char">Kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">©</td></tr><tr><td align="char">Ikke-kommersiell</td><td align="char">©</td><td align="char">©</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
6404
6405 Every realm is governed by copyright law, whereas before most creativity was
6406 not. The law now regulates the full range of creativity&#8212; commercial or
6407 not, transformative or not&#8212;with the same rules designed to regulate
6408 commercial publishers.
6409 </p><p>
6410 Obviously, copyright law is not the enemy. The enemy is regulation that does
6411 no good. So the question that we should be asking just now is whether
6412 extending the regulations of copyright law into each of these domains
6413 actually does any good.
6414 </p><p>
6415 I have no doubt that it does good in regulating commercial copying.  But I
6416 also have no doubt that it does more harm than good when regulating (as it
6417 regulates just now) noncommercial copying and, especially, noncommercial
6418 transformation. And increasingly, for the reasons sketched especially in
6419 chapters <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a> and
6420 <a class="xref" href="#transformers" title="Kapittel åtte: Omformere">8</a>, one might
6421 well wonder whether it does more harm than good for commercial
6422 transformation.  More commercial transformative work would be created if
6423 derivative rights were more sharply restricted.
6424 </p><p>
6425 The issue is therefore not simply whether copyright is property. Of course
6426 copyright is a kind of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property,</span>»</span> and of course, as with any
6427 property, the state ought to protect it. But first impressions
6428 notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all property
6429 rights<sup>[<a name="id2897693" href="#ftn.id2897693" class="footnote">153</a>]</sup>)  has been crafted to balance
6430 the important need to give authors and artists incentives with the equally
6431 important need to assure access to creative work. This balance has always
6432 been struck in light of new technologies.  And for almost half of our
6433 tradition, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> did not control <span class="emphasis"><em>at
6434 all</em></span> the freedom of others to build upon or transform a creative
6435 work. American culture was born free, and for almost 180 years our country
6436 consistently protected a vibrant and rich free culture.
6437 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2897733"></a><p>
6438
6439 We achieved that free culture because our law respected important limits on
6440 the scope of the interests protected by <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property.</span>»</span> The very
6441 birth of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> as a statutory right recognized those
6442 limits, by granting copyright owners protection for a limited time only (the
6443 story of chapter 6). The tradition of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fair use</span>»</span> is animated by
6444 a similar concern that is increasingly under strain as the costs of
6445 exercising any fair use right become unavoidably high (the story of chapter
6446 7). Adding statutory rights where markets might stifle innovation is another
6447 familiar limit on the property right that copyright is (chapter 8). And
6448 granting archives and libraries a broad freedom to collect, claims of
6449 property notwithstanding, is a crucial part of guaranteeing the soul of a
6450 culture (chapter 9). Free cultures, like free markets, are built with
6451 property. But the nature of the property that builds a free culture is very
6452 different from the extremist vision that dominates the debate today.
6453 </p><p>
6454 Free culture is increasingly the casualty in this war on piracy. In response
6455 to a real, if not yet quantified, threat that the technologies of the
6456 Internet present to twentieth-century business models for producing and
6457 distributing culture, the law and technology are being transformed in a way
6458 that will undermine our tradition of free culture. The property right that
6459 is copyright is no longer the balanced right that it was, or was intended to
6460 be. The property right that is copyright has become unbalanced, tilted
6461 toward an extreme. The opportunity to create and transform becomes weakened
6462 in a world in which creation requires permission and creativity must check
6463 with a lawyer.
6464 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892459" href="#id2892459" class="para">118</a>] </sup>
6465
6466
6467 Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearings on H.R. 4783, H.R.  4794,
6468 H.R. 4808, H.R. 5250, H.R. 5488, and H.R. 5705 Before the Subcommittee on
6469 Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the Committee
6470 on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, 97th Cong., 2nd
6471 sess. (1982): 65 (testimony of Jack Valenti).
6472 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892528" href="#id2892528" class="para">119</a>] </sup>
6473
6474
6475 Lawyers speak of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> not as an absolute thing, but as a
6476 bundle of rights that are sometimes associated with a particular
6477 object. Thus, my <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property right</span>»</span> to my car gives me the right
6478 to exclusive use, but not the right to drive at 150 miles an hour. For the
6479 best effort to connect the ordinary meaning of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> to
6480 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawyer talk,</span>»</span> see Bruce Ackerman, <em class="citetitle">Private Property
6481 and the Constitution</em> (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977),
6482 26&#8211;27.
6483 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2892960" href="#id2892960" class="para">120</a>] </sup>
6484
6485
6486 By describing the way law affects the other three modalities, I don't mean
6487 to suggest that the other three don't affect law. Obviously, they do. Law's
6488 only distinction is that it alone speaks as if it has a right
6489 self-consciously to change the other three. The right of the other three is
6490 more timidly expressed.  See Lawrence Lessig, <em class="citetitle">Code: And Other
6491 Laws of Cyberspace</em> (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90&#8211;95;
6492 Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The New Chicago School,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal
6493 of Legal Studies</em>, June 1998.
6494 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893035" href="#id2893035" class="para">121</a>] </sup>
6495
6496 Some people object to this way of talking about <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">liberty.</span>»</span> They
6497 object because their focus when considering the constraints that exist at
6498 any particular moment are constraints imposed exclusively by the
6499 government. For instance, if a storm destroys a bridge, these people think
6500 it is meaningless to say that one's liberty has been restrained. A bridge
6501 has washed out, and it's harder to get from one place to another. To talk
6502 about this as a loss of freedom, they say, is to confuse the stuff of
6503 politics with the vagaries of ordinary life.  I don't mean to deny the value
6504 in this narrower view, which depends upon the context of the inquiry. I do,
6505 however, mean to argue against any insistence that this narrower view is the
6506 only proper view of liberty. As I argued in <em class="citetitle">Code</em>, we
6507 come from a long tradition of political thought with a broader focus than
6508 the narrow question of what the government did when.  John Stuart Mill
6509 defended freedom of speech, for example, from the tyranny of narrow minds,
6510 not from the fear of government prosecution; John Stuart Mill, <em class="citetitle">On
6511 Liberty</em> (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co., 1978), 19.  John
6512 R. Commons famously defended the economic freedom of labor from constraints
6513 imposed by the market; John R. Commons, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Right to Work,</span>»</span> in
6514 Malcom Rutherford and Warren J. Samuels, eds., <em class="citetitle">John R. Commons:
6515 Selected Essays</em> (London: Routledge: 1997), 62. The Americans
6516 with Disabilities Act increases the liberty of people with physical
6517 disabilities by changing the architecture of certain public places, thereby
6518 making access to those places easier; 42 <em class="citetitle">United States
6519 Code</em>, section 12101 (2000).  Each of these interventions to
6520 change existing conditions changes the liberty of a particular group. The
6521 effect of those interventions should be accounted for in order to understand
6522 the effective liberty that each of these groups might face.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2893089"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2893098"></a>
6523 <a class="indexterm" name="id2893104"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2893111"></a>
6524 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893296" href="#id2893296" class="para">122</a>] </sup>
6525
6526
6527 See Geoffrey Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Film vs. Digital: Can Kodak Build a
6528 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
6529 analysis of Kodak's place in the market, see Chana R. Schoenberger,
6530 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Can Kodak Make Up for Lost Moments?</span>»</span> Forbes.com, 6 October
6531 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6532 #24</a>.
6533 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893371" href="#id2893371" class="para">123</a>] </sup>
6534
6535
6536 Fred Warshofsky, <em class="citetitle">The Patent Wars</em> (New York: Wiley,
6537 1994), 170&#8211;71.
6538 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893543" href="#id2893543" class="para">124</a>] </sup>
6539
6540
6541 Se for eksempel James Boyle, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Politics of Intellectual Property:
6542 Environmentalism for the Net?</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Duke Law
6543 Journal</em> 47 (1997): 87.
6544 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893784" href="#id2893784" class="para">125</a>] </sup>
6545
6546 William W. Crosskey, <em class="citetitle">Politics and the Constitution in the History
6547 of the United States</em> (London: Cambridge University Press, 1953),
6548 vol. 1, 485&#8211;86: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">extinguish[ing], by plain implication of `the
6549 supreme Law of the Land,' <span class="emphasis"><em>the perpetual rights which authors had,
6550 or were supposed by some to have, under the Common Law</em></span></span>»</span>
6551 (emphasis added).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2893802"></a>
6552 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893852" href="#id2893852" class="para">126</a>] </sup>
6553
6554
6555 Although 13,000 titles were published in the United States from 1790 to
6556 1799, only 556 copyright registrations were filed; John Tebbel, <em class="citetitle">A
6557 History of Book Publishing in the United States</em>, vol. 1,
6558 <em class="citetitle">The Creation of an Industry, 1630&#8211;1865</em> (New
6559 York: Bowker, 1972), 141. Of the 21,000 imprints recorded before 1790, only
6560 twelve were copyrighted under the 1790 act; William J. Maher,
6561 <em class="citetitle">Copyright Term, Retrospective Extension and the Copyright Law of
6562 1790 in Historical Context</em>, 7&#8211;10 (2002), available at
6563 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #25</a>.  Thus, the
6564 overwhelming majority of works fell immediately into the public domain. Even
6565 those works that were copyrighted fell into the public domain quickly,
6566 because the term of copyright was short. The initial term of copyright was
6567 fourteen years, with the option of renewal for an additional fourteen
6568 years. Copyright Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 stat. 124.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893919" href="#id2893919" class="para">127</a>] </sup>
6569
6570
6571 Few copyright holders ever chose to renew their copyrights. For instance, of
6572 the 25,006 copyrights registered in 1883, only 894 were renewed in 1910. For
6573 a year-by-year analysis of copyright renewal rates, see Barbara A. Ringer,
6574 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Studies on
6575 Copyright</em>, vol. 1 (New York: Practicing Law Institute, 1963),
6576 618. For a more recent and comprehensive analysis, see William M. Landes and
6577 Richard A.  Posner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span>
6578 <em class="citetitle">University of Chicago Law Review</em> 70 (2003): 471,
6579 498&#8211;501, and accompanying figures.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2893954" href="#id2893954" class="para">128</a>] </sup>
6580
6581
6582 Se Ringer, kap. 9, n. 2.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894056" href="#id2894056" class="para">129</a>] </sup>
6583
6584
6585 These statistics are understated. Between the years 1910 and 1962 (the first
6586 year the renewal term was extended), the average term was never more than
6587 thirty-two years, and averaged thirty years. See Landes and Posner,
6588 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Indefinitely Renewable Copyright,</span>»</span> loc. cit.
6589 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894210" href="#id2894210" class="para">130</a>] </sup>
6590
6591
6592 See Thomas Bender and David Sampliner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Poets, Pirates, and the
6593 Creation of American Literature,</span>»</span> 29 <em class="citetitle">New York University
6594 Journal of International Law and Politics</em> 255 (1997), and James
6595 Gilraeth, ed., Federal Copyright Records, 1790&#8211;1800 (U.S. G.P.O.,
6596 1987).
6597
6598 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894297" href="#id2894297" class="para">131</a>] </sup>
6599
6600 Jonathan Zittrain, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Copyright Cage</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Legal
6601 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="id2894326"></a>
6602 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894345" href="#id2894345" class="para">132</a>] </sup>
6603
6604 Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument about
6605 the difference that copyright law should draw (from the perspective of the
6606 First Amendment) between mere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span> and derivative
6607 works. See Jed Rubenfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright's
6608 Constitutionality,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law Journal</em> 112
6609 (2002): 1&#8211;60 (see especially pp. 53&#8211;59).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2894363"></a>
6610 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894411" href="#id2894411" class="para">133</a>] </sup>
6611
6612
6613 This is a simplification of the law, but not much of one. The law certainly
6614 regulates more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies</span>»</span>&#8212;a public performance of a
6615 copyrighted song, for example, is regulated even though performance per se
6616 doesn't make a copy; 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section
6617 106(4). And it certainly sometimes doesn't regulate a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copy</span>»</span>;
6618 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 112(a). But the
6619 presumption under the existing law (which regulates <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copies;</span>»</span>
6620 17 <em class="citetitle">United States Code</em>, section 102) is that if there
6621 is a copy, there is a right.
6622 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894490" href="#id2894490" class="para">134</a>] </sup>
6623
6624
6625 Thus, my argument is not that in each place that copyright law extends, we
6626 should repeal it. It is instead that we should have a good argument for its
6627 extending where it does, and should not determine its reach on the basis of
6628 arbitrary and automatic changes caused by technology.
6629 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2894420" href="#id2894420" class="para">135</a>] </sup>
6630
6631
6632 I don't mean <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nature</span>»</span> in the sense that it couldn't be
6633 different, but rather that its present instantiation entails a copy. Optical
6634 networks need not make copies of content they transmit, and a digital
6635 network could be designed to delete anything it copies so that the same
6636 number of copies remain.
6637 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2895062" href="#id2895062" class="para">136</a>] </sup>
6638
6639
6640 Se David Lange, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recognizing the Public Domain</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Law
6641 and Contemporary Problems</em> 44 (1981): 172&#8211;73.
6642 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2895089" href="#id2895089" class="para">137</a>] </sup>
6643
6644 Ibid. Se også Vaidhyanathan, <em class="citetitle">Copyrights and
6645 Copywrongs</em>, 1&#8211;3.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2895077"></a>
6646 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2895370" href="#id2895370" class="para">138</a>] </sup>
6647
6648
6649 In principle, a contract might impose a requirement on me. I might, for
6650 example, buy a book from you that includes a contract that says I will read
6651 it only three times, or that I promise to read it three times. But that
6652 obligation (and the limits for creating that obligation) would come from the
6653 contract, not from copyright law, and the obligations of contract would not
6654 necessarily pass to anyone who subsequently acquired the book.
6655 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2895768" href="#id2895768" class="para">139</a>] </sup>
6656
6657 See Pamela Samuelson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Anticircumvention Rules: Threat to
6658 Science,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Science</em> 293 (2001): 2028; Brendan
6659 I. Koerner, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Play Dead: Sony Muzzles the Techies Who Teach a Robot Dog
6660 New Tricks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Prospect</em>, January 2002;
6661 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Court Dismisses Computer Scientists' Challenge to DMCA,</span>»</span>
6662 <em class="citetitle">Intellectual Property Litigation Reporter</em>, 11
6663 December 2001; Bill Holland, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright Act Raising Free-Speech
6664 Concerns,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Billboard</em>, May 2001; Janelle Brown,
6665 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is the RIAA Running Scared?</span>»</span> Salon.com, April 2001; Electronic
6666 Frontier Foundation, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Frequently Asked Questions about
6667 <em class="citetitle">Felten and USENIX</em> v. <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em>
6668 Legal Case,</span>»</span> available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #27</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2895824"></a>
6669 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896161" href="#id2896161" class="para">140</a>] </sup>
6670
6671 <em class="citetitle">Sony Corporation of America</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Universal
6672 City Studios, Inc</em>., 464 U.S. 417, 455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers
6673 never changed his view about the VCR. See James Lardner, <em class="citetitle">Fast
6674 Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR</em>
6675 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 270&#8211;71.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2895097"></a>
6676 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896355" href="#id2896355" class="para">141</a>] </sup>
6677
6678
6679 For an early and prescient analysis, see Rebecca Tushnet, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Legal
6680 Fictions, Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,</span>»</span>
6681 <em class="citetitle">Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal</em> 17
6682 (1997): 651.
6683 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896478" href="#id2896478" class="para">142</a>] </sup>
6684
6685
6686 FCC Oversight: Hearing Before the Senate Commerce, Science and
6687 Transportation Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (22 May 2003)  (statement
6688 of Senator John McCain).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896490" href="#id2896490" class="para">143</a>] </sup>
6689
6690
6691 Lynette Holloway, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Despite a Marketing Blitz, CD Sales Continue to
6692 Slide,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 23 December 2002.
6693 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896508" href="#id2896508" class="para">144</a>] </sup>
6694
6695
6696 Molly Ivins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Media Consolidation Must Be Stopped,</span>»</span>
6697 <em class="citetitle">Charleston Gazette</em>, 31 May 2003.
6698 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896602" href="#id2896602" class="para">145</a>] </sup>
6699
6700 James Fallows, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Age of Murdoch</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Atlantic
6701 Monthly</em> (September 2003): 89.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2896621"></a>
6702 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896729" href="#id2896729" class="para">146</a>] </sup>
6703
6704
6705 Leonard Hill, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Axis of Access,</span>»</span> remarks before Weidenbaum
6706 Center Forum, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry,</span>»</span>
6707 St. Louis, Missouri, 3 April 2003 (transcript of prepared remarks available
6708 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #28</a>; for the Lear
6709 story, not included in the prepared remarks, see <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #29</a>).
6710 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896792" href="#id2896792" class="para">147</a>] </sup>
6711
6712
6713 NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media
6714 Ownership Before the Senate Commerce Committee, 108th Cong., 1st
6715 sess. (2003) (testimony of Gene Kimmelman on behalf of Consumers Union and
6716 the Consumer Federation of America), available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #30</a>. Kimmelman quotes
6717 Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West, in her Remarks
6718 at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia, 27 February 2003.
6719 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896820" href="#id2896820" class="para">148</a>] </sup>
6720
6721
6722 ibid.
6723 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896876" href="#id2896876" class="para">149</a>] </sup>
6724
6725
6726 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Now with
6727 Bill Moyers</em>, Bill Moyers, 25 April 2003, redigert avskrift
6728 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6729 #31</a>.
6730 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2896934" href="#id2896934" class="para">150</a>] </sup>
6731
6732
6733 Clayton M. Christensen, <em class="citetitle">The Innovator's Dilemma: The
6734 Revolutionary National Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do
6735 Business</em> (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press,
6736 1997). Christensen acknowledges that the idea was first suggested by Dean
6737 Kim Clark. See Kim B. Clark, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Interaction of Design Hierarchies
6738 and Market Concepts in Technological Evolution,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Research
6739 Policy</em> 14 (1985): 235&#8211;51. For a more recent study, see
6740 Richard Foster and Sarah Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">Creative Destruction: Why
6741 Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market&#8212;and How to
6742 Successfully Transform Them</em> (New York: Currency/Doubleday,
6743 2001).  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2897087" href="#id2897087" class="para">151</a>] </sup>
6744
6745 The Marijuana Policy Project, in February 2003, sought to place ads that
6746 directly responded to the Nick and Norm series on stations within the
6747 Washington, D.C., area. Comcast rejected the ads as <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">against [their]
6748 policy.</span>»</span> The local NBC affiliate, WRC, rejected the ads without
6749 reviewing them. The local ABC affiliate, WJOA, originally agreed to run the
6750 ads and accepted payment to do so, but later decided not to run the ads and
6751 returned the collected fees. Interview with Neal Levine, 15 October 2003.
6752 These restrictions are, of course, not limited to drug policy. See, for
6753 example, Nat Ives, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">On the Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet
6754 with Rejection from TV Networks,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York
6755 Times</em>, 13 March 2003, C4.  Outside of election-related air time
6756 there is very little that the FCC or the courts are willing to do to even
6757 the playing field. For a general overview, see Rhonda Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ad Hoc
6758 Access: The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
6759 Radio,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Yale Law and Policy Review</em> 6 (1988):
6760 449&#8211;79, and for a more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the
6761 courts, see <em class="citetitle">Radio-Television News Directors
6762 Association</em> v. <em class="citetitle">FCC</em>, 184 F. 3d 872
6763 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as the
6764 networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San Francisco transit
6765 authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni diesel buses. Phillip
6766 Matier and Andrew Ross, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni Rejects
6767 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
6768 the criticism was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">too controversial.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2897157"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2897165"></a>
6769 <a class="indexterm" name="id2897171"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2897178"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2897184"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2897190"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2897196"></a>
6770 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2897337" href="#id2897337" class="para">152</a>] </sup>
6771
6772 Siva Vaidhyanathan fanger et lignende poeng i hans <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fire
6773 kapitulasjoner</span>»</span> for opphavsrettsloven i den digitale tidsalder. Se
6774 Vaidhyanathan, 159&#8211;60.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2897128"></a>
6775 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2897693" href="#id2897693" class="para">153</a>] </sup>
6776
6777 It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist movement
6778 to demonstrate that all property rights are always crafted to balance public
6779 and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Disintegration of
6780 Property,</span>»</span> in <em class="citetitle">Nomos XXII: Property</em>, J. Roland
6781 Pennock and John W.  Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University Press,
6782 1980).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2897708"></a>
6783 </p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Del III. Nøtter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-puzzles"></a>Del III. Nøtter</h1></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel elleve: Chimera"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="chimera"></a>Kapittel elleve: Chimera</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxchimera"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxwells"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxtcotb"></a><p>
6784 In a well-known short story by H. G. Wells, a mountain climber named Nunez
6785 trips (literally, down an ice slope) into an unknown and isolated valley in
6786 the Peruvian Andes.<sup>[<a name="id2897854" href="#ftn.id2897854" class="footnote">154</a>]</sup> The valley is
6787 extraordinarily beautiful, with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sweet water, pasture, an even
6788 climate, slopes of rich brown soil with tangles of a shrub that bore an
6789 excellent fruit.</span>»</span> But the villagers are all blind. Nunez takes this
6790 as an opportunity. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">In the Country of the Blind,</span>»</span> he tells
6791 himself, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the One-Eyed Man is King.</span>»</span> So he resolves to live
6792 with the villagers to explore life as a king.
6793 </p><p>
6794 Things don't go quite as he planned. He tries to explain the idea of sight
6795 to the villagers. They don't understand. He tells them they are
6796 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">blind.</span>»</span> They don't have the word
6797 <em class="citetitle">blind</em>. They think he's just thick.  Indeed, as they
6798 increasingly notice the things he can't do (hear the sound of grass being
6799 stepped on, for example), they increasingly try to control him. He, in turn,
6800 becomes increasingly frustrated. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">`You don't understand,' he cried, in
6801 a voice that was meant to be great and resolute, and which broke. `You are
6802 blind and I can see. Leave me alone!'</span>»</span>
6803 </p><p>
6804
6805
6806 The villagers don't leave him alone. Nor do they see (so to speak) the
6807 virtue of his special power. Not even the ultimate target of his affection,
6808 a young woman who to him seems <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the most beautiful thing in the whole
6809 of creation,</span>»</span> understands the beauty of sight. Nunez's description of
6810 what he sees <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">seemed to her the most poetical of fancies, and she
6811 listened to his description of the stars and the mountains and her own sweet
6812 white-lit beauty as though it was a guilty indulgence.</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">She
6813 did not believe,</span>»</span> Wells tells us, and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">she could only half
6814 understand, but she was mysteriously delighted.</span>»</span>
6815 </p><p>
6816 When Nunez announces his desire to marry his <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mysteriously
6817 delighted</span>»</span> love, the father and the village object. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">You see,
6818 my dear,</span>»</span> her father instructs, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">he's an idiot. He has
6819 delusions. He can't do anything right.</span>»</span> They take Nunez to the
6820 village doctor.
6821 </p><p>
6822 After a careful examination, the doctor gives his opinion. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">His brain
6823 is affected,</span>»</span> he reports.
6824 </p><p>
6825 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What affects it?</span>»</span> the father asks.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Those queer things
6826 that are called the eyes &#8230; are diseased &#8230; in such a way as to
6827 affect his brain.</span>»</span>
6828 </p><p>
6829 The doctor continues: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I think I may say with reasonable certainty
6830 that in order to cure him completely, all that we need to do is a simple and
6831 easy surgical operation&#8212;namely, to remove these irritant bodies [the
6832 eyes].</span>»</span>
6833 </p><p>
6834
6835 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Thank Heaven for science!</span>»</span> says the father to the doctor. They
6836 inform Nunez of this condition necessary for him to be allowed his bride.
6837 (You'll have to read the original to learn what happens in the end. I
6838 believe in free culture, but never in giving away the end of a story.)  It
6839 sometimes happens that the eggs of twins fuse in the mother's womb. That
6840 fusion produces a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">chimera.</span>»</span> A chimera is a single creature
6841 with two sets of DNA. The DNA in the blood, for example, might be different
6842 from the DNA of the skin. This possibility is an underused plot for murder
6843 mysteries. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But the DNA shows with 100 percent certainty that she was
6844 not the person whose blood was at the scene. &#8230;</span>»</span>
6845 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2898009"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2898016"></a><p>
6846 Before I had read about chimeras, I would have said they were impossible.  A
6847 single person can't have two sets of DNA. The very idea of DNA is that it is
6848 the code of an individual. Yet in fact, not only can two individuals have
6849 the same set of DNA (identical twins), but one person can have two different
6850 sets of DNA (a chimera). Our understanding of a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">person</span>»</span> should
6851 reflect this reality.
6852 </p><p>
6853 The more I work to understand the current struggle over copyright and
6854 culture, which I've sometimes called unfairly, and sometimes not unfairly
6855 enough, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the copyright wars,</span>»</span> the more I think we're dealing
6856 with a chimera. For example, in the battle over the question <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">What is
6857 p2p file sharing?</span>»</span> both sides have it right, and both sides have it
6858 wrong.  One side says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">File sharing is just like two kids taping each
6859 others' records&#8212;the sort of thing we've been doing for the last thirty
6860 years without any question at all.</span>»</span> That's true, at least in
6861 part. When I tell my best friend to try out a new CD that I've bought, but
6862 rather than just send the CD, I point him to my p2p server, that is, in all
6863 relevant respects, just like what every executive in every recording company
6864 no doubt did as a kid: sharing music.
6865 </p><p>
6866 But the description is also false in part. For when my p2p server is on a
6867 p2p network through which anyone can get access to my music, then sure, my
6868 friends can get access, but it stretches the meaning of
6869 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friends</span>»</span> beyond recognition to say <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">my ten thousand best
6870 friends</span>»</span> can get access. Whether or not sharing my music with my best
6871 friend is what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">we have always been allowed to do,</span>»</span> we have not
6872 always been allowed to share music with <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">our ten thousand best
6873 friends.</span>»</span>
6874 </p><p>
6875 Likewise, when the other side says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">File sharing is just like walking
6876 into a Tower Records and taking a CD off the shelf and walking out with
6877 it,</span>»</span> that's true, at least in part. If, after Lyle Lovett (finally)
6878 releases a new album, rather than buying it, I go to Kazaa and find a free
6879 copy to take, that is very much like stealing a copy from Tower.
6880 <a class="indexterm" name="id2898100"></a>
6881 </p><p>
6882
6883
6884
6885 But it is not quite stealing from Tower. After all, when I take a CD from
6886 Tower Records, Tower has one less CD to sell. And when I take a CD from
6887 Tower Records, I get a bit of plastic and a cover, and something to show on
6888 my shelves. (And, while we're at it, we could also note that when I take a
6889 CD from Tower Records, the maximum fine that might be imposed on me, under
6890 California law, at least, is $1,000.  According to the RIAA, by contrast, if
6891 I download a ten-song CD, I'm liable for $1,500,000 in damages.)
6892 </p><p>
6893 The point is not that it is as neither side describes. The point is that it
6894 is both&#8212;both as the RIAA describes it and as Kazaa describes it. It is
6895 a chimera. And rather than simply denying what the other side asserts, we
6896 need to begin to think about how we should respond to this chimera. What
6897 rules should govern it?
6898 </p><p>
6899 We could respond by simply pretending that it is not a chimera. We could,
6900 with the RIAA, decide that every act of file sharing should be a felony. We
6901 could prosecute families for millions of dollars in damages just because
6902 file sharing occurred on a family computer. And we can get universities to
6903 monitor all computer traffic to make sure that no computer is used to commit
6904 this crime. These responses might be extreme, but each of them has either
6905 been proposed or actually implemented.<sup>[<a name="id2898141" href="#ftn.id2898141" class="footnote">155</a>]</sup>
6906
6907 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2898247"></a><p>
6908 Alternatively, we could respond to file sharing the way many kids act as
6909 though we've responded. We could totally legalize it. Let there be no
6910 copyright liability, either civil or criminal, for making copyrighted
6911 content available on the Net. Make file sharing like gossip: regulated, if
6912 at all, by social norms but not by law.
6913 </p><p>
6914 Either response is possible. I think either would be a mistake.  Rather than
6915 embrace one of these two extremes, we should embrace something that
6916 recognizes the truth in both. And while I end this book with a sketch of a
6917 system that does just that, my aim in the next chapter is to show just how
6918 awful it would be for us to adopt the zero-tolerance extreme. I believe
6919 <span class="emphasis"><em>either</em></span> extreme would be worse than a reasonable
6920 alternative.  But I believe the zero-tolerance solution would be the worse
6921 of the two extremes.
6922 </p><p>
6923
6924
6925
6926 Yet zero tolerance is increasingly our government's policy. In the middle of
6927 the chaos that the Internet has created, an extraordinary land grab is
6928 occurring. The law and technology are being shifted to give content holders
6929 a kind of control over our culture that they have never had before. And in
6930 this extremism, many an opportunity for new innovation and new creativity
6931 will be lost.
6932 </p><p>
6933 I'm not talking about the opportunities for kids to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">steal</span>»</span>
6934 music. My focus instead is the commercial and cultural innovation that this
6935 war will also kill. We have never seen the power to innovate spread so
6936 broadly among our citizens, and we have just begun to see the innovation
6937 that this power will unleash. Yet the Internet has already seen the passing
6938 of one cycle of innovation around technologies to distribute content. The
6939 law is responsible for this passing. As the vice president for global public
6940 policy at one of these new innovators, eMusic.com, put it when criticizing
6941 the DMCA's added protection for copyrighted material,
6942 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
6943 eMusic opposes music piracy. We are a distributor of copyrighted material,
6944 and we want to protect those rights.
6945 </p><p>
6946 But building a technology fortress that locks in the clout of the major
6947 labels is by no means the only way to protect copyright interests, nor is it
6948 necessarily the best. It is simply too early to answer that question. Market
6949 forces operating naturally may very well produce a totally different
6950 industry model.
6951 </p><p>
6952 This is a critical point. The choices that industry sectors make with
6953 respect to these systems will in many ways directly shape the market for
6954 digital media and the manner in which digital media are distributed. This in
6955 turn will directly influence the options that are available to consumers,
6956 both in terms of the ease with which they will be able to access digital
6957 media and the equipment that they will require to do so. Poor choices made
6958 this early in the game will retard the growth of this market, hurting
6959 everyone's interests.<sup>[<a name="id2898336" href="#ftn.id2898336" class="footnote">156</a>]</sup>
6960 </p></blockquote></div><p>
6961 In April 2001, eMusic.com was purchased by Vivendi Universal, one of
6962 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the major labels.</span>»</span> Its position on these matters has now
6963 changed.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2898368"></a>
6964 </p><p>
6965 Reversing our tradition of tolerance now will not merely quash piracy. It
6966 will sacrifice values that are important to this culture, and will kill
6967 opportunities that could be extraordinarily valuable.
6968 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2897854" href="#id2897854" class="para">154</a>] </sup>
6969
6970
6971 H. G. Wells, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Country of the Blind</span>»</span> (1904, 1911). Se
6972 H. G. Wells, <em class="citetitle">The Country of the Blind and Other
6973 Stories</em>, Michael Sherborne, ed. (New York: Oxford University
6974 Press, 1996).
6975 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898141" href="#id2898141" class="para">155</a>] </sup>
6976
6977 <a class="indexterm" name="id2898144"></a> For an excellent summary, see the
6978 report prepared by GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society
6979 at Harvard Law School, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster
6980 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
6981 Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) have introduced a bill that
6982 would treat unauthorized on-line copying as a felony offense with
6983 punishments ranging as high as five years imprisonment; see Jon Healey,
6984 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">House Bill Aims to Up Stakes on Piracy,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los
6985 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
6986 currently set at $150,000 per copied song. For a recent (and unsuccessful)
6987 legal challenge to the RIAA's demand that an ISP reveal the identity of a
6988 user accused of sharing more than 600 songs through a family computer, see
6989 <em class="citetitle">RIAA</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Verizon Internet Services (In
6990 re. Verizon Internet Services)</em>, 240 F.  Supp. 2d 24
6991 (D.D.C. 2003). Such a user could face liability ranging as high as $90
6992 million. Such astronomical figures furnish the RIAA with a powerful arsenal
6993 in its prosecution of file sharers. Settlements ranging from $12,000 to
6994 $17,500 for four students accused of heavy file sharing on university
6995 networks must have seemed a mere pittance next to the $98 billion the RIAA
6996 could seek should the matter proceed to court. See Elizabeth Young,
6997 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Downloading Could Lead to Fines,</span>»</span> redandblack.com, August
6998 2003, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
6999 #35</a>. For an example of the RIAA's targeting of student file sharing,
7000 and of the subpoenas issued to universities to reveal student file-sharer
7001 identities, see James Collins, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Steps Up Bid to Force BC, MIT to
7002 Name Students,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 8 August 2003,
7003 D3, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7004 #36</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2898233"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2898239"></a>
7005 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898336" href="#id2898336" class="para">156</a>] </sup>
7006
7007
7008 WIPO and the DMCA One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
7009 Entertainment on the Internet and Other Media: Hearing Before the
7010 Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, House
7011 Committee on Commerce, 106th Cong. 29 (1999) (statement of Peter Harter,
7012 vice president, Global Public Policy and Standards, EMusic.com), available
7013 in LEXIS, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony File.  </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel tolv: Skader"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="harms"></a>Kapittel tolv: Skader</h2></div></div></div><p>
7014 To fight <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> to protect <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property,</span>»</span> the
7015 content industry has launched a war. Lobbying and lots of campaign
7016 contributions have now brought the government into this war. As with any
7017 war, this one will have both direct and collateral damage. As with any war
7018 of prohibition, these damages will be suffered most by our own people.
7019 </p><p>
7020 My aim so far has been to describe the consequences of this war, in
7021 particular, the consequences for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free culture.</span>»</span> But my aim now
7022 is to extend this description of consequences into an argument. Is this war
7023 justified?
7024 </p><p>
7025 In my view, it is not. There is no good reason why this time, for the first
7026 time, the law should defend the old against the new, just when the power of
7027 the property called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellectual property</span>»</span> is at its greatest
7028 in our history.
7029 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2898430"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2898436"></a><p>
7030 Yet <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">common sense</span>»</span> does not see it this way. Common sense is
7031 still on the side of the Causbys and the content industry. The extreme
7032 claims of control in the name of property still resonate; the uncritical
7033 rejection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy</span>»</span> still has play.
7034 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2898455"></a><p>
7035
7036
7037 There will be many consequences of continuing this war. I want to describe
7038 just three. All three might be said to be unintended. I am quite confident
7039 the third is unintended. I'm less sure about the first two. The first two
7040 protect modern RCAs, but there is no Howard Armstrong in the wings to fight
7041 today's monopolists of culture.
7042 </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>
7043 In the next ten years we will see an explosion of digital technologies.
7044 These technologies will enable almost anyone to capture and share
7045 content. Capturing and sharing content, of course, is what humans have done
7046 since the dawn of man. It is how we learn and communicate. But capturing and
7047 sharing through digital technology is different. The fidelity and power are
7048 different. You could send an e-mail telling someone about a joke you saw on
7049 Comedy Central, or you could send the clip. You could write an essay about
7050 the inconsistencies in the arguments of the politician you most love to
7051 hate, or you could make a short film that puts statement against
7052 statement. You could write a poem to express your love, or you could weave
7053 together a string&#8212;a mash-up&#8212; of songs from your favorite artists
7054 in a collage and make it available on the Net.
7055 </p><p>
7056 This digital <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>»</span> is in part an extension of
7057 the capturing and sharing that has always been integral to our culture, and
7058 in part it is something new. It is continuous with the Kodak, but it
7059 explodes the boundaries of Kodak-like technologies. The technology of
7060 digital <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">capturing and sharing</span>»</span> promises a world of
7061 extraordinarily diverse creativity that can be easily and broadly
7062 shared. And as that creativity is applied to democracy, it will enable a
7063 broad range of citizens to use technology to express and criticize and
7064 contribute to the culture all around.
7065 </p><p>
7066
7067 Teknologien har dermed gitt oss en mulighet til å gjøre noe med kultur som
7068 bare har vært mulig for enkeltpersoner i små grupper, isolert fra andre
7069 grupper. Forestill deg en gammel mann som forteller en historie til en
7070 samling med naboer i en liten landsby.  Forestill deg så den samme
7071 historiefortellingen utvidet til å nå over hele verden.
7072 </p><p>
7073 Yet all this is possible only if the activity is presumptively legal. In the
7074 current regime of legal regulation, it is not. Forget file sharing for a
7075 moment. Think about your favorite amazing sites on the Net. Web sites that
7076 offer plot summaries from forgotten television shows; sites that catalog
7077 cartoons from the 1960s; sites that mix images and sound to criticize
7078 politicians or businesses; sites that gather newspaper articles on remote
7079 topics of science or culture. There is a vast amount of creative work spread
7080 across the Internet. But as the law is currently crafted, this work is
7081 presumptively illegal.
7082 </p><p>
7083 That presumption will increasingly chill creativity, as the examples of
7084 extreme penalties for vague infringements continue to proliferate. It is
7085 impossible to get a clear sense of what's allowed and what's not, and at the
7086 same time, the penalties for crossing the line are astonishingly harsh.  The
7087 four students who were threatened by the RIAA ( Jesse Jordan of chapter 3
7088 was just one) were threatened with a $98 billion lawsuit for building search
7089 engines that permitted songs to be copied. Yet World-Com&#8212;which
7090 defrauded investors of $11 billion, resulting in a loss to investors in
7091 market capitalization of over $200 billion&#8212;received a fine of a mere
7092 $750 million.<sup>[<a name="id2898558" href="#ftn.id2898558" class="footnote">157</a>]</sup> And under legislation
7093 being pushed in Congress right now, a doctor who negligently removes the
7094 wrong leg in an operation would be liable for no more than $250,000 in
7095 damages for pain and suffering.<sup>[<a name="id2898597" href="#ftn.id2898597" class="footnote">158</a>]</sup> Can
7096 common sense recognize the absurdity in a world where the maximum fine for
7097 downloading two songs off the Internet is more than the fine for a doctor's
7098 negligently butchering a patient? <a class="indexterm" name="id2898640"></a>
7099 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2898648"></a><p>
7100 The consequence of this legal uncertainty, tied to these extremely high
7101 penalties, is that an extraordinary amount of creativity will either never
7102 be exercised, or never be exercised in the open. We drive this creative
7103 process underground by branding the modern-day Walt Disneys
7104 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">pirates.</span>»</span> We make it impossible for businesses to rely upon a
7105 public domain, because the boundaries of the public domain are designed to
7106 be unclear. It never pays to do anything except pay for the right to create,
7107 and hence only those who can pay are allowed to create. As was the case in
7108 the Soviet Union, though for very different reasons, we will begin to see a
7109 world of underground art&#8212;not because the message is necessarily
7110 political, or because the subject is controversial, but because the very act
7111 of creating the art is legally fraught. Already, exhibits of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegal
7112 art</span>»</span> tour the United States.<sup>[<a name="id2898676" href="#ftn.id2898676" class="footnote">159</a>]</sup> In
7113 what does their <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegality</span>»</span> consist? In the act of mixing the
7114 culture around us with an expression that is critical or reflective.
7115 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2898711"></a><p>
7116 Part of the reason for this fear of illegality has to do with the changing
7117 law. I described that change in detail in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>. But an even bigger part has to do with
7118 the increasing ease with which infractions can be tracked. As users of
7119 file-sharing systems discovered in 2002, it is a trivial matter for
7120 copyright owners to get courts to order Internet service providers to reveal
7121 who has what content. It is as if your cassette tape player transmitted a
7122 list of the songs that you played in the privacy of your own home that
7123 anyone could tune into for whatever reason they chose.
7124 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2898739"></a><p>
7125 Never in our history has a painter had to worry about whether his painting
7126 infringed on someone else's work; but the modern-day painter, using the
7127 tools of Photoshop, sharing content on the Web, must worry all the
7128 time. Images are all around, but the only safe images to use in the act of
7129 creation are those purchased from Corbis or another image farm. And in
7130 purchasing, censoring happens. There is a free market in pencils; we needn't
7131 worry about its effect on creativity. But there is a highly regulated,
7132 monopolized market in cultural icons; the right to cultivate and transform
7133 them is not similarly free.
7134 </p><p>
7135 Lawyers rarely see this because lawyers are rarely empirical. As I described
7136 in chapter <a class="xref" href="#recorders" title="Kapittel sju: Innspillerne">7</a>, in
7137 response to the story about documentary filmmaker Jon Else, I have been
7138 lectured again and again by lawyers who insist Else's use was fair use, and
7139 hence I am wrong to say that the law regulates such a use.
7140 </p><p>
7141
7142
7143
7144 But fair use in America simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend
7145 your right to create. And as lawyers love to forget, our system for
7146 defending rights such as fair use is astonishingly bad&#8212;in practically
7147 every context, but especially here. It costs too much, it delivers too
7148 slowly, and what it delivers often has little connection to the justice
7149 underlying the claim. The legal system may be tolerable for the very rich.
7150 For everyone else, it is an embarrassment to a tradition that prides itself
7151 on the rule of law.
7152 </p><p>
7153 Judges and lawyers can tell themselves that fair use provides adequate
7154 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">breathing room</span>»</span> between regulation by the law and the access
7155 the law should allow. But it is a measure of how out of touch our legal
7156 system has become that anyone actually believes this. The rules that
7157 publishers impose upon writers, the rules that film distributors impose upon
7158 filmmakers, the rules that newspapers impose upon journalists&#8212; these
7159 are the real laws governing creativity. And these rules have little
7160 relationship to the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">law</span>»</span> with which judges comfort themselves.
7161 </p><p>
7162 For in a world that threatens $150,000 for a single willful infringement of
7163 a copyright, and which demands tens of thousands of dollars to even defend
7164 against a copyright infringement claim, and which would never return to the
7165 wrongfully accused defendant anything of the costs she suffered to defend
7166 her right to speak&#8212;in that world, the astonishingly broad regulations
7167 that pass under the name <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyright</span>»</span> silence speech and
7168 creativity. And in that world, it takes a studied blindness for people to
7169 continue to believe they live in a culture that is free.
7170 </p><p>
7171 As Jed Horovitz, the businessman behind Video Pipeline, said to me,
7172 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7173
7174 We're losing [creative] opportunities right and left. Creative people are
7175 being forced not to express themselves. Thoughts are not being
7176 expressed. And while a lot of stuff may [still] be created, it still won't
7177 get distributed. Even if the stuff gets made &#8230; you're not going to
7178 get it distributed in the mainstream media unless you've got a little note
7179 from a lawyer saying, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This has been cleared.</span>»</span> You're not even
7180 going to get it on PBS without that kind of permission. That's the point at
7181 which they control it.
7182 </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>
7183 The story of the last section was a crunchy-lefty story&#8212;creativity
7184 quashed, artists who can't speak, yada yada yada. Maybe that doesn't get you
7185 going. Maybe you think there's enough weird art out there, and enough
7186 expression that is critical of what seems to be just about everything.  And
7187 if you think that, you might think there's little in this story to worry
7188 you.
7189 </p><p>
7190 But there's an aspect of this story that is not lefty in any sense.  Indeed,
7191 it is an aspect that could be written by the most extreme promarket
7192 ideologue. And if you're one of these sorts (and a special one at that, 188
7193 pages into a book like this), then you can see this other aspect by
7194 substituting <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free market</span>»</span> every place I've spoken of
7195 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free culture.</span>»</span> The point is the same, even if the interests
7196 affecting culture are more fundamental.
7197 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2898883"></a><p>
7198 The charge I've been making about the regulation of culture is the same
7199 charge free marketers make about regulating markets. Everyone, of course,
7200 concedes that some regulation of markets is necessary&#8212;at a minimum, we
7201 need rules of property and contract, and courts to enforce both. Likewise,
7202 in this culture debate, everyone concedes that at least some framework of
7203 copyright is also required. But both perspectives vehemently insist that
7204 just because some regulation is good, it doesn't follow that more regulation
7205 is better. And both perspectives are constantly attuned to the ways in which
7206 regulation simply enables the powerful industries of today to protect
7207 themselves against the competitors of tomorrow.
7208 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2898892"></a><p>
7209
7210 This is the single most dramatic effect of the shift in regulatory strategy
7211 that I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>. The consequence of this massive threat of liability
7212 tied to the murky boundaries of copyright law is that innovators who want to
7213 innovate in this space can safely innovate only if they have the sign-off
7214 from last generation's dominant industries.  That lesson has been taught
7215 through a series of cases that were designed and executed to teach venture
7216 capitalists a lesson. That lesson&#8212;what former Napster CEO Hank Barry
7217 calls a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">nuclear pall</span>»</span> that has fallen over the
7218 Valley&#8212;has been learned.
7219 </p><p>
7220 Consider one example to make the point, a story whose beginning I told in
7221 <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em> and which has progressed in a way
7222 that even I (pessimist extraordinaire) would never have predicted.
7223 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2898947"></a><p>
7224 In 1997, Michael Roberts launched a company called MP3.com.  MP3.com was
7225 keen to remake the music business. Their goal was not just to facilitate new
7226 ways to get access to content. Their goal was also to facilitate new ways to
7227 create content. Unlike the major labels, MP3.com offered creators a venue to
7228 distribute their creativity, without demanding an exclusive engagement from
7229 the creators.
7230 </p><p>
7231 To make this system work, however, MP3.com needed a reliable way to
7232 recommend music to its users. The idea behind this alternative was to
7233 leverage the revealed preferences of music listeners to recommend new
7234 artists. If you like Lyle Lovett, you're likely to enjoy Bonnie Raitt. And
7235 so on.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2898971"></a>
7236 </p><p>
7237 This idea required a simple way to gather data about user preferences.
7238 MP3.com came up with an extraordinarily clever way to gather this preference
7239 data. In January 2000, the company launched a service called
7240 my.mp3.com. Using software provided by MP3.com, a user would sign into an
7241 account and then insert into her computer a CD. The software would identify
7242 the CD, and then give the user access to that content.  So, for example, if
7243 you inserted a CD by Jill Sobule, then wherever you were&#8212;at work or at
7244 home&#8212;you could get access to that music once you signed into your
7245 account. The system was therefore a kind of music-lockbox.
7246 </p><p>
7247
7248 No doubt some could use this system to illegally copy content. But that
7249 opportunity existed with or without MP3.com. The aim of the my.mp3.com
7250 service was to give users access to their own content, and as a by-product,
7251 by seeing the content they already owned, to discover the kind of content
7252 the users liked.
7253 </p><p>
7254 To make this system function, however, MP3.com needed to copy 50,000 CDs to
7255 a server. (In principle, it could have been the user who uploaded the music,
7256 but that would have taken a great deal of time, and would have produced a
7257 product of questionable quality.) It therefore purchased 50,000 CDs from a
7258 store, and started the process of making copies of those CDs. Again, it
7259 would not serve the content from those copies to anyone except those who
7260 authenticated that they had a copy of the CD they wanted to access. So while
7261 this was 50,000 copies, it was 50,000 copies directed at giving customers
7262 something they had already bought.
7263 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxvivendiuniversal"></a><p>
7264 Nine days after MP3.com launched its service, the five major labels, headed
7265 by the RIAA, brought a lawsuit against MP3.com. MP3.com settled with four of
7266 the five. Nine months later, a federal judge found MP3.com to have been
7267 guilty of willful infringement with respect to the fifth. Applying the law
7268 as it is, the judge imposed a fine against MP3.com of $118 million. MP3.com
7269 then settled with the remaining plaintiff, Vivendi Universal, paying over
7270 $54 million. Vivendi purchased MP3.com just about a year later.
7271 </p><p>
7272 Den delen av historien har jeg fortalt før.  Nå kommer konklusjonen.
7273 </p><p>
7274 After Vivendi purchased MP3.com, Vivendi turned around and filed a
7275 malpractice lawsuit against the lawyers who had advised it that they had a
7276 good faith claim that the service they wanted to offer would be considered
7277 legal under copyright law. This lawsuit alleged that it should have been
7278 obvious that the courts would find this behavior illegal; therefore, this
7279 lawsuit sought to punish any lawyer who had dared to suggest that the law
7280 was less restrictive than the labels demanded.
7281 </p><p>
7282
7283 Den åpenbare hensikten med dette søksmålet (som ble avsluttet med et forlik
7284 for et uspesifisert beløp like etter at saken ikke lenger fikk
7285 pressedekning), var å sende en melding som ikke kan misforstås til advokater
7286 som gir råd til klienter på dette området: Det er ikke bare dine klienter
7287 som får lide hvis innholdsindustrien retter sine våpen mot dem.  Det får
7288 også du.  Så de av dere som tror loven burde være mindre restriktiv bør
7289 innse at et slikt syn på loven vil koste deg og ditt firma dyrt.
7290 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2899074"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2899083"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2899089"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2899095"></a><p>
7291 This strategy is not just limited to the lawyers. In April 2003, Universal
7292 and EMI brought a lawsuit against Hummer Winblad, the venture capital firm
7293 (VC) that had funded Napster at a certain stage of its development, its
7294 cofounder ( John Hummer), and general partner (Hank Barry).<sup>[<a name="id2899108" href="#ftn.id2899108" class="footnote">160</a>]</sup> The claim here, as well, was that the VC should
7295 have recognized the right of the content industry to control how the
7296 industry should develop. They should be held personally liable for funding a
7297 company whose business turned out to be beyond the law. Here again, the aim
7298 of the lawsuit is transparent: Any VC now recognizes that if you fund a
7299 company whose business is not approved of by the dinosaurs, you are at risk
7300 not just in the marketplace, but in the courtroom as well.  Your investment
7301 buys you not only a company, it also buys you a lawsuit.  So extreme has the
7302 environment become that even car manufacturers are afraid of technologies
7303 that touch content. In an article in <em class="citetitle">Business 2.0</em>,
7304 Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW: <a class="indexterm" name="id2899156"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2899162"></a>
7305 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><a class="indexterm" name="id2899172"></a><p>
7306 I asked why, with all the storage capacity and computer power in the car,
7307 there was no way to play MP3 files. I was told that BMW engineers in Germany
7308 had rigged a new vehicle to play MP3s via the car's built-in sound system,
7309 but that the company's marketing and legal departments weren't comfortable
7310 with pushing this forward for release stateside. Even today, no new cars are
7311 sold in the United States with bona fide MP3 players. &#8230; <sup>[<a name="id2898840" href="#ftn.id2898840" class="footnote">161</a>]</sup>
7312 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7313 Dette er verden til mafiaen&#8212;fylt med <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">penger eller
7314 livet</span>»</span>-trusler, som ikke er regulert av domstolene men av trusler som
7315 loven gir rettighetsinnehaver mulighet til å komme med. Det er et system som
7316 åpenbart og nødvendigvis vil kvele ny innovasjon. Det er vanskelig nok å
7317 starte et selskap. Det blir helt umulig hvis selskapet er stadig truet av
7318 søksmål.
7319 </p><p>
7320
7321
7322
7323 The point is not that businesses should have a right to start illegal
7324 enterprises. The point is the definition of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">illegal.</span>»</span> The law
7325 is a mess of uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply to
7326 new technologies. Yet by reversing our tradition of judicial deference, and
7327 by embracing the astonishingly high penalties that copyright law imposes,
7328 that uncertainty now yields a reality which is far more conservative than is
7329 right. If the law imposed the death penalty for parking tickets, we'd not
7330 only have fewer parking tickets, we'd also have much less driving. The same
7331 principle applies to innovation. If innovation is constantly checked by this
7332 uncertain and unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation
7333 and much less creativity.
7334 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2899269"></a><p>
7335 The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
7336 use. Whatever the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">real</span>»</span> law is, realism about the effect of
7337 law in both contexts is the same. This wildly punitive system of regulation
7338 will systematically stifle creativity and innovation. It will protect some
7339 industries and some creators, but it will harm industry and creativity
7340 generally. Free market and free culture depend upon vibrant competition.
7341 Yet the effect of the law today is to stifle just this kind of competition.
7342 The effect is to produce an overregulated culture, just as the effect of too
7343 much control in the market is to produce an overregulatedregulated market.
7344 </p><p>
7345
7346 The building of a permission culture, rather than a free culture, is the
7347 first important way in which the changes I have described will burden
7348 innovation. A permission culture means a lawyer's culture&#8212;a culture in
7349 which the ability to create requires a call to your lawyer. Again, I am not
7350 antilawyer, at least when they're kept in their proper place. I am certainly
7351 not antilaw. But our profession has lost the sense of its limits. And
7352 leaders in our profession have lost an appreciation of the high costs that
7353 our profession imposes upon others. The inefficiency of the law is an
7354 embarrassment to our tradition. And while I believe our profession should
7355 therefore do everything it can to make the law more efficient, it should at
7356 least do everything it can to limit the reach of the law where the law is
7357 not doing any good. The transaction costs buried within a permission culture
7358 are enough to bury a wide range of creativity.  Someone needs to do a lot of
7359 justifying to justify that result.  The uncertainty of the law is one burden
7360 on innovation. There is a second burden that operates more directly. This is
7361 the effort by many in the content industry to use the law to directly
7362 regulate the technology of the Internet so that it better protects their
7363 content.
7364 </p><p>
7365 The motivation for this response is obvious. The Internet enables the
7366 efficient spread of content. That efficiency is a feature of the Internet's
7367 design. But from the perspective of the content industry, this feature is a
7368 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">bug.</span>»</span> The efficient spread of content means that content
7369 distributors have a harder time controlling the distribution of content.
7370 One obvious response to this efficiency is thus to make the Internet less
7371 efficient. If the Internet enables <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piracy,</span>»</span> then, this
7372 response says, we should break the kneecaps of the Internet.
7373 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2899338"></a><p>
7374 The examples of this form of legislation are many. At the urging of the
7375 content industry, some in Congress have threatened legislation that would
7376 require computers to determine whether the content they access is protected
7377 or not, and to disable the spread of protected content.<sup>[<a name="id2899352" href="#ftn.id2899352" class="footnote">162</a>]</sup> Congress has already launched proceedings to
7378 explore a mandatory <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>»</span> that would be required on
7379 any device capable of transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and
7380 that would disable the copying of any content that is marked with a
7381 broadcast flag. Other members of Congress have proposed immunizing content
7382 providers from liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt
7383 down copyright violators and disable their machines.<sup>[<a name="id2899381" href="#ftn.id2899381" class="footnote">163</a>]</sup>
7384 </p><p>
7385
7386 In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the code, why
7387 not regulate the code to remove the problem. But any regulation of technical
7388 infrastructure will always be tuned to the particular technology of the
7389 day. It will impose significant burdens and costs on the technology, but
7390 will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly those requirements.
7391 </p><p>
7392 In March 2002, a broad coalition of technology companies, led by Intel,
7393 tried to get Congress to see the harm that such legislation would
7394 impose.<sup>[<a name="id2899404" href="#ftn.id2899404" class="footnote">164</a>]</sup> Their argument was obviously
7395 not that copyright should not be protected. Instead, they argued, any
7396 protection should not do more harm than good.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2899417"></a>
7397 </p><p>
7398 There is one more obvious way in which this war has harmed
7399 innovation&#8212;again, a story that will be quite familiar to the free
7400 market crowd.
7401 </p><p>
7402 Copyright may be property, but like all property, it is also a form of
7403 regulation. It is a regulation that benefits some and harms others.  When
7404 done right, it benefits creators and harms leeches. When done wrong, it is
7405 regulation the powerful use to defeat competitors.
7406 </p><p>
7407 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, despite this feature of copyright as regulation, and
7408 subject to important qualifications outlined by Jessica Litman in her book
7409 <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em>,<sup>[<a name="id2899452" href="#ftn.id2899452" class="footnote">165</a>]</sup> overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10
7410 details, when new technologies have come along, Congress has struck a
7411 balance to assure that the new is protected from the old. Compulsory, or
7412 statutory, licenses have been one part of that strategy. Free use (as in the
7413 case of the VCR) has been another.
7414 </p><p>
7415 But that pattern of deference to new technologies has now changed with the
7416 rise of the Internet. Rather than striking a balance between the claims of a
7417 new technology and the legitimate rights of content creators, both the
7418 courts and Congress have imposed legal restrictions that will have the
7419 effect of smothering the new to benefit the old.
7420 </p><p>
7421 The response by the courts has been fairly universal.<sup>[<a name="id2899488" href="#ftn.id2899488" class="footnote">166</a>]</sup> It has been mirrored in the responses threatened
7422 and actually implemented by Congress. I won't catalog all of those responses
7423 here.<sup>[<a name="id2899523" href="#ftn.id2899523" class="footnote">167</a>]</sup> But there is one example that
7424 captures the flavor of them all. This is the story of the demise of Internet
7425 radio.
7426 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2899592"></a><p>
7427
7428
7429 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#pirates" title="Kapittel fire: «Pirater»">4</a>, when a radio station plays a song, the recording artist
7430 doesn't get paid for that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radio performance</span>»</span> unless he or she
7431 is also the composer. So, for example if Marilyn Monroe had recorded a
7432 version of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span>&#8212;to memorialize her famous
7433 performance before President Kennedy at Madison Square Garden&#8212; then
7434 whenever that recording was played on the radio, the current copyright
7435 owners of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> would get some money, whereas
7436 Marilyn Monroe would not.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2899631"></a>
7437 </p><p>
7438 The reasoning behind this balance struck by Congress makes some sense. The
7439 justification was that radio was a kind of advertising. The recording artist
7440 thus benefited because by playing her music, the radio station was making it
7441 more likely that her records would be purchased.  Thus, the recording artist
7442 got something, even if only indirectly.  Probably this reasoning had less to
7443 do with the result than with the power of radio stations: Their lobbyists
7444 were quite good at stopping any efforts to get Congress to require
7445 compensation to the recording artists.
7446 </p><p>
7447 Enter Internet radio. Like regular radio, Internet radio is a technology to
7448 stream content from a broadcaster to a listener. The broadcast travels
7449 across the Internet, not across the ether of radio spectrum.  Thus, I can
7450 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">tune in</span>»</span> to an Internet radio station in Berlin while sitting
7451 in San Francisco, even though there's no way for me to tune in to a regular
7452 radio station much beyond the San Francisco metropolitan area.
7453 </p><p>
7454 This feature of the architecture of Internet radio means that there are
7455 potentially an unlimited number of radio stations that a user could tune in
7456 to using her computer, whereas under the existing architecture for broadcast
7457 radio, there is an obvious limit to the number of broadcasters and clear
7458 broadcast frequencies. Internet radio could therefore be more competitive
7459 than regular radio; it could provide a wider range of selections. And
7460 because the potential audience for Internet radio is the whole world, niche
7461 stations could easily develop and market their content to a relatively large
7462 number of users worldwide. According to some estimates, more than eighty
7463 million users worldwide have tuned in to this new form of radio.
7464 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2899682"></a><p>
7465
7466
7467
7468 Internet radio is thus to radio what FM was to AM. It is an improvement
7469 potentially vastly more significant than the FM improvement over AM, since
7470 not only is the technology better, so, too, is the competition. Indeed,
7471 there is a direct parallel between the fight to establish FM radio and the
7472 fight to protect Internet radio. As one author describes Howard Armstrong's
7473 struggle to enable FM radio,
7474 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7475 An almost unlimited number of FM stations was possible in the shortwaves,
7476 thus ending the unnatural restrictions imposed on radio in the crowded
7477 longwaves. If FM were freely developed, the number of stations would be
7478 limited only by economics and competition rather than by technical
7479 restrictions. &#8230; Armstrong likened the situation that had grown up in
7480 radio to that following the invention of the printing press, when
7481 governments and ruling interests attempted to control this new instrument of
7482 mass communications by imposing restrictive licenses on it. This tyranny was
7483 broken only when it became possible for men freely to acquire printing
7484 presses and freely to run them. FM in this sense was as great an invention
7485 as the printing presses, for it gave radio the opportunity to strike off its
7486 shackles.<sup>[<a name="id2899187" href="#ftn.id2899187" class="footnote">168</a>]</sup>
7487 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7488 This potential for FM radio was never realized&#8212;not because Armstrong
7489 was wrong about the technology, but because he underestimated the power of
7490 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vested interests, habits, customs and legislation</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2899742" href="#ftn.id2899742" class="footnote">169</a>]</sup> to retard the growth of this competing technology.
7491 </p><p>
7492 Now the very same claim could be made about Internet radio. For again, there
7493 is no technical limitation that could restrict the number of Internet radio
7494 stations. The only restrictions on Internet radio are those imposed by the
7495 law. Copyright law is one such law. So the first question we should ask is,
7496 what copyright rules would govern Internet radio?
7497 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments2"></a><p>
7498
7499 But here the power of the lobbyists is reversed. Internet radio is a new
7500 industry. The recording artists, on the other hand, have a very powerful
7501 lobby, the RIAA. Thus when Congress considered the phenomenon of Internet
7502 radio in 1995, the lobbyists had primed Congress to adopt a different rule
7503 for Internet radio than the rule that applies to terrestrial radio. While
7504 terrestrial radio does not have to pay our hypothetical Marilyn Monroe when
7505 it plays her hypothetical recording of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Happy Birthday</span>»</span> on the
7506 air, <span class="emphasis"><em>Internet radio does</em></span>. Not only is the law not
7507 neutral toward Internet radio&#8212;the law actually burdens Internet radio
7508 more than it burdens terrestrial radio.
7509 </p><p>
7510 This financial burden is not slight. As Harvard law professor William Fisher
7511 estimates, if an Internet radio station distributed adfree popular music to
7512 (on average) ten thousand listeners, twenty-four hours a day, the total
7513 artist fees that radio station would owe would be over $1 million a
7514 year.<sup>[<a name="id2899806" href="#ftn.id2899806" class="footnote">170</a>]</sup> A regular radio station
7515 broadcasting the same content would pay no equivalent fee.
7516 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2899867"></a><p>
7517 The burden is not financial only. Under the original rules that were
7518 proposed, an Internet radio station (but not a terrestrial radio station)
7519 would have to collect the following data from <span class="emphasis"><em>every listening
7520 transaction</em></span>:
7521 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
7522 navn på tjenesten,
7523 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7524 kanalen til programmet (AM/FM-stasjoner bruker stasjons-ID);
7525 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7526 type program (fra arkivet/i løkke/direkte);
7527 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7528 dato for sending;
7529 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7530 tidspunkt for sending;
7531 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7532 tidssone til opprinnelsen for sending;
7533 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7534 numeric designation of the place of the sound recording within the program;
7535 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7536 varigheten av sending (til nærmeste sekund):
7537 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7538 lydinnspilling-tittel;
7539 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7540 ISRC-kode for opptaket;
7541 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7542 release year of the album per copyright notice and in the case of
7543 compilation albums, the release year of the album and copy- right date of
7544 the track;
7545 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7546 spillende plateartist;
7547 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7548 tittel på album i butikker;
7549 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7550 plateselskap;
7551 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7552 UPC-koden for albumet i butikker;
7553 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7554 katalognummer;
7555 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7556 informasjon om opphavsrettsinnehaver;
7557 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7558 musikksjanger for kanal eller programmet (stasjonsformat);
7559 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7560 navn på tjenesten eller selskap;
7561 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7562 kanal eller program;
7563 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7564 date and time that the user logged in (in the user's time zone);
7565 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7566 date and time that the user logged out (in the user's time zone);
7567 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7568 time zone where the signal was received (user);
7569 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7570 unik bruker-identifikator;
7571 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
7572 landet til brukeren som mottok sendingene.
7573 </p></li></ol></div><p>
7574 The Librarian of Congress eventually suspended these reporting requirements,
7575 pending further study. And he also changed the original rates set by the
7576 arbitration panel charged with setting rates. But the basic difference
7577 between Internet radio and terrestrial radio remains: Internet radio has to
7578 pay a <span class="emphasis"><em>type of copyright fee</em></span> that terrestrial radio does
7579 not.
7580 </p><p>
7581 Why? What justifies this difference? Was there any study of the economic
7582 consequences from Internet radio that would justify these differences? Was
7583 the motive to protect artists against piracy?
7584 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2900042"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxalbenalex2"></a><p>
7585 In a rare bit of candor, one RIAA expert admitted what seemed obvious to
7586 everyone at the time. As Alex Alben, vice president for Public Policy at
7587 Real Networks, told me,
7588 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7589
7590 The RIAA, which was representing the record labels, presented some testimony
7591 about what they thought a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, and
7592 it was much higher. It was ten times higher than what radio stations pay to
7593 perform the same songs for the same period of time. And so the attorneys
7594 representing the webcasters asked the RIAA, &#8230; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How do you come
7595 up with a rate that's so much higher? Why is it worth more than radio?
7596 Because here we have hundreds of thousands of webcasters who want to pay,
7597 and that should establish the market rate, and if you set the rate so high,
7598 you're going to drive the small webcasters out of business. &#8230;</span>»</span>
7599 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2900083"></a><p>
7600 And the RIAA experts said, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, we don't really model this as an
7601 industry with thousands of webcasters, <span class="emphasis"><em>we think it should be an
7602 industry with, you know, five or seven big players who can pay a high rate
7603 and it's a stable, predictable market</em></span>.</span>»</span> (Emphasis added.)
7604 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2900117"></a><p>
7605 Translation: The aim is to use the law to eliminate competition, so that
7606 this platform of potentially immense competition, which would cause the
7607 diversity and range of content available to explode, would not cause pain to
7608 the dinosaurs of old. There is no one, on either the right or the left, who
7609 should endorse this use of the law. And yet there is practically no one, on
7610 either the right or the left, who is doing anything effective to prevent it.
7611 </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>
7612 Overregulation stifles creativity. It smothers innovation. It gives
7613 dinosaurs a veto over the future. It wastes the extraordinary opportunity
7614 for a democratic creativity that digital technology enables.
7615 </p><p>
7616 In addition to these important harms, there is one more that was important
7617 to our forebears, but seems forgotten today. Overregulation corrupts
7618 citizens and weakens the rule of law.
7619 </p><p>
7620
7621 The war that is being waged today is a war of prohibition. As with every war
7622 of prohibition, it is targeted against the behavior of a very large number
7623 of citizens. According to <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>, 43
7624 million Americans downloaded music in May 2002.<sup>[<a name="id2900169" href="#ftn.id2900169" class="footnote">171</a>]</sup> According to the RIAA, the behavior of those 43 million Americans
7625 is a felony. We thus have a set of rules that transform 20 percent of
7626 America into criminals. As the RIAA launches lawsuits against not only the
7627 Napsters and Kazaas of the world, but against students building search
7628 engines, and increasingly against ordinary users downloading content, the
7629 technologies for sharing will advance to further protect and hide illegal
7630 use. It is an arms race or a civil war, with the extremes of one side
7631 inviting a more extreme response by the other.
7632 </p><p>
7633 The content industry's tactics exploit the failings of the American legal
7634 system. When the RIAA brought suit against Jesse Jordan, it knew that in
7635 Jordan it had found a scapegoat, not a defendant. The threat of having to
7636 pay either all the money in the world in damages ($15,000,000) or almost all
7637 the money in the world to defend against paying all the money in the world
7638 in damages ($250,000 in legal fees)  led Jordan to choose to pay all the
7639 money he had in the world ($12,000) to make the suit go away. The same
7640 strategy animates the RIAA's suits against individual users. In September
7641 2003, the RIAA sued 261 individuals&#8212;including a twelve-year-old girl
7642 living in public housing and a seventy-year-old man who had no idea what
7643 file sharing was.<sup>[<a name="id2899796" href="#ftn.id2899796" class="footnote">172</a>]</sup> As these scapegoats
7644 discovered, it will always cost more to defend against these suits than it
7645 would cost to simply settle. (The twelve year old, for example, like Jesse
7646 Jordan, paid her life savings of $2,000 to settle the case.) Our law is an
7647 awful system for defending rights. It is an embarrassment to our
7648 tradition. And the consequence of our law as it is, is that those with the
7649 power can use the law to quash any rights they oppose.
7650 </p><p>
7651 Wars of prohibition are nothing new in America. This one is just something
7652 more extreme than anything we've seen before. We experimented with alcohol
7653 prohibition, at a time when the per capita consumption of alcohol was 1.5
7654 gallons per capita per year. The war against drinking initially reduced that
7655 consumption to just 30 percent of its preprohibition levels, but by the end
7656 of prohibition, consumption was up to 70 percent of the preprohibition
7657 level. Americans were drinking just about as much, but now, a vast number
7658 were criminals.<sup>[<a name="id2900250" href="#ftn.id2900250" class="footnote">173</a>]</sup> We have launched a war
7659 on drugs aimed at reducing the consumption of regulated narcotics that 7
7660 percent (or 16 million) Americans now use.<sup>[<a name="id2900267" href="#ftn.id2900267" class="footnote">174</a>]</sup> That is a drop from the high (so to speak) in 1979 of 14 percent of
7661 the population. We regulate automobiles to the point where the vast majority
7662 of Americans violate the law every day. We run such a complex tax system
7663 that a majority of cash businesses regularly cheat.<sup>[<a name="id2900284" href="#ftn.id2900284" class="footnote">175</a>]</sup> We pride ourselves on our <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free
7664 society,</span>»</span> but an endless array of ordinary behavior is regulated
7665 within our society. And as a result, a huge proportion of Americans
7666 regularly violate at least some law.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2900305"></a>
7667 </p><p>
7668 This state of affairs is not without consequence. It is a particularly
7669 salient issue for teachers like me, whose job it is to teach law students
7670 about the importance of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ethics.</span>»</span> As my colleague Charlie
7671 Nesson told a class at Stanford, each year law schools admit thousands of
7672 students who have illegally downloaded music, illegally consumed alcohol and
7673 sometimes drugs, illegally worked without paying taxes, illegally driven
7674 cars. These are kids for whom behaving illegally is increasingly the
7675 norm. And then we, as law professors, are supposed to teach them how to
7676 behave ethically&#8212;how to say no to bribes, or keep client funds
7677 separate, or honor a demand to disclose a document that will mean that your
7678 case is over. Generations of Americans&#8212;more significantly in some
7679 parts of America than in others, but still, everywhere in America
7680 today&#8212;can't live their lives both normally and legally, since
7681 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">normally</span>»</span> entails a certain degree of illegality.
7682 <a class="indexterm" name="id2900324"></a>
7683 </p><p>
7684 The response to this general illegality is either to enforce the law more
7685 severely or to change the law. We, as a society, have to learn how to make
7686 that choice more rationally. Whether a law makes sense depends, in part, at
7687 least, upon whether the costs of the law, both intended and collateral,
7688 outweigh the benefits. If the costs, intended and collateral, do outweigh
7689 the benefits, then the law ought to be changed.  Alternatively, if the costs
7690 of the existing system are much greater than the costs of an alternative,
7691 then we have a good reason to consider the alternative.
7692 </p><p>
7693
7694
7695
7696 My point is not the idiotic one: Just because people violate a law, we
7697 should therefore repeal it. Obviously, we could reduce murder statistics
7698 dramatically by legalizing murder on Wednesdays and Fridays. But that
7699 wouldn't make any sense, since murder is wrong every day of the week. A
7700 society is right to ban murder always and everywhere.
7701 </p><p>
7702 My point is instead one that democracies understood for generations, but
7703 that we recently have learned to forget. The rule of law depends upon people
7704 obeying the law. The more often, and more repeatedly, we as citizens
7705 experience violating the law, the less we respect the law. Obviously, in
7706 most cases, the important issue is the law, not respect for the law. I don't
7707 care whether the rapist respects the law or not; I want to catch and
7708 incarcerate the rapist. But I do care whether my students respect the
7709 law. And I do care if the rules of law sow increasing disrespect because of
7710 the extreme of regulation they impose.  Twenty million Americans have come
7711 of age since the Internet introduced this different idea of
7712 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sharing.</span>»</span> We need to be able to call these twenty million
7713 Americans <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">citizens,</span>»</span> not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">felons.</span>»</span>
7714 </p><p>
7715 When at least forty-three million citizens download content from the
7716 Internet, and when they use tools to combine that content in ways
7717 unauthorized by copyright holders, the first question we should be asking is
7718 not how best to involve the FBI. The first question should be whether this
7719 particular prohibition is really necessary in order to achieve the proper
7720 ends that copyright law serves. Is there another way to assure that artists
7721 get paid without transforming forty-three million Americans into felons?
7722 Does it make sense if there are other ways to assure that artists get paid
7723 without transforming America into a nation of felons?
7724 </p><p>
7725 This abstract point can be made more clear with a particular example.
7726 </p><p>
7727
7728 We all own CDs. Many of us still own phonograph records. These pieces of
7729 plastic encode music that in a certain sense we have bought.  The law
7730 protects our right to buy and sell that plastic: It is not a copyright
7731 infringement for me to sell all my classical records at a used record store
7732 and buy jazz records to replace them. That <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> of the
7733 recordings is free.
7734 </p><p>
7735 But as the MP3 craze has demonstrated, there is another use of phonograph
7736 records that is effectively free. Because these recordings were made without
7737 copy-protection technologies, I am <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> to copy, or
7738 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rip,</span>»</span> music from my records onto a computer hard disk. Indeed,
7739 Apple Corporation went so far as to suggest that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">freedom</span>»</span> was
7740 a right: In a series of commercials, Apple endorsed the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rip, Mix,
7741 Burn</span>»</span> capacities of digital technologies.
7742 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2900461"></a><p>
7743 This <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> of my records is certainly valuable. I have begun a
7744 large process at home of ripping all of my and my wife's CDs, and storing
7745 them in one archive. Then, using Apple's iTunes, or a wonderful program
7746 called Andromeda, we can build different play lists of our music: Bach,
7747 Baroque, Love Songs, Love Songs of Significant Others&#8212;the potential is
7748 endless. And by reducing the costs of mixing play lists, these technologies
7749 help build a creativity with play lists that is itself independently
7750 valuable. Compilations of songs are creative and meaningful in their own
7751 right.
7752 </p><p>
7753 This use is enabled by unprotected media&#8212;either CDs or records.  But
7754 unprotected media also enable file sharing. File sharing threatens (or so
7755 the content industry believes) the ability of creators to earn a fair return
7756 from their creativity. And thus, many are beginning to experiment with
7757 technologies to eliminate unprotected media. These technologies, for
7758 example, would enable CDs that could not be ripped. Or they might enable spy
7759 programs to identify ripped content on people's machines.
7760 </p><p>
7761
7762 If these technologies took off, then the building of large archives of your
7763 own music would become quite difficult. You might hang in hacker circles,
7764 and get technology to disable the technologies that protect the
7765 content. Trading in those technologies is illegal, but maybe that doesn't
7766 bother you much. In any case, for the vast majority of people, these
7767 protection technologies would effectively destroy the archiving use of
7768 CDs. The technology, in other words, would force us all back to the world
7769 where we either listened to music by manipulating pieces of plastic or were
7770 part of a massively complex <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">digital rights management</span>»</span> system.
7771 </p><p>
7772 If the only way to assure that artists get paid were the elimination of the
7773 ability to freely move content, then these technologies to interfere with
7774 the freedom to move content would be justifiable. But what if there were
7775 another way to assure that artists are paid, without locking down any
7776 content? What if, in other words, a different system could assure
7777 compensation to artists while also preserving the freedom to move content
7778 easily?
7779 </p><p>
7780 My point just now is not to prove that there is such a system. I offer a
7781 version of such a system in the last chapter of this book. For now, the only
7782 point is the relatively uncontroversial one: If a different system achieved
7783 the same legitimate objectives that the existing copyright system achieved,
7784 but left consumers and creators much more free, then we'd have a very good
7785 reason to pursue this alternative&#8212;namely, freedom.  The choice, in
7786 other words, would not be between property and piracy; the choice would be
7787 between different property systems and the freedoms each allowed.
7788 </p><p>
7789 I believe there is a way to assure that artists are paid without turning
7790 forty-three million Americans into felons. But the salient feature of this
7791 alternative is that it would lead to a very different market for producing
7792 and distributing creativity. The dominant few, who today control the vast
7793 majority of the distribution of content in the world, would no longer
7794 exercise this extreme of control. Rather, they would go the way of the
7795 horse-drawn buggy.
7796 </p><p>
7797 Except that this generation's buggy manufacturers have already saddled
7798 Congress, and are riding the law to protect themselves against this new form
7799 of competition. For them the choice is between fortythree million Americans
7800 as criminals and their own survival.
7801 </p><p>
7802
7803 It is understandable why they choose as they do. It is not understandable
7804 why we as a democracy continue to choose as we do. Jack Valenti is charming;
7805 but not so charming as to justify giving up a tradition as deep and
7806 important as our tradition of free culture.
7807 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2900576"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxisps"></a><p>
7808 <span class="strong"><strong>There's one</strong></span> more aspect to this
7809 corruption that is particularly important to civil liberties, and follows
7810 directly from any war of prohibition.  As Electronic Frontier Foundation
7811 attorney Fred von Lohmann describes, this is the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">collateral
7812 damage</span>»</span> that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">arises whenever you turn a very large percentage
7813 of the population into criminals.</span>»</span> This is the collateral damage to
7814 civil liberties generally.
7815 </p><p>
7816 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvis du kan behandle noen som en antatt lovbryter</span>»</span>, forklarer
7817 von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id2900625"></a>
7818 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7819 then all of a sudden a lot of basic civil liberty protections evaporate to
7820 one degree or another. &#8230; If you're a copyright infringer, how can you
7821 hope to have any privacy rights? If you're a copyright infringer, how can
7822 you hope to be secure against seizures of your computer? How can you hope to
7823 continue to receive Internet access? &#8230; Our sensibilities change as
7824 soon as we think, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Oh, well, but that person's a criminal, a
7825 lawbreaker.</span>»</span> Well, what this campaign against file sharing has done
7826 is turn a remarkable percentage of the American Internet-using population
7827 into <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">lawbreakers.</span>»</span>
7828 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7829 And the consequence of this transformation of the American public into
7830 criminals is that it becomes trivial, as a matter of due process, to
7831 effectively erase much of the privacy most would presume.
7832 </p><p>
7833 Users of the Internet began to see this generally in 2003 as the RIAA
7834 launched its campaign to force Internet service providers to turn over the
7835 names of customers who the RIAA believed were violating copyright
7836 law. Verizon fought that demand and lost. With a simple request to a judge,
7837 and without any notice to the customer at all, the identity of an Internet
7838 user is revealed.
7839 </p><p>
7840
7841 The RIAA then expanded this campaign, by announcing a general strategy to
7842 sue individual users of the Internet who are alleged to have downloaded
7843 copyrighted music from file-sharing systems. But as we've seen, the
7844 potential damages from these suits are astronomical: If a family's computer
7845 is used to download a single CD's worth of music, the family could be liable
7846 for $2 million in damages. That didn't stop the RIAA from suing a number of
7847 these families, just as they had sued Jesse Jordan.<sup>[<a name="id2900682" href="#ftn.id2900682" class="footnote">176</a>]</sup>
7848
7849 </p><p>
7850 Even this understates the espionage that is being waged by the RIAA. A
7851 report from CNN late last summer described a strategy the RIAA had adopted
7852 to track Napster users.<sup>[<a name="id2900738" href="#ftn.id2900738" class="footnote">177</a>]</sup> Using a
7853 sophisticated hashing algorithm, the RIAA took what is in effect a
7854 fingerprint of every song in the Napster catalog. Any copy of one of those
7855 MP3s will have the same <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fingerprint.</span>»</span>
7856 </p><p>
7857 So imagine the following not-implausible scenario: Imagine a friend gives a
7858 CD to your daughter&#8212;a collection of songs just like the cassettes you
7859 used to make as a kid. You don't know, and neither does your daughter, where
7860 these songs came from. But she copies these songs onto her computer. She
7861 then takes her computer to college and connects it to a college network, and
7862 if the college network is <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cooperating</span>»</span> with the RIAA's
7863 espionage, and she hasn't properly protected her content from the network
7864 (do you know how to do that yourself ?), then the RIAA will be able to
7865 identify your daughter as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminal.</span>»</span> And under the rules
7866 that universities are beginning to deploy,<sup>[<a name="id2900782" href="#ftn.id2900782" class="footnote">178</a>]</sup> your daughter can lose the right to use the university's computer
7867 network.  She can, in some cases, be expelled.
7868 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2900855"></a><p>
7869 Now, of course, she'll have the right to defend herself. You can hire a
7870 lawyer for her (at $300 per hour, if you're lucky), and she can plead that
7871 she didn't know anything about the source of the songs or that they came
7872 from Napster. And it may well be that the university believes her. But the
7873 university might not believe her. It might treat this
7874 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">contraband</span>»</span> as presumptive of guilt. And as any number of
7875 college students have already learned, our presumptions about innocence
7876 disappear in the middle of wars of prohibition. This war is no different.
7877 Says von Lohmann, <a class="indexterm" name="id2900878"></a>
7878 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
7879 So when we're talking about numbers like forty to sixty million Americans
7880 that are essentially copyright infringers, you create a situation where the
7881 civil liberties of those people are very much in peril in a general
7882 matter. [I don't] think [there is any] analog where you could randomly
7883 choose any person off the street and be confident that they were committing
7884 an unlawful act that could put them on the hook for potential felony
7885 liability or hundreds of millions of dollars of civil liability. Certainly
7886 we all speed, but speeding isn't the kind of an act for which we routinely
7887 forfeit civil liberties. Some people use drugs, and I think that's the
7888 closest analog, [but] many have noted that the war against drugs has eroded
7889 all of our civil liberties because it's treated so many Americans as
7890 criminals. Well, I think it's fair to say that file sharing is an order of
7891 magnitude larger number of Americans than drug use. &#8230; If forty to
7892 sixty million Americans have become lawbreakers, then we're really on a
7893 slippery slope to lose a lot of civil liberties for all forty to sixty
7894 million of them.
7895 </p></blockquote></div><p>
7896 When forty to sixty million Americans are considered
7897 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminals</span>»</span> under the law, and when the law could achieve the
7898 same objective&#8212; securing rights to authors&#8212;without these
7899 millions being considered <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">criminals,</span>»</span> who is the villain?
7900 Americans or the law? Which is American, a constant war on our own people or
7901 a concerted effort through our democracy to change our law?
7902 </p></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898558" href="#id2898558" class="para">157</a>] </sup>
7903
7904 Se Lynne W. Jeter, <em class="citetitle">Disconnected: Deceit and Betrayal at
7905 WorldCom</em> (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley &amp; Sons, 2003), 176, 204;
7906 for detaljer om dette forliket, se pressemelding fra MCI, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">MCI Wins
7907 U.S. District Court Approval for SEC Settlement</span>»</span> (7. juli 2003),
7908 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7909 #37</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2898584"></a>
7910 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898597" href="#id2898597" class="para">158</a>] </sup>
7911  The bill, modeled after California's tort reform model, was passed in the
7912 House of Representatives but defeated in a Senate vote in July 2003. For an
7913 overview, see Tanya Albert, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Measure Stalls in Senate: `We'll Be
7914 Back,' Say Tort Reformers,</span>»</span> amednews.com, 28 July 2003, available at
7915 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #38</a>, and
7916 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Senate Turns Back Malpractice Caps,</span>»</span> CBSNews.com, 9 July 2003,
7917 available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7918 #39</a>. President Bush has continued to urge tort reform in recent
7919 months.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2898628"></a>
7920 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898676" href="#id2898676" class="para">159</a>] </sup>
7921
7922
7923
7924 Se Danit Lidor, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Artists Just Wanna Be Free</span>»</span>,
7925 <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
7926 utstillingen, se <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
7927 #41</a>.
7928 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2899108" href="#id2899108" class="para">160</a>] </sup>
7929
7930
7931 See Joseph Menn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Universal, EMI Sue Napster Investor,</span>»</span>
7932 <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 23 April 2003. For a parallel
7933 argument about the effects on innovation in the distribution of music, see
7934 Janelle Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Music Revolution Will Not Be Digitized,</span>»</span>
7935 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,
7936 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Online Music Services Besieged,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles
7937 Times</em>, 28 May 2001.
7938 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2898840" href="#id2898840" class="para">161</a>] </sup>
7939
7940 Rafe Needleman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Driving in Cars with MP3s</span>»</span>,
7941 <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
7942 Al-Ubaydli takknemlig mot for dette eksemplet.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2899207"></a>
7943 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2899352" href="#id2899352" class="para">162</a>] </sup>
7944
7945 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span>
7946 GartnerG2 and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law
7947 School (2003), 33&#8211;35, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.
7948 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2899381" href="#id2899381" class="para">163</a>] </sup>
7949
7950
7951 GartnerG2, 26&#8211;27.
7952 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2899404" href="#id2899404" class="para">164</a>] </sup>
7953
7954
7955 See David McGuire, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy,</span>»</span>
7956 Newsbytes, February 2002 (Entertainment).
7957 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2899452" href="#id2899452" class="para">165</a>] </sup>
7958
7959 Jessica Litman, <em class="citetitle">Digital Copyright</em> (Amherst, N.Y.:
7960 Prometheus Books, 2001).  <a class="indexterm" name="id2899460"></a>
7961 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2899488" href="#id2899488" class="para">166</a>] </sup>
7962
7963
7964 The only circuit court exception is found in <em class="citetitle">Recording Industry
7965 Association of America (RIAA)</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Diamond Multimedia
7966 Systems</em>, 180 F. 3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999). There the court of
7967 appeals for the Ninth Circuit reasoned that makers of a portable MP3 player
7968 were not liable for contributory copyright infringement for a device that is
7969 unable to record or redistribute music (a device whose only copying function
7970 is to render portable a music file already stored on a user's hard drive).
7971 At the district court level, the only exception is found in
7972 <em class="citetitle">Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,
7973 Inc</em>. v. <em class="citetitle">Grokster, Ltd</em>., 259 F. Supp. 2d
7974 1029 (C.D.  Cal., 2003), where the court found the link between the
7975 distributor and any given user's conduct too attenuated to make the
7976 distributor liable for contributory or vicarious infringement liability.
7977 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2899523" href="#id2899523" class="para">167</a>] </sup>
7978
7979 <a class="indexterm" name="id2899526"></a> For example, in July 2002,
7980 Representative Howard Berman introduced the Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention
7981 Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize copyright holders from liability for
7982 damage done to computers when the copyright holders use technology to stop
7983 copyright infringement. In August 2002, Representative Billy Tauzin
7984 introduced a bill to mandate that technologies capable of rebroadcasting
7985 digital copies of films broadcast on TV (i.e., computers) respect a
7986 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">broadcast flag</span>»</span> that would disable copying of that
7987 content. And in March of the same year, Senator Fritz Hollings introduced
7988 the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, which mandated
7989 copyright protection technology in all digital media devices. See GartnerG2,
7990 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</span>»</span> 27 June
7991 2003, 33&#8211;34, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #44</a>.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2899569"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2899575"></a>
7992 <a class="indexterm" name="id2899581"></a>
7993 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2899187" href="#id2899187" class="para">168</a>] </sup>
7994
7995
7996 Lessing, 239.
7997 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2899742" href="#id2899742" class="para">169</a>] </sup>
7998
7999
8000 Ibid., 229.
8001 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2899806" href="#id2899806" class="para">170</a>] </sup>
8002
8003 This example was derived from fees set by the original Copyright Arbitration
8004 Royalty Panel (CARP) proceedings, and is drawn from an example offered by
8005 Professor William Fisher. Conference Proceedings, iLaw (Stanford), 3 July
8006 2003, on file with author. Professors Fisher and Zittrain submitted
8007 testimony in the CARP proceeding that was ultimately rejected.  See Jonathan
8008 Zittrain, Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings and Ephemeral
8009 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
8010 analysis making a similar point, see Randal C. Picker, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright as
8011 Entry Policy: The Case of Digital Distribution,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Antitrust
8012 Bulletin</em> (Summer/Fall 2002): 461: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">This was not confusion,
8013 these are just old-fashioned entry barriers. Analog radio stations are
8014 protected from digital entrants, reducing entry in radio and diversity. Yes,
8015 this is done in the name of getting royalties to copyright holders, but,
8016 absent the play of powerful interests, that could have been done in a
8017 media-neutral way.</span>»</span> <a class="indexterm" name="id2899848"></a>
8018 <a class="indexterm" name="id2899857"></a>
8019 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900169" href="#id2900169" class="para">171</a>] </sup>
8020
8021 Mike Graziano and Lee Rainie, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Music Downloading Deluge,</span>»</span>
8022 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
8023 American Life Project reported that 37 million Americans had downloaded
8024 music files from the Internet by early 2001.
8025 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2899796" href="#id2899796" class="para">172</a>] </sup>
8026
8027
8028 Alex Pham, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Labels Strike Back: N.Y. Girl Settles RIAA
8029 Case,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 10 September 2003,
8030 Business.
8031 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900250" href="#id2900250" class="para">173</a>] </sup>
8032
8033
8034 Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Alcohol Consumption During
8035 Prohibition,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">American Economic Review</em> 81,
8036 no. 2 (1991): 242.
8037 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900267" href="#id2900267" class="para">174</a>] </sup>
8038
8039
8040 National Drug Control Policy: Hearing Before the House Government Reform
8041 Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (5 March 2003) (statement of John
8042 P. Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy).
8043 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900284" href="#id2900284" class="para">175</a>] </sup>
8044
8045
8046 See James Andreoni, Brian Erard, and Jonathon Feinstein, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Tax
8047 Compliance,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Journal of Economic Literature</em> 36
8048 (1998): 818 (survey of compliance literature).
8049 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900682" href="#id2900682" class="para">176</a>] </sup>
8050
8051
8052 See Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single
8053 Mother in Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants,</span>»</span>
8054 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10 September 2003, E1; Chris Cobbs,
8055 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Worried Parents Pull Plug on File `Stealing'; With the Music Industry
8056 Cracking Down on File Swapping, Parents are Yanking Software from Home PCs
8057 to Avoid Being Sued,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel
8058 Tribune</em>, 30 August 2003, C1; Jefferson Graham, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Recording
8059 Industry Sues Parents,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 15
8060 September 2003, 4D; John Schwartz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">She Says She's No Music Pirate. No
8061 Snoop Fan, Either,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 25
8062 September 2003, C1; Margo Varadi, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Is Brianna a Criminal?</span>»</span>
8063 <em class="citetitle">Toronto Star</em>, 18 September 2003, P7.
8064 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900738" href="#id2900738" class="para">177</a>] </sup>
8065
8066
8067 Se Nick Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
8068 Age</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #49</a>.
8069 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2900782" href="#id2900782" class="para">178</a>] </sup>
8070
8071
8072 See Jeff Adler, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Cambridge: On Campus, Pirates Are Not
8073 Penitent,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Boston Globe</em>, 18 May 2003, City
8074 Weekly, 1; Frank Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Four Students Sued over Music Sites;
8075 Industry Group Targets File Sharing at Colleges,</span>»</span>
8076 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 4 April 2003, E1; Elizabeth
8077 Armstrong, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Students `Rip, Mix, Burn' at Their Own Risk,</span>»</span>
8078 <em class="citetitle">Christian Science Monitor</em>, 2 September 2003, 20;
8079 Robert Becker and Angela Rozas, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Pirate Hunt Turns to Loyola;
8080 Two Students Names Are Handed Over; Lawsuit Possible,</span>»</span>
8081 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 16 July 2003, 1C; Beth Cox,
8082 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Trains Antipiracy Guns on Universities,</span>»</span>
8083 <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,
8084 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Download Warning 101: Freshman Orientation This Fall to Include
8085 Record Industry Warnings Against File Sharing,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San
8086 Francisco Chronicle</em>, 11 August 2003, E11; <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Raid, Letters
8087 Are Weapons at Universities,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">USA Today</em>, 26
8088 September 2000, 3D.
8089 </p></div></div></div></div><div class="part" title="Del IV. Maktfordeling"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h1 class="title"><a name="c-balances"></a>Del IV. Maktfordeling</h1></div></div></div><div class="partintro" title="Maktfordeling"><div></div><p>
8090 Så her er bildet: Du står på siden av veien. Bilen din er på brann. Du er
8091 sint og opprørt fordi du delvis bidro til å starte brannen. Nå vet du ikke
8092 hvordan du slokker den.  Ved siden av deg er en bøtte, fylt med
8093 bensin. Bensin vil åpenbart ikke slukke brannen.
8094 </p><p>
8095 Mens du tenker over situasjonen, kommer noen andre forbi.  I panikk griper
8096 hun bøtta, og før du har hatt sjansen til å be henne stoppe&#8212;eller før
8097 hun forstår hvorfor hun bør stoppe&#8212;er bøtten i svevet.  Bensinen er på
8098 tur mot den brennende bilen.  Og brannen som bensinen kommer til å fyre opp
8099 vil straks sette fyr på alt i omgivelsene.
8100 </p><p>
8101 En krig om opphavsrett pågår over alt&#8212; og vi fokuserer alle på feil
8102 ting.  Det er ingen tvil om at dagens teknologier truer eksisterende
8103 virksomheter.  Uten tvil kan de true artister.  Men teknologier endrer seg.
8104 Industrien og teknologer har en rekke måter å bruke teknologi til å beskytte
8105 dem selv mot dagens trusler på Internet.  Dette er en brann som overlatt til
8106 seg selv vil brenne ut.
8107 </p><p>
8108
8109
8110 Likevel er ikke besluttningstagere villig til å la denne brannen i fred.
8111 Ladet med masse penger fra lobbyister er de lystne på å gå i mellom for å
8112 fjerne problemet slik de oppfatter det.  Men problemet slik de oppfatter det
8113 er ikke den reelle trusselen som denne kulturen står med ansiktet mot.  For
8114 mens vi ser på denne lille brannen i hjørnet er det en massiv endring i
8115 hvordan kultur blir skapt som pågår over alt.
8116 </p><p>
8117 På en eller annen måte må vi klare å snu oppmerksomheten mot dette mer
8118 viktige og fundametale problemet.  Vi må finne en måte å unngå å helle
8119 bensin på denne brannen.
8120 </p><p>
8121 Vi har ikke funne denne måten ennå.  Istedet synes vi å være fanget i en
8122 enklere og sort-hvit tenkning.  Uansett hvor mange folk som presser på for å
8123 gjøre rammen for debatten litt bredere, er det dette enkle sort-hvit-synet
8124 som består.  Vi kjører sakte forbi og stirrer på brannen når vi i stedet
8125 burde holde øynene på veien.
8126 </p><p>
8127 Denne utfordringen har vært livet mitt de siste årene.  Det har også vært
8128 min falitt.  I de to neste kapittlene, beskriver jeg en liten innsats, så
8129 langt uten suksess, på å finne en måte å endre fokus på denne debatten.  Vi
8130 må forstå disse mislyktede forsøkene hvis vi skal forstå hva som kreves for
8131 å lykkes.
8132 </p></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel tretten: Eldred"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred"></a>Kapittel tretten: Eldred</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxhawthornenathaniel"></a><p>
8133 In 1995, a father was frustrated that his daughters didn't seem to like
8134 Hawthorne. No doubt there was more than one such father, but at least one
8135 did something about it. Eric Eldred, a retired computer programmer living in
8136 New Hampshire, decided to put Hawthorne on the Web. An electronic version,
8137 Eldred thought, with links to pictures and explanatory text, would make this
8138 nineteenth-century author's work come alive.
8139 </p><p>
8140 It didn't work&#8212;at least for his daughters. They didn't find Hawthorne
8141 any more interesting than before. But Eldred's experiment gave birth to a
8142 hobby, and his hobby begat a cause: Eldred would build a library of public
8143 domain works by scanning these works and making them available for free.
8144 </p><p>
8145
8146 Eldred's library was not simply a copy of certain public domain works,
8147 though even a copy would have been of great value to people across the world
8148 who can't get access to printed versions of these works. Instead, Eldred was
8149 producing derivative works from these public domain works. Just as Disney
8150 turned Grimm into stories more accessible to the twentieth century, Eldred
8151 transformed Hawthorne, and many others, into a form more
8152 accessible&#8212;technically accessible&#8212;today.
8153 </p><p>
8154 Eldred's freedom to do this with Hawthorne's work grew from the same source
8155 as Disney's. Hawthorne's <em class="citetitle">Scarlet Letter</em> had passed
8156 into the public domain in 1907. It was free for anyone to take without the
8157 permission of the Hawthorne estate or anyone else. Some, such as Dover Press
8158 and Penguin Classics, take works from the public domain and produce printed
8159 editions, which they sell in bookstores across the country. Others, such as
8160 Disney, take these stories and turn them into animated cartoons, sometimes
8161 successfully (<em class="citetitle">Cinderella</em>), sometimes not
8162 (<em class="citetitle">The Hunchback of Notre Dame</em>, <em class="citetitle">Treasure
8163 Planet</em>). These are all commercial publications of public domain
8164 works.
8165 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2901129"></a><p>
8166 The Internet created the possibility of noncommercial publications of public
8167 domain works. Eldred's is just one example. There are literally thousands of
8168 others. Hundreds of thousands from across the world have discovered this
8169 platform of expression and now use it to share works that are, by law, free
8170 for the taking. This has produced what we might call the
8171 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">noncommercial publishing industry,</span>»</span> which before the Internet
8172 was limited to people with large egos or with political or social
8173 causes. But with the Internet, it includes a wide range of individuals and
8174 groups dedicated to spreading culture generally.<sup>[<a name="id2901152" href="#ftn.id2901152" class="footnote">179</a>]</sup>
8175 </p><p>
8176 As I said, Eldred lives in New Hampshire. In 1998, Robert Frost's collection
8177 of poems <em class="citetitle">New Hampshire</em> was slated to pass into the
8178 public domain. Eldred wanted to post that collection in his free public
8179 library.  But Congress got in the way. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, in 1998, for the
8180 eleventh time in forty years, Congress extended the terms of existing
8181 copyrights&#8212;this time by twenty years. Eldred would not be free to add
8182 any works more recent than 1923 to his collection until 2019.  Indeed, no
8183 copyrighted work would pass into the public domain until that year (and not
8184 even then, if Congress extends the term again). By contrast, in the same
8185 period, more than 1 million patents will pass into the public domain.
8186 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2901191"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2901207"></a><p>
8187
8188
8189 This was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), enacted in
8190 memory of the congressman and former musician Sonny Bono, who, his widow,
8191 Mary Bono, says, believed that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyrights should be
8192 forever.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2901221" href="#ftn.id2901221" class="footnote">180</a>]</sup>
8193
8194 </p><p>
8195 Eldred decided to fight this law. He first resolved to fight it through
8196 civil disobedience. In a series of interviews, Eldred announced that he
8197 would publish as planned, CTEA notwithstanding. But because of a second law
8198 passed in 1998, the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act, his act of publishing
8199 would make Eldred a felon&#8212;whether or not anyone complained. This was a
8200 dangerous strategy for a disabled programmer to undertake.
8201 </p><p>
8202 It was here that I became involved in Eldred's battle. I was a
8203 constitutional scholar whose first passion was constitutional
8204 interpretation.  And though constitutional law courses never focus upon the
8205 Progress Clause of the Constitution, it had always struck me as importantly
8206 different. As you know, the Constitution says,
8207 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
8208 Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science &#8230; by
8209 securing for limited Times to Authors &#8230; exclusive Right to their
8210 &#8230; Writings. &#8230;
8211 </p></blockquote></div><p>
8212 As I've described, this clause is unique within the power-granting clause of
8213 Article I, section 8 of our Constitution. Every other clause granting power
8214 to Congress simply says Congress has the power to do something&#8212;for
8215 example, to regulate <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>»</span> or
8216 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">declare War.</span>»</span> But here, the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">something</span>»</span> is
8217 something quite specific&#8212;to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">promote &#8230;
8218 Progress</span>»</span>&#8212;through means that are also specific&#8212; by
8219 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">securing</span>»</span> <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive Rights</span>»</span> (i.e., copyrights)
8220 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">for limited Times.</span>»</span>
8221 </p><p>
8222 In the past forty years, Congress has gotten into the practice of extending
8223 existing terms of copyright protection. What puzzled me about this was, if
8224 Congress has the power to extend existing terms, then the Constitution's
8225 requirement that terms be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited</span>»</span> will have no practical
8226 effect. If every time a copyright is about to expire, Congress has the power
8227 to extend its term, then Congress can achieve what the Constitution plainly
8228 forbids&#8212;perpetual terms <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">on the installment plan,</span>»</span> as
8229 Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2901333"></a>
8230 </p><p>
8231 As an academic, my first response was to hit the books. I remember sitting
8232 late at the office, scouring on-line databases for any serious consideration
8233 of the question. No one had ever challenged Congress's practice of extending
8234 existing terms. That failure may in part be why Congress seemed so
8235 untroubled in its habit. That, and the fact that the practice had become so
8236 lucrative for Congress. Congress knows that copyright owners will be willing
8237 to pay a great deal of money to see their copyright terms extended. And so
8238 Congress is quite happy to keep this gravy train going.
8239 </p><p>
8240 For this is the core of the corruption in our present system of
8241 government. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Corruption</span>»</span> not in the sense that representatives
8242 are bribed.  Rather, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">corruption</span>»</span> in the sense that the system
8243 induces the beneficiaries of Congress's acts to raise and give money to
8244 Congress to induce it to act. There's only so much time; there's only so
8245 much Congress can do. Why not limit its actions to those things it must
8246 do&#8212;and those things that pay? Extending copyright terms pays.
8247 </p><p>
8248 If that's not obvious to you, consider the following: Say you're one of the
8249 very few lucky copyright owners whose copyright continues to make money one
8250 hundred years after it was created. The Estate of Robert Frost is a good
8251 example. Frost died in 1963. His poetry continues to be extraordinarily
8252 valuable. Thus the Robert Frost estate benefits greatly from any extension
8253 of copyright, since no publisher would pay the estate any money if the poems
8254 Frost wrote could be published by anyone for free.
8255 </p><p>
8256 So imagine the Robert Frost estate is earning $100,000 a year from three of
8257 Frost's poems. And imagine the copyright for those poems is about to
8258 expire. You sit on the board of the Robert Frost estate.  Your financial
8259 adviser comes to your board meeting with a very grim report:
8260 </p><p>
8261
8262 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Next year,</span>»</span> the adviser announces, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">our copyrights in
8263 works A, B, and C will expire. That means that after next year, we will no
8264 longer be receiving the annual royalty check of $100,000 from the publishers
8265 of those works.</span>»</span>
8266 </p><p>
8267 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">There's a proposal in Congress, however,</span>»</span> she continues,
8268 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">that could change this. A few congressmen are floating a bill to
8269 extend the terms of copyright by twenty years. That bill would be
8270 extraordinarily valuable to us. So we should hope this bill passes.</span>»</span>
8271 </p><p>
8272 <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
8273 something about it?</span>»</span>
8274 </p><p>
8275 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well, obviously, yes,</span>»</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We could
8276 contribute to the campaigns of a number of representatives to try to assure
8277 that they support the bill.</span>»</span>
8278 </p><p>
8279 You hate politics. You hate contributing to campaigns. So you want to know
8280 whether this disgusting practice is worth it. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much would we get
8281 if this extension were passed?</span>»</span> you ask the adviser. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">How much
8282 is it worth?</span>»</span>
8283 </p><p>
8284 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Well,</span>»</span> the adviser says, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">if you're confident that you
8285 will continue to get at least $100,000 a year from these copyrights, and you
8286 use the `discount rate' that we use to evaluate estate investments (6
8287 percent), then this law would be worth $1,146,000 to the estate.</span>»</span>
8288 </p><p>
8289 You're a bit shocked by the number, but you quickly come to the correct
8290 conclusion:
8291 </p><p>
8292 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">So you're saying it would be worth it for us to pay more than
8293 $1,000,000 in campaign contributions if we were confident those
8294 contributions would assure that the bill was passed?</span>»</span>
8295 </p><p>
8296 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Absolutely,</span>»</span> the adviser responds. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">It is worth it to
8297 you to contribute up to the `present value' of the income you expect from
8298 these copyrights. Which for us means over $1,000,000.</span>»</span>
8299 </p><p>
8300
8301 You quickly get the point&#8212;you as the member of the board and, I trust,
8302 you the reader. Each time copyrights are about to expire, every beneficiary
8303 in the position of the Robert Frost estate faces the same choice: If they
8304 can contribute to get a law passed to extend copyrights, they will benefit
8305 greatly from that extension. And so each time copyrights are about to
8306 expire, there is a massive amount of lobbying to get the copyright term
8307 extended.
8308 </p><p>
8309 Thus a congressional perpetual motion machine: So long as legislation can be
8310 bought (albeit indirectly), there will be all the incentive in the world to
8311 buy further extensions of copyright.
8312 </p><p>
8313 In the lobbying that led to the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term
8314 Extension Act, this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">theory</span>»</span> about incentives was proved
8315 real. Ten of the thirteen original sponsors of the act in the House received
8316 the maximum contribution from Disney's political action committee; in the
8317 Senate, eight of the twelve sponsors received contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2901527" href="#ftn.id2901527" class="footnote">181</a>]</sup> The RIAA and the MPAA are estimated to have spent
8318 over $1.5 million lobbying in the 1998 election cycle. They paid out more
8319 than $200,000 in campaign contributions.<sup>[<a name="id2901544" href="#ftn.id2901544" class="footnote">182</a>]</sup> Disney is estimated to have contributed more than $800,000 to
8320 reelection campaigns in the cycle.<sup>[<a name="id2901563" href="#ftn.id2901563" class="footnote">183</a>]</sup>
8321
8322 </p><p>
8323 Constitutional law is not oblivious to the obvious. Or at least, it need not
8324 be. So when I was considering Eldred's complaint, this reality about the
8325 never-ending incentives to increase the copyright term was central to my
8326 thinking. In my view, a pragmatic court committed to interpreting and
8327 applying the Constitution of our framers would see that if Congress has the
8328 power to extend existing terms, then there would be no effective
8329 constitutional requirement that terms be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> If they
8330 could extend it once, they would extend it again and again and again.
8331 </p><p>
8332
8333 It was also my judgment that <span class="emphasis"><em>this</em></span> Supreme Court would
8334 not allow Congress to extend existing terms. As anyone close to the Supreme
8335 Court's work knows, this Court has increasingly restricted the power of
8336 Congress when it has viewed Congress's actions as exceeding the power
8337 granted to it by the Constitution. Among constitutional scholars, the most
8338 famous example of this trend was the Supreme Court's decision in 1995 to
8339 strike down a law that banned the possession of guns near schools.
8340 </p><p>
8341 Since 1937, the Supreme Court had interpreted Congress's granted powers very
8342 broadly; so, while the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate
8343 only <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">commerce among the several states</span>»</span> (aka <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">interstate
8344 commerce</span>»</span>), the Supreme Court had interpreted that power to include
8345 the power to regulate any activity that merely affected interstate commerce.
8346 </p><p>
8347 As the economy grew, this standard increasingly meant that there was no
8348 limit to Congress's power to regulate, since just about every activity, when
8349 considered on a national scale, affects interstate commerce.  A Constitution
8350 designed to limit Congress's power was instead interpreted to impose no
8351 limit.
8352 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2901641"></a><p>
8353 The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed that in
8354 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The
8355 government had argued that possessing guns near schools affected interstate
8356 commerce. Guns near schools increase crime, crime lowers property values,
8357 and so on. In the oral argument, the Chief Justice asked the government
8358 whether there was any activity that would not affect interstate commerce
8359 under the reasoning the government advanced. The government said there was
8360 not; if Congress says an activity affects interstate commerce, then that
8361 activity affects interstate commerce. The Supreme Court, the government
8362 said, was not in the position to second-guess Congress.
8363 </p><p>
8364 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">We pause to consider the implications of the government's
8365 arguments,</span>»</span> the Chief Justice wrote.<sup>[<a name="id2901675" href="#ftn.id2901675" class="footnote">184</a>]</sup> If anything Congress says is interstate commerce must therefore be
8366 considered interstate commerce, then there would be no limit to Congress's
8367 power. The decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> was reaffirmed five
8368 years later in <em class="citetitle">United States</em>
8369 v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>.<sup>[<a name="id2901702" href="#ftn.id2901702" class="footnote">185</a>]</sup>
8370 </p><p>
8371
8372 If a principle were at work here, then it should apply to the Progress
8373 Clause as much as the Commerce Clause.<sup>[<a name="id2901722" href="#ftn.id2901722" class="footnote">186</a>]</sup>
8374 And if it is applied to the Progress Clause, the principle should yield the
8375 conclusion that Congress can't extend an existing term. If Congress could
8376 extend an existing term, then there would be no <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stopping
8377 point</span>»</span> to Congress's power over terms, though the Constitution
8378 expressly states that there is such a limit. Thus, the same principle
8379 applied to the power to grant copyrights should entail that Congress is not
8380 allowed to extend the term of existing copyrights.
8381 </p><p>
8382 <span class="emphasis"><em>If</em></span>, that is, the principle announced in
8383 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for a principle.  Many believed the
8384 decision in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> stood for politics&#8212;a
8385 conservative Supreme Court, which believed in states' rights, using its
8386 power over Congress to advance its own personal political preferences. But I
8387 rejected that view of the Supreme Court's decision. Indeed, shortly after
8388 the decision, I wrote an article demonstrating the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fidelity</span>»</span>
8389 in such an interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that the Supreme
8390 Court decides cases based upon its politics struck me as extraordinarily
8391 boring.  I was not going to devote my life to teaching constitutional law if
8392 these nine Justices were going to be petty politicians.
8393 </p><p>
8394 Now let's pause for a moment to make sure we understand what the argument in
8395 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was not about. By insisting on the
8396 Constitution's limits to copyright, obviously Eldred was not endorsing
8397 piracy.  Indeed, in an obvious sense, he was fighting a kind of
8398 piracy&#8212;piracy of the public domain. When Robert Frost wrote his work
8399 and when Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse, the maximum copyright term was
8400 just fifty-six years. Because of interim changes, Frost and Disney had
8401 already enjoyed a seventy-five-year monopoly for their work. They had gotten
8402 the benefit of the bargain that the Constitution envisions: In exchange for
8403 a monopoly protected for fifty-six years, they created new work. But now
8404 these entities were using their power&#8212;expressed through the power of
8405 lobbyists' money&#8212;to get another twenty-year dollop of monopoly. That
8406 twenty-year dollop would be taken from the public domain. Eric Eldred was
8407 fighting a piracy that affects us all.
8408 </p><p>
8409 Some people view the public domain with contempt. In their brief before the
8410 Supreme Court, the Nashville Songwriters Association wrote that the public
8411 domain is nothing more than <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">legal piracy.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2901812" href="#ftn.id2901812" class="footnote">187</a>]</sup> But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in
8412 our constitutional system, our law requires it. Some may not like the
8413 Constitution's requirements, but that doesn't make the Constitution a
8414 pirate's charter.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2901838"></a>
8415 </p><p>
8416 As we've seen, our constitutional system requires limits on copyright as a
8417 way to assure that copyright holders do not too heavily influence the
8418 development and distribution of our culture. Yet, as Eric Eldred discovered,
8419 we have set up a system that assures that copyright terms will be repeatedly
8420 extended, and extended, and extended. We have created the perfect storm for
8421 the public domain. Copyrights have not expired, and will not expire, so long
8422 as Congress is free to be bought to extend them again.
8423 </p><p>
8424 It is valuable copyrights that are responsible for terms being extended.
8425 Mickey Mouse and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Rhapsody in Blue.</span>»</span> These works are too
8426 valuable for copyright owners to ignore. But the real harm to our society
8427 from copyright extensions is not that Mickey Mouse remains Disney's.  Forget
8428 Mickey Mouse. Forget Robert Frost. Forget all the works from the 1920s and
8429 1930s that have continuing commercial value. The real harm of term extension
8430 comes not from these famous works. The real harm is to the works that are
8431 not famous, not commercially exploited, and no longer available as a result.
8432 </p><p>
8433 If you look at the work created in the first twenty years (1923 to 1942)
8434 affected by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 2 percent of that
8435 work has any continuing commercial value. It was the copyright holders for
8436 that 2 percent who pushed the CTEA through.  But the law and its effect were
8437 not limited to that 2 percent. The law extended the terms of copyright
8438 generally.<sup>[<a name="id2901882" href="#ftn.id2901882" class="footnote">188</a>]</sup>
8439
8440 </p><p>
8441
8442 Think practically about the consequence of this extension&#8212;practically,
8443 as a businessperson, and not as a lawyer eager for more legal work. In 1930,
8444 10,047 books were published. In 2000, 174 of those books were still in
8445 print. Let's say you were Brewster Kahle, and you wanted to make available
8446 to the world in your iArchive project the remaining 9,873. What would you
8447 have to do?
8448 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2901909"></a><p>
8449 Well, first, you'd have to determine which of the 9,873 books were still
8450 under copyright. That requires going to a library (these data are not
8451 on-line) and paging through tomes of books, cross-checking the titles and
8452 authors of the 9,873 books with the copyright registration and renewal
8453 records for works published in 1930. That will produce a list of books still
8454 under copyright.
8455 </p><p>
8456 Then for the books still under copyright, you would need to locate the
8457 current copyright owners. How would you do that?
8458 </p><p>
8459 Most people think that there must be a list of these copyright owners
8460 somewhere. Practical people think this way. How could there be thousands and
8461 thousands of government monopolies without there being at least a list?
8462 </p><p>
8463 But there is no list. There may be a name from 1930, and then in 1959, of
8464 the person who registered the copyright. But just think practically about
8465 how impossibly difficult it would be to track down thousands of such
8466 records&#8212;especially since the person who registered is not necessarily
8467 the current owner. And we're just talking about 1930!
8468 </p><p>
8469 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But there isn't a list of who owns property generally,</span>»</span> the
8470 apologists for the system respond. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Why should there be a list of
8471 copyright owners?</span>»</span>
8472 </p><p>
8473 Well, actually, if you think about it, there <span class="emphasis"><em>are</em></span> plenty
8474 of lists of who owns what property. Think about deeds on houses, or titles
8475 to cars.  And where there isn't a list, the code of real space is pretty
8476 good at suggesting who the owner of a bit of property is. (A swing set in
8477 your backyard is probably yours.) So formally or informally, we have a
8478 pretty good way to know who owns what tangible property.
8479 </p><p>
8480
8481 So: You walk down a street and see a house. You can know who owns the house
8482 by looking it up in the courthouse registry. If you see a car, there is
8483 ordinarily a license plate that will link the owner to the car. If you see a
8484 bunch of children's toys sitting on the front lawn of a house, it's fairly
8485 easy to determine who owns the toys. And if you happen to see a baseball
8486 lying in a gutter on the side of the road, look around for a second for some
8487 kids playing ball. If you don't see any kids, then okay: Here's a bit of
8488 property whose owner we can't easily determine. It is the exception that
8489 proves the rule: that we ordinarily know quite well who owns what property.
8490 </p><p>
8491 Compare this story to intangible property. You go into a library.  The
8492 library owns the books. But who owns the copyrights? As I've already
8493 described, there's no list of copyright owners. There are authors' names, of
8494 course, but their copyrights could have been assigned, or passed down in an
8495 estate like Grandma's old jewelry. To know who owns what, you would have to
8496 hire a private detective. The bottom line: The owner cannot easily be
8497 located. And in a regime like ours, in which it is a felony to use such
8498 property without the property owner's permission, the property isn't going
8499 to be used.
8500 </p><p>
8501 The consequence with respect to old books is that they won't be digitized,
8502 and hence will simply rot away on shelves. But the consequence for other
8503 creative works is much more dire.
8504 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxageemichael"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2902041"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2902047"></a><p>
8505 Consider the story of Michael Agee, chairman of Hal Roach Studios, which
8506 owns the copyrights for the Laurel and Hardy films. Agee is a direct
8507 beneficiary of the Bono Act. The Laurel and Hardy films were made between
8508 1921 and 1951. Only one of these films, <em class="citetitle">The Lucky
8509 Dog</em>, is currently out of copyright. But for the CTEA, films made
8510 after 1923 would have begun entering the public domain. Because Agee
8511 controls the exclusive rights for these popular films, he makes a great deal
8512 of money. According to one estimate, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Roach has sold about 60,000
8513 videocassettes and 50,000 DVDs of the duo's silent
8514 films.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2902071" href="#ftn.id2902071" class="footnote">189</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2902094"></a>
8515 </p><p>
8516 Yet Agee opposed the CTEA. His reasons demonstrate a rare virtue in this
8517 culture: selflessness. He argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that
8518 the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act will, if left standing, destroy
8519 a whole generation of American film.
8520 </p><p>
8521
8522 His argument is straightforward. A tiny fraction of this work has any
8523 continuing commercial value. The rest&#8212;to the extent it survives at
8524 all&#8212;sits in vaults gathering dust. It may be that some of this work
8525 not now commercially valuable will be deemed to be valuable by the owners of
8526 the vaults. For this to occur, however, the commercial benefit from the work
8527 must exceed the costs of making the work available for distribution.
8528 </p><p>
8529 We can't know the benefits, but we do know a lot about the costs.  For most
8530 of the history of film, the costs of restoring film were very high; digital
8531 technology has lowered these costs substantially. While it cost more than
8532 $10,000 to restore a ninety-minute black-and-white film in 1993, it can now
8533 cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of mm film.<sup>[<a name="id2902131" href="#ftn.id2902131" class="footnote">190</a>]</sup>
8534
8535 </p><p>
8536 Restoration technology is not the only cost, nor the most important.
8537 Lawyers, too, are a cost, and increasingly, a very important one. In
8538 addition to preserving the film, a distributor needs to secure the rights.
8539 And to secure the rights for a film that is under copyright, you need to
8540 locate the copyright owner.
8541 </p><p>
8542 Or more accurately, <span class="emphasis"><em>owners</em></span>. As we've seen, there isn't
8543 only a single copyright associated with a film; there are many. There isn't
8544 a single person whom you can contact about those copyrights; there are as
8545 many as can hold the rights, which turns out to be an extremely large
8546 number. Thus the costs of clearing the rights to these films is
8547 exceptionally high.
8548 </p><p>
8549 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But can't you just restore the film, distribute it, and then pay the
8550 copyright owner when she shows up?</span>»</span> Sure, if you want to commit a
8551 felony. And even if you're not worried about committing a felony, when she
8552 does show up, she'll have the right to sue you for all the profits you have
8553 made. So, if you're successful, you can be fairly confident you'll be
8554 getting a call from someone's lawyer. And if you're not successful, you
8555 won't make enough to cover the costs of your own lawyer. Either way, you
8556 have to talk to a lawyer. And as is too often the case, saying you have to
8557 talk to a lawyer is the same as saying you won't make any money.
8558 </p><p>
8559
8560 For some films, the benefit of releasing the film may well exceed these
8561 costs. But for the vast majority of them, there is no way the benefit would
8562 outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old films, Agee
8563 argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until the copyright
8564 expires.
8565 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2902208"></a><p>
8566 But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will have
8567 expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and nitrate stock
8568 dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal canisters in which
8569 they are now stored will be filled with nothing more than dust.
8570 </p><p>
8571 Of all the creative work produced by humans anywhere, a tiny fraction has
8572 continuing commercial value. For that tiny fraction, the copyright is a
8573 crucially important legal device. For that tiny fraction, the copyright
8574 creates incentives to produce and distribute the creative work. For that
8575 tiny fraction, the copyright acts as an <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">engine of free
8576 expression.</span>»</span>
8577 </p><p>
8578 But even for that tiny fraction, the actual time during which the creative
8579 work has a commercial life is extremely short. As I've indicated, most books
8580 go out of print within one year. The same is true of music and
8581 film. Commercial culture is sharklike. It must keep moving.  And when a
8582 creative work falls out of favor with the commercial distributors, the
8583 commercial life ends.
8584 </p><p>
8585 Yet that doesn't mean the life of the creative work ends. We don't keep
8586 libraries of books in order to compete with Barnes &amp; Noble, and we don't
8587 have archives of films because we expect people to choose between spending
8588 Friday night watching new movies and spending Friday night watching a 1930
8589 news documentary. The noncommercial life of culture is important and
8590 valuable&#8212;for entertainment but also, and more importantly, for
8591 knowledge. To understand who we are, and where we came from, and how we have
8592 made the mistakes that we have, we need to have access to this history.
8593 </p><p>
8594
8595 Copyrights in this context do not drive an engine of free expression.  In
8596 this context, there is no need for an exclusive right. Copyrights in this
8597 context do no good.
8598 </p><p>
8599 Yet, for most of our history, they also did little harm. For most of our
8600 history, when a work ended its commercial life, there was no
8601 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright-related use</em></span> that would be inhibited by an
8602 exclusive right.  When a book went out of print, you could not buy it from a
8603 publisher.  But you could still buy it from a used book store, and when a
8604 used book store sells it, in America, at least, there is no need to pay the
8605 copyright owner anything. Thus, the ordinary use of a book after its
8606 commercial life ended was a use that was independent of copyright law.
8607 </p><p>
8608 The same was effectively true of film. Because the costs of restoring a
8609 film&#8212;the real economic costs, not the lawyer costs&#8212;were so high,
8610 it was never at all feasible to preserve or restore film. Like the remains
8611 of a great dinner, when it's over, it's over. Once a film passed out of its
8612 commercial life, it may have been archived for a bit, but that was the end
8613 of its life so long as the market didn't have more to offer.
8614 </p><p>
8615 In other words, though copyright has been relatively short for most of our
8616 history, long copyrights wouldn't have mattered for the works that lost
8617 their commercial value. Long copyrights for these works would not have
8618 interfered with anything.
8619 </p><p>
8620 But this situation has now changed.
8621 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxarchivesdigital2"></a><p>
8622 One crucially important consequence of the emergence of digital technologies
8623 is to enable the archive that Brewster Kahle dreams of.  Digital
8624 technologies now make it possible to preserve and give access to all sorts
8625 of knowledge. Once a book goes out of print, we can now imagine digitizing
8626 it and making it available to everyone, forever. Once a film goes out of
8627 distribution, we could digitize it and make it available to everyone,
8628 forever. Digital technologies give new life to copyrighted material after it
8629 passes out of its commercial life. It is now possible to preserve and assure
8630 universal access to this knowledge and culture, whereas before it was not.
8631 </p><p>
8632
8633
8634 And now copyright law does get in the way. Every step of producing this
8635 digital archive of our culture infringes on the exclusive right of
8636 copyright. To digitize a book is to copy it. To do that requires permission
8637 of the copyright owner. The same with music, film, or any other aspect of
8638 our culture protected by copyright. The effort to make these things
8639 available to history, or to researchers, or to those who just want to
8640 explore, is now inhibited by a set of rules that were written for a
8641 radically different context.
8642 </p><p>
8643 Here is the core of the harm that comes from extending terms: Now that
8644 technology enables us to rebuild the library of Alexandria, the law gets in
8645 the way. And it doesn't get in the way for any useful
8646 <span class="emphasis"><em>copyright</em></span> purpose, for the purpose of copyright is to
8647 enable the commercial market that spreads culture. No, we are talking about
8648 culture after it has lived its commercial life. In this context, copyright
8649 is serving no purpose <span class="emphasis"><em>at all</em></span> related to the spread of
8650 knowledge. In this context, copyright is not an engine of free
8651 expression. Copyright is a brake.
8652 </p><p>
8653 You may well ask, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">But if digital technologies lower the costs for
8654 Brewster Kahle, then they will lower the costs for Random House, too.  So
8655 won't Random House do as well as Brewster Kahle in spreading culture
8656 widely?</span>»</span>
8657 </p><p>
8658 Maybe. Someday. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that
8659 publishers would be as complete as libraries. If Barnes &amp; Noble offered
8660 to lend books from its stores for a low price, would that eliminate the need
8661 for libraries? Only if you think that the only role of a library is to serve
8662 what <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the market</span>»</span> would demand. But if you think the role of a
8663 library is bigger than this&#8212;if you think its role is to archive
8664 culture, whether there's a demand for any particular bit of that culture or
8665 not&#8212;then we can't count on the commercial market to do our library
8666 work for us.
8667 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2902396"></a><p>
8668 I would be the first to agree that it should do as much as it can: We should
8669 rely upon the market as much as possible to spread and enable culture. My
8670 message is absolutely not antimarket. But where we see the market is not
8671 doing the job, then we should allow nonmarket forces the freedom to fill the
8672 gaps. As one researcher calculated for American culture, 94 percent of the
8673 films, books, and music produced between and 1946 is not commercially
8674 available. However much you love the commercial market, if access is a
8675 value, then 6 percent is a failure to provide that value.<sup>[<a name="id2902422" href="#ftn.id2902422" class="footnote">191</a>]</sup>
8676
8677 </p><p>
8678 In January 1999, we filed a lawsuit on Eric Eldred's behalf in federal
8679 district court in Washington, D.C., asking the court to declare the Sonny
8680 Bono Copyright Term Extension Act unconstitutional. The two central claims
8681 that we made were (1) that extending existing terms violated the
8682 Constitution's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited Times</span>»</span> requirement, and (2) that
8683 extending terms by another twenty years violated the First Amendment.
8684 </p><p>
8685 The district court dismissed our claims without even hearing an argument.  A
8686 panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also dismissed our
8687 claims, though after hearing an extensive argument. But that decision at
8688 least had a dissent, by one of the most conservative judges on that
8689 court. That dissent gave our claims life.
8690 </p><p>
8691 Judge David Sentelle said the CTEA violated the requirement that copyrights
8692 be for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited Times</span>»</span> only. His argument was as elegant as it
8693 was simple: If Congress can extend existing terms, then there is no
8694 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stopping point</span>»</span> to Congress's power under the Copyright
8695 Clause. The power to extend existing terms means Congress is not required to
8696 grant terms that are <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> Thus, Judge Sentelle argued,
8697 the court had to interpret the term <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited Times</span>»</span> to give it
8698 meaning. And the best interpretation, Judge Sentelle argued, would be to
8699 deny Congress the power to extend existing terms.
8700 </p><p>
8701 We asked the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as a whole to hear the
8702 case. Cases are ordinarily heard in panels of three, except for important
8703 cases or cases that raise issues specific to the circuit as a whole, where
8704 the court will sit <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en banc</span>»</span> to hear the case.
8705 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2902501"></a><p>
8706
8707 The Court of Appeals rejected our request to hear the case en banc.  This
8708 time, Judge Sentelle was joined by the most liberal member of the
8709 D.C. Circuit, Judge David Tatel. Both the most conservative and the most
8710 liberal judges in the D.C. Circuit believed Congress had overstepped its
8711 bounds.
8712 </p><p>
8713 It was here that most expected Eldred v. Ashcroft would die, for the Supreme
8714 Court rarely reviews any decision by a court of appeals. (It hears about one
8715 hundred cases a year, out of more than five thousand appeals.) And it
8716 practically never reviews a decision that upholds a statute when no other
8717 court has yet reviewed the statute.
8718 </p><p>
8719 But in February 2002, the Supreme Court surprised the world by granting our
8720 petition to review the D.C. Circuit opinion. Argument was set for October of
8721 2002. The summer would be spent writing briefs and preparing for argument.
8722 </p><p>
8723 It is over a year later as I write these words. It is still astonishingly
8724 hard. If you know anything at all about this story, you know that we lost
8725 the appeal. And if you know something more than just the minimum, you
8726 probably think there was no way this case could have been won. After our
8727 defeat, I received literally thousands of missives by well-wishers and
8728 supporters, thanking me for my work on behalf of this noble but doomed
8729 cause. And none from this pile was more significant to me than the e-mail
8730 from my client, Eric Eldred.
8731 </p><p>
8732 Men min klient og disse vennene tok feil. Denne saken kunne vært vunnet. Det
8733 burde ha vært vunnet.  Og uansett hvor hardt jeg prøver å fortelle den
8734 historien til meg selv, kan jeg aldri unnslippe troen på at det er min feil
8735 at vi ikke vant.
8736 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2902566"></a><p>
8737
8738 Feil ble gjort tidlig, skjønt den ble først åpenbart på slutten. Vår sak
8739 hadde støtte hos en ekstraordinær advokat, Geoffrey Stewart, helt fra
8740 starten, og hos advokatfirmaet hadde han flyttet til, Jones, Day, Reavis og
8741 Pogue. Jones Day mottok mye press fra sine opphavsrettsbeskyttende klienter
8742 på grunn av sin støtte til oss.  De ignorert dette presset (noe veldig få
8743 advokatfirmaer noen sinne ville gjøre), og ga alt de hadde gjennom hele
8744 saken.
8745 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2902589"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2902595"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2902601"></a><p>
8746 Det var tre viktige advokater på saken fra Jones DaY. Geoff Stewart var den
8747 først, men siden ble Dan Bromberg og Don Ayer ganske involvert. Bromberg og
8748 Ayer spesielt hadde en felles oppfatning om hvordan denne saken ville bli
8749 vunnet: vi ville bare vinne, fortalte de gjentatte ganger til meg, hvis vi
8750 få problemet til å virke <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">viktig</span>»</span> for Høyesterett. Det måtte
8751 synes som om dramatisk skade ble gjort til ytringsfriheten og fri kultur,
8752 ellers ville de aldri stemt mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">de mektigste mediaselskapene i
8753 verden</span>»</span>.
8754 </p><p>
8755 I hate this view of the law. Of course I thought the Sonny Bono Act was a
8756 dramatic harm to free speech and free culture. Of course I still think it
8757 is. But the idea that the Supreme Court decides the law based on how
8758 important they believe the issues are is just wrong. It might be
8759 <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
8760 <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
8761 I believed that any faithful interpretation of what the framers of our
8762 Constitution did would yield the conclusion that the CTEA was
8763 unconstitutional, and as I believed that any faithful interpretation of what
8764 the First Amendment means would yield the conclusion that the power to
8765 extend existing copyright terms is unconstitutional, I was not persuaded
8766 that we had to sell our case like soap.  Just as a law that bans the
8767 swastika is unconstitutional not because the Court likes Nazis but because
8768 such a law would violate the Constitution, so too, in my view, would the
8769 Court decide whether Congress's law was constitutional based on the
8770 Constitution, not based on whether they liked the values that the framers
8771 put in the Constitution.
8772 </p><p>
8773 In any case, I thought, the Court must already see the danger and the harm
8774 caused by this sort of law. Why else would they grant review? There was no
8775 reason to hear the case in the Supreme Court if they weren't convinced that
8776 this regulation was harmful. So in my view, we didn't need to persuade them
8777 that this law was bad, we needed to show why it was unconstitutional.
8778 </p><p>
8779
8780 There was one way, however, in which I felt politics would matter and in
8781 which I thought a response was appropriate. I was convinced that the Court
8782 would not hear our arguments if it thought these were just the arguments of
8783 a group of lefty loons. This Supreme Court was not about to launch into a
8784 new field of judicial review if it seemed that this field of review was
8785 simply the preference of a small political minority.  Although my focus in
8786 the case was not to demonstrate how bad the Sonny Bono Act was but to
8787 demonstrate that it was unconstitutional, my hope was to make this argument
8788 against a background of briefs that covered the full range of political
8789 views. To show that this claim against the CTEA was grounded in
8790 <span class="emphasis"><em>law</em></span> and not politics, then, we tried to gather the
8791 widest range of credible critics&#8212;credible not because they were rich
8792 and famous, but because they, in the aggregate, demonstrated that this law
8793 was unconstitutional regardless of one's politics.
8794 </p><p>
8795 The first step happened all by itself. Phyllis Schlafly's organization,
8796 Eagle Forum, had been an opponent of the CTEA from the very beginning.
8797 Mrs. Schlafly viewed the CTEA as a sellout by Congress. In November 1998,
8798 she wrote a stinging editorial attacking the Republican Congress for
8799 allowing the law to pass. As she wrote, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Do you sometimes wonder why
8800 bills that create a financial windfall to narrow special interests slide
8801 easily through the intricate legislative process, while bills that benefit
8802 the general public seem to get bogged down?</span>»</span> The answer, as the
8803 editorial documented, was the power of money.  Schlafly enumerated Disney's
8804 contributions to the key players on the committees. It was money, not
8805 justice, that gave Mickey Mouse twenty more years in Disney's control,
8806 Schlafly argued.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2902722"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2902728"></a>
8807 </p><p>
8808 In the Court of Appeals, Eagle Forum was eager to file a brief supporting
8809 our position. Their brief made the argument that became the core claim in
8810 the Supreme Court: If Congress can extend the term of existing copyrights,
8811 there is no limit to Congress's power to set terms.  That strong
8812 conservative argument persuaded a strong conservative judge, Judge Sentelle.
8813 </p><p>
8814 In the Supreme Court, the briefs on our side were about as diverse as it
8815 gets. They included an extraordinary historical brief by the Free Software
8816 Foundation (home of the GNU project that made GNU/ Linux possible). They
8817 included a powerful brief about the costs of uncertainty by Intel. There
8818 were two law professors' briefs, one by copyright scholars and one by First
8819 Amendment scholars. There was an exhaustive and uncontroverted brief by the
8820 world's experts in the history of the Progress Clause. And of course, there
8821 was a new brief by Eagle Forum, repeating and strengthening its arguments.
8822 <a class="indexterm" name="id2902757"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2902766"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2902772"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2902778"></a>
8823 </p><p>
8824 Those briefs framed a legal argument. Then to support the legal argument,
8825 there were a number of powerful briefs by libraries and archives, including
8826 the Internet Archive, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the
8827 National Writers Union.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2902792"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2902799"></a>
8828 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2902806"></a><p>
8829 But two briefs captured the policy argument best. One made the argument I've
8830 already described: A brief by Hal Roach Studios argued that unless the law
8831 was struck, a whole generation of American film would disappear. The other
8832 made the economic argument absolutely clear.
8833 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2902821"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2902827"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2902833"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2902839"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2902846"></a><p>
8834 This economists' brief was signed by seventeen economists, including five
8835 Nobel Prize winners, including Ronald Coase, James Buchanan, Milton
8836 Friedman, Kenneth Arrow, and George Akerlof. The economists, as the list of
8837 Nobel winners demonstrates, spanned the political spectrum. Their
8838 conclusions were powerful: There was no plausible claim that extending the
8839 terms of existing copyrights would do anything to increase incentives to
8840 create. Such extensions were nothing more than
8841 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rent-seeking</span>»</span>&#8212;the fancy term economists use to describe
8842 special-interest legislation gone wild.
8843 </p><p>
8844 The same effort at balance was reflected in the legal team we gathered to
8845 write our briefs in the case. The Jones Day lawyers had been with us from
8846 the start. But when the case got to the Supreme Court, we added three
8847 lawyers to help us frame this argument to this Court: Alan Morrison, a
8848 lawyer from Public Citizen, a Washington group that had made constitutional
8849 history with a series of seminal victories in the Supreme Court defending
8850 individual rights; my colleague and dean, Kathleen Sullivan, who had argued
8851 many cases in the Court, and who had advised us early on about a First
8852 Amendment strategy; and finally, former solicitor general Charles Fried.
8853 <a class="indexterm" name="id2902881"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2902890"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2902896"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2902902"></a>
8854 </p><p>
8855 Fried was a special victory for our side. Every other former solicitor
8856 general was hired by the other side to defend Congress's power to give media
8857 companies the special favor of extended copyright terms. Fried was the only
8858 one who turned down that lucrative assignment to stand up for something he
8859 believed in. He had been Ronald Reagan's chief lawyer in the Supreme
8860 Court. He had helped craft the line of cases that limited Congress's power
8861 in the context of the Commerce Clause. And while he had argued many
8862 positions in the Supreme Court that I personally disagreed with, his joining
8863 the cause was a vote of confidence in our argument.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2902923"></a>
8864 </p><p>
8865 The government, in defending the statute, had its collection of friends, as
8866 well. Significantly, however, none of these <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">friends</span>»</span> included
8867 historians or economists. The briefs on the other side of the case were
8868 written exclusively by major media companies, congressmen, and copyright
8869 holders.
8870 </p><p>
8871 The media companies were not surprising. They had the most to gain from the
8872 law. The congressmen were not surprising either&#8212;they were defending
8873 their power and, indirectly, the gravy train of contributions such power
8874 induced. And of course it was not surprising that the copyright holders
8875 would defend the idea that they should continue to have the right to control
8876 who did what with content they wanted to control.
8877 </p><p>
8878 Dr. Seuss's representatives, for example, argued that it was better for the
8879 Dr. Seuss estate to control what happened to Dr. Seuss's work&#8212; better
8880 than allowing it to fall into the public domain&#8212;because if this
8881 creativity were in the public domain, then people could use it to
8882 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">glorify drugs or to create pornography.</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2902962" href="#ftn.id2902962" class="footnote">192</a>]</sup> That was also the motive of the Gershwin estate,
8883 which defended its <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">protection</span>»</span> of the work of George
8884 Gershwin. They refuse, for example, to license <em class="citetitle">Porgy and
8885 Bess</em> to anyone who refuses to use African Americans in the
8886 cast.<sup>[<a name="id2902987" href="#ftn.id2902987" class="footnote">193</a>]</sup> That's their view of how this
8887 part of American culture should be controlled, and they wanted this law to
8888 help them effect that control.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2903004"></a>
8889 </p><p>
8890 This argument made clear a theme that is rarely noticed in this debate.
8891 When Congress decides to extend the term of existing copyrights, Congress is
8892 making a choice about which speakers it will favor.  Famous and beloved
8893 copyright owners, such as the Gershwin estate and Dr. Seuss, come to
8894 Congress and say, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Give us twenty years to control the speech about
8895 these icons of American culture. We'll do better with them than anyone
8896 else.</span>»</span> Congress of course likes to reward the popular and famous by
8897 giving them what they want. But when Congress gives people an exclusive
8898 right to speak in a certain way, that's just what the First Amendment is
8899 traditionally meant to block.
8900 </p><p>
8901 We argued as much in a final brief. Not only would upholding the CTEA mean
8902 that there was no limit to the power of Congress to extend
8903 copyrights&#8212;extensions that would further concentrate the market; it
8904 would also mean that there was no limit to Congress's power to play
8905 favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak.  Between
8906 February and October, there was little I did beyond preparing for this
8907 case. Early on, as I said, I set the strategy.
8908 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2903038"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2903054"></a><p>
8909 The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we called
8910 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Conservatives.</span>»</span> The other we called <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the
8911 Rest.</span>»</span> The Conservatives included Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice
8912 O'Connor, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas. These five
8913 had been the most consistent in limiting Congress's power. They were the
8914 five who had supported the <em class="citetitle">Lopez/Morrison</em> line of
8915 cases that said that an enumerated power had to be interpreted to assure
8916 that Congress's powers had limits.
8917 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2903081"></a><p>
8918
8919 The Rest were the four Justices who had strongly opposed limits on
8920 Congress's power. These four&#8212;Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice
8921 Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer&#8212;had repeatedly argued that the
8922 Constitution gives Congress broad discretion to decide how best to implement
8923 its powers. In case after case, these justices had argued that the Court's
8924 role should be one of deference. Though the votes of these four justices
8925 were the votes that I personally had most consistently agreed with, they
8926 were also the votes that we were least likely to get.
8927 </p><p>
8928 In particular, the least likely was Justice Ginsburg's. In addition to her
8929 general view about deference to Congress (except where issues of gender are
8930 involved), she had been particularly deferential in the context of
8931 intellectual property protections. She and her daughter (an excellent and
8932 well-known intellectual property scholar) were cut from the same
8933 intellectual property cloth. We expected she would agree with the writings
8934 of her daughter: that Congress had the power in this context to do as it
8935 wished, even if what Congress wished made little sense.
8936 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2903115"></a><p>
8937 Close behind Justice Ginsburg were two justices whom we also viewed as
8938 unlikely allies, though possible surprises. Justice Souter strongly favored
8939 deference to Congress, as did Justice Breyer. But both were also very
8940 sensitive to free speech concerns. And as we strongly believed, there was a
8941 very important free speech argument against these retrospective extensions.
8942 </p><p>
8943 The only vote we could be confident about was that of Justice
8944 Stevens. History will record Justice Stevens as one of the greatest judges
8945 on this Court. His votes are consistently eclectic, which just means that no
8946 simple ideology explains where he will stand. But he had consistently argued
8947 for limits in the context of intellectual property generally. We were fairly
8948 confident he would recognize limits here.
8949 </p><p>
8950 This analysis of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the Rest</span>»</span> showed most clearly where our focus
8951 had to be: on the Conservatives. To win this case, we had to crack open
8952 these five and get at least a majority to go our way. Thus, the single
8953 overriding argument that animated our claim rested on the Conservatives'
8954 most important jurisprudential innovation&#8212;the argument that Judge
8955 Sentelle had relied upon in the Court of Appeals, that Congress's power must
8956 be interpreted so that its enumerated powers have limits.
8957 </p><p>
8958
8959 This then was the core of our strategy&#8212;a strategy for which I am
8960 responsible. We would get the Court to see that just as with the
8961 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, under the government's argument here,
8962 Congress would always have unlimited power to extend existing terms. If
8963 anything was plain about Congress's power under the Progress Clause, it was
8964 that this power was supposed to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited.</span>»</span> Our aim would be
8965 to get the Court to reconcile <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> with
8966 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>: If Congress's power to regulate commerce was
8967 limited, then so, too, must Congress's power to regulate copyright be
8968 limited.
8969 </p><p>
8970 The argument on the government's side came down to this: Congress has done
8971 it before. It should be allowed to do it again. The government claimed that
8972 from the very beginning, Congress has been extending the term of existing
8973 copyrights. So, the government argued, the Court should not now say that
8974 practice is unconstitutional.
8975 </p><p>
8976 There was some truth to the government's claim, but not much. We certainly
8977 agreed that Congress had extended existing terms in 1831 and in 1909. And of
8978 course, in 1962, Congress began extending existing terms
8979 regularly&#8212;eleven times in forty years.
8980 </p><p>
8981
8982 But this <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">consistency</span>»</span> should be kept in perspective. Congress
8983 extended existing terms once in the first hundred years of the Republic.  It
8984 then extended existing terms once again in the next fifty. Those rare
8985 extensions are in contrast to the now regular practice of extending existing
8986 terms. Whatever restraint Congress had had in the past, that restraint was
8987 now gone. Congress was now in a cycle of extensions; there was no reason to
8988 expect that cycle would end. This Court had not hesitated to intervene where
8989 Congress was in a similar cycle of extension.  There was no reason it
8990 couldn't intervene here.  Oral argument was scheduled for the first week in
8991 October. I arrived in D.C. two weeks before the argument. During those two
8992 weeks, I was repeatedly <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">mooted</span>»</span> by lawyers who had volunteered
8993 to help in the case. Such <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">moots</span>»</span> are basically practice
8994 rounds, where wannabe justices fire questions at wannabe winners.
8995 </p><p>
8996 I was convinced that to win, I had to keep the Court focused on a single
8997 point: that if this extension is permitted, then there is no limit to the
8998 power to set terms. Going with the government would mean that terms would be
8999 effectively unlimited; going with us would give Congress a clear line to
9000 follow: Don't extend existing terms. The moots were an effective practice; I
9001 found ways to take every question back to this central idea.
9002 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2903241"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2903247"></a><p>
9003 One moot was before the lawyers at Jones Day. Don Ayer was the skeptic. He
9004 had served in the Reagan Justice Department with Solicitor General Charles
9005 Fried. He had argued many cases before the Supreme Court. And in his review
9006 of the moot, he let his concern speak: <a class="indexterm" name="id2903260"></a>
9007 </p><p>
9008 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">I'm just afraid that unless they really see the harm, they won't be
9009 willing to upset this practice that the government says has been a
9010 consistent practice for two hundred years. You have to make them see the
9011 harm&#8212;passionately get them to see the harm. For if they don't see
9012 that, then we haven't any chance of winning.</span>»</span>
9013 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2903273"></a><p>
9014
9015 He may have argued many cases before this Court, I thought, but he didn't
9016 understand its soul. As a clerk, I had seen the Justices do the right
9017 thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it was right. As a law
9018 professor, I had spent my life teaching my students that this Court does the
9019 right thing&#8212;not because of politics but because it is right. As I
9020 listened to Ayer's plea for passion in pressing politics, I understood his
9021 point, and I rejected it. Our argument was right. That was enough.  Let the
9022 politicians learn to see that it was also good.  The night before the
9023 argument, a line of people began to form in front of the Supreme Court. The
9024 case had become a focus of the press and of the movement to free
9025 culture. Hundreds stood in line for the chance to see the
9026 proceedings. Scores spent the night on the Supreme Court steps so that they
9027 would be assured a seat.
9028 </p><p>
9029 Not everyone has to wait in line. People who know the Justices can ask for
9030 seats they control. (I asked Justice Scalia's chambers for seats for my
9031 parents, for example.) Members of the Supreme Court bar can get a seat in a
9032 special section reserved for them. And senators and congressmen have a
9033 special place where they get to sit, too. And finally, of course, the press
9034 has a gallery, as do clerks working for the Justices on the Court. As we
9035 entered that morning, there was no place that was not taken. This was an
9036 argument about intellectual property law, yet the halls were filled. As I
9037 walked in to take my seat at the front of the Court, I saw my parents
9038 sitting on the left. As I sat down at the table, I saw Jack Valenti sitting
9039 in the special section ordinarily reserved for family of the Justices.
9040 </p><p>
9041 When the Chief Justice called me to begin my argument, I began where I
9042 intended to stay: on the question of the limits on Congress's power. This
9043 was a case about enumerated powers, I said, and whether those enumerated
9044 powers had any limit.
9045 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2903331"></a><p>
9046 Justice O'Connor stopped me within one minute of my opening.  The history
9047 was bothering her.
9048 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9049 justice o'connor: Congress has extended the term so often through the years,
9050 and if you are right, don't we run the risk of upsetting previous extensions
9051 of time? I mean, this seems to be a practice that began with the very first
9052 act.
9053 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9054 She was quite willing to concede <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">that this flies directly in the face
9055 of what the framers had in mind.</span>»</span> But my response again and again was
9056 to emphasize limits on Congress's power.
9057 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9058
9059 mr. lessig: Well, if it flies in the face of what the framers had in mind,
9060 then the question is, is there a way of interpreting their words that gives
9061 effect to what they had in mind, and the answer is yes.
9062 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9063 There were two points in this argument when I should have seen where the
9064 Court was going. The first was a question by Justice Kennedy, who observed,
9065 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9066 justice kennedy: Well, I suppose implicit in the argument that the '76 act,
9067 too, should have been declared void, and that we might leave it alone
9068 because of the disruption, is that for all these years the act has impeded
9069 progress in science and the useful arts.  I just don't see any empirical
9070 evidence for that.
9071 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9072 Here follows my clear mistake. Like a professor correcting a student, I
9073 answered,
9074 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9075 mr. lessig: Justice, we are not making an empirical claim at all.  Nothing
9076 in our Copyright Clause claim hangs upon the empirical assertion about
9077 impeding progress. Our only argument is this is a structural limit necessary
9078 to assure that what would be an effectively perpetual term not be permitted
9079 under the copyright laws.
9080 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2903409"></a><p>
9081 That was a correct answer, but it wasn't the right answer. The right answer
9082 was instead that there was an obvious and profound harm. Any number of
9083 briefs had been written about it. He wanted to hear it. And here was the
9084 place Don Ayer's advice should have mattered. This was a softball; my answer
9085 was a swing and a miss.
9086 </p><p>
9087 The second came from the Chief, for whom the whole case had been
9088 crafted. For the Chief Justice had crafted the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
9089 ruling, and we hoped that he would see this case as its second cousin.
9090 </p><p>
9091
9092 It was clear a second into his question that he wasn't at all sympathetic.
9093 To him, we were a bunch of anarchists. As he asked:
9094
9095
9096 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9097 chief justice: Well, but you want more than that. You want the right to copy
9098 verbatim other people's books, don't you?
9099 </p><p>
9100 mr. lessig: We want the right to copy verbatim works that should be in the
9101 public domain and would be in the public domain but for a statute that
9102 cannot be justified under ordinary First Amendment analysis or under a
9103 proper reading of the limits built into the Copyright Clause.
9104 </p></blockquote></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2903457"></a><p>
9105 Things went better for us when the government gave its argument; for now the
9106 Court picked up on the core of our claim. As Justice Scalia asked Solicitor
9107 General Olson,
9108 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9109 justice scalia: You say that the functional equivalent of an unlimited time
9110 would be a violation [of the Constitution], but that's precisely the
9111 argument that's being made by petitioners here, that a limited time which is
9112 extendable is the functional equivalent of an unlimited time.
9113 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9114 When Olson was finished, it was my turn to give a closing rebuttal.  Olson's
9115 flailing had revived my anger. But my anger still was directed to the
9116 academic, not the practical. The government was arguing as if this were the
9117 first case ever to consider limits on Congress's Copyright and Patent Clause
9118 power. Ever the professor and not the advocate, I closed by pointing out the
9119 long history of the Court imposing limits on Congress's power in the name of
9120 the Copyright and Patent Clause&#8212; indeed, the very first case striking
9121 a law of Congress as exceeding a specific enumerated power was based upon
9122 the Copyright and Patent Clause. All true. But it wasn't going to move the
9123 Court to my side.
9124 </p><p>
9125
9126 As I left the court that day, I knew there were a hundred points I wished I
9127 could remake. There were a hundred questions I wished I had answered
9128 differently. But one way of thinking about this case left me optimistic.
9129 </p><p>
9130 The government had been asked over and over again, what is the limit? Over
9131 and over again, it had answered there is no limit. This was precisely the
9132 answer I wanted the Court to hear. For I could not imagine how the Court
9133 could understand that the government believed Congress's power was unlimited
9134 under the terms of the Copyright Clause, and sustain the government's
9135 argument. The solicitor general had made my argument for me. No matter how
9136 often I tried, I could not understand how the Court could find that
9137 Congress's power under the Commerce Clause was limited, but under the
9138 Copyright Clause, unlimited. In those rare moments when I let myself believe
9139 that we may have prevailed, it was because I felt this Court&#8212;in
9140 particular, the Conservatives&#8212;would feel itself constrained by the
9141 rule of law that it had established elsewhere.
9142 </p><p>
9143 The morning of January 15, 2003, I was five minutes late to the office and
9144 missed the 7:00 A.M. call from the Supreme Court clerk. Listening to the
9145 message, I could tell in an instant that she had bad news to report.The
9146 Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Seven
9147 justices had voted in the majority. There were two dissents.
9148 </p><p>
9149 A few seconds later, the opinions arrived by e-mail. I took the phone off
9150 the hook, posted an announcement to our blog, and sat down to see where I
9151 had been wrong in my reasoning.
9152 </p><p>
9153 My <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. Here was a case that pitted all the money
9154 in the world against <span class="emphasis"><em>reasoning</em></span>. And here was the last
9155 naïve law professor, scouring the pages, looking for reasoning.
9156 </p><p>
9157 I first scoured the opinion, looking for how the Court would distinguish the
9158 principle in this case from the principle in
9159 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. The argument was nowhere to be found. The case
9160 was not even cited. The argument that was the core argument of our case did
9161 not even appear in the Court's opinion.
9162 </p><p>
9163
9164
9165
9166 Justice Ginsburg simply ignored the enumerated powers argument.  Consistent
9167 with her view that Congress's power was not limited generally, she had found
9168 Congress's power not limited here.
9169 </p><p>
9170 Her opinion was perfectly reasonable&#8212;for her, and for Justice
9171 Souter. Neither believes in <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>. It would be too
9172 much to expect them to write an opinion that recognized, much less
9173 explained, the doctrine they had worked so hard to defeat.
9174 </p><p>
9175 But as I realized what had happened, I couldn't quite believe what I was
9176 reading. I had said there was no way this Court could reconcile limited
9177 powers with the Commerce Clause and unlimited powers with the Progress
9178 Clause. It had never even occurred to me that they could reconcile the two
9179 simply <span class="emphasis"><em>by not addressing the argument</em></span>. There was no
9180 inconsistency because they would not talk about the two together.  There was
9181 therefore no principle that followed from the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>
9182 case: In that context, Congress's power would be limited, but in this
9183 context it would not.
9184 </p><p>
9185 Yet by what right did they get to choose which of the framers' values they
9186 would respect? By what right did they&#8212;the silent five&#8212;get to
9187 select the part of the Constitution they would enforce based on the values
9188 they thought important? We were right back to the argument that I said I
9189 hated at the start: I had failed to convince them that the issue here was
9190 important, and I had failed to recognize that however much I might hate a
9191 system in which the Court gets to pick the constitutional values that it
9192 will respect, that is the system we have.
9193 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2903605"></a><p>
9194 Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote very strong dissents. Stevens's opinion
9195 was crafted internal to the law: He argued that the tradition of
9196 intellectual property law should not support this unjustified extension of
9197 terms. He based his argument on a parallel analysis that had governed in the
9198 context of patents (so had we). But the rest of the Court discounted the
9199 parallel&#8212;without explaining how the very same words in the Progress
9200 Clause could come to mean totally different things depending upon whether
9201 the words were about patents or copyrights.  The Court let Justice Stevens's
9202 charge go unanswered.
9203 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2903624"></a><p>
9204
9205
9206 Justice Breyer's opinion, perhaps the best opinion he has ever written, was
9207 external to the Constitution. He argued that the term of copyrights has
9208 become so long as to be effectively unlimited. We had said that under the
9209 current term, a copyright gave an author 99.8 percent of the value of a
9210 perpetual term. Breyer said we were wrong, that the actual number was
9211 99.9997 percent of a perpetual term. Either way, the point was clear: If the
9212 Constitution said a term had to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited,</span>»</span> and the existing
9213 term was so long as to be effectively unlimited, then it was
9214 unconstitutional.
9215 </p><p>
9216 These two justices understood all the arguments we had made. But because
9217 neither believed in the <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> case, neither was
9218 willing to push it as a reason to reject this extension. The case was
9219 decided without anyone having addressed the argument that we had carried
9220 from Judge Sentelle. It was <em class="citetitle">Hamlet</em> without the
9221 Prince.
9222 </p><p>
9223 Defeat brings depression. They say it is a sign of health when depression
9224 gives way to anger. My anger came quickly, but it didn't cure the
9225 depression. This anger was of two sorts.
9226 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2903682"></a><p>
9227 It was first anger with the five <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Conservatives.</span>»</span> It would have
9228 been one thing for them to have explained why the principle of
9229 <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> didn't apply in this case. That wouldn't have
9230 been a very convincing argument, I don't believe, having read it made by
9231 others, and having tried to make it myself. But it at least would have been
9232 an act of integrity.  These justices in particular have repeatedly said that
9233 the proper mode of interpreting the Constitution is
9234 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalism</span>»</span>&#8212;to first understand the framers' text,
9235 interpreted in their context, in light of the structure of the
9236 Constitution. That method had produced <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em> and many
9237 other <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalist</span>»</span> rulings. Where was their
9238 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">originalism</span>»</span> now?
9239 </p><p>
9240
9241 Here, they had joined an opinion that never once tried to explain what the
9242 framers had meant by crafting the Progress Clause as they did; they joined
9243 an opinion that never once tried to explain how the structure of that clause
9244 would affect the interpretation of Congress's power. And they joined an
9245 opinion that didn't even try to explain why this grant of power could be
9246 unlimited, whereas the Commerce Clause would be limited. In short, they had
9247 joined an opinion that did not apply to, and was inconsistent with, their
9248 own method for interpreting the Constitution. This opinion may well have
9249 yielded a result that they liked. It did not produce a reason that was
9250 consistent with their own principles.
9251 </p><p>
9252 My anger with the Conservatives quickly yielded to anger with myself.  For I
9253 had let a view of the law that I liked interfere with a view of the law as
9254 it is.
9255 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2903744"></a><p>
9256 Most lawyers, and most law professors, have little patience for idealism
9257 about courts in general and this Supreme Court in particular.  Most have a
9258 much more pragmatic view. When Don Ayer said that this case would be won
9259 based on whether I could convince the Justices that the framers' values were
9260 important, I fought the idea, because I didn't want to believe that that is
9261 how this Court decides. I insisted on arguing this case as if it were a
9262 simple application of a set of principles.  I had an argument that followed
9263 in logic. I didn't need to waste my time showing it should also follow in
9264 popularity.
9265 </p><p>
9266
9267 As I read back over the transcript from that argument in October, I can see
9268 a hundred places where the answers could have taken the conversation in
9269 different directions, where the truth about the harm that this unchecked
9270 power will cause could have been made clear to this Court. Justice Kennedy
9271 in good faith wanted to be shown. I, idiotically, corrected his
9272 question. Justice Souter in good faith wanted to be shown the First
9273 Amendment harms. I, like a math teacher, reframed the question to make the
9274 logical point. I had shown them how they could strike this law of Congress
9275 if they wanted to. There were a hundred places where I could have helped
9276 them want to, yet my stubbornness, my refusal to give in, stopped me. I have
9277 stood before hundreds of audiences trying to persuade; I have used passion
9278 in that effort to persuade; but I refused to stand before this audience and
9279 try to persuade with the passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis
9280 on which a court should decide the issue.
9281 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2903786"></a><p>
9282 Would it have been different if I had argued it differently? Would it have
9283 been different if Don Ayer had argued it? Or Charles Fried? Or Kathleen
9284 Sullivan? <a class="indexterm" name="id2903797"></a>
9285 </p><p>
9286 My friends huddled around me to insist it would not. The Court was not
9287 ready, my friends insisted. This was a loss that was destined. It would take
9288 a great deal more to show our society why our framers were right. And when
9289 we do that, we will be able to show that Court.
9290 </p><p>
9291 Maybe, but I doubt it. These Justices have no financial interest in doing
9292 anything except the right thing. They are not lobbied. They have little
9293 reason to resist doing right. I can't help but think that if I had stepped
9294 down from this pretty picture of dispassionate justice, I could have
9295 persuaded.
9296 </p><p>
9297 And even if I couldn't, then that doesn't excuse what happened in
9298 January. For at the start of this case, one of America's leading
9299 intellectual property professors stated publicly that my bringing this case
9300 was a mistake. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Court is not ready,</span>»</span> Peter Jaszi said; this
9301 issue should not be raised until it is.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2903831"></a>
9302 </p><p>
9303
9304 After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and publicly,
9305 that he was wrong. But if indeed that Court could not have been persuaded,
9306 then that is all the evidence that's needed to know that here again Peter
9307 was right. Either I was not ready to argue this case in a way that would do
9308 some good or they were not ready to hear this case in a way that would do
9309 some good. Either way, the decision to bring this case&#8212;a decision I
9310 had made four years before&#8212;was wrong.  While the reaction to the Sonny
9311 Bono Act itself was almost unanimously negative, the reaction to the Court's
9312 decision was mixed.  No one, at least in the press, tried to say that
9313 extending the term of copyright was a good idea. We had won that battle over
9314 ideas. Where the decision was praised, it was praised by papers that had
9315 been skeptical of the Court's activism in other cases. Deference was a good
9316 thing, even if it left standing a silly law. But where the decision was
9317 attacked, it was attacked because it left standing a silly and harmful
9318 law. <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> wrote in its editorial,
9319 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
9320 In effect, the Supreme Court's decision makes it likely that we are seeing
9321 the beginning of the end of public domain and the birth of copyright
9322 perpetuity. The public domain has been a grand experiment, one that should
9323 not be allowed to die. The ability to draw freely on the entire creative
9324 output of humanity is one of the reasons we live in a time of such fruitful
9325 creative ferment.
9326 </p></blockquote></div><p>
9327 The best responses were in the cartoons. There was a gaggle of hilarious
9328 images&#8212;of Mickey in jail and the like. The best, from my view of the
9329 case, was Ruben Bolling's, reproduced on the next page (<a class="xref" href="#fig-18" title="Figur 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon">Figur 13.1, &#8220;Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon&#8221;</a>). The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">powerful and wealthy</span>»</span> line is a bit
9330 unfair. But the punch in the face felt exactly like that.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2903893"></a>
9331 </p><div class="figure"><a name="fig-18"></a><p class="title"><b>Figur 13.1. Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon</b></p><div class="figure-contents"><div><img src="images/18.png" alt="Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon"></div><a class="indexterm" name="id2903914"></a></div></div><br class="figure-break"><p>
9332 The image that will always stick in my head is that evoked by the quote from
9333 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em>. That <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">grand
9334 experiment</span>»</span> we call the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">public domain</span>»</span> is over? When I
9335 can make light of it, I think, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Honey, I shrunk the
9336 Constitution.</span>»</span> But I can rarely make light of it. We had in our
9337 Constitution a commitment to free culture. In the case that I fathered, the
9338 Supreme Court effectively renounced that commitment. A better lawyer would
9339 have made them see differently.
9340 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901152" href="#id2901152" class="para">179</a>] </sup>
9341
9342
9343 There's a parallel here with pornography that is a bit hard to describe, but
9344 it's a strong one. One phenomenon that the Internet created was a world of
9345 noncommercial pornographers&#8212;people who were distributing porn but were
9346 not making money directly or indirectly from that distribution.  Such a
9347 class didn't exist before the Internet came into being because the costs of
9348 distributing porn were so high. Yet this new class of distributors got
9349 special attention in the Supreme Court, when the Court struck down the
9350 Communications Decency Act of 1996. It was partly because of the burden on
9351 noncommercial speakers that the statute was found to exceed Congress's
9352 power. The same point could have been made about noncommercial publishers
9353 after the advent of the Internet. The Eric Eldreds of the world before the
9354 Internet were extremely few. Yet one would think it at least as important to
9355 protect the Eldreds of the world as to protect noncommercial pornographers.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901221" href="#id2901221" class="para">180</a>] </sup>
9356
9357 <a class="indexterm" name="id2901226"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2901234"></a> The full text is: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright
9358 protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would
9359 violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen
9360 our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is
9361 also Jack Valenti's proposal for a term to last forever less one
9362 day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress,</span>»</span> 144
9363 Cong. Rec. H9946, 9951-2 (October 7, 1998).
9364 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901527" href="#id2901527" class="para">181</a>] </sup>
9365
9366 Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney Lobbying for Copyright Extension No Mickey
9367 Mouse Effort; Congress OKs Bill Granting Creators 20 More Years</span>»</span>,
9368 <em class="citetitle">Chicago Tribune</em>, 17. oktober 1998, 22.
9369 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901544" href="#id2901544" class="para">182</a>] </sup>
9370
9371 Se Nick Brown, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Use No More?: Copyright in the Information
9372 Age</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #49</a>.
9373 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901563" href="#id2901563" class="para">183</a>] </sup>
9374
9375
9376 Alan K. Ota, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Disney in Washington: The Mouse That Roars</span>»</span>,
9377 <em class="citetitle">Congressional Quarterly This Week</em>, 8. august 1990,
9378 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
9379 #50</a>.
9380 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901675" href="#id2901675" class="para">184</a>] </sup>
9381
9382 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Lopez</em>, 514
9383 U.S. 549, 564 (1995).
9384 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901702" href="#id2901702" class="para">185</a>] </sup>
9385
9386
9387 <em class="citetitle">United States</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Morrison</em>, 529
9388 U.S. 598 (2000).
9389 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901722" href="#id2901722" class="para">186</a>] </sup>
9390
9391
9392 If it is a principle about enumerated powers, then the principle carries
9393 from one enumerated power to another. The animating point in the context of
9394 the Commerce Clause was that the interpretation offered by the government
9395 would allow the government unending power to regulate commerce&#8212;the
9396 limitation to interstate commerce notwithstanding. The same point is true in
9397 the context of the Copyright Clause. Here, too, the government's
9398 interpretation would allow the government unending power to regulate
9399 copyrights&#8212;the limitation to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">limited times</span>»</span>
9400 notwithstanding.
9401 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901812" href="#id2901812" class="para">187</a>] </sup>
9402
9403
9404 Brief of the Nashville Songwriters Association,
9405 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.
9406 186 (2003) (No. 01-618), n.10, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #51</a>.
9407 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901882" href="#id2901882" class="para">188</a>] </sup>
9408
9409 The figure of 2 percent is an extrapolation from the study by the
9410 Congressional Research Service, in light of the estimated renewal
9411 ranges. See Brief of Petitioners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9412 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 7, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #52</a>.
9413 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2902071" href="#id2902071" class="para">189</a>] </sup>
9414
9415
9416 See David G. Savage, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">High Court Scene of Showdown on Copyright
9417 Law,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Los Angeles Times</em>, 6 October 2002; David
9418 Streitfeld, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Classic Movies, Songs, Books at Stake; Supreme Court
9419 Hears Arguments Today on Striking Down Copyright Extension,</span>»</span>
9420 <em class="citetitle">Orlando Sentinel Tribune</em>, 9 October 2002.
9421 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2902131" href="#id2902131" class="para">190</a>] </sup>
9422
9423
9424 Brief of Hal Roach Studios and Michael Agee as Amicus Curiae Supporting the
9425 Petitoners, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9426 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (No. 01- 618),
9427 12. See also Brief of Amicus Curiae filed on behalf of Petitioners by the
9428 Internet Archive, <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9429 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #53</a>.
9430 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2902422" href="#id2902422" class="para">191</a>] </sup>
9431
9432
9433 Jason Schultz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Myth of the 1976 Copyright `Chaos' Theory</span>»</span>,
9434 20 December 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #54</a>.
9435 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2902962" href="#id2902962" class="para">192</a>] </sup>
9436
9437
9438 Brief of Amici Dr. Seuss Enterprise et al., <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
9439 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, 537 U.S.  (2003) (No. 01-618), 19.
9440 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2902987" href="#id2902987" class="para">193</a>] </sup>
9441
9442
9443 Dinitia Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Immortal Words, Immortal Royalties? Even Mickey Mouse
9444 Joins the Fray,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">New York Times</em>, 28 March
9445 1998, B7.
9446 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="eldred-ii"></a>Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</h2></div></div></div><p>
9447 The day <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was decided, fate would have it that I
9448 was to travel to Washington, D.C. (The day the rehearing petition in
9449 <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em> was denied&#8212;meaning the case was really
9450 finally over&#8212;fate would have it that I was giving a speech to
9451 technologists at Disney World.)  This was a particularly long flight to my
9452 least favorite city. The drive into the city from Dulles was delayed because
9453 of traffic, so I opened up my computer and wrote an op-ed piece.
9454 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2903965"></a><p>
9455 It was an act of contrition. During the whole of the flight from San
9456 Francisco to Washington, I had heard over and over again in my head the same
9457 advice from Don Ayer: You need to make them see why it is important. And
9458 alternating with that command was the question of Justice Kennedy:
9459 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">For all these years the act has impeded progress in science and the
9460 useful arts. I just don't see any empirical evidence for that.</span>»</span> And
9461 so, having failed in the argument of constitutional principle, finally, I
9462 turned to an argument of politics.
9463 </p><p>
9464
9465 <em class="citetitle">The New York Times</em> published the piece. In it, I
9466 proposed a simple fix: Fifty years after a work has been published, the
9467 copyright owner would be required to register the work and pay a small
9468 fee. If he paid the fee, he got the benefit of the full term of
9469 copyright. If he did not, the work passed into the public domain.
9470 </p><p>
9471 We called this the Eldred Act, but that was just to give it a name.  Eric
9472 Eldred was kind enough to let his name be used once again, but as he said
9473 early on, it won't get passed unless it has another name.
9474 </p><p>
9475 Or another two names. For depending upon your perspective, this is either
9476 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Public Domain Enhancement Act</span>»</span> or the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright
9477 Term Deregulation Act.</span>»</span> Either way, the essence of the idea is clear
9478 and obvious: Remove copyright where it is doing nothing except blocking
9479 access and the spread of knowledge. Leave it for as long as Congress allows
9480 for those works where its worth is at least $1. But for everything else, let
9481 the content go.
9482 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2904031"></a><p>
9483 The reaction to this idea was amazingly strong. Steve Forbes endorsed it in
9484 an editorial. I received an avalanche of e-mail and letters expressing
9485 support. When you focus the issue on lost creativity, people can see the
9486 copyright system makes no sense. As a good Republican might say, here
9487 government regulation is simply getting in the way of innovation and
9488 creativity. And as a good Democrat might say, here the government is
9489 blocking access and the spread of knowledge for no good reason. Indeed,
9490 there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans on this
9491 issue. Anyone can recognize the stupid harm of the present system.
9492 </p><p>
9493 Indeed, many recognized the obvious benefit of the registration
9494 requirement.  For one of the hardest things about the current system for
9495 people who want to license content is that there is no obvious place to look
9496 for the current copyright owners. Since registration is not required, since
9497 marking content is not required, since no formality at all is required, it
9498 is often impossibly hard to locate copyright owners to ask permission to use
9499 or license their work. This system would lower these costs, by establishing
9500 at least one registry where copyright owners could be identified.
9501 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2904064"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2904071"></a><p>
9502
9503 As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, formalities in copyright law were removed in 1976,
9504 when Congress followed the Europeans by abandoning any formal requirement
9505 before a copyright is granted.<sup>[<a name="id2904089" href="#ftn.id2904089" class="footnote">194</a>]</sup> The
9506 Europeans are said to view copyright as a <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">natural right.</span>»</span>
9507 Natural rights don't need forms to exist. Traditions, like the
9508 Anglo-American tradition that required copyright owners to follow form if
9509 their rights were to be protected, did not, the Europeans thought, properly
9510 respect the dignity of the author. My right as a creator turns on my
9511 creativity, not upon the special favor of the government.
9512 </p><p>
9513 That's great rhetoric. It sounds wonderfully romantic. But it is absurd
9514 copyright policy. It is absurd especially for authors, because a world
9515 without formalities harms the creator. The ability to spread <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Walt
9516 Disney creativity</span>»</span> is destroyed when there is no simple way to know
9517 what's protected and what's not.
9518 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2904156"></a><p>
9519 The fight against formalities achieved its first real victory in Berlin in
9520 1908. International copyright lawyers amended the Berne Convention in 1908,
9521 to require copyright terms of life plus fifty years, as well as the
9522 abolition of copyright formalities. The formalities were hated because the
9523 stories of inadvertent loss were increasingly common. It was as if a Charles
9524 Dickens character ran all copyright offices, and the failure to dot an
9525 <em class="citetitle">i</em> or cross a <em class="citetitle">t</em> resulted in the
9526 loss of widows' only income.
9527 </p><p>
9528 These complaints were real and sensible. And the strictness of the
9529 formalities, especially in the United States, was absurd. The law should
9530 always have ways of forgiving innocent mistakes. There is no reason
9531 copyright law couldn't, as well. Rather than abandoning formalities totally,
9532 the response in Berlin should have been to embrace a more equitable system
9533 of registration.
9534 </p><p>
9535 Even that would have been resisted, however, because registration in the
9536 nineteenth and twentieth centuries was still expensive. It was also a
9537 hassle. The abolishment of formalities promised not only to save the
9538 starving widows, but also to lighten an unnecessary regulatory burden
9539 imposed upon creators.
9540 </p><p>
9541
9542 In addition to the practical complaint of authors in 1908, there was a moral
9543 claim as well. There was no reason that creative property should be a
9544 second-class form of property. If a carpenter builds a table, his rights
9545 over the table don't depend upon filing a form with the government.  He has
9546 a property right over the table <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">naturally,</span>»</span> and he can assert
9547 that right against anyone who would steal the table, whether or not he has
9548 informed the government of his ownership of the table.
9549 </p><p>
9550 This argument is correct, but its implications are misleading. For the
9551 argument in favor of formalities does not depend upon creative property
9552 being second-class property. The argument in favor of formalities turns upon
9553 the special problems that creative property presents.  The law of
9554 formalities responds to the special physics of creative property, to assure
9555 that it can be efficiently and fairly spread.
9556 </p><p>
9557 No one thinks, for example, that land is second-class property just because
9558 you have to register a deed with a court if your sale of land is to be
9559 effective. And few would think a car is second-class property just because
9560 you must register the car with the state and tag it with a license.  In both
9561 of those cases, everyone sees that there is an important reason to secure
9562 registration&#8212;both because it makes the markets more efficient and
9563 because it better secures the rights of the owner. Without a registration
9564 system for land, landowners would perpetually have to guard their
9565 property. With registration, they can simply point the police to a
9566 deed. Without a registration system for cars, auto theft would be much
9567 easier. With a registration system, the thief has a high burden to sell a
9568 stolen car. A slight burden is placed on the property owner, but those
9569 burdens produce a much better system of protection for property generally.
9570 </p><p>
9571 It is similarly special physics that makes formalities important in
9572 copyright law. Unlike a carpenter's table, there's nothing in nature that
9573 makes it relatively obvious who might own a particular bit of creative
9574 property. A recording of Lyle Lovett's latest album can exist in a billion
9575 places without anything necessarily linking it back to a particular
9576 owner. And like a car, there's no way to buy and sell creative property with
9577 confidence unless there is some simple way to authenticate who is the author
9578 and what rights he has. Simple transactions are destroyed in a world without
9579 formalities. Complex, expensive, <span class="emphasis"><em>lawyer</em></span> transactions
9580 take their place.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2904268"></a>
9581 </p><p>
9582 This was the understanding of the problem with the Sonny Bono Act that we
9583 tried to demonstrate to the Court. This was the part it didn't
9584 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">get.</span>»</span> Because we live in a system without formalities, there
9585 is no way easily to build upon or use culture from our past. If copyright
9586 terms were, as Justice Story said they would be, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">short,</span>»</span> then
9587 this wouldn't matter much. For fourteen years, under the framers' system, a
9588 work would be presumptively controlled. After fourteen years, it would be
9589 presumptively uncontrolled.
9590 </p><p>
9591 But now that copyrights can be just about a century long, the inability to
9592 know what is protected and what is not protected becomes a huge and obvious
9593 burden on the creative process. If the only way a library can offer an
9594 Internet exhibit about the New Deal is to hire a lawyer to clear the rights
9595 to every image and sound, then the copyright system is burdening creativity
9596 in a way that has never been seen before <span class="emphasis"><em>because there are no
9597 formalities</em></span>.
9598 </p><p>
9599 The Eldred Act was designed to respond to exactly this problem. If it is
9600 worth $1 to you, then register your work and you can get the longer
9601 term. Others will know how to contact you and, therefore, how to get your
9602 permission if they want to use your work. And you will get the benefit of an
9603 extended copyright term.
9604 </p><p>
9605 If it isn't worth it to you to register to get the benefit of an extended
9606 term, then it shouldn't be worth it for the government to defend your
9607 monopoly over that work either. The work should pass into the public domain
9608 where anyone can copy it, or build archives with it, or create a movie based
9609 on it. It should become free if it is not worth $1 to you.
9610 </p><p>
9611 Noen bekymrer seg over byrden på forfattere. Gjør ikke byrden med å
9612 registrere verket at beløpet $1 egentlig er misvisende?  Er ikke
9613 ekstraarbeidet verdt mer enn $1? Er ikke dette det virkelige problemet med
9614 registrering?
9615 </p><p>
9616
9617 It is. The hassle is terrible. The system that exists now is awful. I
9618 completely agree that the Copyright Office has done a terrible job (no doubt
9619 because they are terribly funded) in enabling simple and cheap
9620 registrations. Any real solution to the problem of formalities must address
9621 the real problem of <span class="emphasis"><em>governments</em></span> standing at the core of
9622 any system of formalities. In this book, I offer such a solution. That
9623 solution essentially remakes the Copyright Office. For now, assume it was
9624 Amazon that ran the registration system. Assume it was one-click
9625 registration.  The Eldred Act would propose a simple, one-click registration
9626 fifty years after a work was published. Based upon historical data, that
9627 system would move up to 98 percent of commercial work, commercial work that
9628 no longer had a commercial life, into the public domain within fifty
9629 years. What do you think?
9630 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2904361"></a><p>
9631 Da Steve Forbes støttet idéen, begynte enkelte i Washington å følge
9632 med. Mange kontaktet meg med tips til representanter som kan være villig til
9633 å introdusere en Eldred-lov. og jeg hadde noen få som foreslo direkte at de
9634 kan være villige til å ta det første skrittet.
9635 </p><p>
9636 En representant, Zoe Lofgren fra California, gikk så langt som å få
9637 lovforslaget utarbeidet. Utkastet løste noen problemer med internasjonal
9638 lov. Det påla de enklest mulige forutsetninger på innehaverne av
9639 opphavsretter. I mai 2003 så det ut som om loven skulle være introdusert.
9640 16. mai, postet jeg på Eldred Act-bloggen, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vi er nære</span>»</span>.  Det
9641 oppstod en generell reaksjon i blogg-samfunnet om at noe godt kunne skje
9642 her.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2904398"></a>
9643 </p><p>
9644 But at this stage, the lobbyists began to intervene. Jack Valenti and the
9645 MPAA general counsel came to the congresswoman's office to give the view of
9646 the MPAA. Aided by his lawyer, as Valenti told me, Valenti informed the
9647 congresswoman that the MPAA would oppose the Eldred Act. The reasons are
9648 embarrassingly thin. More importantly, their thinness shows something clear
9649 about what this debate is really about.
9650 </p><p>
9651
9652 The MPAA argued first that Congress had <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">firmly rejected the central
9653 concept in the proposed bill</span>»</span>&#8212;that copyrights be renewed. That
9654 was true, but irrelevant, as Congress's <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">firm rejection</span>»</span> had
9655 occurred long before the Internet made subsequent uses much more likely.
9656 Second, they argued that the proposal would harm poor copyright
9657 owners&#8212;apparently those who could not afford the $1 fee. Third, they
9658 argued that Congress had determined that extending a copyright term would
9659 encourage restoration work. Maybe in the case of the small percentage of
9660 work covered by copyright law that is still commercially valuable, but again
9661 this was irrelevant, as the proposal would not cut off the extended term
9662 unless the $1 fee was not paid. Fourth, the MPAA argued that the bill would
9663 impose <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">enormous</span>»</span> costs, since a registration system is not
9664 free. True enough, but those costs are certainly less than the costs of
9665 clearing the rights for a copyright whose owner is not known. Fifth, they
9666 worried about the risks if the copyright to a story underlying a film were
9667 to pass into the public domain. But what risk is that? If it is in the
9668 public domain, then the film is a valid derivative use.
9669 </p><p>
9670 Finally, the MPAA argued that existing law enabled copyright owners to do
9671 this if they wanted. But the whole point is that there are thousands of
9672 copyright owners who don't even know they have a copyright to give. Whether
9673 they are free to give away their copyright or not&#8212;a controversial
9674 claim in any case&#8212;unless they know about a copyright, they're not
9675 likely to.
9676 </p><p>
9677 At the beginning of this book, I told two stories about the law reacting to
9678 changes in technology. In the one, common sense prevailed.  In the other,
9679 common sense was delayed. The difference between the two stories was the
9680 power of the opposition&#8212;the power of the side that fought to defend
9681 the status quo. In both cases, a new technology threatened old
9682 interests. But in only one case did those interest's have the power to
9683 protect themselves against this new competitive threat.
9684 </p><p>
9685 Jeg brukte disse to tilfellene som en måte å ramme inn krigen som denne
9686 boken har handlet om.  For her er det også en ny teknologi som tvinger loven
9687 til å reagere.  Og her bør vi også spørre, er loven i tråd med eller i strid
9688 med sunn fornuft.  Hvis sunn fornuft støtter loven, hva forklarer denne
9689 sunne fornuften?
9690 </p><p>
9691
9692
9693
9694 When the issue is piracy, it is right for the law to back the copyright
9695 owners. The commercial piracy that I described is wrong and harmful, and the
9696 law should work to eliminate it. When the issue is p2p sharing, it is easy
9697 to understand why the law backs the owners still: Much of this sharing is
9698 wrong, even if much is harmless. When the issue is copyright terms for the
9699 Mickey Mouses of the world, it is possible still to understand why the law
9700 favors Hollywood: Most people don't recognize the reasons for limiting
9701 copyright terms; it is thus still possible to see good faith within the
9702 resistance.
9703 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2904503"></a><p>
9704 But when the copyright owners oppose a proposal such as the Eldred Act,
9705 then, finally, there is an example that lays bare the naked selfinterest
9706 driving this war. This act would free an extraordinary range of content that
9707 is otherwise unused. It wouldn't interfere with any copyright owner's desire
9708 to exercise continued control over his content. It would simply liberate
9709 what Kevin Kelly calls the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Dark Content</span>»</span> that fills archives
9710 around the world. So when the warriors oppose a change like this, we should
9711 ask one simple question:
9712 </p><p>
9713 Hva ønsker denne industrien egentlig?
9714 </p><p>
9715 With very little effort, the warriors could protect their content. So the
9716 effort to block something like the Eldred Act is not really about protecting
9717 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> content. The effort to block the Eldred Act is an
9718 effort to assure that nothing more passes into the public domain. It is
9719 another step to assure that the public domain will never compete, that there
9720 will be no use of content that is not commercially controlled, and that
9721 there will be no commercial use of content that doesn't require
9722 <span class="emphasis"><em>their</em></span> permission first.
9723 </p><p>
9724 The opposition to the Eldred Act reveals how extreme the other side is. The
9725 most powerful and sexy and well loved of lobbies really has as its aim not
9726 the protection of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> but the rejection of a tradition.
9727 Their aim is not simply to protect what is theirs. <span class="emphasis"><em>Their aim is to
9728 assure that all there is is what is theirs</em></span>.
9729 </p><p>
9730
9731 It is not hard to understand why the warriors take this view. It is not hard
9732 to see why it would benefit them if the competition of the public domain
9733 tied to the Internet could somehow be quashed. Just as RCA feared the
9734 competition of FM, they fear the competition of a public domain connected to
9735 a public that now has the means to create with it and to share its own
9736 creation.
9737 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2904574"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2904580"></a><p>
9738 Det som er vanskelig å forstå er hvorfor folket innehar dette synet. Det er
9739 som om loven gjorde at flymaskiner tok seg inn på annen manns eiendom.  MPAA
9740 står side om side med Causbyene og krever at deres fjerne og ubrukelige
9741 eierrettigheter blir respektert, slik at disse fjerne og glemte
9742 opphavsrettsinnehaverne kan blokkere fremgangen til andre.
9743 </p><p>
9744 All this seems to follow easily from this untroubled acceptance of the
9745 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">property</span>»</span> in intellectual property. Common sense supports it,
9746 and so long as it does, the assaults will rain down upon the technologies of
9747 the Internet. The consequence will be an increasing <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">permission
9748 society.</span>»</span> The past can be cultivated only if you can identify the
9749 owner and gain permission to build upon his work. The future will be
9750 controlled by this dead (and often unfindable) hand of the past.
9751 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2904089" href="#id2904089" class="para">194</a>] </sup>
9752
9753
9754 Until the 1908 Berlin Act of the Berne Convention, national copyright
9755 legislation sometimes made protection depend upon compliance with
9756 formalities such as registration, deposit, and affixation of notice of the
9757 author's claim of copyright. However, starting with the 1908 act, every text
9758 of the Convention has provided that <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">the enjoyment and the
9759 exercise</span>»</span> of rights guaranteed by the Convention <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">shall not be
9760 subject to any formality.</span>»</span> The prohibition against formalities is
9761 presently embodied in Article 5(2) of the Paris Text of the Berne
9762 Convention. Many countries continue to impose some form of deposit or
9763 registration requirement, albeit not as a condition of copyright. French
9764 law, for example, requires the deposit of copies of works in national
9765 repositories, principally the National Museum.  Copies of books published in
9766 the United Kingdom must be deposited in the British Library. The German
9767 Copyright Act provides for a Registrar of Authors where the author's true
9768 name can be filed in the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works. Paul
9769 Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">International Intellectual Property Law, Cases and
9770 Materials</em> (New York: Foundation Press, 2001), 153&#8211;54.  </p></div></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Konklusjon"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-conclusion"></a>Konklusjon</h2></div></div></div><a class="indexterm" name="idxantiretroviraldrugs"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxhivaidstherapies"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxafricahivmed"></a><p>
9771 Det er mer enn trettifem millioner mennesker over hele verden med
9772 AIDS-viruset. Tjuefem millioner av dem bor i Afrika sør for Sahara.  Sytten
9773 millioner har allerede dødd.  Sytten millioner afrikanere er prosentvis
9774 proporsjonalt med syv millioner amerikanere.  Viktigere er det at dette er
9775 17 millioner afrikanere.
9776 </p><p>
9777 Det finnes ingen kur for AIDS, men det finnes medisiner som kan hemme
9778 sykdommens utvikling.  Disse antiretrovirale terapiene er fortsatt
9779 eksperimentelle, men de har hatt en dramatisk effekt allerede.  I USA øker
9780 AIDS-pasienter som regelmessig tar en cocktail av disse medisinene sin
9781 levealder med ti til tjue år. For noen gjøre medisinene sykdommen nesten
9782 usynlig.
9783 </p><p>
9784 Disse medisinene er dyre.  Da de ble først introdusert i USA, kostet de
9785 mellom $10 000 og $15 000 pr. person hvert år.  I dag koster noen
9786 av dem $25 000 pr. år.  Med disse prisene har, selvfølgelig, ingen
9787 afrikansk stat  råd til medisinen for det store flertall av sine innbyggere:
9788 $15 000 er tredve ganger brutto nasjonalprodukt pr. innbygger i
9789 Zimbabwe.  Med slike priser er disse medisinene fullstendig
9790 utilgjengelig.<sup>[<a name="id2904704" href="#ftn.id2904704" class="footnote">195</a>]</sup>
9791 </p><p>
9792
9793
9794 Disse prisene er ikke høye fordi ingrediensene til medisinene er dyre.
9795 Disse prisene er høye fordi medisinene er beskyttet av patenter.
9796 Farmasiselskapene som produserer disse livreddende blandingene nyter minst
9797 tjue års monopol på sine oppfinnelser.  De bruker denne monopolmakten til å
9798 hente ut så mye de kan fra markedet.  Ved hjelp av denne makten holder de
9799 prisene høye.
9800 </p><p>
9801 Det er mange som er skeptiske til patenter, spesielt patenter på
9802 medisiner. Det er ikke jeg. Faktisk av alle forskningsområder som kan være
9803 støttet av patenter, er forskning på medisiner, etter min mening, det
9804 klareste tilfelle der patenter er nødvendig. Patenter gir et farmasøytiske
9805 firma en viss forsikring om at hvis det lykkes i å finne opp et nytt
9806 medikament som kan behandle en sykdom, vil det kunne tjene tilbake
9807 investeringen og mer til. Dette ber sosialt et ekstremt verdifullt
9808 insentiv. Jeg er den siste personen som vil argumentere for at loven skal
9809 avskaffe dette, i det minste uten andre endringer.
9810 </p><p>
9811 Men det er én ting å støtte patenter, selv patenter på medisiner. Det er en
9812 annen ting å avgjøre hvordan en best skal håndtere en krise. Og i det
9813 afrikanske ledere begynte å erkjenne ødeleggelsen AIDS brakte, begynte de å
9814 se etter måter å importere HIV-medisiner til kostnader betydelig under
9815 markedspris.
9816 </p><p>
9817 I 1997 forsøkte Sør-Afrika seg på en tilnærming.  Landet vedtok en lov som
9818 tillot import av patenterte medisiner som hadde blitt produsert og solgt i
9819 en annen nasjons marked med godkjenning fra patenteieren.  For eksempel,
9820 hvis medisinen var solgt i India, så kunne den bli importert inn til Afrika
9821 fra India.  Dette kalles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">parallellimport</span>»</span> og er generelt
9822 tillatt i internasjonal handelslovgivning, og spesifikt tillatt i den
9823 europeiske union.<sup>[<a name="id2904795" href="#ftn.id2904795" class="footnote">196</a>]</sup>
9824 </p><p>
9825 Men USA var imot lovendringen.  Og de nøyde seg ikke med å være imot. Som
9826 International Intellectual Property Association karakteriserte det,
9827 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Myndighetene i USA presset Sør-Afrika &#8230; til å ikke tillate
9828 tvungen lisensiering eller parallellimport</span>»</span><sup>[<a name="id2901302" href="#ftn.id2901302" class="footnote">197</a>]</sup> Gjennom kontoret til USAs handelsrepresentant
9829 (USTR), ba myndighetene Sør-Afrika om å endre loven&#8212;og for å legge
9830 press bak den forespørselen, listet USTR i 1998 opp Sør-Afrika som et land
9831 som burde vurderes for handelsrestriksjoner.  Samme år gikk mer enn førti
9832 farmasiselskaper til retten for å utfordre myndighetenes handlinger. USA
9833 fikk selskap av andre myndigheter fra EU.  Deres påstand, og påstanden til
9834 farmasiselskapene, var at Sør-Afrika brøt sine internasjonale forpliktelser
9835 ved å diskriminere mot en bestemt type patenter&#8212;farmasøytiske
9836 patenter.  Kravet fra disse myndighetene, med USA i spissen, var at
9837 Sør-Afrika skulle respektere disse patentene på samme måte som alle andre
9838 patenter, uavhengig av eventuell effekt på behandlingen av AIDS i
9839 Sør-Afrika.<sup>[<a name="id2904865" href="#ftn.id2904865" class="footnote">198</a>]</sup>
9840 </p><p>
9841 Vi bør sette intervensjonen til USA i sammenheng.  Det er ingen tvil om at
9842 patenter ikke er den viktigste årsaken til at Afrikanere ikke har tilgang
9843 til medisiner.  Fattigdom og den totale mangel på effektivt helsevesen betyr
9844 mer. Men uansett om patenter er en viktigste grunnen eller ikke, så har
9845 prisen på medisiner en effekt på etterspørselen, og patenter påvirker
9846 prisen. Så uansett, massiv eller marginal, så var det en effekt av våre
9847 myndigheters intervensjon for å stoppe flyten av medisiner inn til Afrika.
9848 </p><p>
9849 Ved å stoppe flyten av HIV-behandling til Afrika, sikret ikke myndighetene i
9850 USA medisiner til USA borgere. Dette er ikke som hvete (hvis de spise det så
9851 kan ikke vi spise det). Det som USA i effekt intervenerte for å stoppe, var
9852 flyten av kunnskap: Informasjon om hvordan en kan ta kjemikalier som finnes
9853 i Afrika og gjøre disse kjemikaliene om til medisiner som kan redde 15 til
9854 30 millioner liv.
9855 </p><p>
9856 Intervensjonen fra USA ville heller ikke beskytte fortjenesten til
9857 medisinselskapene i USA&#8212; i hvert fall ikke betydelig.  Det var jo ikke
9858 slik at disse landene hadde mulighet til å kjøpe medisinene til de prisene
9859 som medisinselskapene forlangte.  Igjen var afrikanerne for fattige til å ha
9860 råd til disse medisinene til de tilbudte prisene.  Å blokkere for
9861 parallellimport av disse medisinene ville ikke øke salget til de amerikanske
9862 selskapene betydelig.
9863 </p><p>
9864 I stedet var argumentet til fordel for restriksjoner på denne flyten av
9865 informasjon, som var nødvendig for å redde millioner av liv, et argument om
9866 eiendoms ukrenkelighet.<sup>[<a name="id2904959" href="#ftn.id2904959" class="footnote">199</a>]</sup>  Det var på
9867 grunn av at <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span> ville bli krenket at disse
9868 medisinene ikke skulle flomme inn til Afrika.  Det var prinsippet om
9869 viktigheten av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span> som fikk disse
9870 myndighetsaktørene til å intervenere mot Sør-Afrikas mottiltak mot AIDS.
9871 </p><p>
9872 La oss ta et skritt tilbake for et øyeblikk.  En gang om tredve år vil våre
9873 barn se tilbake på oss og spørre, hvordan kunne vi la dette skje?  Hvordan
9874 kunne vi tillate å gjennomføre en politikk hvis direkte kostnad var få 15
9875 til 30 millioner afrikanere til å dø raskere, og hvis eneste virkelige
9876 fordel var å opprettholde <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ukrenkeligheten</span>»</span> til en idé?  Hva
9877 slags berettigelse kan noen sinne eksistere for en politikk som resulterer i
9878 så mange døde?  Hva slags galskap er det egentlig som tillater at så mange
9879 dør for slik en abstraksjon?
9880 </p><p>
9881 Noen skylder på farmasiselskapene.  Det gjør ikke jeg.  De er selskaper, og
9882 deres ledere er lovpålagt å tjene penger for selskapene.  De presser på for
9883 en bestemt patentpolitikk, ikke på grunn av idealer, men fordi det er dette
9884 som gjør at de tjener mest penger.  Og dette gjør kun at de tjener mest
9885 penger på grunn av en slags korrupsjon i vårt politiske system&#8212; en
9886 korrupsjon som farmasiselskapene helt klart ikke er ansvarlige for.
9887 </p><p>
9888 Denne korrupsjonen er våre egne politikeres manglende integritet.  For
9889 medisinprodusentene ville elske&#8212;sier de selv, og jeg tror dem &#8212;
9890 å selge sine medisiner så billig som de kan til land i Afrika og andre
9891 steder. Det er utfordringer de må løse å sikre at medisinene ikke kommer
9892 tilbake til USA, men dette er bare teknologiske utfordring. De kan bli
9893 overvunnet.
9894 </p><p>
9895
9896 Et annet problem kan derimot ikke løses. Det er frykten for at en politiker
9897 som skal vise seg og kaller inn lederne hos medisinprodusentene til høring i
9898 senatet eller representantenes hus og spør, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">hvordan har det seg at du
9899 kan selge HIV-medisinen i Afrika for bare $1 pr. pille, mens samme pille
9900 koster en amerikansker $1 500?</span>»</span> Da det ikke finnes et
9901 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kjapt svar</span>»</span> på det spørsmålet, ville effekten bli regulering
9902 av priser i Amerika.  Medisinprodusentene unngår dermed denne spiralen ved å
9903 sikre at det første steget ikke tas.  De forsterker idéen om at
9904 eierrettigheter skal være ukrenkelige.  De legger seg på en rasjonell
9905 strategi i en irrasjonell omgivelse, med den utilsiktede konsekvens at
9906 kanskje millioner dør.  Og den rasjonelle strategien rammes dermed inn ved
9907 hjel av dette ideal&#8212;helligheten til en idé som kalles
9908 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">immaterielle rettigheter</span>»</span>.
9909 </p><p>
9910 Så når du konfronteres av ditt barns sunne fornuft, hva vil du si?  Når den
9911 sunne fornuften hos en generasjon endelig gjør opprør mot hva vi har gjort,
9912 hvordan vil vi rettferdiggjøre det?  Hva er argumentet?
9913 </p><p>
9914 En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk støtte til
9915 patentsystemet uten å måtte nå alle overalt på nøyaktig samme måte. På samme
9916 måte som en fornuftig opphavsrettspolitikk kunne gå god for og gi sterk
9917 støtte til et opphavsretts-system uten å måtte regulere spredningen av
9918 kultur perfekt og for alltid.  En fornuftig patentpolitikk kunne gå god for
9919 og gi sterk støtte til et patentsystem uten å måtte blokkere spredning av
9920 medisiner til et land som uansett ikke er rikt nok til å ha råd til
9921 markedsprisen.  En fornuftig politikk kan en dermed si kunne være en
9922 balansert politikk.  For det meste av vår historie har både opphavsrett- og
9923 patentpolitikken i denne forstand vært balansert.
9924 </p><p>
9925 Men vi som kultur har mistet denne følelsen for balanse.  Vi har mistet det
9926 kritiske blikket som hjelper oss til å se forskjellen mellom sannhet og
9927 ekstremisme.  En slags eiendomsfundamentalisme, uten grunnlag i vår
9928 tradisjon, hersker nå i vår kultur&#8212;sært, og med konsekvenser mer
9929 alvorlig for spredningen av idéer og kultur enn nesten enhver annen politisk
9930 enkeltavgjørelse vi som demokrati kan fatte.
9931 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2905109"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2905187"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2905195"></a><p>
9932
9933 En enkel idé blender oss, og under dekke av mørket skjer mye som de fleste
9934 av oss ville avvist hvis vi hadde fulgt med.  Så ukritisk aksepterer vi
9935 idéen om eierskap til idéer at vi ikke engang legger merke til hvor uhyrlig
9936 det er å nekte tilgang til idéer for et folk som dør uten dem.  Så ukritisk
9937 aksepterer vi idéen om eiendom til kulturen at vi ikke engang stiller
9938 spørsmål ved når kontrollen over denne eiendommen fjerner vår evne, som
9939 folk, til å utvikle vår kultur demokratisk.  Blindhet blir vår sunne
9940 fornuft, og utfordringen for enhver som vil gjenvinne retten til å dyrke vår
9941 kultur er å finne en måte å få denne sunne fornuften til å åpne sine øyne.
9942 </p><p>
9943 Så langt sover sunn fornuft.  Det er intet opprør.  Sunn fornuft ser ennå
9944 ikke hva det er å gjøre opprør mot.  Ekstremismen som nå dominerer denne
9945 debatten resonerer med idéer som virker naturlige, og resonansen er
9946 forsterket av våre moderne RCA-ene.  De fører en frenetisk krig for å
9947 bekjempe <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomhet</span>»</span> og knuser kreativitetskultur.  De
9948 forsvarer idéen om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativt eierskap</span>»</span>, mens de endrer ekte
9949 skapere til moderne leilendinger.  De blir fornærmet av idéen om at
9950 rettigheter skulle være balanserte, selv om hver av hovedaktørene i denne
9951 innholdskrigen selv hadde fordeler av et mer balansert ideal.  Hykleriet
9952 rår.  Men i en by som Washington blir ikke hykleriet en gang lagt merke
9953 til.  Mektige lobbyister, kompliserte problemer og MTV-oppmerksomhetsspenn
9954 gir en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">perfekt storm</span>»</span> for fri kultur.
9955 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2905269"></a><a class="indexterm" name="idxbiomedicalresearch"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2905288"></a><p>
9956 I august 2003 brøt en kamp ut i USA om en avgjørelse fra World Intellectual
9957 Property Organiation om å avlyse et møte.<sup>[<a name="id2905300" href="#ftn.id2905300" class="footnote">200</a>]</sup> På forespørsel fra en lang rekke med interressenter hadde WIPO
9958 bestemt å avholde et møte for å diskutere <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpne og samarbeidende
9959 prosjekter for å skape goder for felleskapet</span>»</span>.  Disse prosjektene som
9960 hadde lyktes i å produsere goder for fellesskapet uten å basere seg
9961 eksklusivt på bruken av proprietære immaterielle rettigheter.  Eksempler
9962 inkluderer internettet og verdensveven, begge som ble utviklet på grunnlag
9963 av protokoller i allemannseie.  Det hadde med en begynnende trend for å
9964 støtte åpne akademiske tidsskrifter, og inkluderte Public Library of
9965 Science-prosjektet som jeg beskriver i etterordet.  Det inkluderte et
9966 prosjekt for a utvikle enkeltnukleotidforskjeller (SNPs), som er antatt å få
9967 stor betydning i biomedisinsk forskning.  (Dette ideelle prosjektet besto av
9968 et konsortium av Wellcome Trust og farmasøytiske og teknologiske selskaper,
9969 inkludert Amersham Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer, Bristol-Myers
9970 Squibb, Hoffmann-La Roche, Glaxo-SmithKline, IBM, Motorola, Novartis,
9971 Pfizer, og Searle.)  Det inkluderte Globalt posisjonssystem (GPS) som Ronald
9972 Reagen frigjorde tidlig på 1980-tallet.  Og det inkluderte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen
9973 kildekode og fri programvare</span>»</span>. <a class="indexterm" name="id2905394"></a>
9974 <a class="indexterm" name="id2905403"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2905409"></a>
9975 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2905417"></a><p>
9976 Formålet med møtet var å vurdere denne rekken av prosjekter fra et felles
9977 perspektiv: at ingen av disse prosjektene hadde som grunnlag immateriell
9978 ekstremisme. I stedet, hos alle disse, ble immaterielle rettigheter
9979 balansert med avtaler om å holde tilgang åpen, eller for å legge
9980 begrensninger på hvordan proprietære krav kan bli brukt.
9981 </p><p>
9982 Dermed var, fra perspektivet i denne boken, denne konferansen
9983 ideell.<sup>[<a name="id2905442" href="#ftn.id2905442" class="footnote">201</a>]</sup> Prosjektene innenfor temaet var
9984 både kommersielle og ikkekommersielle verker.  De involverte i hovedsak
9985 vitenskapen, men fra mange perspektiver.  Og WIPO var et ideelt sted for
9986 denne diskusjonen, siden WIPO var den fremstående internasjonale aktør som
9987 drev med immaterielle rettighetsspørsmål.
9988 </p><p>
9989
9990 Faktisk fikk jeg en gang offentlig kjeft for å ikke anerkjenne dette faktum
9991 om WIPO.  I februar 2003 leverte jeg et hovedinnlegg på en forberedende
9992 konferanse for World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).  På en
9993 pressekonferanse før innlegget, ble jeg spurt hva jeg skulle snakke om.  Jeg
9994 svarte at jeg skulle snakke litt om viktigheten av balanse rundt
9995 immaterielle verdier for utviklingen av informasjonssamfunnet.  Ordstyreren
9996 på arrangementet avbrøt meg da brått for å informere meg og journalistene
9997 tilstede at ingen spørsmål rundt immaterielle verdier ville bli diskutert av
9998 WSIS, da slike spørsmål kun skulle diskuteres i WIPO.  I innlegget jeg hadde
9999 forberedt var temaet om immaterielle verdier en forholdvis liten del av det
10000 hele.  Men etter denne forbløffende uttalelsen, gjorde jeg immaterielle
10001 verdier til hovedfokus for mitt innlegg.  Det var ikke mulig å snakke om et
10002 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">informasjonssamfunn</span>»</span> uten at en også snakket om andelen av
10003 informasjon og kultur som ikke er vernet av opphavsretten.  Mitt innlegg
10004 gjorde ikke min overivrige moderator veldig glad.  Og hun hadde uten tvil
10005 rett i at omfanget til vern av immaterielle rettigheter normalt hørte inn
10006 under WIPO.  Men etter mitt syn, kunne det ikke bli for mye diskusjon om
10007 hvor mye immaterielle rettigheter som trengs, siden etter mitt syn, hadde
10008 selve idéen om en balanse rundt immaterielle rettigheter hadde gått tapt.
10009 </p><p>
10010 Så uansett om WSIS kan diskutere balanse i intellektuell eiendom eller ikke,
10011 så hadde jeg trodd det var tatt for gitt at WIPO kunne og burde.  Og dermed
10012 møtet om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpne og samarbeidende prosjekter for å skape
10013 fellesgoder</span>»</span> virker å passe perfekt for WIPOs agenda.
10014 </p><p>
10015 Men det er ett prosjekt i listen som er svært kontroversielt, i hvert fall
10016 blant lobbyister. Dette prosjektet er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og fri
10017 programvare</span>»</span>. Microsoft spesielt er skeptisk til diskusjon om
10018 emnet. Fra deres perspektiv, ville en konferanse for å diskutere åpen
10019 kildekode og fri programvare være som en konferanse for å diskutere Apples
10020 operativsystem.  Både åpen kildekode og fri programvare konkurrerer med
10021 Microsofts programvare.  Og internasjonalt har mange myndigheter begynt å
10022 utforske krav om at de skal bruke åpen kildekode eller fri programvare, i
10023 stedet for <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">proprietær programvare</span>»</span>, til sine egne interne
10024 behov.
10025 </p><p>
10026 Jeg mener ikke å gå inn i den debatten her.  Det er viktig kun for å gjøre
10027 det klart at skillet ikke er mellom kommersiell og ikke-kommersiell
10028 programvare.  Det er mange viktige selskaper som er fundamentalt avhengig av
10029 fri programvare, der IBM er den mest fremtredende.  IBM har i stadig større
10030 grad skiftet sitt fokus til GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, det mest berømte
10031 biten av <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri programvare</span>»</span>&#8212;og IBM er helt klart en
10032 kommersiell aktør. Dermed er det å støtte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri programvare</span>»</span>
10033 ikke å motsette seg kommersielle aktører.  Det er i stedet å støtte en måte
10034 å drive programvareutvikling som er forskjellig fra Microsofts.<sup>[<a name="id2905584" href="#ftn.id2905584" class="footnote">202</a>]</sup> <a class="indexterm" name="id2905643"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2905649"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2905657"></a>
10035 <a class="indexterm" name="id2905664"></a>
10036 </p><p>
10037
10038 Mer viktig for våre formål, er at å støtte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode og fri
10039 programvare</span>»</span> ikke er å motsette seg opphavsrett. <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Åpen
10040 kildekode og fri programvare</span>»</span> er ikke programvare uten
10041 opphavsrettslig vern. Istedet, på samme måte som programvare fra Microsoft,
10042 insisterer opphavsrettsinnehaverne av fri programvare ganske sterkt at
10043 vilkårene i deres programvarelisens blir respektert av de som tar i bruk fri
10044 programvare.  Vilkårene i den lisensen er uten tvil forskjellig fra
10045 vilkårene i en proprietær programvarelisens.  For eksempel krever fri
10046 programvare lisensiert med den generelle offentlige lisensen (GPL), at
10047 kildekoden for programvare gjøres tilgjengelig for alle som endrer og
10048 videredistribuerer programvaren.  Men dette kravet er kun effektivt hvis
10049 opphavsrett råder over programvare.  Hvis opphavsretten ikke råder over
10050 programvare, så kunne ikke fri programvare pålegge slike krav på de som tar
10051 i bruk programvaren.  Den er dermed like avhengig av opphavsrettsloven som
10052 Microsoft.
10053 </p><p>
10054 Det er dermed forståelig at Microsoft, som utviklere av proprietær
10055 programvare, gikk imot et slikt WIPO-møte, og like fullt forståelig at de
10056 bruker sine lobbyister til å få USAs myndigheter til å gå imot møtet.  Og
10057 ganske riktig, det er akkurat dette som i følge rapporter hadde skjedd.  I
10058 følge Jonathan Krim i <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, lyktes
10059 Microsofts lobbyister i å få USAs myndigheter til å legge ned veto mot et
10060 slikt møte.<sup>[<a name="id2905737" href="#ftn.id2905737" class="footnote">203</a>]</sup> Og uten støtte fra USA ble
10061 møtet avlyst.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2905755"></a>
10062 </p><p>
10063 Jeg klandrer ikke Microsoft for å gjøre det de kan for å fremme sine egne
10064 interesser i samsvar med loven. Og lobbyvirksomhet mot myndighetene er
10065 åpenbart i samsvar med loven. Det er ikke noe overraskende her med deres
10066 lobbyvirksomhet, og ikke veldig overraskende at den mektigste
10067 programvareprodusenten i USA har lyktes med sin lobbyvirksomhet.
10068 </p><p>
10069 Det som var overraskende var USAs regjerings begrunnelse for å være imot
10070 møtet.  Igjen, sitert av Krim, forklarte Lois Boland, direktør for
10071 internasjonale forbindelser ved USAs patent og varemerkekontor, at
10072 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">programvare med åpen kildekode går imot til formålet til WIPO, som er
10073 å fremme immaterielle rettigheter.</span>»</span>.  Hun skal i følge sitatet ha
10074 sagt, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Å holde et møte som har som formål å fraskrive seg eller
10075 frafalle slike rettigheter synes for oss å være i strid med formålene til
10076 WIPO.</span>»</span>
10077 </p><p>
10078 Disse utsagnene er forbløffende på flere nivåer.
10079 </p><p>
10080 For det første er de ganske enkelt ikke riktige.  Som jeg beskrev, er det
10081 meste av åpen kildekode og fri programvare fundamentalt avhengig av den
10082 immaterielle retten kalt <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">opphavsrett</span>»</span>.  Uten den vil
10083 begrensningene definert av disse lisensene ikke fungere. Dermed er det å si
10084 at de <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">går imot</span>»</span> formålet om å fremme immaterielle rettigheter
10085 å avsløre en ekstraordinær mangel på forståelse&#8212;den type feil som er
10086 tilgivelig hos en førsteårs jusstudent, men pinlig fra en høyt plassert
10087 statstjenestemann som håndterer utfordringer rundt immaterielle rettigheter.
10088 </p><p>
10089 For det andre, hvem har noen gang hevdet at WIPOs eksklusive mål var å
10090 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fremme</span>»</span> immaterielle rettigheter maksimalt?  Som jeg fikk
10091 kjeft om på den forberedende konferansen til WSIS, skal WIPO vurdere ikke
10092 bare hvordan best beskytte immaterielle rettigheter, men også hva som er den
10093 beste balansen rundt immaterielle rettigheter.  Som enhver økonom og advokat
10094 vet, er det vanskelige spørsmålet i immaterielle rettighetsjuss å finne den
10095 balansen.  Men at det skulle være en grense, trodde jeg, var ubestridt.  Man
10096 ønsker å spørre Ms. Boland om generelle medisiner (medisiner basert på
10097 medisiner med patenter som er utløpt) i strid med WIPOs oppdrag?  Svekker
10098 allemannseie immaterielle rettigheter?  Ville det vært bedre om internettets
10099 protokoller hadde vært patentert?
10100 </p><p>
10101 For det tredje, selv om en tror at formålet med WIPO var å maksimere
10102 immaterielle rettigheter, så innehas immaterielle rettigheter, i vår
10103 tradisjon, av individer og selskaper.  De får bestemme hva som skal gjøres
10104 med disse rettighetene, igjen fordi det er <span class="emphasis"><em>de</em></span> som eier
10105 rettighetene. Hvis de ønsker å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frafalle</span>»</span> eller
10106 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frasi</span>»</span> seg sine rettigheter, så er det helt etter boka i vår
10107 tradisjon.  Når Bill Gates gir bort mer enn $20 milliarder til gode formål,
10108 så er ikke det uforenelig med målene til eiendomssystemet.  Det er heller
10109 tvert i mot, akkurat hva eiendomssysstemet er ment å oppnå, at individer har
10110 retten til å bestemme hva de vil gjøre med <span class="emphasis"><em>sin</em></span>
10111 eiendom.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2905895"></a>
10112 </p><p>
10113
10114 Når Ms. Boland sier at det er noe galt med et møte <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">som har som sitt
10115 formål å fraskrive eller frafalle slike rettigheter</span>»</span>, så sier hun at
10116 WIPO har en interesse i å påvirke valgene til enkeltpersoner som eier
10117 immaterielle rettigheter.  At på en eller annen WIPOs oppdrag bør være å
10118 stoppe individer fra å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fraskrive</span>»</span> eller
10119 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">frafalle</span>»</span> seg sine immaterielle rettigheter.  At interessen
10120 til WIPO ikke bare er  maksimale immaterielle rettigheter, men også at de
10121 skal utøves på den mest ekstreme og restriktive mulig måten.
10122 </p><p>
10123 Det er en historie om akkurat et slikt eierskapssystem som er velkjent i den
10124 anglo-amerikansk tradisjon.  Det kalles <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">føydalisme</span>»</span>. Under
10125 føydalismen var eiendommer ikke bare kontrollert av et relativt lite antall
10126 individer og aktører.  Men det føydale systemet hadde en sterk interesse i å
10127 sikre at landeier i systemet ikke svekke føydalismen ved å frigjøre folkene
10128 og eiendomene som de kontrollerte til det frie markedet.  Føydalismen var
10129 avhengig av maksimal kontroll og konsentrasjon.  Det sloss mot enhver frihet
10130 som kunne forstyrre denne kontrollen.
10131 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2905954"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2905960"></a><p>
10132 Som Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite beskriver, dette er nøyaktig det valget
10133 vi nå gjør om immaterielle rettigheter.<sup>[<a name="id2905972" href="#ftn.id2905972" class="footnote">204</a>]</sup>
10134 Vi kommer til å få et informasjonssamfunn.  Så mye er sikkert.  Vårt eneste
10135 valg nå er hvorvidt dette informasjonssamfunnet skal være
10136 <span class="emphasis"><em>fritt</em></span> eller <span class="emphasis"><em>føydalt</em></span>.  Trenden er
10137 mot det føydale.
10138 </p><p>
10139 Da denne bataljen brøt ut, blogget jeg om dette.  En heftig debatt brøt ut i
10140 kommentarfeltet.  Ms. Boland hadde en rekke støttespillere som forsøkte å
10141 vise hvorfor hennes kommentarer ga mening.  Men det var spesielt en
10142 kommentar som gjorde meg trist.  En anonym kommentator skrev,
10143 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
10144
10145 George, du misforstår Lessig: Han snakker bare om verden slik den burde være
10146 (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">målet til WIPO, og målet til enhver regjering, bør være å fremme den
10147 riktige balansen for immaterielle rettigheter, ikke bare å fremme
10148 immaterielle rettigheter</span>»</span>), ikke som den er.  Hvis vi snakket om
10149 verden slik den er, så har naturligvis Boland ikke sagt noe galt.  Men i
10150 verden slik Lessig vil at den skal være, er det åpenbart at hun har sagt noe
10151 galt.  En må alltid være oppmerksom på forskjellen mellom Lessigs og vår
10152 verden.
10153 </p></blockquote></div><p>
10154 Jeg gikk glipp av ironien først gangen jeg leste den. Jeg lese den raskt og
10155 trodde forfatteren støttet idéen om at det våre myndigheter burde gjøre var
10156 å søke balanse. (Min kritikk av Ms Boland, selvfølgelig, var ikke om
10157 hvorvidt hun søkte balanse eller ikke; min kritikk var at hennes kommentarer
10158 avslørte en feil kun en førsteårs jusstudent burde kunne gjøre. Jeg har noen
10159 illusjon om ekstremismen hos våre myndigheter, uansett om de er
10160 republikanere eller demokrater. Min eneste tilsynelatende illusjon er
10161 hvorvidt våre myndigheter bør snakke sant eller ikke.)
10162 </p><p>
10163 Det var derimot åpenbart at den som postet meldingen ikke støttet idéen.  I
10164 stedet latterliggjorde forfatteren selve idéen om at i den virkelig verden
10165 skulle <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">målet</span>»</span> til myndighetene være <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">å fremme den
10166 riktige balanse</span>»</span> for immaterielle rettigheter.  Det var åpenbart
10167 tåpelig for ham.  Og det avslørte åpenbart, trodde han, min egen tåpelige
10168 utopisme.  <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Typisk for en akademiker</span>»</span>, kunne forfatteren like
10169 gjerne ha fortsatt.
10170 </p><p>
10171 Jeg forstår kritikken av akademisk utopisme.  Jeg mener også at utopisme er
10172 tåpelig, og jeg vil være blant de første til å gjøre narr av de absurde
10173 urealistiske idealer til akademikere gjennom historien (og ikke bare i vårt
10174 eget lands historie).
10175 </p><p>
10176 Men når det har blitt dumt å anta at rollen til våre myndigheter bør være å
10177 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">oppnå balanse</span>»</span>, da kan du regne meg blant de dumme, for det
10178 betyr at dette faktisk har blitt ganske seriøst.  Hvis det bør være åpenbart
10179 for alle at myndighetene ikke søker å oppnå balanse, at myndighetene ganske
10180 enkelt et verktøy for de mektigste lobbyistene, at idéen om å forvente bedre
10181 av myndighetene er absurd, at idéen om å kreve at myndighetene snakker sant
10182 og ikke lyver bare er naiv, hva har da vi, det mektigste demokratiet i
10183 verden, blitt?
10184 </p><p>
10185
10186 Det kan være galskap å forvente at en mektig myndigshetsperson skal si
10187 sannheten. Det kan være galskap å tro at myndighetenes politikk skal gjøre
10188 mer enn å tjene de mektigste interesser. Det kan være galskap å argumentere
10189 for å bevare en tradisjon som har vært en del av vår tradisjon for
10190 mesteparten av vår historie&#8212;fri kultur.
10191 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2906130"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2906138"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2906144"></a><p>
10192 Hvis dette er galskap, så la det være mer gærninger.  Snart. Det finnes
10193 øyeblikk av håp i denne kampen. Og øyeblikk som overrasker. Da FCC vurderte
10194 mindre strenge eierskapsregler, som ville ytterligere konsentrere
10195 medieeierskap, dannet det seg en en ekstraordinær koalisjon på tvers av
10196 partiene for å bekjempe endringen. For kanskje første gang i historien
10197 organiserte interesser så forskjellige som NRA, ACLU, moveon.org, William
10198 Safire, Ted Turner og Codepink Women for Piece seg for å protestere på denne
10199 endringen i FCC-reglene.  Så mange som 700 000 brev ble sendt til FCC med
10200 krav om flere høringer og et annet resultat.
10201 </p><p>
10202 Disse protestene stoppet ikke FCC, men like etter stemte en bred koalisjon i
10203 senatet for å reversere avgjørelsen i FCC. De fiendtlige høringene som ledet
10204 til avstemmingen avslørte hvor mektig denne bevegelsen hadde blitt.  Det var
10205 ingen betydningsfull støtte for FCCs avgjørelse, mens det var bred og
10206 vedvarende støtte for å bekjempe ytterligere konsentrasjon i media.
10207 </p><p>
10208 Men selv denne bevegelsen går glipp av en viktig brikke i puslespillet.  Å
10209 være stor er ikke ille i seg selv. Frihet er ikke truet bare på grunn av at
10210 noen blir veldig rik, eller på grunn av at det bare er en håndfull store
10211 aktører.  Den dårlige kvaliteten til Big Macs eller Quartar Punders betyr
10212 ikke at du ikke kan få en god hamburger andre steder.
10213 </p><p>
10214 Faren med mediekonsentrasjon kommer ikke fra selve konsentrasjonen, men
10215 kommer fra føydalismen som denne konsentrasjonen fører til når den kobles
10216 til endringer i opphavsretten. Det er ikke kun at det er noen mektige
10217 selskaper som styrer en stadig voksende andel av mediene. Det er at denne
10218 konsentrasjonen kan påkalle en like oppsvulmet rekke
10219 rettigheter&#8212;eiendomsrettigheter i en historisk ekstrem form&#8212;som
10220 gjør størrelsen ille.
10221 </p><p>
10222 Det er derfor betydningsfullt at så mange vil kjempe for å kreve konkurranse
10223 og økt mangfold. Likevel, hvis kampanjen blir forstått til å kun gjelde
10224 størrelse, så er ikke det veldig overraskende. Vi amerikanere har en lang
10225 historie med å slåss mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stort</span>»</span>, klokt eller ikke. At vi kan
10226 være motivert til å slåss mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">store</span>»</span> igjen ikke noe nytt.
10227 </p><p>
10228 Det ville vært noe nytt, og noe veldig viktig, hvis like mange kan være med
10229 på en kampanje for å bekjempe økende ekstremisme bygget inn i idéen om
10230 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">intellektuell eiendom</span>»</span>.  Ikke fordi balanse er fremmed for vår
10231 tradisjon. Jeg argumenterer for at balanse er vår tradisjon.  Men fordi
10232 evnen til å tenke kritisk på omfanget av alt som kalles
10233 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">eiendom</span>»</span> ikke er lenger er godt trent i denne tradisjonen.
10234 </p><p>
10235 Hvis vi var Akilles, så ville dette være vår hæl. Dette ville være stedet
10236 for våre tragedie.
10237 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2906264"></a><p>
10238 Mens jeg skriver disse avsluttende ordene, er nyhetene fylt med historier om
10239 at RIAA saksøker nesten tre hundre individer.<sup>[<a name="id2906277" href="#ftn.id2906277" class="footnote">205</a>]</sup>  Eminem har nettopp blitt saksøkt for å ha <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">samplet</span>»</span>
10240 noen andres musikk.<sup>[<a name="id2906341" href="#ftn.id2906341" class="footnote">206</a>]</sup>  Historien om
10241 hvordan Bob Dylan har <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">stjålet</span>»</span> fra en japansk forfatter har
10242 nettopp gått verden over.<sup>[<a name="id2906364" href="#ftn.id2906364" class="footnote">207</a>]</sup>  En på
10243 innsiden i Hollywood&#8212;som insisterer på at han må forbli
10244 anonym&#8212;rapporterer <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">en utrolig samtale med disse studiofolkene.
10245 De har fantastisk [gammelt] innhold som de ville elske å bruke, men det kan
10246 de ikke på grunn av at de først må klarere rettighetene.  De har hauger med
10247 ungdommer som kunne gjøre fantastiske ting med innholdet, men det vil først
10248 kreve hauger med advokater for å klarere det først</span>»</span>.
10249 Kongressrepresentanter snakker om å gi datavirus politimyndighet for å ta
10250 ned datamaskiner som antas å bryte loven.  Universiteter truer med å utvise
10251 ungdommer som bruker en datamaskin for å dele innhold.
10252 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2906410"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2906416"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2906422"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2906429"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2906435"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2906441"></a><p>
10253
10254 I mens på andre siden av Atlanteren har BBC nettopp annonsert at de vil
10255 bygge opp et <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">kreativt arkiv</span>»</span> som britiske borgere kan laste
10256 ned BBC-innhold fra, og rippe, mikse og brenne det ut.<sup>[<a name="id2906460" href="#ftn.id2906460" class="footnote">208</a>]</sup> Og i Brasil har kulturministeren, Gilberto Gil, i
10257 seg selv en folkehelt i brasiliansk musikk, slått seg sammen med Creative
10258 Commons for å gi ut innhold og frie lisenser i dette latinamerikanske
10259 landet.<sup>[<a name="id2906483" href="#ftn.id2906483" class="footnote">209</a>]</sup>  Jeg har fortalt en mørk
10260 historie.  Sannheten er mer blandet.  En teknologi har gitt oss mer frihet.
10261 Sakte begynner noen å forstå at denne friheten trenger ikke å bety anarki.
10262 Vi kan få med oss fri kultur inn i det tjueførste århundre, uten at artister
10263 taper og uten at potensialet for digital teknologi blir knust.  Det vil
10264 kreve omtanke, og viktigere, det vil kreve at noen omformer RCA-ene av i dag
10265 til Causbyere.
10266 </p><p>
10267
10268 Sunn fornuft må gjøre opprør. Den må handle for å frigjøre kulturen. Og
10269 snart, hvis dette potensialet skal noen gang bli realisert.
10270
10271
10272
10273 </p><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2904704" href="#id2904704" class="para">195</a>] </sup>
10274
10275 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Final Report: Integrating
10276 Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy</span>»</span> (London, 2002),
10277 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10278 #55</a>. I følge en pressemelding fra verdens helseorganisasjon sendt ut
10279 9. juli 2002, mottar kun 320 000 av de 6 millioner som trenger medisiner i
10280 utviklingsland dem de trenger&#8212;og halvparten av dem er i Brasil.
10281 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2904795" href="#id2904795" class="para">196</a>] </sup>
10282
10283 Se Peter Drahos og John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: <em class="citetitle">Who
10284 Owns the Knowledge Economy?</em> (New York: The New Press, 2003),
10285 37.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2904805"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2904814"></a>
10286 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2901302" href="#id2901302" class="para">197</a>] </sup>
10287
10288
10289 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10290 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, a
10291 Report Prepared for the World Intellectual Property Organization</em>
10292 (Washington, D.C., 2000), 14, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #56</a>. For a firsthand
10293 account of the struggle over South Africa, see Hearing Before the
10294 Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, House
10295 Committee on Government Reform, H. Rep., 1st sess., Ser. No. 106-126 (22
10296 July 1999), 150&#8211;57 (statement of James Love).
10297 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2904865" href="#id2904865" class="para">198</a>] </sup>
10298
10299
10300 International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI), <em class="citetitle">Patent
10301 Protection and Access to HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals in Sub-Saharan Africa, en
10302 rapport forberedt for the World Intellectual Property
10303 Organization</em> (Washington, D.C., 2000), 15.  </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2904959" href="#id2904959" class="para">199</a>] </sup>
10304
10305
10306
10307 See Sabin Russell, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">New Crusade to Lower AIDS Drug Costs: Africa's
10308 Needs at Odds with Firms' Profit Motive,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">San Francisco
10309 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
10310 licenses and gray markets pose a threat to the entire system of intellectual
10311 property protection</span>»</span>); Robert Weissman, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">AIDS and Developing
10312 Countries: Democratizing Access to Essential Medicines,</span>»</span>
10313 <em class="citetitle">Foreign Policy in Focus</em> 4:23 (August 1999), available
10314 at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #58</a> (describing
10315 U.S. policy); John A. Harrelson, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents, and
10316 the HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance Between Intellectual
10317 Property Rights and Compassion, a Synopsis,</span>»</span> <em class="citetitle">Widener Law
10318 Symposium Journal</em> (Spring 2001): 175.
10319
10320 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2905300" href="#id2905300" class="para">200</a>] </sup>
10321
10322 Jonathan Krim, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Quiet War over Open-Source</span>»</span>,
10323 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, august 2003, E1, tilgjengelig fra
10324 <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #59</a>; William New,
10325 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Global Group's Shift on `Open Source' Meeting Spurs Stir</span>»</span>,
10326 <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>, 19. august 2003,
10327 tilgjengelig  fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10328 #60</a>; William New, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">U.S. Official Opposes `Open Source' Talks
10329 at WIPO</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">National Journal's Technology Daily</em>,
10330 19. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #61</a>.
10331 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2905442" href="#id2905442" class="para">201</a>] </sup>
10332
10333 Jeg bør nevne at jeg var en av folkene som ba WIPO om dette møtet.
10334 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2905584" href="#id2905584" class="para">202</a>] </sup>
10335
10336
10337 Microsofts posisjon om åpen kildekode og fri programvare er mer
10338 sofistikert.  De har flere ganger forklart at de har ikke noe problem med
10339 programvare som er <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">åpen kildekode</span>»</span> eller programvare som er
10340 allemannseie.  Microsofts prinsipielle motstand er mot <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">fri
10341 programvare</span>»</span> lisensiert med en <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">copyleft</span>»</span>-lisens, som
10342 betyr at lisensen krever at de som lisensierer skal adoptere same vilkår for
10343 ethvert avledet verk.  Se Bradford L. Smith, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">The Future of Software:
10344 Enabling the Marketplace to Decide</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Government Policy
10345 Toward Open Source Software</em> (Washington, D.C.: AEI-Brookings
10346 Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute for
10347 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,
10348 Microsoft senior vice president, <em class="citetitle">The Commercial Software
10349 Model</em>, diskusjon ved New York University Stern School of
10350 Business (3. mai 2001), tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #63</a>.
10351 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2905737" href="#id2905737" class="para">203</a>] </sup>
10352
10353
10354 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>.
10355 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2905972" href="#id2905972" class="para">204</a>] </sup>
10356
10357 Se Drahos with Braithwaite, <em class="citetitle">Information Feudalism</em>,
10358 210&#8211;20.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2904859"></a>
10359 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906277" href="#id2906277" class="para">205</a>] </sup>
10360
10361
10362 John Borland, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA Sues 261 File Swappers</span>»</span>, CNET News.com,
10363 september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #65</a>; Paul R. La Monica,
10364 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Industry Sues Swappers</span>»</span>, CNN/Money, 8 september 2003,
10365 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
10366 #66</a>; Soni Sangha og Phyllis Furman sammen med Robert Gearty,
10367 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Sued for a Song, N.Y.C. 12-Yr-Old Among 261 Cited as Sharers</span>»</span>,
10368 <em class="citetitle">New York Daily News</em>, 9. september 2003, 3; Frank
10369 Ahrens, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">RIAA's Lawsuits Meet Surprised Targets; Single Mother in
10370 Calif., 12-Year-Old Girl in N.Y. Among Defendants</span>»</span>,
10371 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 10. september 2003, E1; Katie Dean,
10372 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Schoolgirl Settles with RIAA</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Wired
10373 News</em>, 10. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #67</a>.
10374 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906341" href="#id2906341" class="para">206</a>] </sup>
10375
10376
10377 Jon Wiederhorn, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Eminem Gets Sued &#8230; by a Little Old
10378 Lady</span>»</span>, mtv.com, 17. september 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #68</a>.
10379 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906364" href="#id2906364" class="para">207</a>] </sup>
10380
10381
10382
10383 Kenji Hall, Associated Press, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Japanese Book May Be Inspiration for
10384 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>.
10385
10386 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906460" href="#id2906460" class="para">208</a>] </sup>
10387
10388 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">BBC Plans to Open Up Its Archive to the Public</span>»</span>, pressemelding
10389 fra BBC, 24. august 2003, tilgjengelig  fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #70</a>.
10390 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906483" href="#id2906483" class="para">209</a>] </sup>
10391
10392
10393 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Creative Commons and Brazil</span>»</span>, Creative Commons Weblog,
10394 6. august 2003, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #71</a>.
10395 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Etterord"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-afterword"></a>Etterord</h2></div></div></div><p>
10396
10397
10398
10399 I hvert fall noen av de som har lest helt hit vil være enig med meg om at
10400 noe må gjøres for å endre retningen vi holder.  Balansen i denne boken
10401 kartlegger hva som kan gjøres.
10402 </p><p>
10403 Jeg deler dette kartet i to deler: det som enhver kan gjøre nå, og det som
10404 krever hjelp fra lovgiverne.  Hvis det er en lærdom vi kan trekke fra
10405 historien om å endre på sunn fornuft, så er det at det krever å endre
10406 hvordan mange mennesker tenker på den aktuelle saken.
10407 </p><p>
10408 Det betyr at denne bevegelsen må starte i gatene.  Det må rekrutteres et
10409 signifikant antall foreldre, lærere, bibliotekarer, skapere, forfattere,
10410 musikere, filmskapere, forskere&#8212;som alle må fortelle denne historien
10411 med sine egne ord, og som kan fortelle sine naboer hvorfor denne kampen er
10412 så viktig.
10413 </p><p>
10414 Når denne bevegelsen har hatt sin effekt i gatene, så er det et visst håp om
10415 at det kan ha effekt i Washington.  Vi er fortsatt et demokrati. Hva folk
10416 mener betyr noe.  Ikke så mye som det burde, i hvert fall når en RCA står
10417 imot, men likevel, det betyr noe.  Og dermed vil jeg skissere, i den andre
10418 delen som følger, endringer som kongressen kunne gjøre for å bedre sikre en
10419 fri kultur.
10420 </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>
10421 Common sense is with the copyright warriors because the debate so far has
10422 been framed at the extremes&#8212;as a grand either/or: either property or
10423 anarchy, either total control or artists won't be paid. If that really is
10424 the choice, then the warriors should win.
10425 </p><p>
10426 The mistake here is the error of the excluded middle. There are extremes in
10427 this debate, but the extremes are not all that there is. There are those who
10428 believe in maximal copyright&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span>&#8212;
10429 and those who reject copyright&#8212;<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved.</span>»</span> The
10430 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts believe that you should ask
10431 permission before you <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use</span>»</span> a copyrighted work in any way. The
10432 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">No Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts believe you should be able to do
10433 with content as you wish, regardless of whether you have permission or not.
10434 </p><p>
10435
10436 When the Internet was first born, its initial architecture effectively
10437 tilted in the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>»</span> direction. Content could be
10438 copied perfectly and cheaply; rights could not easily be controlled. Thus,
10439 regardless of anyone's desire, the effective regime of copyright under the
10440 original design of the Internet was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved.</span>»</span>
10441 Content was <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">taken</span>»</span> regardless of the rights. Any rights were
10442 effectively unprotected.
10443 </p><p>
10444 This initial character produced a reaction (opposite, but not quite equal)
10445 by copyright owners. That reaction has been the topic of this book. Through
10446 legislation, litigation, and changes to the network's design, copyright
10447 holders have been able to change the essential character of the environment
10448 of the original Internet. If the original architecture made the effective
10449 default <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved,</span>»</span> the future architecture will make
10450 the effective default <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">all rights reserved.</span>»</span> The architecture
10451 and law that surround the Internet's design will increasingly produce an
10452 environment where all use of content requires permission.  The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">cut
10453 and paste</span>»</span> world that defines the Internet today will become a
10454 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">get permission to cut and paste</span>»</span> world that is a creator's
10455 nightmare.
10456 </p><p>
10457 What's needed is a way to say something in the middle&#8212;neither
10458 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">all rights reserved</span>»</span> nor <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">no rights reserved</span>»</span> but
10459 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">some rights reserved</span>»</span>&#8212; and thus a way to respect
10460 copyrights but enable creators to free content as they see fit. In other
10461 words, we need a way to restore a set of freedoms that we could just take
10462 for granted before.
10463 </p><div class="section" title="16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a name="examples"></a>16.1.1. Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</h3></div></div></div><p>
10464 If you step back from the battle I've been describing here, you will
10465 recognize this problem from other contexts. Think about privacy. Before the
10466 Internet, most of us didn't have to worry much about data about our lives
10467 that we broadcast to the world. If you walked into a bookstore and browsed
10468 through some of the works of Karl Marx, you didn't need to worry about
10469 explaining your browsing habits to your neighbors or boss. The
10470 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> of your browsing habits was assured.
10471 </p><p>
10472 Hva gjorde at det var sikret?
10473 </p><p>
10474 Well, if we think in terms of the modalities I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, your privacy was
10475 assured because of an inefficient architecture for gathering data and hence
10476 a market constraint (cost) on anyone who wanted to gather that data. If you
10477 were a suspected spy for North Korea, working for the CIA, no doubt your
10478 privacy would not be assured.  But that's because the CIA would (we hope)
10479 find it valuable enough to spend the thousands required to track you. But
10480 for most of us (again, we can hope), spying doesn't pay. The highly
10481 inefficient architecture of real space means we all enjoy a fairly robust
10482 amount of privacy. That privacy is guaranteed to us by friction. Not by law
10483 (there is no law protecting <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> in public places), and in
10484 many places, not by norms (snooping and gossip are just fun), but instead,
10485 by the costs that friction imposes on anyone who would want to spy.
10486 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2906754"></a><p>
10487 Enter the Internet, where the cost of tracking browsing in particular has
10488 become quite tiny. If you're a customer at Amazon, then as you browse the
10489 pages, Amazon collects the data about what you've looked at. You know this
10490 because at the side of the page, there's a list of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">recently
10491 viewed</span>»</span> pages. Now, because of the architecture of the Net and the
10492 function of cookies on the Net, it is easier to collect the data than
10493 not. The friction has disappeared, and hence any <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span>
10494 protected by the friction disappears, too.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2906777"></a>
10495 </p><p>
10496 Amazon, of course, is not the problem. But we might begin to worry about
10497 libraries. If you're one of those crazy lefties who thinks that people
10498 should have the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">right</span>»</span> to browse in a library without the
10499 government knowing which books you look at (I'm one of those lefties, too),
10500 then this change in the technology of monitoring might concern you. If it
10501 becomes simple to gather and sort who does what in electronic spaces, then
10502 the friction-induced privacy of yesterday disappears.
10503 </p><p>
10504
10505 It is this reality that explains the push of many to define
10506 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">privacy</span>»</span> on the Internet. It is the recognition that
10507 technology can remove what friction before gave us that leads many to push
10508 for laws to do what friction did.<sup>[<a name="id2906810" href="#ftn.id2906810" class="footnote">210</a>]</sup> And
10509 whether you're in favor of those laws or not, it is the pattern that is
10510 important here. We must take affirmative steps to secure a kind of freedom
10511 that was passively provided before. A change in technology now forces those
10512 who believe in privacy to affirmatively act where, before, privacy was given
10513 by default.
10514 </p><p>
10515 A similar story could be told about the birth of the free software
10516 movement. When computers with software were first made available
10517 commercially, the software&#8212;both the source code and the
10518 binaries&#8212; was free. You couldn't run a program written for a Data
10519 General machine on an IBM machine, so Data General and IBM didn't care much
10520 about controlling their software.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2906852"></a>
10521 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2906863"></a><p>
10522 Dette var verden Richard Stallman ble født inn i, og mens han var forsker
10523 ved MIT, lærte han til å elske samfunnet som utviklet seg når en var fri til
10524 å utforske og fikle med programvaren som kjørte på datamaskiner. Av den
10525 smarte sorten selv, og en talentfull programmerer, begynte Stallman å basere
10526 seg frihet til å legge til eller endre på andre personers arbeid.
10527 </p><p>
10528 In an academic setting, at least, that's not a terribly radical idea. In a
10529 math department, anyone would be free to tinker with a proof that someone
10530 offered. If you thought you had a better way to prove a theorem, you could
10531 take what someone else did and change it. In a classics department, if you
10532 believed a colleague's translation of a recently discovered text was flawed,
10533 you were free to improve it. Thus, to Stallman, it seemed obvious that you
10534 should be free to tinker with and improve the code that ran a machine. This,
10535 too, was knowledge. Why shouldn't it be open for criticism like anything
10536 else?
10537 </p><p>
10538 No one answered that question. Instead, the architecture of revenue for
10539 computing changed. As it became possible to import programs from one system
10540 to another, it became economically attractive (at least in the view of some)
10541 to hide the code of your program. So, too, as companies started selling
10542 peripherals for mainframe systems. If I could just take your printer driver
10543 and copy it, then that would make it easier for me to sell a printer to the
10544 market than it was for you.
10545 </p><p>
10546
10547 Thus, the practice of proprietary code began to spread, and by the early
10548 1980s, Stallman found himself surrounded by proprietary code.  The world of
10549 free software had been erased by a change in the economics of computing. And
10550 as he believed, if he did nothing about it, then the freedom to change and
10551 share software would be fundamentally weakened.
10552 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2906920"></a><p>
10553 Derfor, i 1984, startet Stallmann på et prosjekt for å bygge et fritt
10554 operativsystem, slik i hvert fall en flik av fri programvare skulle
10555 overleve.  Dette var starten på GNU-prosjektet, som
10556 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Linux</span>»</span>-kjernen til Linus Torvalds senere ble lagt til i for å
10557 produsere GNU/Linux-operativsystemet. <a class="indexterm" name="id2906942"></a>
10558 <a class="indexterm" name="id2906948"></a>
10559 </p><p>
10560 Stallman's technique was to use copyright law to build a world of software
10561 that must be kept free. Software licensed under the Free Software
10562 Foundation's GPL cannot be modified and distributed unless the source code
10563 for that software is made available as well. Thus, anyone building upon
10564 GPL'd software would have to make their buildings free as well. This would
10565 assure, Stallman believed, that an ecology of code would develop that
10566 remained free for others to build upon. His fundamental goal was freedom;
10567 innovative creative code was a byproduct.
10568 </p><p>
10569 Stallman was thus doing for software what privacy advocates now do for
10570 privacy. He was seeking a way to rebuild a kind of freedom that was taken
10571 for granted before. Through the affirmative use of licenses that bind
10572 copyrighted code, Stallman was affirmatively reclaiming a space where free
10573 software would survive. He was actively protecting what before had been
10574 passively guaranteed.
10575 </p><p>
10576 Finally, consider a very recent example that more directly resonates with
10577 the story of this book. This is the shift in the way academic and scientific
10578 journals are produced.
10579 </p><a class="indexterm" name="idxacademocjournals"></a><p>
10580
10581 As digital technologies develop, it is becoming obvious to many that
10582 printing thousands of copies of journals every month and sending them to
10583 libraries is perhaps not the most efficient way to distribute
10584 knowledge. Instead, journals are increasingly becoming electronic, and
10585 libraries and their users are given access to these electronic journals
10586 through password-protected sites. Something similar to this has been
10587 happening in law for almost thirty years: Lexis and Westlaw have had
10588 electronic versions of case reports available to subscribers to their
10589 service.  Although a Supreme Court opinion is not copyrighted, and anyone is
10590 free to go to a library and read it, Lexis and Westlaw are also free to
10591 charge users for the privilege of gaining access to that Supreme Court
10592 opinion through their respective services.
10593 </p><p>
10594 There's nothing wrong in general with this, and indeed, the ability to
10595 charge for access to even public domain materials is a good incentive for
10596 people to develop new and innovative ways to spread knowledge.  The law has
10597 agreed, which is why Lexis and Westlaw have been allowed to flourish. And if
10598 there's nothing wrong with selling the public domain, then there could be
10599 nothing wrong, in principle, with selling access to material that is not in
10600 the public domain.
10601 </p><p>
10602 But what if the only way to get access to social and scientific data was
10603 through proprietary services? What if no one had the ability to browse this
10604 data except by paying for a subscription?
10605 </p><p>
10606 As many are beginning to notice, this is increasingly the reality with
10607 scientific journals. When these journals were distributed in paper form,
10608 libraries could make the journals available to anyone who had access to the
10609 library. Thus, patients with cancer could become cancer experts because the
10610 library gave them access. Or patients trying to understand the risks of a
10611 certain treatment could research those risks by reading all available
10612 articles about that treatment. This freedom was therefore a function of the
10613 institution of libraries (norms) and the technology of paper journals
10614 (architecture)&#8212;namely, that it was very hard to control access to a
10615 paper journal.
10616 </p><p>
10617 As journals become electronic, however, the publishers are demanding that
10618 libraries not give the general public access to the journals. This means
10619 that the freedoms provided by print journals in public libraries begin to
10620 disappear. Thus, as with privacy and with software, a changing technology
10621 and market shrink a freedom taken for granted before.
10622 </p><p>
10623 This shrinking freedom has led many to take affirmative steps to restore the
10624 freedom that has been lost. The Public Library of Science (PLoS), for
10625 example, is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making scientific research
10626 available to anyone with a Web connection. Authors of scientific work submit
10627 that work to the Public Library of Science.  That work is then subject to
10628 peer review. If accepted, the work is then deposited in a public, electronic
10629 archive and made permanently available for free. PLoS also sells a print
10630 version of its work, but the copyright for the print journal does not
10631 inhibit the right of anyone to redistribute the work for free.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2907092"></a>
10632 </p><p>
10633 This is one of many such efforts to restore a freedom taken for granted
10634 before, but now threatened by changing technology and markets.  There's no
10635 doubt that this alternative competes with the traditional publishers and
10636 their efforts to make money from the exclusive distribution of content. But
10637 competition in our tradition is presumptively a good&#8212;especially when
10638 it helps spread knowledge and science.
10639 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2907102"></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>
10640 Den samme strategien kan brukes på kultur, som et svar på den økende
10641 kontrollen som gjennomføres gjennom lov og teknologi.
10642 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2907151"></a><p>
10643 Enter the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation
10644 established in Massachusetts, but with its home at Stanford University. Its
10645 aim is to build a layer of <span class="emphasis"><em>reasonable</em></span> copyright on top
10646 of the extremes that now reign. It does this by making it easy for people to
10647 build upon other people's work, by making it simple for creators to express
10648 the freedom for others to take and build upon their work. Simple tags, tied
10649 to human-readable descriptions, tied to bulletproof licenses, make this
10650 possible.
10651 </p><p>
10652
10653 <span class="emphasis"><em>Simple</em></span>&#8212;which means without a middleman, or
10654 without a lawyer.  By developing a free set of licenses that people can
10655 attach to their content, Creative Commons aims to mark a range of content
10656 that can easily, and reliably, be built upon. These tags are then linked to
10657 machine-readable versions of the license that enable computers automatically
10658 to identify content that can easily be shared. These three expressions
10659 together&#8212;a legal license, a human-readable description, and
10660 machine-readable tags&#8212;constitute a Creative Commons license. A
10661 Creative Commons license constitutes a grant of freedom to anyone who
10662 accesses the license, and more importantly, an expression of the ideal that
10663 the person associated with the license believes in something different than
10664 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
10665 the CC mark, which does not mean that copyright is waived, but that certain
10666 freedoms are given.
10667 </p><p>
10668 These freedoms are beyond the freedoms promised by fair use. Their precise
10669 contours depend upon the choices the creator makes. The creator can choose a
10670 license that permits any use, so long as attribution is given. She can
10671 choose a license that permits only noncommercial use.  She can choose a
10672 license that permits any use so long as the same freedoms are given to other
10673 uses (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">share and share alike</span>»</span>). Or any use so long as no
10674 derivative use is made. Or any use at all within developing nations. Or any
10675 sampling use, so long as full copies are not made. Or lastly, any
10676 educational use.
10677 </p><p>
10678 These choices thus establish a range of freedoms beyond the default of
10679 copyright law. They also enable freedoms that go beyond traditional fair
10680 use. And most importantly, they express these freedoms in a way that
10681 subsequent users can use and rely upon without the need to hire a
10682 lawyer. Creative Commons thus aims to build a layer of content, governed by
10683 a layer of reasonable copyright law, that others can build upon. Voluntary
10684 choice of individuals and creators will make this content available. And
10685 that content will in turn enable us to rebuild a public domain.
10686 </p><p>
10687 This is just one project among many within the Creative Commons.  And of
10688 course, Creative Commons is not the only organization pursuing such
10689 freedoms. But the point that distinguishes the Creative Commons from many is
10690 that we are not interested only in talking about a public domain or in
10691 getting legislators to help build a public domain. Our aim is to build a
10692 movement of consumers and producers of content (<span class="quote">«<span class="quote">content
10693 conducers,</span>»</span> as attorney Mia Garlick calls them)  who help build the
10694 public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the importance of the public
10695 domain to other creativity.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2907247"></a>
10696 </p><p>
10697 The aim is not to fight the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span> sorts. The
10698 aim is to complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a
10699 culture are produced by insane and unintended consequences of laws written
10700 centuries ago, applied to a technology that only Jefferson could have
10701 imagined. The rules may well have made sense against a background of
10702 technologies from centuries ago, but they do not make sense against the
10703 background of digital technologies. New rules&#8212;with different freedoms,
10704 expressed in ways so that humans without lawyers can use them&#8212;are
10705 needed. Creative Commons gives people a way effectively to begin to build
10706 those rules.
10707 </p><p>
10708 Why would creators participate in giving up total control? Some participate
10709 to better spread their content. Cory Doctorow, for example, is a science
10710 fiction author. His first novel, <em class="citetitle">Down and Out in the Magic
10711 Kingdom</em>, was released on-line and for free, under a Creative
10712 Commons license, on the same day that it went on sale in bookstores.
10713 </p><p>
10714 Why would a publisher ever agree to this? I suspect his publisher reasoned
10715 like this: There are two groups of people out there: (1)  those who will buy
10716 Cory's book whether or not it's on the Internet, and (2) those who may never
10717 hear of Cory's book, if it isn't made available for free on the
10718 Internet. Some part of (1) will download Cory's book instead of buying
10719 it. Call them bad-(1)s. Some part of (2)  will download Cory's book, like
10720 it, and then decide to buy it. Call them (2)-goods.  If there are more
10721 (2)-goods than bad-(1)s, the strategy of releasing Cory's book free on-line
10722 will probably <span class="emphasis"><em>increase</em></span> sales of Cory's book.
10723 </p><p>
10724 Indeed, the experience of his publisher clearly supports that conclusion.
10725 The book's first printing was exhausted months before the publisher had
10726 expected. This first novel of a science fiction author was a total success.
10727 </p><p>
10728 The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content was
10729 confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner, who wrote a
10730 book about the free software movement titled <em class="citetitle">Free for
10731 All</em>, made an electronic version of his book free on-line under a
10732 Creative Commons license after the book went out of print. He then monitored
10733 used book store prices for the book. As predicted, as the number of
10734 downloads increased, the used book price for his book increased, as well.
10735 <a class="indexterm" name="id2907322"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2907331"></a>
10736 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2907338"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2907344"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2907351"></a><p>
10737 These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary
10738 content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the Commons. There
10739 are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other reasons. Many who use
10740 the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sampling license</span>»</span> do so because anything else would be
10741 hypocritical. The sampling license says that others are free, for commercial
10742 or noncommercial purposes, to sample content from the licensed work; they
10743 are just not free to make full copies of the licensed work available to
10744 others. This is consistent with their own art&#8212;they, too, sample from
10745 others. Because the <span class="emphasis"><em>legal</em></span> costs of sampling are so high
10746 (Walter Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born
10747 sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not
10748 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">allow</span>»</span> Public Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs
10749 are so high<sup>[<a name="id2907383" href="#ftn.id2907383" class="footnote">211</a>]</sup>), these artists release
10750 into the creative environment content that others can build upon, so that
10751 their form of creativity might grow.
10752 </p><p>
10753 Finally, there are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons
10754 license just because they want to express to others the importance of
10755 balance in this debate. If you just go along with the system as it is, you
10756 are effectively saying you believe in the <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">All Rights Reserved</span>»</span>
10757 model. Good for you, but many do not. Many believe that however appropriate
10758 that rule is for Hollywood and freaks, it is not an appropriate description
10759 of how most creators view the rights associated with their content. The
10760 Creative Commons license expresses this notion of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Some Rights
10761 Reserved,</span>»</span> and gives many the chance to say it to others.
10762 </p><p>
10763
10764 In the first six months of the Creative Commons experiment, over 1 million
10765 objects were licensed with these free-culture licenses. The next step is
10766 partnerships with middleware content providers to help them build into their
10767 technologies simple ways for users to mark their content with Creative
10768 Commons freedoms. Then the next step is to watch and celebrate creators who
10769 build content based upon content set free.
10770 </p><p>
10771 These are first steps to rebuilding a public domain. They are not mere
10772 arguments; they are action. Building a public domain is the first step to
10773 showing people how important that domain is to creativity and
10774 innovation. Creative Commons relies upon voluntary steps to achieve this
10775 rebuilding. They will lead to a world in which more than voluntary steps are
10776 possible.
10777 </p><p>
10778 Creative Commons is just one example of voluntary efforts by individuals and
10779 creators to change the mix of rights that now govern the creative field. The
10780 project does not compete with copyright; it complements it. Its aim is not
10781 to defeat the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and
10782 creators to exercise their rights more flexibly and cheaply. That
10783 difference, we believe, will enable creativity to spread more easily.
10784 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2907457"></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>
10785 We will not reclaim a free culture by individual action alone. It will also
10786 take important reforms of laws. We have a long way to go before the
10787 politicians will listen to these ideas and implement these reforms.  But
10788 that also means that we have time to build awareness around the changes that
10789 we need.
10790 </p><p>
10791 In this chapter, I outline five kinds of changes: four that are general, and
10792 one that's specific to the most heated battle of the day, music. Each is a
10793 step, not an end. But any of these steps would carry us a long way to our
10794 end.
10795 </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>
10796 If you buy a house, you have to record the sale in a deed. If you buy land
10797 upon which to build a house, you have to record the purchase in a deed.  If
10798 you buy a car, you get a bill of sale and register the car. If you buy an
10799 airplane ticket, it has your name on it.
10800 </p><p>
10801
10802
10803 These are all formalities associated with property. They are requirements
10804 that we all must bear if we want our property to be protected.
10805 </p><p>
10806 In contrast, under current copyright law, you automatically get a copyright,
10807 regardless of whether you comply with any formality. You don't have to
10808 register. You don't even have to mark your content. The default is control,
10809 and <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">formalities</span>»</span> are banished.
10810 </p><p>
10811 Why?
10812 </p><p>
10813 As I suggested in chapter <a class="xref" href="#property-i" title="Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»">10</a>, the motivation to abolish formalities was a good
10814 one. In the world before digital technologies, formalities imposed a burden
10815 on copyright holders without much benefit. Thus, it was progress when the
10816 law relaxed the formal requirements that a copyright owner must bear to
10817 protect and secure his work. Those formalities were getting in the way.
10818 </p><p>
10819 But the Internet changes all this. Formalities today need not be a
10820 burden. Rather, the world without formalities is the world that burdens
10821 creativity. Today, there is no simple way to know who owns what, or with
10822 whom one must deal in order to use or build upon the creative work of
10823 others. There are no records, there is no system to trace&#8212; there is no
10824 simple way to know how to get permission. Yet given the massive increase in
10825 the scope of copyright's rule, getting permission is a necessary step for
10826 any work that builds upon our past. And thus, the <span class="emphasis"><em>lack</em></span>
10827 of formalities forces many into silence where they otherwise could speak.
10828 </p><p>
10829 The law should therefore change this requirement<sup>[<a name="id2907575" href="#ftn.id2907575" class="footnote">212</a>]</sup>&#8212;but it should not change it by going back to the old, broken
10830 system. We should require formalities, but we should establish a system that
10831 will create the incentives to minimize the burden of these formalities.
10832 </p><p>
10833 The important formalities are three: marking copyrighted work, registering
10834 copyrights, and renewing the claim to copyright. Traditionally, the first of
10835 these three was something the copyright owner did; the second two were
10836 something the government did. But a revised system of formalities would
10837 banish the government from the process, except for the sole purpose of
10838 approving standards developed by others.
10839 </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>
10840 Under the old system, a copyright owner had to file a registration with the
10841 Copyright Office to register or renew a copyright. When filing that
10842 registration, the copyright owner paid a fee. As with most government
10843 agencies, the Copyright Office had little incentive to minimize the burden
10844 of registration; it also had little incentive to minimize the fee.  And as
10845 the Copyright Office is not a main target of government policymaking, the
10846 office has historically been terribly underfunded. Thus, when people who
10847 know something about the process hear this idea about formalities, their
10848 first reaction is panic&#8212;nothing could be worse than forcing people to
10849 deal with the mess that is the Copyright Office.
10850 </p><p>
10851 Yet it is always astonishing to me that we, who come from a tradition of
10852 extraordinary innovation in governmental design, can no longer think
10853 innovatively about how governmental functions can be designed.  Just because
10854 there is a public purpose to a government role, it doesn't follow that the
10855 government must actually administer the role. Instead, we should be creating
10856 incentives for private parties to serve the public, subject to standards
10857 that the government sets.
10858 </p><p>
10859 In the context of registration, one obvious model is the Internet.  There
10860 are at least 32 million Web sites registered around the world.  Domain name
10861 owners for these Web sites have to pay a fee to keep their registration
10862 alive. In the main top-level domains (.com, .org, .net), there is a central
10863 registry. The actual registrations are, however, performed by many competing
10864 registrars. That competition drives the cost of registering down, and more
10865 importantly, it drives the ease with which registration occurs up.
10866 </p><p>
10867
10868 We should adopt a similar model for the registration and renewal of
10869 copyrights. The Copyright Office may well serve as the central registry, but
10870 it should not be in the registrar business. Instead, it should establish a
10871 database, and a set of standards for registrars. It should approve
10872 registrars that meet its standards. Those registrars would then compete with
10873 one another to deliver the cheapest and simplest systems for registering and
10874 renewing copyrights. That competition would substantially lower the burden
10875 of this formality&#8212;while producing a database of registrations that
10876 would facilitate the licensing of content.
10877 </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>
10878 It used to be that the failure to include a copyright notice on a creative
10879 work meant that the copyright was forfeited. That was a harsh punishment for
10880 failing to comply with a regulatory rule&#8212;akin to imposing the death
10881 penalty for a parking ticket in the world of creative rights.  Here again,
10882 there is no reason that a marking requirement needs to be enforced in this
10883 way. And more importantly, there is no reason a marking requirement needs to
10884 be enforced uniformly across all media.
10885 </p><p>
10886 The aim of marking is to signal to the public that this work is copyrighted
10887 and that the author wants to enforce his rights. The mark also makes it easy
10888 to locate a copyright owner to secure permission to use the work.
10889 </p><p>
10890 One of the problems the copyright system confronted early on was that
10891 different copyrighted works had to be differently marked. It wasn't clear
10892 how or where a statue was to be marked, or a record, or a film. A new
10893 marking requirement could solve these problems by recognizing the
10894 differences in media, and by allowing the system of marking to evolve as
10895 technologies enable it to. The system could enable a special signal from the
10896 failure to mark&#8212;not the loss of the copyright, but the loss of the
10897 right to punish someone for failing to get permission first.
10898 </p><p>
10899
10900 Let's start with the last point. If a copyright owner allows his work to be
10901 published without a copyright notice, the consequence of that failure need
10902 not be that the copyright is lost. The consequence could instead be that
10903 anyone has the right to use this work, until the copyright owner complains
10904 and demonstrates that it is his work and he doesn't give
10905 permission.<sup>[<a name="id2907711" href="#ftn.id2907711" class="footnote">213</a>]</sup> The meaning of an unmarked
10906 work would therefore be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">use unless someone complains.</span>»</span> If
10907 someone does complain, then the obligation would be to stop using the work
10908 in any new work from then on though no penalty would attach for existing
10909 uses.  This would create a strong incentive for copyright owners to mark
10910 their work.
10911 </p><p>
10912 That in turn raises the question about how work should best be marked. Here
10913 again, the system needs to adjust as the technologies evolve. The best way
10914 to ensure that the system evolves is to limit the Copyright Office's role to
10915 that of approving standards for marking content that have been crafted
10916 elsewhere.
10917 </p><p>
10918 For example, if a recording industry association devises a method for
10919 marking CDs, it would propose that to the Copyright Office. The Copyright
10920 Office would hold a hearing, at which other proposals could be made. The
10921 Copyright Office would then select the proposal that it judged preferable,
10922 and it would base that choice <span class="emphasis"><em>solely</em></span> upon the
10923 consideration of which method could best be integrated into the registration
10924 and renewal system. We would not count on the government to innovate; but we
10925 would count on the government to keep the product of innovation in line with
10926 its other important functions.
10927 </p><p>
10928 Finally, marking content clearly would simplify registration requirements.
10929 If photographs were marked by author and year, there would be little reason
10930 not to allow a photographer to reregister, for example, all photographs
10931 taken in a particular year in one quick step. The aim of the formality is
10932 not to burden the creator; the system itself should be kept as simple as
10933 possible.
10934 </p><p>
10935 The objective of formalities is to make things clear. The existing system
10936 does nothing to make things clear. Indeed, it seems designed to make things
10937 unclear.
10938 </p><p>
10939 If formalities such as registration were reinstated, one of the most
10940 difficult aspects of relying upon the public domain would be removed.  It
10941 would be simple to identify what content is presumptively free; it would be
10942 simple to identify who controls the rights for a particular kind of content;
10943 it would be simple to assert those rights, and to renew that assertion at
10944 the appropriate time.
10945 </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>
10946 Vernetiden i opphavsretten har gått fra fjorten år til nittifem år der
10947 selskap har forfatterskapet , og livstiden til forfatteren pluss sytti år
10948 for individuelle forfattere.
10949 </p><p>
10950 In <em class="citetitle">The Future of Ideas</em>, I proposed a
10951 seventy-five-year term, granted in five-year increments with a requirement
10952 of renewal every five years.  That seemed radical enough at the time. But
10953 after we lost <em class="citetitle">Eldred</em>
10954 v. <em class="citetitle">Ashcroft</em>, the proposals became even more
10955 radical. <em class="citetitle">The Economist</em> endorsed a proposal for a
10956 fourteen-year copyright term.<sup>[<a name="id2907844" href="#ftn.id2907844" class="footnote">214</a>]</sup> Others
10957 have proposed tying the term to the term for patents.
10958 </p><p>
10959 I agree with those who believe that we need a radical change in copyright's
10960 term. But whether fourteen years or seventy-five, there are four principles
10961 that are important to keep in mind about copyright terms.
10962 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
10963
10964
10965 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it short:</em></span> The term should be as long as necessary
10966 to give incentives to create, but no longer. If it were tied to very strong
10967 protections for authors (so authors were able to reclaim rights from
10968 publishers), rights to the same work (not derivative works) might be
10969 extended further. The key is not to tie the work up with legal regulations
10970 when it no longer benefits an author.
10971 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10972
10973
10974
10975 <span class="emphasis"><em>Gjør det enkelt:</em></span> Skillelinjen mellom verker uten
10976 opphavsrettslig vern og innhold som er beskyttet må forbli klart.  Advokater
10977 liker uklarheten som <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> og forskjellen mellom
10978 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">idéer</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">uttrykk</span>»</span> har.  Denne type lovverk gir
10979 dem en masse arbeid.  Men de som skrev grunnloven hadde en enklere idé:
10980 vernet versus ikke vernet. Verdien av korte vernetider er at det er lite
10981 behov for å bygge inn unntak i opphavsretten når vernetiden holdes kort.  En
10982 klar og aktiv <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">advokat-fri sone</span>»</span> gjør komplesiteten av
10983 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">rimelig bruk</span>»</span> og <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">idé/uttrykk</span>»</span> mindre nødvendig å
10984 håndtere.
10985
10986 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10987
10988 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it alive:</em></span> Copyright should have to be renewed.
10989 Especially if the maximum term is long, the copyright owner should be
10990 required to signal periodically that he wants the protection continued. This
10991 need not be an onerous burden, but there is no reason this monopoly
10992 protection has to be granted for free. On average, it takes ninety minutes
10993 for a veteran to apply for a pension.<sup>[<a name="id2907965" href="#ftn.id2907965" class="footnote">215</a>]</sup>
10994 If we make veterans suffer that burden, I don't see why we couldn't require
10995 authors to spend ten minutes every fifty years to file a single form.
10996 <a class="indexterm" name="id2907986"></a>
10997 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
10998
10999
11000 <span class="emphasis"><em>Keep it prospective:</em></span> Whatever the term of copyright
11001 should be, the clearest lesson that economists teach is that a term once
11002 given should not be extended. It might have been a mistake in 1923 for the
11003 law to offer authors only a fifty-six-year term. I don't think so, but it's
11004 possible. If it was a mistake, then the consequence was that we got fewer
11005 authors to create in 1923 than we otherwise would have. But we can't correct
11006 that mistake today by increasing the term. No matter what we do today, we
11007 will not increase the number of authors who wrote in 1923. Of course, we can
11008 increase the reward that those who write now get (or alternatively, increase
11009 the copyright burden that smothers many works that are today invisible). But
11010 increasing their reward will not increase their creativity in 1923.  What's
11011 not done is not done, and there's nothing we can do about that now.  </p></li></ol></div><p>
11012 Disse endringene vil sammen gi en <span class="emphasis"><em>gjennomsnittlig</em></span>
11013 opphavsrettslig vernetid som er mye kortere enn den gjeldende vernetiden.
11014 Frem til 1976 var gjennomsnittlig vernetid kun 32.2 år.  Vårt mål bør være
11015 det samme.
11016 </p><p>
11017 Uten tvil vil ekstremistene kalle disse idéene
11018 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikale</span>»</span>. (Tross alt, så kaller jeg dem
11019 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ekstremister</span>»</span>.) Men igjen, vernetiden jeg anbefalte var lengre
11020 enn vernetiden under Richard Nixon. hvor <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikalt</span>»</span> kan det
11021 være å be om en mer sjenerøs opphavsrettighet enn da Richard Nixon var
11022 president?
11023 </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="id2908069"></a><a class="indexterm" name="id2908076"></a><p>
11024 As I observed at the beginning of this book, property law originally granted
11025 property owners the right to control their property from the ground to the
11026 heavens. The airplane came along. The scope of property rights quickly
11027 changed. There was no fuss, no constitutional challenge.  It made no sense
11028 anymore to grant that much control, given the emergence of that new
11029 technology.
11030 </p><p>
11031 Our Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">exclusive
11032 right</span>»</span> to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">their writings.</span>»</span> Congress has given authors
11033 an exclusive right to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">their writings</span>»</span> plus any derivative
11034 writings (made by others) that are sufficiently close to the author's
11035 original work. Thus, if I write a book, and you base a movie on that book, I
11036 have the power to deny you the right to release that movie, even though that
11037 movie is not <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">my writing.</span>»</span>
11038 </p><p>
11039 Congress granted the beginnings of this right in 1870, when it expanded the
11040 exclusive right of copyright to include a right to control translations and
11041 dramatizations of a work.<sup>[<a name="id2908127" href="#ftn.id2908127" class="footnote">216</a>]</sup> The courts
11042 have expanded it slowly through judicial interpretation ever since. This
11043 expansion has been commented upon by one of the law's greatest judges, Judge
11044 Benjamin Kaplan.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2908143"></a>
11045 </p><div class="blockquote"><blockquote class="blockquote"><p>
11046 So inured have we become to the extension of the monopoly to a large range
11047 of so-called derivative works, that we no longer sense the oddity of
11048 accepting such an enlargement of copyright while yet intoning the
11049 abracadabra of idea and expression.<sup>[<a name="id2908159" href="#ftn.id2908159" class="footnote">217</a>]</sup>
11050 </p></blockquote></div><p>
11051 I think it's time to recognize that there are airplanes in this field and
11052 the expansiveness of these rights of derivative use no longer make
11053 sense. More precisely, they don't make sense for the period of time that a
11054 copyright runs. And they don't make sense as an amorphous grant.  Consider
11055 each limitation in turn.
11056 </p><p>
11057 <span class="emphasis"><em>Term:</em></span> If Congress wants to grant a derivative right,
11058 then that right should be for a much shorter term. It makes sense to protect
11059 John Grisham's right to sell the movie rights to his latest novel (or at
11060 least I'm willing to assume it does); but it does not make sense for that
11061 right to run for the same term as the underlying copyright. The derivative
11062 right could be important in inducing creativity; it is not important long
11063 after the creative work is done.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2908191"></a>
11064 </p><p>
11065 <span class="emphasis"><em>Scope:</em></span> Likewise should the scope of derivative rights
11066 be narrowed.  Again, there are some cases in which derivative rights are
11067 important.  Those should be specified. But the law should draw clear lines
11068 around regulated and unregulated uses of copyrighted material. When all
11069 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">reuse</span>»</span> of creative material was within the control of
11070 businesses, perhaps it made sense to require lawyers to negotiate the
11071 lines. It no longer makes sense for lawyers to negotiate the lines. Think
11072 about all the creative possibilities that digital technologies enable; now
11073 imagine pouring molasses into the machines. That's what this general
11074 requirement of permission does to the creative process. Smothers it.
11075 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2908223"></a><p>
11076 This was the point that Alben made when describing the making of the Clint
11077 Eastwood CD. While it makes sense to require negotiation for foreseeable
11078 derivative rights&#8212;turning a book into a movie, or a poem into a
11079 musical score&#8212;it doesn't make sense to require negotiation for the
11080 unforeseeable. Here, a statutory right would make much more sense.
11081 </p><p>
11082 In each of these cases, the law should mark the uses that are protected, and
11083 the presumption should be that other uses are not protected.  This is the
11084 reverse of the recommendation of my colleague Paul Goldstein.<sup>[<a name="id2908246" href="#ftn.id2908246" class="footnote">218</a>]</sup> His view is that the law should be written so that
11085 expanded protections follow expanded uses.
11086 </p><p>
11087 Goldstein's analysis would make perfect sense if the cost of the legal
11088 system were small. But as we are currently seeing in the context of the
11089 Internet, the uncertainty about the scope of protection, and the incentives
11090 to protect existing architectures of revenue, combined with a strong
11091 copyright, weaken the process of innovation.
11092 </p><p>
11093
11094 The law could remedy this problem either by removing protection beyond the
11095 part explicitly drawn or by granting reuse rights upon certain statutory
11096 conditions. Either way, the effect would be to free a great deal of culture
11097 to others to cultivate. And under a statutory rights regime, that reuse
11098 would earn artists more income.
11099 </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>
11100 The battle that got this whole war going was about music, so it wouldn't be
11101 fair to end this book without addressing the issue that is, to most people,
11102 most pressing&#8212;music. There is no other policy issue that better
11103 teaches the lessons of this book than the battles around the sharing of
11104 music.
11105 </p><p>
11106 The appeal of file-sharing music was the crack cocaine of the Internet's
11107 growth. It drove demand for access to the Internet more powerfully than any
11108 other single application. It was the Internet's killer app&#8212;possibly in
11109 two senses of that word. It no doubt was the application that drove demand
11110 for bandwidth. It may well be the application that drives demand for
11111 regulations that in the end kill innovation on the network.
11112 </p><p>
11113 The aim of copyright, with respect to content in general and music in
11114 particular, is to create the incentives for music to be composed, performed,
11115 and, most importantly, spread. The law does this by giving an exclusive
11116 right to a composer to control public performances of his work, and to a
11117 performing artist to control copies of her performance.
11118 </p><p>
11119 File-sharing networks complicate this model by enabling the spread of
11120 content for which the performer has not been paid. But of course, that's not
11121 all the file-sharing networks do. As I described in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»">5</a>, they enable four
11122 different kinds of sharing:
11123 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="A"><li class="listitem"><p>
11124
11125
11126 Det er noen som bruker delingsnettverk som erstatninger for å kjøpe CDer.
11127 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11128
11129
11130 There are also some who are using sharing networks to sample, on the way to
11131 purchasing CDs.
11132 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11133
11134
11135
11136
11137 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk til å få tilgang til innhold som
11138 ikke lenger er i salg, men fortsatt er vernet av opphavsrett eller som ville
11139 ha vært altfor vanskelig å få kjøpt via nettet.
11140 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11141
11142
11143 Det er mange som bruker fildelingsnettverk for å få tilgang til innhold som
11144 ikke er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, eller for å få tilgang som
11145 opphavsrettsinnehaveren åpenbart går god for.
11146 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11147 Any reform of the law needs to keep these different uses in focus. It must
11148 avoid burdening type D even if it aims to eliminate type A. The eagerness
11149 with which the law aims to eliminate type A, moreover, should depend upon
11150 the magnitude of type B. As with VCRs, if the net effect of sharing is
11151 actually not very harmful, the need for regulation is significantly
11152 weakened.
11153 </p><p>
11154 As I said in chapter <a class="xref" href="#piracy" title="Kapittel fem: «Piratvirksomhet»">5</a>, the actual harm caused by sharing is controversial.  For
11155 the purposes of this chapter, however, I assume the harm is real. I assume,
11156 in other words, that type A sharing is significantly greater than type B,
11157 and is the dominant use of sharing networks.
11158 </p><p>
11159 Uansett, det er et avgjørende faktum om den gjeldende teknologiske
11160 omgivelsen som vi må huske på hvis vi skal forstå hvordan loven bør reagere.
11161 </p><p>
11162 Today, file sharing is addictive. In ten years, it won't be. It is addictive
11163 today because it is the easiest way to gain access to a broad range of
11164 content.  It won't be the easiest way to get access to a broad range of
11165 content in ten years. Today, access to the Internet is cumbersome and
11166 slow&#8212;we in the United States are lucky to have broadband service at
11167 1.5 MBs, and very rarely do we get service at that speed both up and
11168 down. Although wireless access is growing, most of us still get access
11169 across wires. Most only gain access through a machine with a keyboard. The
11170 idea of the always on, always connected Internet is mainly just an idea.
11171 </p><p>
11172
11173 But it will become a reality, and that means the way we get access to the
11174 Internet today is a technology in transition. Policy makers should not make
11175 policy on the basis of technology in transition. They should make policy on
11176 the basis of where the technology is going. The question should not be, how
11177 should the law regulate sharing in this world? The question should be, what
11178 law will we require when the network becomes the network it is clearly
11179 becoming? That network is one in which every machine with electricity is
11180 essentially on the Net; where everywhere you are&#8212;except maybe the
11181 desert or the Rockies&#8212;you can instantaneously be connected to the
11182 Internet. Imagine the Internet as ubiquitous as the best cell-phone service,
11183 where with the flip of a device, you are connected.
11184 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2908468"></a><p>
11185 In that world, it will be extremely easy to connect to services that give
11186 you access to content on the fly&#8212;such as Internet radio, content that
11187 is streamed to the user when the user demands. Here, then, is the critical
11188 point: When it is <span class="emphasis"><em>extremely</em></span> easy to connect to services
11189 that give access to content, it will be <span class="emphasis"><em>easier</em></span> to
11190 connect to services that give you access to content than it will be to
11191 download and store content <span class="emphasis"><em>on the many devices you will have for
11192 playing content</em></span>. It will be easier, in other words, to subscribe
11193 than it will be to be a database manager, as everyone in the
11194 download-sharing world of Napster-like technologies essentially is. Content
11195 services will compete with content sharing, even if the services charge
11196 money for the content they give access to. Already cell-phone services in
11197 Japan offer music (for a fee) streamed over cell phones (enhanced with plugs
11198 for headphones). The Japanese are paying for this content even though
11199 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> content is available in the form of MP3s across the
11200 Web.<sup>[<a name="id2908510" href="#ftn.id2908510" class="footnote">219</a>]</sup>
11201
11202 </p><p>
11203
11204 This point about the future is meant to suggest a perspective on the
11205 present: It is emphatically temporary. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem</span>»</span> with file
11206 sharing&#8212;to the extent there is a real problem&#8212;is a problem that
11207 will increasingly disappear as it becomes easier to connect to the
11208 Internet.  And thus it is an extraordinary mistake for policy makers today
11209 to be <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">solving</span>»</span> this problem in light of a technology that will
11210 be gone tomorrow.  The question should not be how to regulate the Internet
11211 to eliminate file sharing (the Net will evolve that problem away). The
11212 question instead should be how to assure that artists get paid, during this
11213 transition between twentieth-century models for doing business and
11214 twenty-first-century technologies.
11215 </p><p>
11216 The answer begins with recognizing that there are different
11217 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problems</span>»</span> here to solve. Let's start with type D
11218 content&#8212;uncopyrighted content or copyrighted content that the artist
11219 wants shared. The <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem</span>»</span> with this content is to make sure
11220 that the technology that would enable this kind of sharing is not rendered
11221 illegal. You can think of it this way: Pay phones are used to deliver ransom
11222 demands, no doubt.  But there are many who need to use pay phones who have
11223 nothing to do with ransoms. It would be wrong to ban pay phones in order to
11224 eliminate kidnapping.
11225 </p><p>
11226 Type C content raises a different <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">problem.</span>»</span> This is content
11227 that was, at one time, published and is no longer available. It may be
11228 unavailable because the artist is no longer valuable enough for the record
11229 label he signed with to carry his work. Or it may be unavailable because the
11230 work is forgotten. Either way, the aim of the law should be to facilitate
11231 the access to this content, ideally in a way that returns something to the
11232 artist.
11233 </p><p>
11234 Again, the model here is the used book store. Once a book goes out of print,
11235 it may still be available in libraries and used book stores. But libraries
11236 and used book stores don't pay the copyright owner when someone reads or
11237 buys an out-of-print book. That makes total sense, of course, since any
11238 other system would be so burdensome as to eliminate the possibility of used
11239 book stores' existing. But from the author's perspective, this
11240 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">sharing</span>»</span> of his content without his being compensated is less
11241 than ideal.
11242 </p><p>
11243 The model of used book stores suggests that the law could simply deem
11244 out-of-print music fair game. If the publisher does not make copies of the
11245 music available for sale, then commercial and noncommercial providers would
11246 be free, under this rule, to <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">share</span>»</span> that content, even though
11247 the sharing involved making a copy. The copy here would be incidental to the
11248 trade; in a context where commercial publishing has ended, trading music
11249 should be as free as trading books.
11250 </p><p>
11251
11252
11253
11254 Alternatively, the law could create a statutory license that would ensure
11255 that artists get something from the trade of their work. For example, if the
11256 law set a low statutory rate for the commercial sharing of content that was
11257 not offered for sale by a commercial publisher, and if that rate were
11258 automatically transferred to a trust for the benefit of the artist, then
11259 businesses could develop around the idea of trading this content, and
11260 artists would benefit from this trade.
11261 </p><p>
11262 This system would also create an incentive for publishers to keep works
11263 available commercially. Works that are available commercially would not be
11264 subject to this license. Thus, publishers could protect the right to charge
11265 whatever they want for content if they kept the work commercially
11266 available. But if they don't keep it available, and instead, the computer
11267 hard disks of fans around the world keep it alive, then any royalty owed for
11268 such copying should be much less than the amount owed a commercial
11269 publisher.
11270 </p><p>
11271 The hard case is content of types A and B, and again, this case is hard only
11272 because the extent of the problem will change over time, as the technologies
11273 for gaining access to content change. The law's solution should be as
11274 flexible as the problem is, understanding that we are in the middle of a
11275 radical transformation in the technology for delivering and accessing
11276 content.
11277 </p><p>
11278 Så her er en løsning som i første omgang kan virke veldig undelig for begge
11279 sider i denne krigen, men som jeg tror vil gi mer mening når en får tenkt
11280 seg om.
11281 </p><p>
11282 Stripped of the rhetoric about the sanctity of property, the basic claim of
11283 the content industry is this: A new technology (the Internet)  has harmed a
11284 set of rights that secure copyright. If those rights are to be protected,
11285 then the content industry should be compensated for that harm. Just as the
11286 technology of tobacco harmed the health of millions of Americans, or the
11287 technology of asbestos caused grave illness to thousands of miners, so, too,
11288 has the technology of digital networks harmed the interests of the content
11289 industry.
11290 </p><p>
11291
11292
11293 Jeg elsker internett, så jeg liker ikke å sammenligne det med tobakk eller
11294 asbest.  Men analogien er rimelig når en ser det fra lovens perspektiv. Og
11295 det foreslår en rimelig respons: I stedet for å forsøke å ødelegge internett
11296 eller p2p-teknologien som i dag skader innholdsleverandører på internett, så
11297 bør vi finne en relativt enkel måte å kompensere de som blir skadelidende.
11298 </p><p>
11299 The idea would be a modification of a proposal that has been floated by
11300 Harvard law professor William Fisher.<sup>[<a name="id2908704" href="#ftn.id2908704" class="footnote">220</a>]</sup>
11301 Fisher suggests a very clever way around the current impasse of the
11302 Internet. Under his plan, all content capable of digital transmission would
11303 (1) be marked with a digital watermark (don't worry about how easy it is to
11304 evade these marks; as you'll see, there's no incentive to evade them). Once
11305 the content is marked, then entrepreneurs would develop (2) systems to
11306 monitor how many items of each content were distributed. On the basis of
11307 those numbers, then (3) artists would be compensated. The compensation would
11308 be paid for by (4) an appropriate tax.
11309 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2908904"></a><p>
11310 Fisher's proposal is careful and comprehensive. It raises a million
11311 questions, most of which he answers well in his upcoming book,
11312 <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep</em>. The modification that I would make
11313 is relatively simple: Fisher imagines his proposal replacing the existing
11314 copyright system.  I imagine it complementing the existing system. The aim
11315 of the proposal would be to facilitate compensation to the extent that harm
11316 could be shown. This compensation would be temporary, aimed at facilitating
11317 a transition between regimes. And it would require renewal after a period of
11318 years. If it continues to make sense to facilitate free exchange of content,
11319 supported through a taxation system, then it can be continued. If this form
11320 of protection is no longer necessary, then the system could lapse into the
11321 old system of controlling access.
11322 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2908932"></a><p>
11323
11324 Fisher would balk at the idea of allowing the system to lapse. His aim is
11325 not just to ensure that artists are paid, but also to ensure that the system
11326 supports the widest range of <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">semiotic democracy</span>»</span> possible. But
11327 the aims of semiotic democracy would be satisfied if the other changes I
11328 described were accomplished&#8212;in particular, the limits on derivative
11329 uses. A system that simply charges for access would not greatly burden
11330 semiotic democracy if there were few limitations on what one was allowed to
11331 do with the content itself.
11332 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2908956"></a><p>
11333 No doubt it would be difficult to calculate the proper measure of
11334 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">harm</span>»</span> to an industry. But the difficulty of making that
11335 calculation would be outweighed by the benefit of facilitating
11336 innovation. This background system to compensate would also not need to
11337 interfere with innovative proposals such as Apple's MusicStore. As experts
11338 predicted when Apple launched the MusicStore, it could beat
11339 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> by being easier than free is. This has proven correct:
11340 Apple has sold millions of songs at even the very high price of 99 cents a
11341 song. (At 99 cents, the cost is the equivalent of a per-song CD price,
11342 though the labels have none of the costs of a CD to pay.) Apple's move was
11343 countered by Real Networks, offering music at just 79 cents a song. And no
11344 doubt there will be a great deal of competition to offer and sell music
11345 on-line.
11346 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2908994"></a><p>
11347 This competition has already occurred against the background of
11348 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free</span>»</span> music from p2p systems. As the sellers of cable
11349 television have known for thirty years, and the sellers of bottled water for
11350 much more than that, there is nothing impossible at all about
11351 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">competing with free.</span>»</span> Indeed, if anything, the competition
11352 spurs the competitors to offer new and better products. This is precisely
11353 what the competitive market was to be about. Thus in Singapore, though
11354 piracy is rampant, movie theaters are often luxurious&#8212;with
11355 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">first class</span>»</span> seats, and meals served while you watch a
11356 movie&#8212;as they struggle and succeed in finding ways to compete with
11357 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">free.</span>»</span>
11358 </p><p>
11359 Dette konkurranseregimet, med en sikringsmekanisme for å sikre at kunstnere
11360 ikke taper, ville bidra mye til nyskapning innen levering av
11361 innhold. Konkurransen ville fortsette å redusere type-A-deling.  Det ville
11362 inspirere en ekstraordinær rekke av nye innovatører&#8212;som ville ha
11363 retten til a bruke innhold, og ikke lenger frykte usikre og barbarisk
11364 strenge straffer fra loven.
11365 </p><p>
11366 Oppsummert, så er dette mitt forslag:
11367 </p><p>
11368
11369
11370
11371 Internett er i endring. Vi bør ikke regulere en teknologi i endring. Vi bør
11372 i stedet regulere for å minimere skaden påført interesser som er berørt av
11373 denne teknologiske endringen, samtidig vi muliggjør, og oppmuntrer, den mest
11374 effektive teknologien vi kan lage.
11375 </p><p>
11376 Vi kan minimere skaden og samtidig maksimere fordelen med innovasjon ved å
11377 </p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
11378
11379
11380 garantere retten til å engasjere seg i type-D-deling;
11381 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11382
11383
11384 tillate ikke-kommersiell type-C-deling uten erstatningsansvar, og
11385 kommersiell type-C-deling med en lav og fast rate fastsatt ved lov.
11386 </p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
11387
11388
11389 mens denne overgangen pågår, skattlegge og kompensere for type-A-deling, i
11390 den grad faktiske skade kan påvises.
11391 </p></li></ol></div><p>
11392 Men hva om <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">piratvirksomheten</span>»</span> ikke forsvinner?  Hva om det
11393 finnes et konkurranseutsatt marked som tilbyr innhold til en lav kostnad,
11394 men et signifikant antall av forbrukere fortsetter å <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">ta</span>»</span>
11395 innhold uten å betale?  Burde loven gjøre noe da?
11396 </p><p>
11397 Ja, det bør den.  Men, nok en gang, hva den bør gjøre avhenger hvordan
11398 realitetene utvikler seg. Disse endringene fjerner kanskje ikke all
11399 type-A-deling. Men det virkelige spørmålet er ikke om de eliminerer deling i
11400 abstrakt betydning.  Det virkelige spørsmålet er hvilken effekt det har på
11401 markedet.  Er det bedre (a) å ha en teknologi som er 95 prosent sikker og
11402 gir et marked av størrelse <em class="citetitle">x</em>, eller (b) å ha en
11403 teknologi som er 50 prosent sikker, og som gir et marked som er fem ganger
11404 større enn <em class="citetitle">x</em>?  Mindre sikker kan gi mer uautorisert
11405 deling, men det vil sannsynligvis også gi et mye større marked for
11406 autorisert deling. Det viktigste er å sikre kunstneres kompensasjon uten å
11407 ødelegge internettet.  Når det er på plass, kan det hende det er riktig å
11408 finne måter å spore opp de smålige piratene.
11409 </p><p>
11410
11411 Men vi er langt unna å spikke problemet ned til dette delsettet av
11412 type-A-delere.  Og vårt fokus inntil er der bør ikke være å finne måter å
11413 ødelegge internettet.  Var fokus inntil vi er der bør være hvordan sikre at
11414 artister får betalt, mens vi beskytter rommet for nyskapning og kreativitet
11415 som internettet er.
11416 </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>
11417 Jeg er en advokat. Jeg lever av å utdanne advokater. Jeg tror på loven. Jeg
11418 tror på opphavsrettsloven. Jeg har faktisk viet livet til å jobbe med loven,
11419 ikke fordi det er mye penger å tjene, men fordi det innebærer idealer som
11420 jeg elsker å leve opp til.
11421 </p><p>
11422 Likevel har mye av denne boken vært kritikk av advokater, eller rollen
11423 advokater har spilt i denne debatten.  Loven taler om idealer, mens det er
11424 min oppfatning av vår yrkesgruppe er blitt for knyttet til klienten.  Og i
11425 en verden der rike klienter har sterke synspunkter vil uviljen hos vår
11426 yrkesgruppe til å stille spørsmål med eller protestere mot dette sterke
11427 synet ødelegge loven.
11428 </p><p>
11429 Indisiene for slik bøyning er overbevisene.  Jeg er angrepet som en
11430 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">radikal</span>»</span> av mange innenfor yrket, og likevel er meningene jeg
11431 argumenterer for nøyaktig de meningene til mange av de mest moderate og
11432 betydningsfulle personene i historien til denne delen av loven. Mange trodde
11433 for eksempel at vår utfordring til lovforslaget om å utvide opphavsrettens
11434 vernetid var galskap.  Mens bare tredve år siden mente den dominerende
11435 foreleser og utøver i opphavsrettsfeltet, Melville Nimmer, at den var
11436 åpenbar.<sup>[<a name="id2909232" href="#ftn.id2909232" class="footnote">221</a>]</sup>
11437
11438 </p><p>
11439 Min kritikk av rollen som advokater har spilt i denne debatten handler
11440 imidlertid ikke bare om en profesjonell skjevhet. Det handler enda viktigere
11441 om vår manglende evne til å faktisk ta inn over oss hva loven koster.
11442 </p><p>
11443 Økonomer er forventet å være gode til å forstå utgifter og inntekter.  Men
11444 som oftest antar økonomene uten peiling på hvordan det juridiske systemet
11445 egentlig fungerer, at transaksjonskostnaden i det juridiske systemet er
11446 lav.<sup>[<a name="id2909270" href="#ftn.id2909270" class="footnote">222</a>]</sup>  De ser et system som har
11447 eksistert i hundrevis av år, og de antar at det fungerer slik grunnskolens
11448 samfunnsfagsundervisning lærte dem at det fungerer.
11449 </p><p>
11450
11451
11452 Men det juridiske systemet fungerer ikke. Eller for å være mer nøyaktig, det
11453 fungerer kun for de med mest ressurser.  Det er ikke fordi systemet er
11454 korrupt. Jeg tror overhodet ikke vårt juridisk system (på føderalt nivå, i
11455 hvert fall) er korrupt. Jeg mener ganske enkelt at på grunn av at kostnadene
11456 med vårt juridiske systemet er så hårreisende høyt vil en praktisk talt
11457 aldri oppnå rettferdighet.
11458 </p><p>
11459 Disse kostnadene forstyrrer fri kultur på mange vis.  En advokats tid
11460 faktureres hos de største firmaene for mer enn $400 pr. time. Hvor mye tid
11461 bør en slik advokat bruke på å lese sakene nøye, eller undersøke obskure
11462 rettskilder.  Svaret er i økende grad: svært lite. Jussen er avhengig av
11463 nøye formulering og utvikling av doktrine, men nøye formulering og utvikling
11464 av doktrine er avhengig av nøyaktig arbeid.  Men nøyaktig arbeid koster for
11465 mye, bortsett fra i de mest høyprofilerte og kostbare sakene.
11466 </p><p>
11467 Kostbarheten, klomsetheten og tilfeldigheten til dette systemet håner vår
11468 tradisjon. Og advokater, såvel som akademikere, bør se det som sin plikt å
11469 endre hvordan loven praktiseres&#8212; eller bedre, endre loven slik at den
11470 fungerer. Det er galt at systemet fungerer godt bare for den øverste
11471 1-prosenten av klientene.  Det kan gjøres radikalt mer effektivt, og billig,
11472 og dermed radikalt mer rettferdig.
11473 </p><p>
11474 Men inntil en slik reform er gjennomført, bør vi som samfunn holde lover
11475 unna områder der vi vet den bare vil skade.  Og det er nettopp det loven
11476 altfor ofte vil gjøre hvis for mye av vår kultur er lovregulert.
11477 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2909372"></a><p>
11478 Tenk på de fantastiske tingene ditt barn kan gjøre eller lage med digital
11479 teknologi&#8212;filmen, musikken, web-siden, bloggen. Eller tenk på de
11480 fantastiske tingene ditt fellesskap kunne få til med digital
11481 teknologi&#8212;en wiki, oppsetting av låve, kampanje til å endre noe. Tenk
11482 på alle de kreative tingene, og tenk deretter på kald sirup helt inn i
11483 maskinene. Dette er hva et hvert regime som krever tillatelser fører
11484 til. Dette er virkeligheten slik den var i Brezhnevs Russland.
11485 </p><p>
11486
11487 Loven bør regulere i visse områder av kulturen&#8212;men det bør regulere
11488 kultur bare der reguleringen bidrar positivt. Likevel tester advokater
11489 sjeldent sin kraft, eller kraften som de fremmer, mot dette enkle pragmatisk
11490 spørsmålet: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">vil det bidra positivt?</span>»</span>.  Når de blir utfordret
11491 om det utvidede rekkevidden til loven, er advokat-svaret, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvorfor
11492 ikke?</span>»</span>
11493 </p><p>
11494 Vi burde spørre: <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Hvorfor?</span>»</span>. Vis meg hvorfor din regulering av
11495 kultur er nødvendig og vis meg hvordan reguleringen bidrar positivt.  Før du
11496 kan vise meg begge, holde advokatene din unna.
11497 </p></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br><hr width="100" align="left"><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2906810" href="#id2906810" class="para">210</a>] </sup>
11498
11499
11500
11501 See, for example, Marc Rotenberg, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Fair Information Practices and the
11502 Architecture of Privacy (What Larry Doesn't Get),</span>»</span>
11503 <em class="citetitle">Stanford Technology Law Review</em> 1 (2001):
11504 par. 6&#8211;18, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a> (describing examples in
11505 which technology defines privacy policy). See also Jeffrey Rosen,
11506 <em class="citetitle">The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious
11507 Age</em> (New York: Random House, 2004) (mapping tradeoffs between
11508 technology and privacy).</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2907383" href="#id2907383" class="para">211</a>] </sup>
11509
11510
11511 <em class="citetitle">Willful Infringement: A Report from the Front Lines of the Real
11512 Culture Wars</em> (2003), produced by Jed Horovitz, directed by Greg
11513 Hittelman, a Fiat Lucre production, available at <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #72</a>.
11514 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2907575" href="#id2907575" class="para">212</a>] </sup>
11515
11516
11517 The proposal I am advancing here would apply to American works only.
11518 Obviously, I believe it would be beneficial for the same idea to be adopted
11519 by other countries as well.</p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2907711" href="#id2907711" class="para">213</a>] </sup>
11520
11521
11522 There would be a complication with derivative works that I have not solved
11523 here. In my view, the law of derivatives creates a more complicated system
11524 than is justified by the marginal incentive it creates.
11525 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2907844" href="#id2907844" class="para">214</a>] </sup>
11526
11527
11528
11529 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">A Radical Rethink</span>»</span>, <em class="citetitle">Economist</em>, 366:8308
11530 (25. januar 2003): 15, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #74</a>.
11531 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2907965" href="#id2907965" class="para">215</a>] </sup>
11532
11533
11534 Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation
11535 and/or Pension, VA Form 21-526 (OMB Approved No. 2900-0001), tilgjengelig
11536 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #75</a>.
11537 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2908127" href="#id2908127" class="para">216</a>] </sup>
11538
11539
11540 Benjamin Kaplan, <em class="citetitle">An Unhurried View of Copyright</em> (New
11541 York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 32.
11542 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2908159" href="#id2908159" class="para">217</a>] </sup>
11543
11544 Ibid., 56.
11545 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2908246" href="#id2908246" class="para">218</a>] </sup>
11546
11547 Paul Goldstein, <em class="citetitle">Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the
11548 Celestial Jukebox</em> (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003),
11549 187&#8211;216.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2906825"></a>
11550 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2908510" href="#id2908510" class="para">219</a>] </sup>
11551
11552
11553 For eksempel, se, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Music Media Watch</span>»</span>, The J@pan
11554 Inc. Newsletter, 3 April 2002, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #76</a>.
11555 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2908704" href="#id2908704" class="para">220</a>] </sup>
11556
11557 <a class="indexterm" name="idxartistspayments3"></a> William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Digital
11558 Music: Problems and Possibilities</em> (sist revidert: 10. oktober
11559 2000), tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11560 #77</a>; William Fisher, <em class="citetitle">Promises to Keep: Technology, Law,
11561 and the Future of Entertainment</em> (kommer) (Stanford: Stanford
11562 University Press, 2004), kap. 6, tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #78</a>. Professor Netanel har
11563 foreslått en relatert idé som ville gjøre at opphavsretten ikke gjelder
11564 ikke-kommersiell deling fra og ville etablere kompenasjon til kunstnere for
11565 å balansere eventuelle tap. Se Neil Weinstock Netanel, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Impose a
11566 Noncommercial Use Levy to Allow Free P2P File Sharing</span>»</span>, tilgjengelig
11567 fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link #79</a>. For andre
11568 forslag, se Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Who's Holding Back Broadband?</span>»</span>
11569 <em class="citetitle">Washington Post</em>, 8. january 2002, A17; Philip
11570 S. Corwin på vegne av Sharman Networks, Et brev til Senator Joseph R. Biden,
11571 Jr., leder i the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 26. februar. 2002,
11572 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11573 #80</a>; Serguei Osokine, <em class="citetitle">A Quick Case for Intellectual
11574 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,
11575 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Kazaa, Verizon Propose to Pay Artists Directly</span>»</span>,
11576 <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,
11577 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Getting Copyright Right</span>»</span>, IEEE Spectrum Online, 1. juli 2002,
11578 tilgjengelig fra <a class="ulink" href="http://free-culture.cc/notes/" target="_top">link
11579 #83</a>; Declan McCullagh, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Verizon's Copyright Campaign</span>»</span>,
11580 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
11581 er ganske likt forslaget til Richard Stallman når det gjelder DAT.  I
11582 motsetning til Fishers forslag, ville Stallmanns forslag ikke betale
11583 kunstnere proposjonalt, selv om mer populære artister ville få mer betalt
11584 enn mindre populære.  Slik det er typisk med Stallman, la han fram sitt
11585 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="id2908861"></a> <a class="indexterm" name="id2908868"></a>
11586 <a class="indexterm" name="id2908875"></a>
11587 <a class="indexterm" name="id2908882"></a>
11588 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2909232" href="#id2909232" class="para">221</a>] </sup>
11589
11590
11591 Lawrence Lessig, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Copyright's First Amendment</span>»</span> (Melville
11592 B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture), <em class="citetitle">UCLA law Review</em> 48
11593 (2001): 1057, 1069&#8211;70.
11594 </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.id2909270" href="#id2909270" class="para">222</a>] </sup>
11595
11596 Et godt eksempel er arbeidet til professor Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz bør få
11597 ros for sin nøye gjennomgang av data om opphavsrettsbrudd, som fikk ham til
11598 å stille spørsmål med sin egen uttalte posisjon&#8212;to ganger.  I starten
11599 predicated han at nedlasting ville påføre industrien vesentlig skade.  Han
11600 endret så sitt syn etter i lys av dataene, og han har siden endret sitt syn
11601 på nytt.  Sammenlign Stan J. Liebowitz, <em class="citetitle">Rethinking the Network
11602 Economy: The True Forces That Drive the Digital Marketplace</em> (New
11603 York: Amacom, 2002), (gikk igjennom hans originale syn men uttrykte skepsis)
11604 med Stan J.  Liebowitz, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Will MP3s Annihilate the Record
11605 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
11606 Liebowitz er ekstremt verdifull i sin estimering av effekten av
11607 fildelingsteknologi.  Etter mitt syn underestimerer han forøvrig kostnaden
11608 til det juridiske system.  Se, for eksempel,
11609 <em class="citetitle">Rethinking</em>, 174&#8211;76.  <a class="indexterm" name="id2909247"></a>
11610 </p></div></div></div><div class="chapter" title="Notater"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-notes"></a>Notater</h2></div></div></div><p>
11611 I denne teksten er det referanser til lenker på verdensveven.  Og som alle
11612 som har forsøkt å bruke nettet vet, så vil disse lenkene være svært
11613 ustabile.  Jeg har forsøkt å motvirke denne ustabiliteten ved å omdirigere
11614 lesere til den originale kilden gjennom en nettside som hører til denne
11615 boken.  For hver lenke under, så kan du gå til http://free-culture.cc/notes
11616 og finne den originale kilden ved å klikke på nummeret etter #-tegnet.  Hvis
11617 den originale lenken fortsatt er i live, så vil du bli omdirigert til den
11618 lenken.  Hvis den originale lenken har forsvunnet, så vil du bli omdirigert
11619 til en passende referanse til materialet.
11620 </p></div><div class="chapter" title="Takk til"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="c-acknowledgments"></a>Takk til</h2></div></div></div><p>
11621 Denne boken er produktet av en lang og så langt mislykket kamp som begynte
11622 da jeg leste om Eric Eldreds krig for å sørge for at bøker forble
11623 frie. Eldreds innsats bidro til å lansere en bevegelse, fri
11624 kultur-bevegelsen, og denne boken er tilegnet ham.
11625 </p><a class="indexterm" name="id2909518"></a><p>
11626 Jeg fikk veiledning på ulike steder fra venner og akademikere, inkludert
11627 Glenn Brown, Peter DiCola, Jennifer Mnookin, Richard Posner, Mark Rose og
11628 Kathleen Sullivan. Og jeg fikk korreksjoner og veiledning fra mange
11629 fantastiske studenter ved Stanford Law School og Stanford University. Det
11630 inkluderer Andrew B. Coan, John Eden, James P. Fellers, Christopher
11631 Guzelian, Erica Goldberg, Robert Hallman, Andrew Harris, Matthew Kahn,
11632 Brian-Link, Ohad Mayblum, Alina Ng og Erica Platt. Jeg er særlig takknemlig
11633 overfor Catherine Crump og Harry Surden, som hjalp til med å styre deres
11634 forskning og til Laura Lynch, som briljant håndterte hæren de samlet, samt
11635 bidro med sitt egen kritisk blikk på mye av dette.
11636 </p><p>
11637
11638 Yuko Noguchi hjalp meg å forstå lovene i Japan, så vel som Japans
11639 kultur. Jeg er henne takknemlig, og til de mange i Japan som hjalp meg med
11640 forundersøkelsene til denne boken: Joi Ito, Takayuki Matsutani, Naoto
11641 Misaki, Michihiro Sasaki, Hiromichi Tanaka, Hiroo Yamagata og Yoshihiro
11642 Yonezawa.  Jeg er også takknemlig til professor Nobuhiro Nakayama og Tokyo
11643 University Business Law Center, som ga meg muligheten til å bruke tid i
11644 Japan, og Tadashi Shiraishi og Kiyokazu Yamagami for deres generøse hjelp
11645 mens jeg var der.
11646 </p><p>
11647 Dette er de tradisjonelle former for hjelp som akademikere regelmessig
11648 trekker på. Men i tillegg til dem, har Internett gjort det mulig å motta råd
11649 og korrigering fra mange som jeg har aldri møtt.  Blant de som har svart med
11650 svært nyttig råd etter forespørsler om boken på bloggen min er Dr. Muhammed
11651 Al-Ubaydli, David Gerstein og Peter Dimauro, I tillegg en lang liste med de
11652 som hadde spesifikke idéer om måter å utvikle mine argumenter på.  De
11653 inkluderte Richard Bondi, Steven Cherry, David Coe, Nik Cubrilovic, Bob
11654 Devine, Charles Eicher, Thomas Guida, Elihu M. Gerson, Jeremy Hunsinger,
11655 Vaughn Iverson, John Karabaic, Jeff Keltner, James Lindenschmidt,
11656 K. L. Mann, Mark Manning, Nora McCauley, Jeffrey McHugh, Evan McMullen, Fred
11657 Norton, John Pormann, Pedro A. D.  Rezende, Shabbir Safdar, Saul Schleimer,
11658 Clay Shirky, Adam Shostack, Kragen Sitaker, Chris Smith, Bruce Steinberg,
11659 Andrzej Jan Taramina, Sean Walsh, Matt Wasserman, Miljenko Williams,
11660 <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Wink,</span>»</span> Roger Wood, <span class="quote">«<span class="quote">Ximmbo da Jazz,</span>»</span> og Richard
11661 Yanco. (jeg beklager hvis jeg gikk glipp av noen, med datamaskiner kommer
11662 feil og en krasj i e-postsystemet mitt gjorde at jeg mistet en haug med
11663 flotte svar.)
11664 </p><p>
11665 Richard Stallman og Michael Carroll har begge lest hele boken i utkast, og
11666 hver av dem har bidratt med svært nyttige korreksjoner og råd. Michael hjalp
11667 meg å se mer tydelig betydningen av regulering for avledede verker . Og
11668 Richard korrigerte en pinlig stor mengde feil.  Selv om mitt arbeid er
11669 delvis inspirert av Stallmans, er han ikke enig med meg på vesentlige steder
11670 i denne boken.
11671 </p><p>
11672 Til slutt, og for evig, er jeg Bettina takknemlig, som alltid har insistert
11673 på at det ville være endeløs lykke utenfor disse kampene, og som alltid har
11674 hatt rett.  Denne trege eleven er som alltid takknemlig for hennes
11675 evigvarende tålmodighet og kjærlighet.
11676 </p></div><div class="index" title="Indeks"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a name="id2909651"></a>Indeks</h2></div></div></div><div class="index"><div class="indexdiv"><h3>A</h3><dl><dt>ABC, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Adobe eBook Reader, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Adromeda, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>Africa, medications for HIV patients in, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Agee, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>agricultural patents, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Aibo robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>akademiske tidsskrifter, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Akerlof, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Alben, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</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>Allen, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Amazon, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>American Association of Law Libraries, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>American Graphophone Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Anello, Douglas, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>antiretroviral drugs, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>archive.org, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>(se også Internett-arkivet)</dt></dl></dd><dt>Aristoteles, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>arkitektur, begrensninger med opphav i, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>arkiver, digitale, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Armstrong, Edwin Howard, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Arrow, Kenneth, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>artister</dt><dd><dl><dt>musikkindustriens betaling til, <a class="indexterm" href="#catalogs">Kapittel tre: Kataloger</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>publicity rights on images of, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>retrospective compilations on, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>ASCAP, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2881381">«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: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Bern-konvensjonen (1908), <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Bernstein, Leonard, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Betamax, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>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>biomedical research, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Black, Jane, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>BMG, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>BMW, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Boies, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>bøker</dt><dd><dl><dt>totalt antall, <a class="indexterm" href="#collectors">Kapittel ni: Samlere</a></dt></dl></dd><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>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>Buchanan, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Bunyan, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Burdick, Quentin, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>Bush, George W., <a class="indexterm" href="#constrain">Constraining Creators</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>C</h3><dl><dt>Camp Chaos, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel), <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Carson, Rachel, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Casablanca, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Causby, Thomas Lee, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Causby, Tinie, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#harms">Kapittel tolv: Skader</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>CBS, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>chimeras, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Christensen, Clayton M., <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">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: Chimera</a></dt><dt>cookies, Internet, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>copyleft licenses, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Country of the Blind, The (Wells), <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>Creative Commons, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Crichton, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «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="#id2881381">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Drucker, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><dt>Dryden, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Dylan, Bob, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>E</h3><dl><dt>Eagle Forum, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Eastman, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Edison, Thomas, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>eiendomsrettigheter</dt><dd><dl><dt>lufttrafikk mot, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Elektronisk forpost-stiftelsen (EFF), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt><dt>EMI, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Erskine, Andrew, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>F</h3><dl><dt>Fallows, James, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Fanning, Shawn, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a></dt><dt>Faraday, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Fisher, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Florida, Richard, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2881381">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Forbes, Steve, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>fotografering, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Fourneaux, Henri, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>Fox, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>Free for All (Wayner), <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Fried, Charles, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Friedman, Milton, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>G</h3><dl><dt>Garlick, Mia, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Gates, Bill, <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>General Film Company, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a></dt><dt>Gershwin, George, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Gil, Gilberto, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>GNU/Linux-operativsystemet, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Goldstein, Paul, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Gracie Films, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Grisham, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>H</h3><dl><dt>Hal Roach Studios, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Hand, Learned, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a></dt><dt>Hawthorne, Nathaniel, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Henry V, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Henry VIII, Konge av England, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Heston, Charlton, <a class="indexterm" href="#cabletv">Kabel-TV</a></dt><dt>HIV/AIDS therapies, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Hollings, Fritz, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer Winblad, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Hummer, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>hvis verdi, så rettighet-teorien, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2881381">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2881381">«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 Explorer, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</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: Chimera</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>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></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>K</h3><dl><dt>Kaplan, Benjamin, <a class="indexterm" href="#freefairuse">3. Fri Bruk vs. rimelig bruk</a></dt><dt>Kelly, Kevin, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Kennedy, John F., <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Kittredge, Alfred, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt><dt>kjørehastighet, begrensninger på, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt><dt>Kodak Primer, The (Eastman), <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Kozinski, Alex, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">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>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: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred-ii">Kapittel fjorten: Eldred II</a></dt><dt>Lucky Dog, The, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><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>Mansfield, William Murray, Lord, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2881381">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#id2881381">«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: Omformere</a></dt><dd><dl><dt>Windows operating system of, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Milton, John, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>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></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>N</h3><dl><dt>Nashville Songwriters Association, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>National Writers Union, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>NBC, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Needleman, Rafe, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Netanel, Neil Weinstock, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#liberatemusic">4. Frigjør musikken&#8212;igjen</a></dt><dt>Netscape, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-i">Piratvirksomhet I</a></dt><dt>Nimmer, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#transformers">Kapittel åtte: Omformere</a></dt><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></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>Picker, Randal C., <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#radio">Radio</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#piracy-ii">Piratvirksomhet II</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>PLoS (Public Library of Science), <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#examples">Gjenoppbygging av friheter som tidligere var antatt: Eksempler</a></dt><dt>Pogue, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a></dt><dt>Politikk, (Aristotles), <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>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="#id2881381">«Piratvirksomhet»</a></dt><dt>Roberts, Michael, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>robothund, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rogers, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Rose, Mark, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-acknowledgments">Takk til</a></dt><dt>RPI (Se Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI))</dt><dt>Rubenfeld, Jeb, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt><dt>Russel, Phil, <a class="indexterm" href="#recordedmusic">Innspilt musikk</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>S</h3><dl><dt>Safire, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#preface">Forord</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>San Francisco Opera, <a class="indexterm" href="#recorders">Kapittel sju: Innspillerne</a></dt><dt>Sarnoff, David, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Schlafly, Phyllis, <a class="indexterm" href="#eldred">Kapittel tretten: Eldred</a></dt><dt>Shakespeare, William, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a></dt><dt>Silent Sprint (Carson), <a class="indexterm" href="#hollywood">Hvorfor Hollywood har rett</a></dt><dt>Sony</dt><dd><dl><dt>Aibo robothund produsert av, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt></dl></dd><dt>Sony Pictures Entertainment, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «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: Omformere</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>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></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>U</h3><dl><dt>Universal Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>Universal Pictures, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>V</h3><dl><dt>Vaidhyanathan, Siva, <a class="indexterm" href="#creators">Kapittel en: Skaperne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#film">Film</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#founders">Kapittel seks: Grunnleggerne</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#together">Sammen</a></dt><dt>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>Vivendi Universal, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#innovators">Constraining Innovators</a></dt><dt>von Lohmann, Fred, <a class="indexterm" href="#corruptingcitizens">Corrupting Citizens</a></dt></dl></div><div class="indexdiv"><h3>W</h3><dl><dt>Warner Brothers, <a class="indexterm" href="#property-i">Kapittel ti: «Eiendom»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawforce">Arkitektur og lov: Makt</a></dt><dt>Warner Music Group, <a class="indexterm" href="#marketconcentration">Marked: Konsentrasjon</a></dt><dt>Warren, Samuel D., <a class="indexterm" href="#mere-copyists">Kapittel to: «Kun etter-apere»</a></dt><dt>Wayner, Peter, <a class="indexterm" href="#oneidea">Gjenoppbygging av fri kultur: En idé</a></dt><dt>Webster, Noah, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-introduction">Introduksjon</a></dt><dt>Wellcome Trust, <a class="indexterm" href="#c-conclusion">Konklusjon</a></dt><dt>Wells, H. G., <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#chimera">Kapittel elleve: Chimera</a></dt><dt>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>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></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="#id2881381">«Piratvirksomhet»</a>, <a class="indexterm" href="#lawscope">Loven: Virkeområde</a></dt></dl></div></div></div></div></body></html>