</para>
<para>
I accept that criticism, if indeed it is a criticism. The work of a
-lawyer is always derivative, and I mean to do nothing more in this book
-than to remind a culture about a tradition that has always been its own.
-Like Stallman, I defend that tradition on the basis of values. Like
-Stallman, I believe those are the values of freedom. And like Stallman,
-I believe those are values of our past that will need to be defended in
-our future. A free culture has been our past, but it will only be our
- future
-if we change the path we are on right now.
-xv
+lawyer is always derivative, and I mean to do nothing more in this
+book than to remind a culture about a tradition that has always been
+its own. Like Stallman, I defend that tradition on the basis of
+values. Like Stallman, I believe those are the values of freedom. And
+like Stallman, I believe those are values of our past that will need
+to be defended in our future. A free culture has been our past, but it
+will only be our future if we change the path we are on right now.
+
<!-- PAGE BREAK 14 -->
Like Stallman's arguments for free software, an argument for free
culture stumbles on a confusion that is hard to avoid, and even harder
what I advance here.
</para>
<para>
-Instead, the free culture that I defend in this book is a balance
- between
-anarchy and control. A free culture, like a free market, is filled
-with property. It is filled with rules of property and contract that get
-enforced by the state. But just as a free market is perverted if its
- property
-becomes feudal, so too can a free culture be queered by extremism
-in the property rights that define it. That is what I fear about our
- culture
-today. It is against that extremism that this book is written.
+Instead, the free culture that I defend in this book is a balance
+between anarchy and control. A free culture, like a free market, is
+filled with property. It is filled with rules of property and contract
+that get enforced by the state. But just as a free market is perverted
+if its property becomes feudal, so too can a free culture be queered
+by extremism in the property rights that define it. That is what I
+fear about our culture today. It is against that extremism that this
+book is written.
</para>
</chapter>
the most important early victory being Millar v. Taylor.
</para>
<para>
-Millar was a bookseller who in 1729 had purchased the rights to
-James Thomson's poem "The Seasons." Millar complied with the
- requirements
-of the Statute of Anne, and therefore received the full
- protection
-of the statute. After the term of copyright ended, Robert Taylor
-began printing a competing volume. Millar sued, claiming a perpetual
-common law right, the Statute of Anne notwithstanding.<footnote><para>
+Millar was a bookseller who in 1729 had purchased the rights to James
+Thomson's poem "The Seasons." Millar complied with the requirements of
+the Statute of Anne, and therefore received the full protection of the
+statute. After the term of copyright ended, Robert Taylor began
+printing a competing volume. Millar sued, claiming a perpetual common
+law right, the Statute of Anne notwithstanding.<footnote><para>
<!-- f11 -->
-Howard B. Abrams, "The Historic Foundation of American Copyright
-Law: Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright," Wayne Law
- Review
-29 (1983): 1152.
+Howard B. Abrams, "The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:
+Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright," Wayne Law Review 29
+(1983): 1152.
</para></footnote>
</para>
<para>
-Astonishingly to modern lawyers, one of the greatest judges in
- English
+Astonishingly to modern lawyers, one of the greatest judges in English
history, Lord Mansfield, agreed with the booksellers. Whatever
protection the Statute of Anne gave booksellers, it did not, he held,
-extinguish any common law right. The question was whether the
-common law would protect the author against subsequent "pirates."
+extinguish any common law right. The question was whether the common
+law would protect the author against subsequent "pirates."
Mansfield's answer was yes: The common law would bar Taylor from
-reprinting Thomson's poem without Millar's permission. That
- common
-law rule thus effectively gave the booksellers a perpetual right to
+reprinting Thomson's poem without Millar's permission. That common law
+rule thus effectively gave the booksellers a perpetual right to
control the publication of any book assigned to them.
</para>
<para>
-Considered as a matter of abstract justice—reasoning as if justice
-were just a matter of logical deduction from first principles—Mansfield's
-conclusion might make some sense. But what it ignored was the larger
-issue that Parliament had struggled with in 1710: How best to limit
+Considered as a matter of abstract justice—reasoning as if
+justice were just a matter of logical deduction from first
+principles—Mansfield's conclusion might make some sense. But
+what it ignored was the larger issue that Parliament had struggled
+with in 1710: How best to limit
<!-- PAGE BREAK 103 -->
the monopoly power of publishers? Parliament's strategy was to offer a
term for existing works that was long enough to buy peace in 1710, but
short enough to assure that culture would pass into competition within
-a reasonable period of time. Within twenty-one years, Parliament
- believed,
-Britain would mature from the controlled culture that the
+a reasonable period of time. Within twenty-one years, Parliament
+believed, Britain would mature from the controlled culture that the
Crown coveted to the free culture that we inherited.
</para>
<para>
</para>
<para>
The House of Lords was an odd institution. Legal questions were
-presented to the House and voted upon first by the "law lords,"
- members
-of special legal distinction who functioned much like the Justices
-in our Supreme Court. Then, after the law lords voted, the House of
-Lords generally voted.
+presented to the House and voted upon first by the "law lords,"
+members of special legal distinction who functioned much like the
+Justices in our Supreme Court. Then, after the law lords voted, the
+House of Lords generally voted.
</para>
<para>
The reports about the law lords' votes are mixed. On some counts,
<para>
It is hard for us to imagine, but this decision by the House of Lords
fueled an extraordinarily popular and political reaction. In Scotland,
-where most of the "pirate publishers" did their work, people celebrated
-the decision in the streets. As the Edinburgh Advertiser reported, "No
-private cause has so much engrossed the attention of the public, and
-none has been tried before the House of Lords in the decision of
-which so many individuals were interested." "Great rejoicing in
- Edinburgh
-upon victory over literary property: bonfires and
- illuminations."<footnote><para>
+where most of the "pirate publishers" did their work, people
+celebrated the decision in the streets. As the Edinburgh Advertiser
+reported, "No private cause has so much engrossed the attention of the
+public, and none has been tried before the House of Lords in the
+decision of which so many individuals were interested." "Great
+rejoicing in Edinburgh upon victory over literary property: bonfires
+and illuminations."<footnote><para>
<!-- f13 -->
Rose, 97.
</para></footnote>
</para>
<para>
In London, however, at least among publishers, the reaction was
-equally strong in the opposite direction. The Morning Chronicle
- reported:
+equally strong in the opposite direction. The Morning Chronicle
+reported:
</para>
<blockquote>
<para>
-By the above decision . . . near 200,000 pounds worth of what
-was honestly purchased at public sale, and which was yesterday
-thought property is now reduced to nothing. The Booksellers of
-London and Westminster, many of whom sold estates and houses
-to purchase Copy-right, are in a manner ruined, and those who
-after many years industry thought they had acquired a
- competency
-to provide for their families now find themselves without a
-shilling to devise to their successors.<footnote><para>
+By the above decision . . . near 200,000 pounds worth of what was
+honestly purchased at public sale, and which was yesterday thought
+property is now reduced to nothing. The Booksellers of London and
+Westminster, many of whom sold estates and houses to purchase
+Copy-right, are in a manner ruined, and those who after many years
+industry thought they had acquired a competency to provide for their
+families now find themselves without a shilling to devise to their
+successors.<footnote><para>
<!-- f14 -->
Ibid.
</para></footnote>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 105 -->
"Ruined" is a bit of an exaggeration. But it is not an exaggeration to
say that the change was profound. The decision of the House of Lords
-meant that the booksellers could no longer control how culture in
- England
-would grow and develop. Culture in England was thereafter free.
-Not in the sense that copyrights would not be respected, for of course,
-for a limited time after a work was published, the bookseller had an
- exclusive
-right to control the publication of that book. And not in the
-sense that books could be stolen, for even after a copyright expired, you
-still had to buy the book from someone. But free in the sense that the
-culture and its growth would no longer be controlled by a small group
-of publishers. As every free market does, this free market of free culture
-would grow as the consumers and producers chose. English culture
-would develop as the many English readers chose to let it develop—
-chose in the books they bought and wrote; chose in the memes they
-repeated and endorsed. Chose in a competitive context, not a context
-in which the choices about what culture is available to people and
-how they get access to it are made by the few despite the wishes of
-the many.
-</para>
-<para>
-At least, this was the rule in a world where the Parliament is
- antimonopoly,
-resistant to the protectionist pleas of publishers. In a world
-where the Parliament is more pliant, free culture would be less
- protected.
+meant that the booksellers could no longer control how culture in
+England would grow and develop. Culture in England was thereafter
+free. Not in the sense that copyrights would not be respected, for of
+course, for a limited time after a work was published, the bookseller
+had an exclusive right to control the publication of that book. And
+not in the sense that books could be stolen, for even after a
+copyright expired, you still had to buy the book from someone. But
+free in the sense that the culture and its growth would no longer be
+controlled by a small group of publishers. As every free market does,
+this free market of free culture would grow as the consumers and
+producers chose. English culture would develop as the many English
+readers chose to let it develop— chose in the books they bought
+and wrote; chose in the memes they repeated and endorsed. Chose in a
+competitive context, not a context in which the choices about what
+culture is available to people and how they get access to it are made
+by the few despite the wishes of the many.
+</para>
+<para>
+At least, this was the rule in a world where the Parliament is
+antimonopoly, resistant to the protectionist pleas of publishers. In a
+world where the Parliament is more pliant, free culture would be less
+protected.
</para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 106 -->
</sect1>
</para>
<para>
In 1990, Else was working on a documentary about Wagner's Ring
-Cycle. The focus was stagehands at the San Francisco Opera.
- Stagehands
-are a particularly funny and colorful element of an opera.
- During
-a show, they hang out below the stage in the grips' lounge and in
-the lighting loft. They make a perfect contrast to the art on the stage.
+Cycle. The focus was stagehands at the San Francisco Opera.
+Stagehands are a particularly funny and colorful element of an opera.
+During a show, they hang out below the stage in the grips' lounge and
+in the lighting loft. They make a perfect contrast to the art on the
+stage.
</para>
<para>
-During one of the performances, Else was shooting some
- stagehands
+During one of the performances, Else was shooting some stagehands
playing checkers. In one corner of the room was a television set.
-Playing on the television set, while the stagehands played checkers and
-the opera company played Wagner, was The Simpsons. As Else judged
+Playing on the television set, while the stagehands played checkers
+and the opera company played Wagner, was The Simpsons. As Else judged
<!-- PAGE BREAK 107 -->
it, this touch of cartoon helped capture the flavor of what was special
about the scene.
unless "fair use" or some other privilege applies.
</para>
<para>
-Else called Simpsons creator Matt Groening's office to get
- permission.
-Groening approved the shot. The shot was a
- four-and-a-halfsecond
-image on a tiny television set in the corner of the room. How
-could it hurt? Groening was happy to have it in the film, but he told
-Else to contact Gracie Films, the company that produces the program.
+Else called Simpsons creator Matt Groening's office to get permission.
+Groening approved the shot. The shot was a four-and-a-halfsecond image
+on a tiny television set in the corner of the room. How could it hurt?
+Groening was happy to have it in the film, but he told Else to contact
+Gracie Films, the company that produces the program.
</para>
<para>
Gracie Films was okay with it, too, but they, like Groening, wanted
Else said. He was just confirming the permission with Fox.
</para>
<para>
-Then, as Else told me, "two things happened. First we
- discovered
-. . . that Matt Groening doesn't own his own creation—or at least
-that someone [at Fox] believes he doesn't own his own creation." And
-second, Fox "wanted ten thousand dollars as a licensing fee for us to use
-this four-point-five seconds of . . . entirely unsolicited Simpsons which
-was in the corner of the shot."
+Then, as Else told me, "two things happened. First we discovered
+. . . that Matt Groening doesn't own his own creation—or at
+least that someone [at Fox] believes he doesn't own his own creation."
+And second, Fox "wanted ten thousand dollars as a licensing fee for us
+to use this four-point-five seconds of . . . entirely unsolicited
+Simpsons which was in the corner of the shot."
</para>
<para>
-Else was certain there was a mistake. He worked his way up to
-someone he thought was a vice president for licensing, Rebecca
- Herrera.
-He explained to her, "There must be some mistake here. . . .
-We're asking for your educational rate on this." That was the
- educational
+Else was certain there was a mistake. He worked his way up to someone
+he thought was a vice president for licensing, Rebecca Herrera. He
+explained to her, "There must be some mistake here. . . . We're
+asking for your educational rate on this." That was the educational
rate, Herrera told Else. A day or so later, Else called again to
confirm what he had been told.
</para>
<para>
-"I wanted to make sure I had my facts straight," he told me. "Yes,
-you have your facts straight," she said. It would cost $10,000 to use the
-clip of The Simpsons in the corner of a shot in a documentary film about
+"I wanted to make sure I had my facts straight," he told me. "Yes, you
+have your facts straight," she said. It would cost $10,000 to use the
+clip of The Simpsons in the corner of a shot in a documentary film
+about
<!-- PAGE BREAK 108 -->
Wagner's Ring Cycle. And then, astonishingly, Herrera told Else, "And
-if you quote me, I'll turn you over to our attorneys." As an assistant to
-Herrera told Else later on, "They don't give a shit. They just want the
-money."
+if you quote me, I'll turn you over to our attorneys." As an assistant
+to Herrera told Else later on, "They don't give a shit. They just want
+the money."
</para>
<para>
-Else didn't have the money to buy the right to replay what was
- playing
+Else didn't have the money to buy the right to replay what was playing
on the television backstage at the San Francisco Opera. To reproduce
-this reality was beyond the documentary filmmaker's budget. At the very
-last minute before the film was to be released, Else digitally replaced the
-shot with a clip from another film that he had worked on, The Day After
-Trinity, from ten years before.
+this reality was beyond the documentary filmmaker's budget. At the
+very last minute before the film was to be released, Else digitally
+replaced the shot with a clip from another film that he had worked on,
+The Day After Trinity, from ten years before.
</para>
<para>
-There's no doubt that someone, whether Matt Groening or Fox,
-owns the copyright to The Simpsons. That copyright is their property.
-To use that copyrighted material thus sometimes requires the
- permission
-of the copyright owner. If the use that Else wanted to make of the
+There's no doubt that someone, whether Matt Groening or Fox, owns the
+copyright to The Simpsons. That copyright is their property. To use
+that copyrighted material thus sometimes requires the permission of
+the copyright owner. If the use that Else wanted to make of the
Simpsons copyright were one of the uses restricted by the law, then he
would need to get the permission of the copyright owner before he
-could use the work in that way. And in a free market, it is the owner of
-the copyright who gets to set the price for any use that the law says the
-owner gets to control.
+could use the work in that way. And in a free market, it is the owner
+of the copyright who gets to set the price for any use that the law
+says the owner gets to control.
</para>
<para>
-For example, "public performance" is a use of The Simpsons that
-the copyright owner gets to control. If you take a selection of favorite
+For example, "public performance" is a use of The Simpsons that the
+copyright owner gets to control. If you take a selection of favorite
episodes, rent a movie theater, and charge for tickets to come see "My
-Favorite Simpsons," then you need to get permission from the
- copyright
+Favorite Simpsons," then you need to get permission from the copyright
owner. And the copyright owner (rightly, in my view) can charge
-whatever she wants—$10 or $1,000,000. That's her right, as set by
-the law.
+whatever she wants—$10 or $1,000,000. That's her right, as set
+by the law.
</para>
<para>
But when lawyers hear this story about Jon Else and Fox, their first
thought is "fair use."<footnote><para>
<!-- f1 -->
-For an excellent argument that such use is "fair use," but that lawyers don't
-permit recognition that it is "fair use," see Richard A. Posner with William
-F. Patry, "Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the Wake of Eldred " (draft on
-file with author), University of Chicago Law School, 5 August 2003.
+For an excellent argument that such use is "fair use," but that
+lawyers don't permit recognition that it is "fair use," see Richard
+A. Posner with William F. Patry, "Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the
+Wake of Eldred " (draft on file with author), University of Chicago
+Law School, 5 August 2003.
</para></footnote>
-Else's use of just 4.5 seconds of an indirect shot
-of a Simpsons episode is clearly a fair use of The Simpsons—and fair use
-does not require the permission of anyone.
+Else's use of just 4.5 seconds of an indirect shot of a Simpsons
+episode is clearly a fair use of The Simpsons—and fair use does
+not require the permission of anyone.
</para>
<para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 109 -->
</para>
<blockquote>
<para>
-The Simpsons fiasco was for me a great lesson in the gulf
- between
-what lawyers find irrelevant in some abstract sense, and
-what is crushingly relevant in practice to those of us actually
-trying to make and broadcast documentaries. I never had any
-doubt that it was "clearly fair use" in an absolute legal sense. But
-I couldn't rely on the concept in any concrete way. Here's why:
+The Simpsons fiasco was for me a great lesson in the gulf between what
+lawyers find irrelevant in some abstract sense, and what is crushingly
+relevant in practice to those of us actually trying to make and
+broadcast documentaries. I never had any doubt that it was "clearly
+fair use" in an absolute legal sense. But I couldn't rely on the
+concept in any concrete way. Here's why:
</para>
<orderedlist numeration="arabic">
<listitem><para>
<!-- 1. -->
-Before our films can be broadcast, the network requires
-that we buy Errors and Omissions insurance. The carriers
- require
-a detailed "visual cue sheet" listing the source and
- licensing
-status of each shot in the film. They take a dim view of
-"fair use," and a claim of "fair use" can grind the application
-process to a halt.
+Before our films can be broadcast, the network requires that we buy
+Errors and Omissions insurance. The carriers require a detailed
+"visual cue sheet" listing the source and licensing status of each
+shot in the film. They take a dim view of "fair use," and a claim of
+"fair use" can grind the application process to a halt.
</para></listitem>
<listitem><para>
<!-- 2. -->
-I probably never should have asked Matt Groening in the
-first place. But I knew (at least from folklore) that Fox had a
-history of tracking down and stopping unlicensed Simpsons
-usage, just as George Lucas had a very high profile litigating
-Star Wars usage. So I decided to play by the book, thinking
-that we would be granted free or cheap license to four seconds
-of Simpsons. As a documentary producer working to
- exhaustion
-on a shoestring, the last thing I wanted was to risk legal
-trouble, even nuisance legal trouble, and even to defend a
+I probably never should have asked Matt Groening in the first
+place. But I knew (at least from folklore) that Fox had a history of
+tracking down and stopping unlicensed Simpsons usage, just as George
+Lucas had a very high profile litigating Star Wars usage. So I decided
+to play by the book, thinking that we would be granted free or cheap
+license to four seconds of Simpsons. As a documentary producer working
+to exhaustion on a shoestring, the last thing I wanted was to risk
+legal trouble, even nuisance legal trouble, and even to defend a
principle.
</para></listitem>
<listitem><para>
<!-- 3. -->
-I did, in fact, speak with one of your colleagues at Stanford
-Law School . . . who confirmed that it was fair use. He also
-confirmed that Fox would "depose and litigate you to within
-an inch of your life," regardless of the merits of my claim. He
-made clear that it would boil down to who had the bigger
- legal
-department and the deeper pockets, me or them.
+I did, in fact, speak with one of your colleagues at Stanford Law
+School . . . who confirmed that it was fair use. He also confirmed
+that Fox would "depose and litigate you to within an inch of your
+life," regardless of the merits of my claim. He made clear that it
+would boil down to who had the bigger legal department and the deeper
+pockets, me or them.
<!-- PAGE BREAK 110 -->
</para></listitem>
<listitem><para>
</orderedlist>
</blockquote>
<para>
-In theory, fair use means you need no permission. The theory
- therefore
-supports free culture and insulates against a permission culture.
-But in practice, fair use functions very differently. The fuzzy lines of
-the law, tied to the extraordinary liability if lines are crossed, means
-that the effective fair use for many types of creators is slight. The law
-has the right aim; practice has defeated the aim.
+In theory, fair use means you need no permission. The theory therefore
+supports free culture and insulates against a permission culture. But
+in practice, fair use functions very differently. The fuzzy lines of
+the law, tied to the extraordinary liability if lines are crossed,
+means that the effective fair use for many types of creators is
+slight. The law has the right aim; practice has defeated the aim.
</para>
<para>
This practice shows just how far the law has come from its
-eighteenth-century roots. The law was born as a shield to protect
- publishers'
-profits against the unfair competition of a pirate. It has matured
-into a sword that interferes with any use, transformative or not.
+eighteenth-century roots. The law was born as a shield to protect
+publishers' profits against the unfair competition of a pirate. It has
+matured into a sword that interferes with any use, transformative or
+not.
</para>
<!-- PAGE BREAK 111 -->
</sect1>
<sect3 id="registration">
<title>REGISTRATION AND RENEWAL</title>
<para>
-Under the old system, a copyright owner had to file a registration with
-the Copyright Office to register or renew a copyright. When filing that
-registration, the copyright owner paid a fee. As with most government
-agencies, the Copyright Office had little incentive to minimize the
-burden of registration; it also had little incentive to minimize the fee.
-And as the Copyright Office is not a main target of government
- policymaking,
-the office has historically been terribly underfunded. Thus,
-when people who know something about the process hear this idea
-about formalities, their first reaction is panic—nothing could be worse
-than forcing people to deal with the mess that is the Copyright Office.
+Under the old system, a copyright owner had to file a registration
+with the Copyright Office to register or renew a copyright. When
+filing that registration, the copyright owner paid a fee. As with most
+government agencies, the Copyright Office had little incentive to
+minimize the burden of registration; it also had little incentive to
+minimize the fee. And as the Copyright Office is not a main target of
+government policymaking, the office has historically been terribly
+underfunded. Thus, when people who know something about the process
+hear this idea about formalities, their first reaction is
+panic—nothing could be worse than forcing people to deal with
+the mess that is the Copyright Office.
</para>
<para>
-Yet it is always astonishing to me that we, who come from a
- tradition
+Yet it is always astonishing to me that we, who come from a tradition
of extraordinary innovation in governmental design, can no longer
think innovatively about how governmental functions can be designed.
-Just because there is a public purpose to a government role, it doesn't
-follow that the government must actually administer the role. Instead,
-we should be creating incentives for private parties to serve the public,
-subject to standards that the government sets.
+Just because there is a public purpose to a government role, it
+doesn't follow that the government must actually administer the
+role. Instead, we should be creating incentives for private parties to
+serve the public, subject to standards that the government sets.
</para>
<para>
In the context of registration, one obvious model is the Internet.
There are at least 32 million Web sites registered around the world.
Domain name owners for these Web sites have to pay a fee to keep their
registration alive. In the main top-level domains (.com, .org, .net),
-there is a central registry. The actual registrations are, however,
- performed
-by many competing registrars. That competition drives the cost
-of registering down, and more importantly, it drives the ease with which
-registration occurs up.
+there is a central registry. The actual registrations are, however,
+performed by many competing registrars. That competition drives the
+cost of registering down, and more importantly, it drives the ease
+with which registration occurs up.
</para>
<para>
We should adopt a similar model for the registration and renewal of
-copyrights. The Copyright Office may well serve as the central registry,
-but it should not be in the registrar business. Instead, it should
- establish
-a database, and a set of standards for registrars. It should approve
-registrars that meet its standards. Those registrars would then compete
-with one another to deliver the cheapest and simplest systems for
- registering
-and renewing copyrights. That competition would
- substantially
-lower the burden of this formality—while producing a database
+copyrights. The Copyright Office may well serve as the central
+registry, but it should not be in the registrar business. Instead, it
+should establish a database, and a set of standards for registrars. It
+should approve registrars that meet its standards. Those registrars
+would then compete with one another to deliver the cheapest and
+simplest systems for registering and renewing copyrights. That
+competition would substantially lower the burden of this
+formality—while producing a database
<!-- PAGE BREAK 295 -->
of registrations that would facilitate the licensing of content.
</para>
<sect3 id="marking">
<title>MARKING</title>
<para>
-It used to be that the failure to include a copyright notice on a creative
-work meant that the copyright was forfeited. That was a harsh
- punishment
-for failing to comply with a regulatory rule—akin to imposing
-the death penalty for a parking ticket in the world of creative rights.
-Here again, there is no reason that a marking requirement needs to be
-enforced in this way. And more importantly, there is no reason a
- marking
-requirement needs to be enforced uniformly across all media.
+It used to be that the failure to include a copyright notice on a
+creative work meant that the copyright was forfeited. That was a harsh
+punishment for failing to comply with a regulatory rule—akin to
+imposing the death penalty for a parking ticket in the world of
+creative rights. Here again, there is no reason that a marking
+requirement needs to be enforced in this way. And more importantly,
+there is no reason a marking requirement needs to be enforced
+uniformly across all media.
</para>
<para>
-The aim of marking is to signal to the public that this work is
- copyrighted
-and that the author wants to enforce his rights. The mark also
-makes it easy to locate a copyright owner to secure permission to use
-the work.
+The aim of marking is to signal to the public that this work is
+copyrighted and that the author wants to enforce his rights. The mark
+also makes it easy to locate a copyright owner to secure permission to
+use the work.
</para>
<para>
One of the problems the copyright system confronted early on was
Let's start with the last point. If a copyright owner allows his work
to be published without a copyright notice, the consequence of that
failure need not be that the copyright is lost. The consequence could
-instead be that anyone has the right to use this work, until the
- copyright
-owner complains and demonstrates that it is his work and he
+instead be that anyone has the right to use this work, until the
+copyright owner complains and demonstrates that it is his work and he
doesn't give permission.<footnote><para>
-<!-- f2. --> There would be a complication with derivative works that I have not
+<!-- f2. -->
+There would be a complication with derivative works that I have not
solved here. In my view, the law of derivatives creates a more complicated
system than is justified by the marginal incentive it creates.
</para></footnote>
- The meaning of an unmarked work would
-therefore be "use unless someone complains." If someone does
- complain,
-then the obligation would be to stop using the work in any new
+The meaning of an unmarked work would therefore be "use unless someone
+complains." If someone does complain, then the obligation would be to
+stop using the work in any new
<!-- PAGE BREAK 296 -->
work from then on though no penalty would attach for existing uses.
This would create a strong incentive for copyright owners to mark
</para>
<para>
In The Future of Ideas, I proposed a seventy-five-year term, granted
-in five-year increments with a requirement of renewal every five years.
-That seemed radical enough at the time. But after we lost Eldred v.
-Ashcroft, the proposals became even more radical. The Economist
- endorsed
-a proposal for a fourteen-year copyright term.<footnote><para>
-<!-- f3. --> "A Radical Rethink," Economist, 366:8308 (25 January 2003): 15, available
-at
+in five-year increments with a requirement of renewal every five
+years. That seemed radical enough at the time. But after we lost
+Eldred v. Ashcroft, the proposals became even more radical. The
+Economist endorsed a proposal for a fourteen-year copyright
+term.<footnote><para>
+<!-- f3. -->
+"A Radical Rethink," Economist, 366:8308 (25 January 2003): 15,
+available at
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #74</ulink>.
</para></footnote>
- Others have
-proposed tying the term to the term for patents.
+Others have proposed tying the term to the term for patents.
</para>
<para>
-I agree with those who believe that we need a radical change in
- copyright's
-term. But whether fourteen years or seventy-five, there are four
-principles that are important to keep in mind about copyright terms.
+I agree with those who believe that we need a radical change in
+copyright's term. But whether fourteen years or seventy-five, there
+are four principles that are important to keep in mind about copyright
+terms.
</para>
<orderedlist numeration="arabic">
<listitem><para>
<!-- (1) -->
-Keep it short: The term should be as long as necessary to
-give incentives to create, but no longer. If it were tied to very
-strong protections for authors (so authors were able to reclaim
-rights from publishers), rights to the same work (not
- derivative
-works) might be extended further. The key is not to tie the
-work up with legal regulations when it no longer benefits an
-author.
-</para></listitem>
+Keep it short: The term should be as long as necessary to give
+incentives to create, but no longer. If it were tied to very strong
+protections for authors (so authors were able to reclaim rights from
+publishers), rights to the same work (not derivative works) might be
+extended further. The key is not to tie the work up with legal
+regulations when it no longer benefits an author. </para></listitem>
<listitem><para>
<!-- (2) -->
-Keep it simple: The line between the public domain and
-protected content must be kept clear. Lawyers like the
- fuzziness
-of "fair use," and the distinction between "ideas" and
- "expression."
-That kind of law gives them lots of work. But our
-framers had a simpler idea in mind: protected versus
- unprotected.
-The value of short terms is that there is little need to
-build exceptions into copyright when the term itself is kept
-short. A clear and active "lawyer-free zone" makes the
- complexities
-of "fair use" and "idea/expression" less necessary to
+Keep it simple: The line between the public domain and protected
+content must be kept clear. Lawyers like the fuzziness of "fair use,"
+and the distinction between "ideas" and "expression." That kind of
+law gives them lots of work. But our framers had a simpler idea in
+mind: protected versus unprotected. The value of short terms is that
+there is little need to build exceptions into copyright when the term
+itself is kept short. A clear and active "lawyer-free zone" makes the
+complexities of "fair use" and "idea/expression" less necessary to
navigate.
<!-- PAGE BREAK 298 -->
</para></listitem>
<listitem><para>
<!-- (3) -->
-Keep it alive: Copyright should have to be renewed.
- Especially
-if the maximum term is long, the copyright owner
-should be required to signal periodically that he wants the
-protection continued. This need not be an onerous burden,
-but there is no reason this monopoly protection has to be
-granted for free. On average, it takes ninety minutes for a
- veteran
-to apply for a pension.<footnote><para>
-<!-- f4. --> Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation
+Keep it alive: Copyright should have to be renewed. Especially if the
+maximum term is long, the copyright owner should be required to signal
+periodically that he wants the protection continued. This need not be
+an onerous burden, but there is no reason this monopoly protection has
+to be granted for free. On average, it takes ninety minutes for a
+veteran to apply for a pension.<footnote><para>
+<!-- f4. -->
+Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran's Application for Compensation
and/or Pension, VA Form 21-526 (OMB Approved No. 2900-0001),
available at
<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #75</ulink>.
</para></footnote>
- If we make veterans suffer that
-burden, I don't see why we couldn't require authors to spend
-ten minutes every fifty years to file a single form.
+If we make veterans suffer that burden, I don't see why we couldn't
+require authors to spend ten minutes every fifty years to file a
+single form.
</para></listitem>
<listitem><para>
<!-- (4) -->
-Keep it prospective: Whatever the term of copyright should
-be, the clearest lesson that economists teach is that a term
-once given should not be extended. It might have been a
- mistake
-in 1923 for the law to offer authors only a fifty-six-year
-term. I don't think so, but it's possible. If it was a mistake, then
-the consequence was that we got fewer authors to create in
-1923 than we otherwise would have. But we can't correct that
-mistake today by increasing the term. No matter what we do
-today, we will not increase the number of authors who wrote
-in 1923. Of course, we can increase the reward that those who
-write now get (or alternatively, increase the copyright burden
-that smothers many works that are today invisible). But
- increasing
-their reward will not increase their creativity in 1923.
-What's not done is not done, and there's nothing we can do
-about that now.
-</para></listitem>
+Keep it prospective: Whatever the term of copyright should be, the
+clearest lesson that economists teach is that a term once given should
+not be extended. It might have been a mistake in 1923 for the law to
+offer authors only a fifty-six-year term. I don't think so, but it's
+possible. If it was a mistake, then the consequence was that we got
+fewer authors to create in 1923 than we otherwise would have. But we
+can't correct that mistake today by increasing the term. No matter
+what we do today, we will not increase the number of authors who wrote
+in 1923. Of course, we can increase the reward that those who write
+now get (or alternatively, increase the copyright burden that smothers
+many works that are today invisible). But increasing their reward will
+not increase their creativity in 1923. What's not done is not done,
+and there's nothing we can do about that now. </para></listitem>
</orderedlist>
<para>
These changes together should produce an average copyright term
the emergence of that new technology.
</para>
<para>
-Our Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors
- "exclusive
+Our Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors "exclusive
right" to "their writings." Congress has given authors an exclusive
-right to "their writings" plus any derivative writings (made by others) that
-are sufficiently close to the author's original work. Thus, if I write a book,
-and you base a movie on that book, I have the power to deny you the
-right to release that movie, even though that movie is not "my writing."
+right to "their writings" plus any derivative writings (made by
+others) that are sufficiently close to the author's original
+work. Thus, if I write a book, and you base a movie on that book, I
+have the power to deny you the right to release that movie, even
+though that movie is not "my writing."
</para>
<para>
-Congress granted the beginnings of this right in 1870, when it
- expanded
-the exclusive right of copyright to include a right to control
-translations and dramatizations of a work.<footnote><para>
-<!-- f5. --> Benjamin Kaplan, An Unhurried View of Copyright (New York: Columbia
+Congress granted the beginnings of this right in 1870, when it
+expanded the exclusive right of copyright to include a right to
+control translations and dramatizations of a work.<footnote><para>
+<!-- f5. -->
+Benjamin Kaplan, An Unhurried View of Copyright (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1967), 32.
</para></footnote>
- The courts have expanded
-it slowly through judicial interpretation ever since. This expansion has
-been commented upon by one of the law's greatest judges, Judge
- Benjamin
-Kaplan.
+The courts have expanded it slowly through judicial interpretation
+ever since. This expansion has been commented upon by one of the law's
+greatest judges, Judge Benjamin Kaplan.
</para>
<blockquote>
<para>
projects / text-free-culture-lessig.git / blobdiff